so i'll preface this by saying i'm not personally attacking anyone here nor do i want to come off as preachy or self-righteous because the truth is i'm just as stuck in this sickness as anyone else. so our last couple theology classes were taught by Michael Barram, a professor at St.Mary's in San Fransisco. He teaches a course there entitled wealth and poverty in the Bible and i really liked the guys ideas so here in outline fashion i'll try to present them. so first as further preface he takes up the assumption that we believe in the bible, which i know is quite a leap of faith especially when you begin to ask hermenutical questions. so in the bible it says you cannot serve two masters- it's either God or mammon (wealth) but you can't be the slave to both. from the very beginning it's tremendously improtant to notice the language of such a statement- the terms of slavery and conversely freedom are framed in this dicotomy from the get-go. So Barram also notes that in our present-day society (the US and western Europe) the worship of mammon, in the form of consummerism and capitalistic systems has become a religion and we as human beings are the slaves of wealth. So in a world where the 5% of developed countries control 85% of the world's income we must look at the values this system holds that causes this gross inequality and sustains it as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Again Barram treats it as a problem of values, which even when unconcious are pivotal to everything we do. the presuppostions and assumptions that we bring with us along with our values shape reality. indeed who can argue that within the states we have created our won reality, our own world in which a two story house, two car garage, picket fense and 2.5 kids is normal. it must be conceded that how we interpret reality has everything to do with our social surroundings as well as our values and pressupositions this is known by some as social location. clearly my reality as a college in the US is far removed from Nicaragua and the families i see at the health center and in the neighborhood struggling to just survive. The funny thing is while this seems obvious-that reality is flexible and quite diverse in different parts of the world the discipline of economics fails to take this into account. The field is taught as a set of facts, with a sense of inevitability and moved to the abstract realm of mathematical calculation with the sacrafice of values. the god the economy serves, few can argue differently, is mammon. it's to the point where, philosophically, we can't even think differently, we can't dream of a world that opperates differently. So for a quick history lesson in 1776 Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations and in this book emphasized two things: the division of labor as a way to increase production and Laissez-faire or a setting free, hands off approach to the market. While originally the man wrote about producing more wealth in every nation to the betterment of all peoples and as a moral philosopher harped on the need to distribute this new wealth being produced because according to him while every one person gets wealthy, 500 fall through the cracks and thus it must be the government of some other body to step up and redistribute the money. However, the proponents of neo classical economics took all moral concern out of Smith and stressed impersonal market forces. positive economics or facts became the center while normative economics got taken out of the equation completly. additionally, the theory is based on the idea of equilibrium, based on ideal situations and the idea that everyone has full information. but of course, there is a priviledge of information and it serves the wealthy. all this is to say that postivie vs normative economics sets up a false dichotomy becaue even facts are laden with values, if history teaches us nothing else it is this-we as human beings are never truly objective. So i´ll treat each of three areas according to the neo-classical theory and then, later, the Bible. So firtly human nature. in econ it's based on the scarcity of resources. competition exists to create a winner and a loser and the individual becomes homo economicus: an econmic chooser who chooses among scare resources seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. furthermore, we choose based on utility and the hb is redued to a mechanism because everything else we do when we aren't consuming, mainly our value system, is hard to measure and exceedingly difficult to chart. words like good fair just appropriate when it comes to economics and consumign go out the window...we don't ask ourselves if everyone needs a new car, an ipod, a new computer but the marketers only care about the question will it sell? and thus our value as hb's is a functional value based on what we can produce. the one with more purchasing power is more valuable, it's everywhere- i can go to the private hospital and have state of the art tests and treatments while a Nicarguan kid from a broken family in managua has to come wait in line at my health care center where sometimes we don't have the medication he needs or we miss the diagnosis because there were one hundred patients in a day seen by two doctors. we seem fine with the idea that those who don't have are inherently worthless, they get pushed to the margins, we try to hide them from our sight and take their voice so we can sleep peacefully at night. Secondly, society. so in neo-classical econ society doesn't really exist except when two people enter into a monetary trasaction, otherwise relationships mean nothing. there is no gut level responsiblity for one's neighboor because we are not inherently connected, rather the individual seeks one´s own well being and autonomy. there is no such thing as the common good or social well being, only sharholders matter and who gives a damn about who produces the goods or what they get paid? freedom is an interesting word, especially in the US of A. while originally it could be understood as freedom from tyranny during the French and American revolution now we use it interchangeably with autonomy: i'll do what i want, back the hell off and i don't give a shit about you. thirdly, progress. we measure this in terms of GDP growth and clearly no one cares how that wealth is being distributed-so the elites get richer, and the poor get poorer that was inevitable right? so mutating the idea of laissez-faire for personal gain the deregulation of companies as far as the environment and labor laws go is appaling. in this reality, one competes energetically to beat the competition and if I do well and don't help anyone else there is no blame, i don't have any moral responsiblity because i worked hard and clearly everyone else didn't. this is success right? buying that house and car and maybe if I give a couple bucks to charity i´ll be a good person. I hope the page is bleeding sarcasm quite obviously but i'll web these ideas together with biblical themes when i find my notes.
i wanted to describe a scene from my day today in URO at the centro de salud. So URO can get boring but today i enjoyed the sight of two kids pucking their guts out, several adults and babbies pooping into plastic bags and then carrying them to the lab themselves. it took five second year med students to take one old man's temperature, the whole time glancing over their sholders to stare at me some more. i listened to the man's stomach sounds' later with a stethoscope. women randomly whip out their boob and start breast feeding, everytime i think first gross and then how kristin would say it was beautiful. i have offically mastered the mercury thermometer, it was getting exceedingly embarassing to not be able to find that stupid line of mercury. i finally wore my white coat to work and go compliments on being more professional even if i was still wearing sandals. i rode the bus home delighting in my oreo cookies and deciding to walk for a far bus stop because i just didn't have it in me to yell parada.