First versus Second Degree Murder

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun: murder; plural noun: murders

      First degree: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
                        synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination
      Second degree: the unlawful non-premeditated killing of one human being by another.
      Negligent Homicide: the causing of death through criminal negligence. The charge does not involve premeditation, but focuses on what the defendant should have known and the associated risks.

When car manufacturers discover a flaw that affects millions of vehicles out on the highways, they are ethically obligated to recall and repair.  Of course.

There are problems with the law, however, and it's difficult to criminally prosecute the executives that make life-ending decisions.  GM delayed recalling their flawed ignition switch for years, and folks died, including sixteen year old Amber Marie Rose.  Her family is devastated.  GM paid fines and settlements, but the decision makers who caused the 200+ deaths were not held accountable.

It was a scandal, and not the only such.

A similar case of responsibility but with thousands of times greater impact has gone unremarked.  The collapse of the financial market in 2007-8 resulted in the death by starvation of more than 1,000,000.

The collapse, caused by Wall Street and the derivatives marketplace, cost trillions of dollars in the U.S. alone.  It came out of the pockets of every person in the country.  Moving to the E.U., trillions more was drained from national economies, with recovery expected to take six to ten years.  In the developed world, the impact of the event was harsh.  In the developing world where few families have any financial cushion, the market upheaval meant they couldn't afford to feed their children. The WHO estimates that 400,000 children died as a result in eastern Africa in the first year.

The practice that precipitated the collapse was deliberate and documented.  Bundled financial obligations were sold as secure, A rated, but they were junk, and the sellers knew it.  Hundreds of decision makers were involved.  The result was deadly.

What degree of separation exists between the marketplace decision makers and their victims?  They didn't intend anyone's death, so first degree is out.  They did cause death, however, but the question of 'unlawful' is vaguely addressed by regulation.  Criminally negligent?  Perhaps.

There are problems with the law.  Indeed.  Regulation and oversight are inadequate and continue with little change.
Globalization will be more difficult than we thought.

Rapacious

"I am often reproached for continually attacking the rich. Yes, because the rich are continually attacking the poor." 

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople sixteen centuries ago, goes on to explain,

"But those I attack are not the rich as such, only those who misuse their wealth. I point out constantly that those I accuse are not the rich, but the rapacious ...."  Perhaps an appropriate sentiment for today.

All things being equal, here's how the market works:  Price leads the way! During gluts, prices fall and the least efficient pull out of the market. Supply falls and demand increases. Eventually equilibrium is reached where price increases toward marginal cost and risk-adjusted returns to equal the cost of capital. 

Then, during shortages, prices rise, sellers profit, and new sellers enter the market. The result, supply increases and demand falls. Eventually a new equilibrium is reached in which price decreases toward marginal cost, and risk-adjusted returns fall to equal the cost of capital.  That's free market capitalism.

But things are rarely equal.  Successful firms pursue and acquire their rising competitors and others in both related and unrelated fields.  The workforce is restructured for lean efficiency, and the process continues.  Some corporations will become larger than countries with irresistible influence among politicians and regulators.  The contest become political, and the winner goes home with billions.  Losers are driven from the market.  The larger the players, the greater the size of the societal impact.  

Even when there might be good intentions, problems arise.  NAFTA, the free trade agreement between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico was purported to be good for all when it removed agribusiness tariffs.  Mexican corn farmers found themselves competing with suppliers from the north who were substantially subsidized (ref, ref) by their governments.  Mexican farmers couldn't compete on price, and about two million farmers lost their land and livelihood.  Their desperate scramble for survival included many attempting to enter the U.S. in search of work.  Meanwhile in Mexico, real wages are down, unemployment is up, and 25% of their children are malnourished. Govt Rpt 2015

Expecting an unregulated market to solve social problems is high risk, especially when large governments and larger corporations are involved.  Profitability and wealth-flow often trump social good in the equation.


Since the 70's, developed nations have seen a widening gap between rich and poor, a stunning rise of the super rich and stagnation of wages for the rest.  Laws have been repeatedly adjusted to enable wealth extraction by the upper income and influential segment.  The middle has been in a steady decline.  Now it appears that the trend is spilling over into the developing world.

These are just some of the economic issues.  Of perhaps greater consequence are the cultural and societal changes brought on by economic participation.  Materialism seems to dominate the modern marketplace, does it not?  Ethics change.  Is that a problem?


At the personal level, if we're going to do something good, how do we decide what helps?  And anyway, what are 'good works'?

Christian Capitalism

The core values ...  of a Christian?  Of a capitalist?

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, laughingly pointed out today that super-rich people get super-richer on capital gains taxed at 20%, while "regular wage earners depend on wages taxed at forty-something percent." "It's almost like it was designed by the capitalists."

It does appear that our economic model inordinately favors the upper income participants.  The last 3+ decades demonstrate it rather well.  So can a Christian be a capitalist?

Christian conservatives have indeed sided with capitalism and an unfettered marketplace for a while, citing benefit for all and the rights associated with business, wealth accumulation, and competition.

Christianity's full endorsement of capitalism is actually rather recent, however. Through the 19th century, capitalism had mixed reviews; then world war and the Great Depression spooked everyone.  Public fear and distrust, however, were slowly turned aside as the nation recovered economically.

The timeline includes an interesting defense of wealth by James Fifield, a Congregationalist pastor from the war years.  He made his fortune in Southern California by preaching to the fabulously wealthy and accepting their patronage. He praised capitalism and business leaders while denouncing Roosevelt and the New Deal, and was especially gifted at assuring wealthy Christians that their riches were evidence of virtue rather than vice.  ~Elizabeth Bruenig

This 'prosperity gospel' circulated in various forms and was well accepted through the years as the stories morphed to fit the day. The ethical imperative of 'trickle down' was sold to Christian conservatives as an extension of the gospel by extraordinarily wealthy spokespersons, and such sermons continue today despite the failure of the concept.  

"The promise was that when the glass gets full it would overflow, benefitting the poor.  What happens instead is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger.  Nothing ever comes out for the poor."  ~Pope Francis

As the pursuit of wealth becomes ever more predatory, mega-money and its political supporters no longer talk about 'good for all' and 'right thing to do', finding it progressively more difficult to frame their story from a Christian viewpoint.  After a century of collaboration, will capitalism and Christianity perhaps go their separate ways?  Today as capitalist trade practices reshape the world workforce and marketplace, economic inequality is the stark byproduct.

"Capitalism has no inherent morality. However, it was thought that Christian virtue would not only temper capitalism’s natural excesses, but also guide abundance toward humanitarian purposes. Our history has shown that not to be the case.  

Capitalism’s inexorable drive for more and more accumulation has cast Christian virtue aside in exchange for a modern social morality that proclaims “I deserve all that I can acquire.”        Victor Goode, associate professor at CUNY School of Law 

Persistent inequality is addressed perhaps most effectively by education, opportunity, and enablement.  Fair trade, fair markets, and fair wages are part of the solution as well.  If the rich are getting richer at the expense of everyone else, is that a problem?   Is there something wrong with capitalism, or is it just the participants?

---

"The role of business cannot be overstated in the drive towards greater equality. Data from Pew shows people tend to believe governments are responsible for the wealth gap – but governments cannot solve the problem on their own. Addressing inequality is not only a responsibility but also an opportunity. Efforts to reduce inequalities and achieve inclusion are a multistakeholder responsibility which will require concerted action at all levels, from local to national, and regional to global." 

Christian Charity

Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, take care of widows and orphans ...

Of course.  Absolutely.  But there's more ... 

So he found this fellow, robbed and beaten, and
he bandaged him up and took him to an inn where
he could be helped while he recovered.  He gave
the innkeeper money to pay for the it all and
told him he'd cover anything more needed
when he returned.

(There were a couple others who could have helped,
but they were on the wrong side of the road.)

Help them get on their feet and have a good life. It's not a quick gift, it's a hand up to life that costs a bit of effort on our part. 

Okay, so that's charity.

Then the question of poverty; so how does someone get stuck there long-term? The great majority of the world's poor are working hard to get out of poverty, harder than western wage earners can perhaps understand.   Persistent poverty is not caused by unwillingness to work.

The issue of poverty is not one of charity, but of justice. Poverty isn't something you choose for your family, year after year, generation after generation.  It's done to you, and it is unjust.  Justice requires change, not charity.

Christian capitalism, a word to corporate leaders:  "Don't do anything from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility consider others before yourself. Look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others."  Such consideration is a rarity in big business today, it seems.  It doesn't show up in the typical corporate performance analysis.

Relieve the oppressed, the poor held down by their neighbours that are richer and mightier than they.  Right their wrongs, and snatch them out of the hands of the Waltons, et al.

Defend the weak, the poor, and the fatherless. Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Among the tasks we're given  ... the good of others, of all.

(Un)Comfortable Life

A good-conscience life will never be comfortable.

A parent's worst nightmare is that their child will be swept comfortably along by culture and style and the crowd. Peer influence is particularly difficult to resist, and it can be the most disruptive element in a child's development, especially when it conflicts with parental goals and values.

Our alternative is to deliberately raise a leader instead of a follower, a self-shaped individual who understands how to choose their own path, make their own mistakes, and pursue their own goals.  It's not comfortable, but it can be the difference between meaningful or meaningless years.

It's hard enough managing our own life, of course.  It's difficult to objectively evaluate and choose our path through the alternatives thrown in our face by life and media.  So how might we equip a child to face that same minefield?

A suggestion -- Pull, don't push.  Draw them forward as decision-makers, standard bearers, change-makers and help-bringers.

Issues of faith and conviction come first, perhaps, and must be practical rather than wishful thinking.  Let them pick their cause, conduct their own inquiries, listen to their own heart.  Children can be deeply moved by small concerns from which sound principles and life goals can emerge.  And, they'll learn more from your example than from your words.  The things that are important to you can become important to them.

Live strong from a good conscience.  Fight the good fight.  Pray a lot.  It's not the most comfortable path, perhaps, but it's more likely to be the right one.

Christian Clarity

"Why is it that corporations give millions of dollars to elected officials? 

   Do you think it's simply public-spirited behavior?"   ~Walter E. Williams

Depression era - When they realized women were
using their sacks to make clothes for their children,
the mills started using flowered fabric for their
sacks.  The label was designed to wash out.
(a time long ago when companies took
 care of their customers)

The heart of business and capitalism has changed over the years, and it appears the change is driven by the top 1%.  

The early marketplace was a mutual benefit model.  Farmers, fishermen, clothiers, and tool makers would sell what they produced to buy everything else they needed.  They did well enough, considering the times.  They were flexible across the seasons and helped each other during hard times.

Open lands, the 'commons', were like the seas, they were available for grazing and farming and lumber to whomever would do the work.

Privatization and money were game changers.  The commons were deeded to the influential who charged fees to farmers and herders. Rulers taxed everyone, and productive folks went from the top to the bottom of the pyramid. 

In the last fifty years, Western economics has become predatory, focused on profitability and competitive advantage.  Wealth generation for those who didn't do the work has become the norm.  The most benefit goes to the least deserving, it seems.  Perhaps wrong has become right.

Centuries ago along Africa's Niger River, rainfall varied greatly from year to year. One year in six was near the region's average; other years were at the extremes for rainfall on the plains and in the upper regions where the river's source was fed. So to a greater or lesser extent, the plains flooded a little or a lot and crops did or didn't do well. There wasn't any way to predict how a year's growing season would turn out, so the residents adapted. It's instructive for us to see their approach.



The river's inland delta is almost level and the Niger river descends just a few millimeters per kilometer over much of its 4000 km length. When the rains come, the flood moves broadly across the region. The amount of rain determines how far from the river the floods will carry, and it's rarely the same two years in a row.  Folks learned that they couldn't master all the skills and manage all the resources needed for every opportunity.  Fishing was varied from year to year and tremendously labor intensive. Farming was even more so with a requirement to understand which crops would do well in which water depths.  The pastoralists managed their flocks by moving significant distances regularly.  Out beyond the edge of the floodplain that was waist deep for six months of the year, then rapidly inward as the land and vegetation dried up.

Communities specialized and cooperated, and they did so without one specialization or community being at the top. Some years the farmers did better than the fishermen and vice versa. Some years, the herds survived well; others, not so well. They needed each other in order to survive, so they shared more or less graciously. Ancient stories persist of conflicts being resolved generously.

Communities grew into cities around the specializations, and they persisted successfully for more than a thousand years. It was hard, of course, but they did it without an upper class and without a central government and without Wall Street leeches. Interesting. More than a thousand years without war or sequestration or ... well, you get the idea.                              See: John READER (1999): Africa, A biography of the Continent.

Our present competition and consumption model is unsustainable, we've discovered, and it brings suffering and death to others. We're all at risk, but there are many alternatives. Walmart could become a community focused and sustainable not-for-profit with reasonable salaries and benefits for all workers...  don't hold your breath for that one.

Christian clarity?  If you muzzle the ox that grinds the grain ... is it eligible for food stamps?  That's the Walmart solution.  If the way you live makes people poor, are you the bad guy?  If you fill up your barns and have a lot stored for a lot of years, are you foolish?  Are you rich in good works, or just rich?  And what are good works, anyway.  Could you get through the eye of a needle?  Christians in developed countries may struggle with such a blind spot.  Me included, of course.

2Co8:13 Our hope is not that others will have it easy at your expense, but that things might be fair. 14 Right now you have plenty in order to take care of what they need. Later, they will have plenty to take care of what you need.  The goal is to even things out, 15like it's written, “The one who gathered a lot didn’t have too much, and the one who gathered a little had enough.” 
Definitely not on capitalism's agenda.