Griffiths supports market economy in which “property would be privately owned

Griffiths supports market economy in which “property would be privately owned, so that all goods and services would be produced by private enterprise in response to economic incentives. The involvement of government in economics would be minimal.” He believes that through market economy and globalization, the developing countries would be benefited and will be lifted out of poverty. In his work ‘. The Creation of Wealth: A Christian’s Case for Capitalism’, Griffiths suggested that the three important factors that have enabled market economies to generate wealth more efficiently than state-dominated ones are their greater reliance on private rather than state enterprise as the driving force of economic development, the larger scope given to choice in free markets, and their active encouragement of international trade and foreign investment. It is relatively successful than state-controlled economy. Griffiths gave these suggestions mainly because he held that it is not possible to deduce either socialism or capitalism from Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God. It is an important book to analyze the major propositions of capitalism.
Similarly, in his other books He discussed the issues of globalization and world poverty. He claimed that globalization has been an economic success. It has reduced poverty and raised per capita income and raised per capita income in countries such as China, India, Mexico and Brazil. He found that globalization has moral legitimacy as its foundations rest on principles such as respect for the dignity of the individual; the creativity and the enterprise of persons; the responsibility to work; and the need for equity and justice, private property rights, and wealth creation. He also claimed that global poverty is an international scandal and the Church should have the priority to help remove it. Fighting poverty must start with developing countries themselves by establishing an independent judiciary, a free press, and a vibrant market economy open to trade and foreign investment. Griffiths also highlights that corruption is a major problem facing poor countries and a major constraint on growth and prosperity. The Christian Church can and should do far more to fight corruption then it has done to date. These two books give detailed discussions on the problem of poverty, the relation to globalization, and the role of the Christian Church and Christian faith. It is very helpful in investigating and reflecting on the relationship between Christian faith and capitalism.
Since Griffiths holds Christian views of human person and human nature, which is “created in the image of God, but nevertheless very willful and fallen”, he supports that capitalism is much more successful than communism, because “communism denies the reality of sin, communism still feels human beings can be made perfect.”
However, in Latin America, there is a different view of capitalism. Mexico could serve as an important example. “It is true that the Mexican economy has considerable private ownership and wide reliance upon markets. It is relatively well off as compared to other Latin American countries. Yet Mexico has an annual income per capita around $2000. More significantly, it has a highly unequal income distribution. The top 20% of its population receive 57.7% of the total income, while the bottom 60% of the population receive 21.9% of the income. Furthermore, the top 5% of the population receive 27.7% of the total income and the bottom 20% receive only 2.9% of the income (about $290 per capita per year). Given this pattern of income distribution, characterizing Mexico as a two class society of haves and have nots would seem to be a fair description.”
Brian Griffiths on the one hand suggests that capitalism can help improve the situation of the poor, he also states that “the Church has the potential to tackle world poverty and to change the culture of globalization in ways that governments and international institutions do not.” He gives examples of the case in Africa and church’s effort, “through the provision of schools, hospitals, clinics……the Church has a proven track record in helping the poor.” Griffiths seems to provide a good solution to the world problem, in this thesis, the writer will critically study and evaluate the feasibility, efficacy of these suggestions and ideas. His ideas are mirrored in Stories Economists Tell: Studies in Christianity and Economics where the author, Tiemstr gives an explanation to a Christian approach to economic analysis, which requires that humans should think of not as maximizing their own private economic welfare, but rather as making moral choices with their resources. Tiemstr discusses that the views of the advocates and the protesters of globalization. He admits that globalization cannot be reversed, however, he suggests that by limiting the globalization of financial capital markets, setting international agreements on labor, the environment, and diversity, and through moral persuasion, the drawbacks of globalization may be minimized. Tiemstr provides a clear method of handling worldwide economic circumstances from the angle of Christian perspective. He also gives insights into how we might live to further God’s purpose and how to do economic differently.
The essential ethos of free enterprise is certainly against Christian: it is the augmenting of financial gain, the raising of man’s getting a handle on drive, the worshiping of the solid, the subordination of man to economic creation. Acculturation is for free enterprise an unintended result … solidarity is for private enterprise unintentional. The market is the organization of independence and non-duty. Neither purchaser nor vender is in charge of anything other than himself. Throughout the years, the predominant social worry of Christian places of worship in the West was centred around the redistribution of pay instead of the making of riches. Some type of communism or social majority rule government was seen as the inescapable result of considering important the educating of Jesus in the Gospels concerning adoration for poor people. Along these lines, the Protestant scholar Paul Tillich pronounced that “each genuine Christian must be a communist.” Likewise, numerous on the British Left trusted that “Christianity is the religion of which communism is the training.” In approach terms, this converted into high tax collection, an expanding government offer of GDP, and the consistent development of the welfare state.
Scholar and logician Michael Novak’s incredible commitment – and he was extremely the first to do as such – was to challenge this view, root and branch. Through articulating the possibility of “popularity based free enterprise,” he looked for the ethical high ground. When there was a fixation on the appropriation of pay, he was worried about the good, political, economic, and social preconditions for riches creation in a market framework that he accepted would release the imaginative capability of the human individual. Novak imagines Democratic capitalism as a tripartite game plan – a market-based economy, a law based commonwealth and a pluralistic and liberal good social framework. Just private enterprise is an arrangement of common freedom which shapes the reason for an honest to goodness type of communitarian free affiliation, taps singular inventiveness and activity, produces ethical individuals, and strengthens propensities reliable with Judeo-Christian custom.
As indicated by Novak, communism and customary society depend on comparative presumptions. Both have « Zero-Sum » originations of man, nature, and riches. These are settled in sum so whatever one individual increases another loses. It pursues that without solid control by government, religion, and convention there would be a war of all against all. Both conventionalism and communism speak to inflexible, shut social orders that smother uniqueness and inventiveness. Under the communist’s view: 1) business people wind up well off by misusing labourers; 2) entrepreneur countries abuse Third World countries; and 3) dispensing with private property will end such misuse. Communism particularly requests to political elites in communist and Third World nations and to numerous intelligent people – particularly Catholic scholars.