The WSJ carried two articles yesterday that help put the
coming economic season (and related possibilities) into some biblical and
historical perspective. The first, by Aryeh Spero, relates What
the Bible Teaches about Capitalism. Of course it’s set in the context of
the sniping among the Republican candidates, but Spero blows away the smoke and
puts Capitalism into its Biblical perspective vs Socialism (which lots of
people seem to want these days):
More than any other nation, the
United States was founded on broad themes of morality rooted in a specific
religious perspective. We call this the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it
resides a ringing endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor.
Regarding mankind, no theme is more
salient in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is
through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own
growth, good citizenship and happiness. The entitlement/welfare state is a
paradigm that undermines that noble goal.
The Bible's proclamation that
"Six days shall ye work" is its recognition that on a day-to-day
basis work is the engine that brings about man's inner state of personal
responsibility. Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency,
including the need for comity with others as a means for the accomplishment of
tasks. With work, he becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be
productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him
away from the idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and
attitudes injurious to himself and those around him.
Yet capitalism is not content with
people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of
the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories or functioning as service
employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as
it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is
dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity,
unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew Bible
sees us not simply as "workers" and members of the masses but,
rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with
individuality: our creativity.
He notes, “The Bible is not a business-school manual”,
though it “does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a
borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy
for those injured by life's misfortunes and charity. It also demands
transparency and honesty regarding one's intentions.” All of these should be
concerns in business as well as government. The real root of socialism is envy.
Spero concludes, “Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies
that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an
immoral choice.
Yet another article, placed in juxtaposition with the
previous one, suggests a non-envy-based way forward: The
Coming Tech-Led Boom. The authors write, “we sit again on the cusp of three
grand technological transformations with the potential to rival that of the
past century. All find their epicenters in America: big data, smart
manufacturing and the wireless revolution.”
We should also remember that more
than half of the world's top 100 universities remain in America, a fact
underscored by soaring foreign enrollments. Yes, other nations have fine
universities, and many more will emerge over time. But again the epicenter
remains here.
What should our politicians do to
help usher in this new era of entrepreneurial growth? Liquid financial markets,
sensible tax and immigration policy, and balanced regulations will allow the
next boom to flourish. But the essential fuel is innovation. The promise
resides in the tectonic technological shifts under way.
America's success isn't
preordained. But the technological innovations circa 2012 are profound. They
will engender sweeping changes to our society and our economy. All the forces
are in place. It's just a matter of when.
The world is moving fast and changing fast. But for those of
you who may be discouraged by some of the political discussions we’re seeing,
both of these articles offer hope and inspiration, and a roadmap for a way
forward.
Thanks John for posting these articles. Hope Beth is doing well.
ReplyDeleteThanks Truth. She could be doing better, but she's not dealing with anything serious at the moment.
ReplyDeleteSocialism is an economic disaster. As it stands, capitalism is probably the best available economic system.
ReplyDeleteThat said (from Spero's article):
capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories or functioning as service employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity, unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual.
If this is the natural outworking of capitalism, then it has yet to become reality. The commodification of human values and needs has not produced anything but countless low-paid workers mass producing products that appeal to the lowest common denominator among consumers. Creativity here is really only limited to whatever can generate the most return on an investment, and this is almost never individual creativity for the average worker, who is often reduced to being a cog in a corporate machine. The "creativity" of modern capitalism is limited to those small teams who have developed the most clever marketing scheme and designed a product with the broadest appeal within a specific market.
There are exceptions, of course, but exceptions they remain.
The real root of socialism is envy.
Socialism arose out of a concern for the conditions of workers. Envy can be a problem in the socialist framework, and it (or some close cousin) is obviously what motivated various groups co-opting the socialist ideology for political gain. But much of what counts as capitalism in practice is merely an attempt to fuel the fire of envy between individuals who find their identity in the accumulation material possessions. On this level of motivations, I don't see a fundamental moral difference between the adherents of capitalism and socialism. Indeed, most (all?) of marketing is generating a desire in someone to purchase a product, and envy often plays an enormous role in this process.
Capitalism does not maximize human potential because the maximization of human potential requires sacrificial giving on the part of wealthier individuals and groups. However, those individuals and groups have no monetary incentive to invest in most other individuals. (We see this today in the unwillingness of companies to train other workers, preferring to poach the well-trained from other companies.)
Hi Matthew, thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteAryeh Spero: capitalism is dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity, unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual.
Matthew: If this is the natural outworking of capitalism, then it has yet to become reality.
I wouldn't say it's a "natural outworking", and yet, I'm thinking of all of the small companies that were formed, that grew, that created a good living and even prosperity for their owner and the folks who were willing to work hard and see the company grow; it's true that later, many of these were absorbed, or they died. But it's that cycle of creation and creative destruction and new creation that makes for a vibrant economy
Life is certainly what we make of it, and either capitalism or socialism is merely the framework within which people live and work. Neither can be said to "create" possibilities, but I think that a capitalist system is going to offer the greatest possibilities for those "small businesses" that have been the engines of job growth in the last few decades.
It's true that large corporations can become dysfunctional. Just the other day I drove past an old General Motors plant about a mile from where I grew up. When I was growing up, everybody wanted to get a job there (but few could), because the people who worked there had good jobs and good benefits. But it is not a plant any more, just a big empty lot. And the cycle was to enable greed among the owners, which led to envy among the unions, and pretty soon, the whole thing priced itself out of existence.
But I've also seen, and been a part of, those small entrepreneurial companies, in which you have the chance to work hard and create opportunities for yourself. I think that's the sense in which Spero is writing.
more
The commodification of human values and needs has not produced anything but countless low-paid workers mass producing products that appeal to the lowest common denominator among consumers.
ReplyDeleteThis is not true in every case, although, as in the GM story above (where the mass-production workers definitely weren't low-paid), and countless similar stories, it has happened. On the other hand, look at an economy like Silicon Valley, where a company like Apple Computer was spawned. Everybody wants an iPhone or a similar gadget now. (I know, they are taking unfair advantage of their workers).
One alternative, however, to this kind of system, would be those countless union-represented, union-paid, never-can-be-fired, totally unproductive workers who shuffle paper in various government bureaucracy jobs.
Creativity here is really only limited to whatever can generate the most return on an investment, and this is almost never individual creativity for the average worker, who is often reduced to being a cog in a corporate machine.
People in small businesses can exercise a great deal more "individual creativity" without being cogs. Think of the person who loves working with flowers who opens a flower shop and then becomes the supplier for all kinds of weddings in an area.
Socialism arose out of a concern for the conditions of workers. Envy can be a problem in the socialist framework, and it (or some close cousin) is obviously what motivated various groups co-opting the socialist ideology for political gain.
The appeal to envy, I think, is the appeal that's being made by the Democratic party these days. The lady who sits next to me at work WANTS a European style socialism, so that she can have free health care when she retires in a few years. I'm not sure if she's reading about what's going on in Europe lately (Greece), but there is no way to pay for anything else in Greece. And that's threatening to pull the whole system down.
I'm not saying everything is going to be easy. And I'm very glad that some of the governmental safety nets are available out there. But for now, the tax and regulatory environment makes it very hard for the small flowers shop owners to do anything other than go out of business and get a job bundling flower arrangements at Wal-Mart.
It's a balancing act in any case, and there are no easy answers to how we should build society. Capitalism taken to the extreme is government by robber barons, and socialism taken to the extreme is government by the lowest common denominator. Both systems can produce injustice and be blind to what our children need.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any obvious place to strike the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society, but if we value life in the future, we have to change how we do some stuff.
I don't see any obvious place to strike the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society, but if we value life in the future, we have to change how we do some stuff.
ReplyDeleteI thought the mood and policy changes that occurred during the Reagan years were particularly helpful in the 1980's. I lived through the malaise of the 70's, and all the steel mills shutting down in Pittsburgh (a radical shifting of the economic base -- 100,000 steel workers lost jobs; that's a huge percentage of the population here, and unemployment, locally, was up over 20%). There is no question the US economy was in good shape during the Reagan years.
There is no question the US economy was in good shape during the Reagan years.
ReplyDeleteBut at what cost? I lived through Reagan's tenure as Governor of California, when he slashed the budget of the state universities and hospitals, putting thousands of people on the streets. As President he started the GOP tradition of racking up a horrendous national debt, and making the rich richer, the poor poorer. The only reason Reagan doesn't count as the worst President of the 20th century is Bush Junior.
Just my humble opinion. I daresay most of you think otherwise.