Inward Oppression: Compassion over Usury

Nehemiah. Yes, I know what you're (hopefully not but) likely thinking. How many times is he going to draw devotional posts from the book of Nehemiah? I thought that maybe since we hadn't heard from it in a while, we would be safe from hearing about it again.

In answer to your (potential) question, as long as the Lord continues to speak to my heart through it, I will continue to share some thoughts about it.

By now, you are all familiar with the chain of events in the book of Nehemiah. The wall of Jerusalem is torn down, and the people are in great affliction. Nehemiah mourns. Nehemiah takes his emotional burden to the Lord in hopes that the Lord will provide him an opportunity to rebuild the wall. 4-5 months later, Nehemiah still visibly saddened by the trial is given permission by the king to go to Jerusalem and work to rebuild the wall.

Nehemiah heads to Jerusalem; Sanballat and his team of evil villains mock the wall, knowing that it will not come to anything. Sanballat and his team start to become fearful as the wall's rebuilding is progressing remarkably better than they had presumed. Sanballat and his team unsuccessfully try to cease the work on the wall.

Encouraged perhaps by Nehemiah's success in defending from the outward threats, the people come to Nehemiah regarding the persecution they are receiving from within.

And the story progresses, but I will be ending my detailed, yet brief summary of the book here, as this internal oppression is what I would like to talk about today.

So, prior to the events of Nehemiah, the people have undergone some trials and tribulations. During a time of famine and want, the people have been forced to take desperate measures to be able to so much as eat. Nehemiah 5:1-5 explains,

"And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards."

This of course is a distressing situation. Yes it would likely have continued had the wall never been torn down because there seemed to be no compassion on the parts of the nobles and rulers of the land.

On the contrary, the nobles and rulers were a large part of the reason the people found themselves in this particular situation. They had begun to work to charge interest upon the people to the point where they had to sell their children in order to pay their debts, taxes, or just to eat.

It's the typical greedy "Capitalist" who forgets that the people with which he is doing business are actually, you know, people. Instead, the nobles and rulers have begun to see them as means to a particular end. Their needs aren't important; what I need to do is to make sure that I use them to serve my agenda.

Thus, when the problem is brought before Nehemiah, he is touched, he is angry, he shakes his lap because apparently that's a thing (literally refers to the shaking of his garments), and he rebukes the nobles and rulers in his typical bold way. We see simply in Nehemiah 5:8-11,

"And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer. Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them."

Nehemiah has rightly critiqued these men according to the works that they have done. But do we ever do the same thing. Sure, we're probably not going to force anyone to sell their children into slavery due to our business practices. But let's just take this to be a bit more relatable.

You're running for some sort of elected position in your school. Suddenly, you start to talk to people more openly than you were before, because each person who likes you is a vote for you in the election. There are obviously other examples, but time does not permit me to discuss them right now (read: I didn't care to think of any additional ones).

So we shouldn't follow in the footsteps of the nobles and rulers. People should be people, and we should care about their needs and work to supply them. What does that look like?

I think Nehemiah shows us quite well. Nehemiah was governor of the Jews at this point in time. Lawfully, he had the authority and liberty to tax the people to take from them some food, so as to furnish his own table. Yet throughout the entirety of his time as governor, he exercised grace on the people, forgoing this particular opportunity.

Even still, Nehemiah went out of his way to consistently host a 150 people at his dinner table daily. He saw the needs of the people and went out of his way to both passively and actively seek those needs.

That's what we should do too. Let's not view people we interact with as objects to further our own agenda. Let us instead look to heed the words of Philippians 2:3,

"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."

"All This Availeth Me Nothing"

Are you ready to do something scary? I want you to put yourselves in the station of Haman. Now let's not worry about the questions regarding his morals at the moment. Let's instead look solely at the privileges King Ahasuerus has given him.

You are practically second in command of the Persian Empire. The king has gone so far as to tell those in the king's gate to bow down to you when you pass by. The king has delegated his legislative powers to you with limited discretion. You carry the king's ring that seals all official documents on your own finger. On top of all that, you have been invited twice to a banquet where only the king and queen are present (remember that you know nothing of the queen's plot to expose you as the enemy of her people).

So why with so much privilege and wealth would you possibly be upset? The king subjects to all your will! What could make you say that, "All this availeth me nothing."

Well, let's find out. In Esther 5:11-13, we find our answer.

"And Haman told them of the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and all the things wherein the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king. Haman said moreover, Yea, Esther the queen did let no man come in with the king unto the banquet that she had prepared but myself; and to morrow am I invited unto her also with the king. Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate."

You see, Mordecai has refused to bow to Haman. Now that this has been brought to his attention, he can't seem to be content.

This hurt pride has even caused him to seek the lives of all of Mordecai's people. But that decree is not being implemented fast enough for Haman at this point. He decided that he must hang Mordecai as soon as possible.

Now don't worry, Haman's plans to hang Mordecai are instead turned into him praising Mordecai for saving the king's life. Ultimately, Haman is even hanged upon the gallows he prepared for Mordecai. The Lord does love some poetic justice.

But today I am more interested in the desire to hang Mordecai itself rather than the way the Lord protected Mordecai in this situation.

Haman has everything that anyone could ever really ask for. He had no reason to complain about anything at all. But the simple truth is, greed is never satisfied. When our goal is our own benefit and station, no matter how many privileges we find, we will always be able to find something that is wrong in our life. There is always something that can bring you down.

In Haman's case it was his pride being insulted and his position disrespected. But what is it in our lives today?

We may even have received many blessings from the Lord and yet found one thing in our life that God has chosen for whatever reason to withhold. What is our focus then in this point? Is it on all that he has provided or is it on that which we don't have?

Typical human nature would have us focus upon that which we don't have and on the struggles in our life. But we can strive to not be like Haman in this way, and acknowledge the Lord's blessings instead.

It's as the Doctor says,

"The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don’t always soften the bad things, but vice versa the bad things don’t always spoil the good things and make them unimportant."

Yes, I did just quote the Doctor to make a spiritual point. He never intended it that way, but hey, the Lord can always have greater use for such things. If you want a more spiritual admonition, look to I Thessalonians 5:18,

"In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."

Now I may not be a Bible scholar yet, but I'm pretty sure that means that in every circumstance (no matter how trying) we should be giving thanks for the Lord. And that maybe just maybe we should acknowledge what God has provided for us and thank Him for that, rather than accuse Him of being a tyrant for withholding one thing from our life.

It's an outlook change. An outlook change that is very pleasing to the Lord. Trust me, although it's easy to act like Haman, it is possible and beneficial to search for the good things in life. As a good friend of mine constantly says,

"There's always something to smile about."  

Hold The Applause: FDR and the New Deal

Oh, we all know the story. The Great Depression was a tremendous catastrophe caused by the failures of the free market. Ultimately capitalism was saved from its failings by President Franklin Roosevelt, more commonly known as FDR. FDR's excellent proposal posed a radical shift in governmental policy in response to economic depressions. Eventually, the depression resided due to these marvelous policies.

But it's just that - a story. But even at first glance, it becomes pretty clear that this is not really what happened. After all, why would it take so long for these policies (labeled the New Deal) to make a positive difference. In all recessions prior to this point, there had been a much stronger and quicker response (the government doing nothing in these instances just in case you were wondering). In fact, Robert Murphy, Ph.D. details in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal that this recovery was the slowest in American history even until today.

Now before you all go accusing me of the post hoc fallacy, I will supply you with some causal links between Roosevelt's New Deal policies and the slower response to the American economy. At its core, Roosevelt's policies attacked the little man for the benefit of, well, no one at all.

When one wished to express the success of the New Deal, they point to Roosevelt as a hero of the little guy, how he presented opportunities for the working man to earn money to live in the harsh economy, instead of supporting big business. But Roosevelt's iron knife struck not only the big business, but also every business, especially the smaller ones.

When you regulate every aspect of how someone could run a business, big businesses will have the necessary funds to adapt to these procedures. Although they will not likely be as well off as they initially would have been, they will still be able to make a profit.

But most times, circumstances aren't quite so pleasant for a small business owner. The little guy has difficulty making a profit when the government takes away some of his creative controls. To illustrate, listen to this true story from the days of the Great Depression, told by Burton Folsom in the book, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy has Damaged America, 

"[Jerry] Maged had been pressing pants for twenty-two years and his low prices and quality work had kept him competitive with large tailor shops in the better parts of town. The NRA [National Recovery Administration, created in a New Deal policy] Cleaners and Dryers Code demanded that 40 cents be charged to press a suit. Maged, despite repeated warnings, insisted on charging his customers only 35 cents.... Not only was Maged thrown in jail, he was also slapped with a hundred-dollar fine."

The impact to small business is obvious. Business owners (not greedy rich business owners mind you, but rather those who are simply trying to support their families) are being threatened with jail for doing something as innocent as selling their services for a discounted rate.

Cutting out the main advantage that a small business can have over a large business is not a winning strategy for economics, nor is it looking out for the little guy. Jailing a man for disobeying regulations is akin to tyranny.

But there is another consequence to this particular event as well. The government was literally ensuring that prices remained high. FDR and his compatriots were ensuring that services were not affordable to the common man. These actions are simply unforgivable and definitely strengthened and prolonged the suffering of the American people.

But that's not even the worst thing that FDR did with the New Deal. Indeed, these actions indirectly hurt many Americans and decreased the sizes of their wallets, but from an economic standpoint, nothing could be worse than the outright theft that the Roosevelt Administration committed by taking America off the gold standard.

Now you may question how the gold standard equates with theft of the American people. To be sure, the link is not readily apparent. Nevertheless, it is there. Allow me some time to explain it.

From 1873 onward, the federal government promised the American people that in exchange for their certificates, they would be given gold. Indeed that gold the United States government possessed was given by the American people in exchange for these certificates because of this promise. In this way, the dollar we owned really could be exchanged for 1.505 grams of gold. Rather, one dollar was 1.505 grams of gold. For the sake of convenience, we had stored our gold with the federal government to exchange paper which represented the gold we owned of the government's store - gold we could withdraw at any time.

Then Roosevelt swooped in and enforced a different exchange. You give me these paper certificates which indicate the gold you own, and I will give you worthless paper that is only valuable because the government says so. In this way, Roosevelt stole gold from the American people.

Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. expressed it quite well in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, 

"Short of herding tens of thousands of children into concentration camps - something Roosevelt also did: remember the Japanese internment camps - it would be difficult for the president to behave in a more tyrannical fashion. The gold certificates held by the public had not been gifts from the U.S. Treasury. On the contrary, they were redemption tickets for which individuals and companies had traded away actual gold, or other goods and services, because the United States government had pledged, since 1873, to surrender physical gold to anyone bearing the certificates, at the rate of $20.67 per ounce. Ordering the public to turn in the gold certificates, in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes (noticeably lacking the phrase, "PAYABLE TO THE BEARER"), was naked theft, just as surely as if President Obama ordered the public to turn in all Iphones in exchange for Blackberries. The theft would be made quite explicit when the government officially tied the dollar back to gold the following year at the rate of $35 per troy ounce, a depreciation of more than 40 percent. (Note that American citizens still could not redeem their paper currency for gold at any exchange rate.) Ordering the public to turn over its gold - under penalty of a $10,000 fine and up to ten years in prison - was clear-cut robbery." 

All of the American people were forcibly robbed of their resources, but it's all ok because we got useless paper money in return, right? I don't think so, yet many around the world, praise this and other moves by FDR as the boost the American economy needed to find its way out of the Great Depression.

But that is not the case at all. Roosevelt was not the saviour of the free market, nor the defender of the little man. On the contrary, his policies prevented the little man from competing against the larger corporations, while stealing the gold of every American citizen in the country, all under threat of incarceration. Not only was the New Deal counter-productive, it was tyrannical, stealing by threat of force. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was surely no hero.

Why the NFL Needs a Lesson in Economics

The past few days, we have been met with a slew of four NFL playoff games. The playoffs are always an exciting time of year for football fans (should their team qualify, that is). Yet this year, 3 teams, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Green Bay struggled to sell out their stadiums for this special occasion.

So why is this the case? It should be noted that Green Bay has sold out 319 consecutive games. So at least for Green Bay, this isn't a lack of commitment from their fans.

Of course, the fans are still being blamed for the lackluster sales, but this is ridiculous. The NFL is a business, like any other. Every other business is required to produce a great product at a reasonable price, and should they not, they will be unable to sell their products. If a business fails to sell their products, we assume that their services aren't worth the price, not that the customer isn't loyal enough. As Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star explains,

"Sports have got to be the only business where the consumer gets blamed for poor sales. Any other business, we'd look at the numbers and say, "Well, their price point is too high,'' or "The service stinks,'' or "They don't carry a good selection of inventory." And it's ridiculous. NFL fans are the most loyal fans we have in this country. If they're not purchasing playoff tickets, that tells me it's an NFL problem, not an Indy/Cincy/Green Bay problem."

This was the consensus as well from the fans down here in Cincinnati, some of whom said that if tickets were just ten dollars cheaper, they would have purchased them liberally. So you may ask why didn't the teams lower the prices of their tickets? They can't as the NFL sets playoff ticket prices "based on each market's ability to pay" and will not let teams discount the tickets. Of course, the NFL is not in these cities and does not know what prices fans of these cities are able to afford. Their estimates are unfortunately over the mark in these three cities.

The NFL should use to learn some economics from this week's poor sales of playoff tickets, and lower their prices to where they can be afforded and are worth the cost. Better yet, perhaps the NFL should let the individual teams set the prices, as they better understand how much the market in their city is able to pay.