Tonight I am posting a few reflections inspired by a video at this link:
However, although this argument works if we look at the last 60 years since WWII, I am not sure that it is as conclusive if we narrow the scope down to the last 30 years. In terms of buying power and wages relative to the cost of living, the poor in today's economy, according to some economists, are actually worse off than they were in 1980. I would argue that the days of the "whole pie getting bigger" are over. The boom of the post-WWII economy did benefit all Americans economically, but that is not the current reality. We might also note that there were MORE financial regulations during the period of the 1950s and 60s than there are today. For more on this, see this wonderful little video: Senator Warren Lays the Smack Down
Response: Do I really need to respond to this? Evidently I do because I distinctly recall hearing a self-described member of the religious right (a member of my church and leader in my youth group during my high school years) and a Republican staffer for the Illinois state congress stating, "We simply cannot start thinking of economics in moral terms. The two have nothing to do with one another." For a firmly committed libertarian, that is indeed the line that one must take to be consistent. Ayn Rand saw this perfectly well. You see, it all depends on what story you believe in. If the world is nothing more than a dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all free-for-all devoid of any larger meaning-making metanarrative, then there is no moralizing to be done. In fact, injecting morality into the conversation is to appeal to a trick of nature, a weakness in the human evolutionary process, a particularly powerful and malicious meme (to use Dawkin's term) that deceives us all. I don't have time to go into this philosophy here because books have been written on it, but suffice it to say that thinkers as diverse as Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Satre, Epicurus of the third century BCE, and Ayn Rand have maintained that without God (and the larger metanarrative that S/he provides), the only true meaning in life is self-gratification. There is no right or wrong; there are just brute facts. And the truly enlightened individuals who realize this (the übermensch) are able to cast off the shackles of morality and embrace the glory of their own will to power. This is why Rand can write a book entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness."
In many ways, this video speaks for itself and needs no commentary. And yet, I know that many will strongly disagree with the point that its creator is trying to make. The question of income distribution and what is to be done about it marks one of the key fault lines in modern US politics. I would like to address just two of the objections raised by those libertarians and fiscally conservative thinkers to the line of argument presented in the video.
Objection #1: The WHOLE pie is getting bigger. Yes, the poor may be poorer relative to the wealthy, but in absolute terms, they are actually better off than before. Economics is not a "zero sum game."
Response: This is a well-worn argument from laissez faire capitalists of all shapes and sizes. And, to some extent, it is true. Even though the income distribution is less equal than before, it can be demonstrated that the poor have benefitted in certain ways by participation in the larger system of free market economics. When the waterline rises, all the boats rise with it.
However, although this argument works if we look at the last 60 years since WWII, I am not sure that it is as conclusive if we narrow the scope down to the last 30 years. In terms of buying power and wages relative to the cost of living, the poor in today's economy, according to some economists, are actually worse off than they were in 1980. I would argue that the days of the "whole pie getting bigger" are over. The boom of the post-WWII economy did benefit all Americans economically, but that is not the current reality. We might also note that there were MORE financial regulations during the period of the 1950s and 60s than there are today. For more on this, see this wonderful little video: Senator Warren Lays the Smack Down
Secondly, I question what we mean by "better off." This question goes beyond the realm of economics and into the realm of philosophy, theology, and sociology. Is the generation of wealth the ultimate good for a society? Is the creation of more stuff the telos of human behavior? Moreover, does obsession with production, accumulation, and general creation of wealth even lead to greater levels of happiness? I recall reading an article several years ago (if I find the source I will add the link later) which compared the poor of America's inner cities to the poor of India's slums. In terms of absolute wealth, the American poor were far better off. They ate more food, slept in more comfortable homes, had access to better drinking water, and even enjoyed luxuries like television. The poor of India, on the other hand, lacked many or all of these. But here is what's so fascinating: the poor of India reported greater levels of happiness and satisfaction in their lives than did the poor of the United States. Perplexed by this finding, the researchers dug deeper and ultimately determined that the residents of India's slums were happier due to the sense of community, fraternity, and solidarity that they found among their peers. The poor of America's inner cities, in contrast, experienced fragmentation, alienation, isolation, and fear. We could draw many fascinating conclusions from this, but for my purposes here I would simply state that the creation of wealth in and of itself does not necessarily benefit humanity or lead to greater levels of happiness. The assumption of many economists that a "higher standard of living" is a self-evident, inherent good fails to recognize that achieving "a higher standard of living" is not the end goal of human existence. There are greater goals. One of those greater goals, I would argue (based on my theology) is the experience of community and unity with one another. The vast inequality in the distribution of wealth that we find in the United States actually breaks down this sense of community and instead creates envy, class warfare, and various and sundry (I have always wanted to use that phrase in a blog post) forms of social strife. Thus, a) the argument that the pie is getting bigger may not even be true anymore and b) even if it is, that does not necessarily mean that humanity is better off.
Objection #2: Economics is an amoral discipline. It exists on its own and cannot be bothered with questions of morality and ethics.
Response: Do I really need to respond to this? Evidently I do because I distinctly recall hearing a self-described member of the religious right (a member of my church and leader in my youth group during my high school years) and a Republican staffer for the Illinois state congress stating, "We simply cannot start thinking of economics in moral terms. The two have nothing to do with one another." For a firmly committed libertarian, that is indeed the line that one must take to be consistent. Ayn Rand saw this perfectly well. You see, it all depends on what story you believe in. If the world is nothing more than a dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all free-for-all devoid of any larger meaning-making metanarrative, then there is no moralizing to be done. In fact, injecting morality into the conversation is to appeal to a trick of nature, a weakness in the human evolutionary process, a particularly powerful and malicious meme (to use Dawkin's term) that deceives us all. I don't have time to go into this philosophy here because books have been written on it, but suffice it to say that thinkers as diverse as Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Satre, Epicurus of the third century BCE, and Ayn Rand have maintained that without God (and the larger metanarrative that S/he provides), the only true meaning in life is self-gratification. There is no right or wrong; there are just brute facts. And the truly enlightened individuals who realize this (the übermensch) are able to cast off the shackles of morality and embrace the glory of their own will to power. This is why Rand can write a book entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Do I need to say it? These ideas are not Christian. They are the antithesis of Christianity. Nietzsche loathed Christians because they had been deluded into thinking that humility was actually a virtue. He scoffed at their ignorance. Well, Friedrich, I'm a Christian. And as such, I believe in right and wrong. I believe in good and evil. I can look at the war in Syria and claim, "That is a bad thing." The nihilist cannot do that. I can also look at an economy in which 1% of the population controls 35.4% of its wealth and say, "That's a sad state of affairs. In fact, it's wrong."
I will state it very simply: Economics is a moral discipline. It, like all that exists, exists because God created it. And it falls under the umbrella of that which has meaning and value, that which has moral weight, that which "stands under judgment." As Jim Wallis is fond of saying (and I agree with him), "A budget is a moral document." The way that the earth's limited resources are used reveals what we value -- and there are good uses of it and bad uses of it. The Christian who is firmly convinced that God is God over all things must then evaluate every pattern of thinking according to the nature of God. Economics does not get a free pass. It too must be evaluated as ethical or unethical. (To the schizophrenic Christian libertarian, I say, "Please stop fragmenting your mind. You're gonna hurt yourself. Economics and ethics aren't two different universes; they're inextricably bound. Better yet, economics is subservient to ethics... or at least it ought to be.") It seems ridiculous to me that I must even write this because it seems so obvious, yet some Christians have been so utterly duped by the language of capitalism that they actually say things like "We simply cannot think of economics in moral terms."
Once economics is opened up to the critique of morality, I believe we are then right to claim that such an absurdly unequal distribution of wealth as we currently have in America is not only lamentable, but positively immoral. Measures must be taken to fight it. We must even leverage the authority of the government to at least partly address this imbalance for the sake of the common good. The tools that we use to accomplish such a Herculean challenge are crude, but they are better than nothing -- I'm speaking of tools such as the progressive income tax (*gasp* Fox News watchers everywhere are calling me a socialist right now), a robust social safety net, public education, labor laws (which tries to counterbalance the power of that amoral übermensch who will not hesitate to squash a Filipino textile worker in order to increase his bottom line), strict financial regulations (in the hope we won't have a repeat of 2008), and on and on. We are not aiming for perfection through these tools. That's not possible. But a more just society IS possible. And a provisional, limited peace can be upheld until the ultimate, unadulterated shalom of God descends upon the earth.
Should economics be ethical? Yes. And right now the video that inspired this post shows us that we're not doing a very good job.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments and all perspectives are welcome provided they are given with gentleness, consideration, and respect.