Disappointed in Austrian Economics

[Sentient Void]

What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

He clearly has not. 'The Ethics for Liberty' by Rothbard, anyone?

[Sola_Fide]

What? Have you never read any Rothbard, Hoppe, or Bastiat?

of course I have. I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.

If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an ethical standpoint, then please point it out Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action. He said:

“Private property is a human device. It is not sacred.”

To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this. Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is alien to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.

The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing. I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.

[Sentient Void]

That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys).

I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.

[Sola_Fide]

That's interesting, AquaBuddha. I invite you to try to sleep in a bear's cave and see what happens when he comes back. Or to see how a dog responds to another dog when he comes back to see the other dog playing with *his* dog bone. Or a cat growling at another fellow household cat playing with what he clearly views as *his* toy (I see this all the time amongst my cats and their specific toys).

I could go on. There's plenty of examples of animals throughout nature exercising their defense of their Lockean sticky property. Property *is* a natural concept.

This is the "is-ought" fallacy. You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be". David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms. And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

[Sola_Fide]

By the way SV, I agree with you that property is intrinsic in man's nature. This is where both you and I would disagree with Mises. In Mises' view, since property was merely a pragmatic result of human behavior, and came much later after man "developed", a return to nature would be a return to a state devoid of property.


Property MUST be intrinsic and sacred for it to be defended ethically. Christianity alone provides the axioms neccessary for an ethical defense of property. Property IS sacred. Property is intrinsic to man's nature because he was created to take dominion over the earth God created for him.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

of course I have. I've read pretty much every major Austrian school and classical liberal book there is, from old Mises Journals to The Law to Man, Economy, And State to What Has Government Done To Our Money to Human Action to Econ In One Lesson etc etc etc. (although I've never read any Hoppe books but have listened to a lot of his lectures.

If you think that the Austrian school has defended property from an ethical standpoint, then please point it out Mises went out of his way to deny that property could be defended from an ethical standpoint in Human Action. He said:



To Mises, property was a pragmatic outworking of human action, not something sacred or uniquely part and parcel of a man's nature as he was created. There are some major foundational problems with a view like this. Marxists for example have the same view of property, that it is alien to man's nature, not intrinsic...Marxists are just more consistent with their presuppositions by saying that what is alien to nature must be discarded.

The articles I posted deal with the issue better than what I am describing. I am on an iphone right now or else I would post more.

Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned Ethics of Liberty & Hoppe had the Ethics and Economics of Private Property.

The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is the "is-ought" fallacy. You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be". David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms. And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

Non-sense. Discourse ethics (E.g. self-ownership) is clearly superior to any deified sacrosanct script. Reason & Logic need no 'higher authority'. Faith is a weak argument, in fact, it holds no merit whatsoever in terms of morality and ethics. (Reason & Logic is much superior)

[Sola_Fide]

Well if you were accustomed to Austrian Scholar's philosophies you would realize there are two branching deviations within the School. Rothbard, Hoppe, and Bastiat belong to the rationalist Natural Law sect (E.g. non-utilitarian), & Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger belong to the utilitarian sect. I mean, Rothbard penned Ethics of Liberty & Hoppe had the Ethics and Economics of Private Property.

The Rothbardian side is the Natural Law side (E.g. morality/ethical/rationalist based, than utilitarian).

Oh I am aware

You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh? (I thought you liked logic)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh I am aware

You are persuaded by natural law arguments, huh? (I thought you liked logic)

Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever.

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.

[Sola_Fide]

Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever.

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. I clearly pointed out that Austrian Economic scholars and the work itself, lends itself quite well and has to ethical argumentation. You are wrong to assert otherwise. I think you are trying to make some invisible divide that doesn't even exist for whatever religious reasons you hold.

In my previous posts I show that the Biblical axiom provides the only neccessarily ethical foundation for property.

How does an argument from nature provide a logical, non-arbitrary defense of property as ethical? What natural law philosopher has ever said property was good because it was good (not good because it is historical, pragmatic, etc)??? Besides, arguing that something is good because it is "natural" is ridiculous. Humans have shown that they are very good at murdering and oppressing each other. Is that "good" because murder and oppression are in our nature?

And my argument is not from "faith", as if you mean to suggest that I am arbitrarily picking and choosing to have blind faith in certain worldviews... My argument is from axioms neccessary for deduction. I just showed how the axioms of Christianity provide the postulate neccessary for an ethical defense of property...Arguments from nature are not sound, as Hume pointed out.

[Legend1104]

Non-sense. Discourse ethics (E.g. self-ownership) is clearly superior to any deified sacrosanct script. Reason & Logic need no 'higher authority'. Faith is a weak argument, in fact, it holds no merit whatsoever in terms of morality and ethics. (Reason & Logic is much superior)

Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it.

First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning.

Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.

That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...

Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.

[ClayTrainor]

My forehead hurts from all the facepalming I've done while reading this thread.

[Bruno]

and illegal for everyone else?


is something wrong, bro?

Those should be legal for everyone. I believe the OP was intending it for population control.

[axiomata]

My forehead hurts from all the facepalming I've done while reading this thread.

You're not doing it right then. The proper technique for a facepalm is a slow and deliberate motion to the forehead.

[Seraphim]

Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it.

First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning.

Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.

That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...

Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.

Don't confuse weak and corruptible with evil. Misguidedness is not evil.

The average person is good at heart and soul. The problem is that the average person is also stupid, malleable, weak and inclined to view the present self as more important than the future self and this can lead to corruption and selfish behavior.

Misguided. Not evil. There are evil people out there though...

Just not many IMHO. Sheeple by the billions though.

[robert68]

... Only Christianity provides an ethical (and therefore the only defendable) basis for property.

This is a great explanation of this-

The Only Possible Defense Of Private Property:
http://americanvision.org/656/only-p...vate-property/

...

From your link:

Therefore the restoration of property rights can and will start only with the restoration of Christianity to its place of a dominant religion in the West. Only when our law codes, our cultural practices, our economic, political, scientific, scholarly and other fields of society submit to the revelation and the requirements of the Law of God, we will see the property rights truly upheld and defended. Like all other rights, property rights come from God, and they stand or fall with our obedience to God, as a nation under Him.

Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.

Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a just acquisition of property, and a definition of the just defense of property.

[Sola_Fide]

From your link:



Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.

Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a just acquisition of property, and a definition of the just defense of property.

"Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations."

[Sola_Fide]

Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.

What is your definition of tyranny? The American Revolution?

It is interesting that you think Christianity is "tyrannical" when I am showing it's rigorous defense of the cornerstone of freedom: private property.

[Sola_Fide]

Natura Law (E.g. self-ownership) & Discourse Ethics are logical. You do not need to believe in an interventionist faith-based God to derive Natural Law and Discourse Ethics is entirely disconnected with faith/spirituality/religion whatsoever.

I am persuaded by both utilitarian views (Like David Friedman, Anthony de Jasay, Mises, etc.), and by ethical/moral views. The great thing about Voluntaryism/Panarchism/Autarchism - libertarianism is that all of the above are consistent both ethically and utilitarian. I use both in my arguments, though I prefer the moral/ethical view myself.

AED,

What are laws of logic? Are they merely conventions? If laws of logic are merely conventional, why don't different cultures have different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic merely brain impulses? If they are, why do people with different brains not employ different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic immaterial? You would say yes, right? If laws are immaterial, how can they exist in a universe (as atheists say) that consists only of matter? Are you proposing a Platonic realm of forms?

How do the concept of abstract, universal, immaterial realities like laws even comport with an atheistic view of the universe?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AED,

What are laws of logic? Are they merely conventions? If laws of logic are merely conventional, why don't different cultures have different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic merely brain impulses? If they are, why do people with different brains not employ different laws of logic?

Are laws of logic immaterial? You would say yes, right? If laws are immaterial, how can they exist in a universe (as atheists say) that consists only of matter? Are you proposing a Platonic realm of forms?

How do the concept of abstract, universal, immaterial realities like laws even comport with an atheistic view of the universe?

You are aware I am not an atheist, right? I fail how to see the causal connection between an abstract conceptual God, and the interventionist highly humanoid Christian triune God that breaks universal laws on whims, kills his creations, sets down a creed of biblical law, and is rather despotic. You jump from the very rigorous deistic/unitarian perspective to full-fledged super-natural deity. The Christian triune is fundamentally no different than Hinduism, Norse, Roman, and Greek religion/mythology. They all share the same characteristics.

I am a Deist and you can generally say I am also Unitarian (In that I view Jesus set down a pretty good ethical system (Do not steal, Do not murder, etc.)). However, you think God is a walking talking monolithic entity who speaks to people, and does all the other super-natural canonical actions in the Bible. I think it's pretty funny how a Christian can believe in universal laws when his God wantonly shows total disregard and disdain for his own creation. Do not even get me started on the absurdity of miracles.

Just because the abstract conception of God holds logically, does not mean that the Christian triune holds any water. The Triune is anything, but logical, rigorous, or prone to reason and study.

PS: You probably don't even know this, but a lot of Christianity is borrowed from Roman paganism brought in by Constantine to make it more palatable to Roman society writ large. I know a few true Christians, but the things they have in common with the 'Christians' of today is few and far between. I mean Jesus speaks out against organized religion and what does his disciples do? Create a highly organized, highly centralized, highly paganistic religion complete with levels of priesthoods, a grand arbiter, and the word of man presupposing itself to the word of God. It is highly hilarious. Beware idolatry? What do you do...create a Pope which is the idol of most of Christianity...

[ClayTrainor]

You are aware I am not an atheist, right?

I don't see how it matters if you are...

[Sola_Fide]

Bump.

This thread is great from page 3 on....

[JasonC]

Do we have a cyber neo-luddite here?

[couvi]

machines can completely replace humans. even capitalist class. you can't see big picture.

I understand what you are saying, but you are suggesting that humans won't live alongside the machines which they create. What is the incentive for human existence? The incentive is the pleasure of existence itself. People prefer life to death--this is what will sustain humanity if machines completely take over our labor.

And why are you so concerned about something that, even if it pans out as you describe, is perhaps thousands of years away. You are basing your economics on some wild speculation and you seem more concerned about future people we will never know rather than our present existence. The only way to base a society on the economics which you describe involves heavy restrictions. I don't know about you, but I don't wish to be imprisoned for the sake of some speculative future.

[trey4sports]

hey its cool. We disagree, but im glad you have a real, thought-out opinion on the matter.

[eduardo89]

Bump.

This thread is great from page 3 on....

Thanks for bumping. It really is a great read!

[Sola_Fide]

Seperating this quote from the actual discussion, I have always found the argument for logic and reasoning to have some good merit, but I believe that the Enlightenment tried to carry the idea too far. Human reasoning and logic has created amazing advancements, but I never believed that it could be used to solve the human problem of sin, evil, morality, or whatever you want to call it.

First, I believe everyone is truely evil and corrupt at heart and so therefore I find it impossible for humanity to use reasoning to solve the problem of sin because it is inherant in our very nature. Furthermore, by the very fact that we are corrupt means that our morality would be corrupted if based on human reasoning.

Also, since not all human reasoning is equal (some being inferior in mind or education) then not all humans will reach the same reasoning. Therefore, if morality was based on reason then it would vary depending on the person; there would be no absolute ethical right or wrong.

That is why I have always believed in the idea of morality being based on the standard of a perfect God. I understand my belief would take accepting the idea of the corrupt nature of all mankind, but even so...

Just my thoughts. I am not trying to argue with you, but just throwing out my beliefs.

Great post. This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.

If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint? It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.

[Seraphim]

To believe that all humans are inherently corrupt, or conversly that they are inherently good is fallacious.

Individuals vary on a incomprehensible scale of good/evil, purity of heart, courage etc...

To place a cover over all humans representing either extreme of the spectrum is not wise in my opinion.

There are a select few humans who are evil to the core, and a select few who are good to the core. And most of us fall somewhere in between.

If Ayn Rand truly believed that all people are inherently good - I'm quite certain she's wrong. But I'd also chip in that draping all humans as inherently corrupt is also a mistake.


Sorry I didn't mean to come off as refuting you in particular...I wasn't...more just adding to what you and Legend said with a bit of a counter point.

Great post. This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.

If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint? It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.

[bb_dg]

TO OP (BRATOK)

You mentioned many things in your first post and I will try to address them as well as I can.

One thing that you point is that human "evolution" is too slow and cannot keep up with the means of production. Would you mind elaborating what you mean by that and why you believe this is true?

The video you posted about Rob Murphy and Krugman debate, the issue seemed to be about whether wage rates were what helped make the great depression great. Murphy said that what fixing wages did was that employers now had to lay off people, which is true since employers had to pay more for less skilled workers, they could have just raised prices in response, but that normally doesn't happen since it would affect demand, so they usually just lay people off.

Now the guy who made the video said all of that doesn't matter because there was no demand, so even if they were able to lower wages, no one was buying their stuff anyway, so it didn't matter. This is where he is incorrect. When there is a recession/depression, people do not have zero demand obviously. People will always have a demand for things like food and water. As for other things, like clothes, they may demand less, but they still demand even if they have lost a lot of money. Other things like new cars and luxuries may have even less demand, but not necessarily zero demand. Some businesses will go bankrupt and people will lose their jobs as a result of that or less demand, however, the capital that was being used up by these businesses that went bankrupt is now free to be used by someone else to produce something that still is in demand (food, clothes, etc). Capital will reallocate and be used to produce more again, thus more workers are needed. That is how an economy gets out of a recession. The deflationary spiral is an incorrect concept because people will always have a demand for certain commodities.

The video with what David M. Kennedy said may have been true, that he asked businessmen to do certain things. But if you continue listening, he then says this approach, which was taken in 1921, did not work in 1929. It seems Mr. Kennedy is merely observing the events that happened and not necessarily saying the policy Hoover did was the correct one. Others who have studied this, such as Murray Rothbard who wrote the book America's Great Depression, say that Hoover's plans of intervention (which may have included the call to businessmen), did not come to be because the economy recovered before all of his plans were able to be implemented.

Later in the post you mentioned how the economy was restructured but free market economists would say that the 25% unemployed would just have to starve. That is strong misunderstanding of free markets. There is not a fixed a mount of work in the economy. New jobs are always being created, humans have unlimited wants, so humans will always find ways to produce more. There is not a fixed amount of jobs in the economy, if there is a labor force looking for work, work will be created.

You mentioned machines completely replacing humans, it is possible, but it seems that you are under the impression that labor saving machinery causes unemployment, which is untrue. If that were true, then that means with every technological advance, we are getting closer to zero employment ever since the beginning of man's existence as new technology is made. This is obviously untrue and let me explain why.

Let's say a business makes clothes and has several workers. Now lets say the employer implements a machine and he doesn't need as many workers anymore, so he fires them. What happens now? The employer makes more money than before, so he will either consume more, which will increase the demand in other areas where he consumes, thus more workers are needed in those areas. Not to mention there is now demand for people to make the machine itself. Now lets say the employer's competitor's also use the machine and they too produce more at less cost, so to compete they all lower their prices. The employer now makes less than he did when he first used the machine since prices are lower. However, who benefits when prices are lower? Now the consumer has more money and will consume more now since they don't need to pay as much for these particular items and will cause more demand and thus more workers. Machines cause greater demand in other areas.

You next mentioned WWII and how it helped employ people and killed off a lot of extra people. WWII did not help the economy. War is actually very bad for the economy. Having full employment does not mean there is a healthy economy, jobs are a means, not the ends of themselves. Having a good economy is based on how much it produces, not how much people spend or if there are enough jobs for everyone. Getting full employment is the easiest thing to do, the government can just make a bunch of useless jobs or recruit everyone in the military. That way, there would be 100% employment, but nothing is produced, nothing to eat, everyone will starve even though everyone has a job. Production is what makes an economy strong. The reason why wars are bad for the economy is because resources are scarce. During war, instead of the resources being used to make goods and services, they are being used to make tanks and missiles. That's why they had to ration goods during WWII.

Lastly you mention how economies can be unstable and how bubbles can occur without government intervention. That can be true, but as mentioned earlier, economies are able to get themselves out of recessions because it is not the recession that is the problem. The recession is the correction of the economy where bad businesses fail and capital is freed up for other people to use. What's bad are these booms where bad businesses seem to be doing well and people invest a lot of capital in it. Eventually these businesses fail and everyone who works for these bad businesses will lose their jobs, but that is how the economy fixes itself. The capital is reallocated and these people will be able to find more work elsewhere. If the government steps and and bails out these bad businesses that are unprofitable and a waste of capital, then that prolongs the recession and that is why the great depression is great and is part of the reason why we are still in a recession today.

[Sola_Fide]

To believe that all humans are inherently corrupt, or conversly that they are inherently good is fallacious.

Individuals vary on a incomprehensible scale of good/evil, purity of heart, courage etc...

To place a cover over all humans representing either extreme of the spectrum is not wise in my opinion.

There are a select few humans who are evil to the core, and a select few who are good to the core. And most of us fall somewhere in between.

If Ayn Rand truly believed that all people are inherently good - I'm quite certain she's wrong. But I'd also chip in that draping all humans as inherently corrupt is also a mistake.


Sorry I didn't mean to come off as refuting you in particular...I wasn't...more just adding to what you and Legend said with a bit of a counter point.

Well, but what is the standard for saying anything is good or bad? If you reject the universal absolutes of Christianity, what non-arbitrary basis do you have to call something good or evil?

Some of the posts in this thread seem to imply that nature is a sufficient standard for ethics, and it clearly isn't. Using nature as the standard for ethics causes one to engage in the "is-ought" fallacy.

Also, self-ownership does not justify itself. A case can be made for self-ownership given Christian axioms, but how is it justified in atheism? Ownership is not a concept that is just given in atheism. Why is ownership valid? Why is it not valid for the State to implement its ownership of you? The government has more guns than you do. How is property justified? Why is theft wrong even if you did own things? Why aren't some humans able to be classified as subhuman and therefore not deserving of property?

You have to justify ownership itself in atheism. Since atheism has no non-arbitrary reason that theft is wrong, it is impossible to do. Self-ownership only works within the worldview of Christianity. And even then, it is not self-ownership, it is self-stewardship (because God is the ultimate owner of all).