[louison11]

Early Christian teachings were deeply anti-wealth — but context matters. Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor. Christianity started as a movement of the oppressed under empire, and its ethic of radical sharing was a way to survive a brutal, zero-sum system.

Fast-forward to today: most people aren’t living under that kind of direct economic violence. In fact, doing what early Christians did — selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering. Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. I don't think it'd make me a better man and father to just subject my entire family to poverty.

So maybe the point isn’t “money = evil,” but “systems that enrich some by grinding down others = evil.” The ethical challenge is still valid — just adapted for a world where your 401(k) isn’t funded by enslaving your neighbor.

It's not that we should interpret the Bible differently and make it say whatever we want; but that like any story, we need to look at the context within which it took place.

[fallingfrog]

"Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor."

With all due respect my friend. That is 100% how it still works right now. That is how it has always worked. The reason you think otherwise is because you are not poor.

[louison11]

If it's always been this way, can you explain why most people today live in far greater conditions than 2000 years ago, or even 100 years ago? Or the dramatically declining global extreme poverty rate during that same period? If being rich always meant you took it from the poor, then you'd never have any improvement for anyone that does not result in worsening for someone else, mathematically.

It seems to me economic growth is the proof that money is not a zero-sum game, and that one can create value, that creates jobs, opportunities and a betterment in life across the board. A tide that lifts all boats.

You can validate that by looking at world economies. The countries with no innovation/entrepreneurship aren't better off for having less people building wealth: everybody is just poorer. In contrast, more capitalist wealth-oriented economies tend to create more opportunities.

[p_v_doom]

Most of the greater conditions that people experience today have been the result of markedly pro-social discoveries and forces in medicine, agriculture etc. Likewise the rights and comforts we have are largely driven by a) colonization that makes those of us in the West more comfy b) violent labor movements and revolutions in the 20th cnetury, that means we get stuff like free healthcare, education and the like in more civilized places of the world. There are no such countries with no innovation/enterpreneurship, its just countries with more material capabilities to enable these, and countries with less, and a big reason for this discrepancy is point a above.

None of this has much to do with economic growth, economic growth is an artificial construct on top of the material reality, used to justify a specific way of viewing the economy and the way things are structured.

[cherryteastain]

> Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed.

Only because the present (American) system is set up as such.

[louison11]

Exactly. But we're talking about the present, aren't we? And with all its flaws, the present isn't all that bad. Capitalism has been a powerful instrument for economic growth and financial liberation. Declining global poverty rates, more opportunities, etc.

[grafmax]

China’s economy has been responsible for approximately 75% of the global poverty reduction since the late 1970s [1]. It seems like we should credit socialism not capitalism with the reduction in poverty.

Today we enjoy countless benefits due to workers’ movements of the past. These benefits were fought every step of the way by the business class. It’s highly ironic to attribute all this to capitalism.

[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...

[testing22321]

> Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings

For hundreds of millions of people they are a basic human right and completely free.

Never had a job? Doesn’t matter, still free.

[rolandog]

Are you going to back those wild claims with some facts, links or how-to's? I would very much like to go study a second degree, a Master's, or a PhD but I fear I can't take several years off work to just study (who'll pay for living expenses?).

[jpfr]

Are you an engineer?

Come to Europe. PhD candidates are not treated as students. They are treated as adults, and get the salary of an (entry-level) engineer with a master degree.

You get paid a living wage to do a PhD in most countries actually.

If this is about (your) kids? Send them to Europe for higher education. Many universities with great international ranking have virtually no tuition. But they can be quite competitive in terms of getting a passing grade.

[rolandog]

Thanks for the encouragement and sorry for my late reply!

Indeed. Chemical Engineer that has always loved programming + InfoSec to include it in some way, shape, or form on what I do...

I took a chance during Covid and was fortunate to land DevSecOps-y roles. Not a 10x engineer by any means, but I have been working my way through Knuth's TAoCP and slowly learning to love lower level.

Living now in the Netherlands, but didn't know that there were such types of benefits to studying a PhD.

I'll definitely need to have a good think (and budgetary assessments as well) ... having to pay rent in the Netherlands due to the (probably artificial) housing crisis feels like a seriously limiting factor to afford studying.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Can't go to Europe :( my partners are not engineers

[ThePowerOfFuet]

Europe is not just for engineers.

[jpfr]

Of course not. But you might get paid only a 50% salary for a PhD in the natural sciences (or liberal arts). Different fields have different cultures in that regard.

[grafmax]

> selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering

This is turning our eye to our own choices of wealth rather than looking to the wealthiest in our society and asking ourselves if such hoarding of wealth is just, while we are surrounded by things like homeless encampments. Surely such hoarding is “grinding others down.”