[In the two previous posts, I argued on moral grounds for the necessity of an economy that strives for equality. The Orthodox Heretic’s sister, who is getting a PhD on these sorts of issues, commented, and I wanted to post her comments and then respond to them.]
Anna says: “There is sociological literature regarding the benefits that socioeconomic equality bring to both governments and local and global societies. This literature argues that it is in governments' and societies' best interest to ensure productivity of the market SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH socioeconomic equality within the polity (and sustainability of the environment, too!). Oversimplified, the argument suggests that inequality and insecurity (inadequate food, water, disease, etc.) is directly related to conflict and war, the effects of which extend beyond national boundaries. As such, these interrelated components of poverty are a universal concern and require international attention.
Moreover, conflict and war threaten the stability of governments, societies, and consequently capitalist institutions. Therefore, it is not only right and just to ensure socioeconomic equality, it is also rational and self-interested! This argument, then, appeals to the religious and secular alike.”
The Orthodox Heretic says: “Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I happen to agree with every word of your response. Like you, I also believe that that there is often a happy coincidence between doing what’s right in the moral sense and doing what’s right in the business sense. However, I think we should be careful to keep the moral argument and prudential argument separate. I have always been a little uncomfortable with the “and besides” argument. For instance, people sometimes argue that torture is wrong in the moral sense because it causes harm to a defenseless person, and then quickly add something like, “and besides, the intelligence you get from torture is unreliable.” Those arguments need to be carefully pulled apart and evaluated separately, the first being a moral argument (it’s not right), the second being a prudential argument (it’s not smart).
We must recognize that there has always been and will always be controversy about whether it makes more economic sense to stimulate the economy by stimulating the lower class or by cutting taxes on the upper class. The world needs people like you and your colleagues who are able consistently to present us with compelling arguments that favor the democratic philosophy of economics on prudential grounds. But unfortunately, for every argument you present, there will always be an intelligent, well-worded, and persuasive argument from the other side (actually, there will probably be two, since those folks are better-funded).
As a professional philosopher, I happen to know that you can convince yourself and others of just about any position if you’re clever enough. I don’t mean to say that there are no right answers, but only that we have every reason to expect that this debate will go on until the end of society itself. So while this argument is busy going on forever, Christians need to stand up and remind ourselves and the world that equality is a moral issue of the most serious kind, whether you believe it to be a prudential issue or not, and that therefore economic equality needs to be on the front-burner for those of us who consider ourselves followers of Christ. I’m not willing to believe that I am wrong about that, although I’m willing to believe that I might be wrong about how the economy works (especially because people who are much smarter than I am can’t agree). But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit his soul?
3.25.2008
3.17.2008
American Politics, Part III
Last week I argued that we need a government that is willing to step in and regulate the market for the sake of economic equality. Of course most Republicans are willing to accept the idea of occasional government intervention in draconian cases, but their usual mantra is “Stay outta the marketplace!” I think this attitude is unacceptable, at least if you believe as I do that the main standard by which all societies will be judged is by how they protected the vulnerable. Those who are great capitalists are typically not bad people – they are simply being as selfish as possible because that is exactly what capitalism requires of them – capitalism is only successful if the business world is populated with people who are greedy! If all capitalists decided to practice the virtue of contentedness starting on Monday, then we would have the Great Depression Part II by Friday. But that is exactly why we must have a government that is willing to tell those successful and greedy capitalists, “This far ye shall come and no farther.”
Also, last week I promised to analyze another big reason why we need a government willing to legislate the marketplace: the protection of the environment. Capitalism by itself offers absolutely no incentive to maintain environmental standards. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. The capitalist marketplace demands that the producers produce as much material for the lowest cost possible. And, since it costs a lot of money to dispose of waste properly, to forest responsibly, to harvest and plant in a way that will nourish the soil, etc., etc., these things are actually discouraged by the capitalist marketplace. Since the motivation to protect the environment does not come from the market itself, it must come from government regulations.
I have heard conservatives say of Al Gore that business would never survive his presidency, if he were to become President. I hope that this is not true. But I happen to know that it is true that if we continue to use our natural resources irresponsibly, then things will go badly for all of us and all of our decedents. Take the example of American automakers: they really hate it whenever the government increases the minimum fuel efficiency rating. Let the market decide, they say – let the people decide what they want to buy, and we will supply their demand. The problem is that it is quite rare that an individual will do what is in their own financial worst-interest in order to “help” with something as abstract as the environment. For example, if Company A and Company B produce the same product, but Company A’s version costs more because they spent a lot of money on proper disposal, then the usual person will buy the product from Company B. And if someone comes running up to them and says, “Don’t buy that! Company B disposes of their waste improperly,” the common person will just point out that Company B’s product costs less. The way to solve this problem is to actually make it illegal for Company B to dispose of their waste improperly, rather than to hope that Company B’s board of directors becomes populated by tree-huggers.
There are many situations in which the government must interfere for the sake of protecting the environment, because people will always do exactly what capitalism tells them to do: buy the product as cheaply as you can! The burden of making companies change their environmental policies is not the responsibility of the consumer, but of the government. In Bush’s first week, he repealed an astounding number of environmental regulations that were established by the Clinton administration, all in the name of “freeing the marketplace.” We need a government that, while sensible about protecting big business where they can (because we all need big business, even though we may not like to admit it), has the will and the courage to regulate the market by making certain practices illegal.
Also, last week I promised to analyze another big reason why we need a government willing to legislate the marketplace: the protection of the environment. Capitalism by itself offers absolutely no incentive to maintain environmental standards. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. The capitalist marketplace demands that the producers produce as much material for the lowest cost possible. And, since it costs a lot of money to dispose of waste properly, to forest responsibly, to harvest and plant in a way that will nourish the soil, etc., etc., these things are actually discouraged by the capitalist marketplace. Since the motivation to protect the environment does not come from the market itself, it must come from government regulations.
I have heard conservatives say of Al Gore that business would never survive his presidency, if he were to become President. I hope that this is not true. But I happen to know that it is true that if we continue to use our natural resources irresponsibly, then things will go badly for all of us and all of our decedents. Take the example of American automakers: they really hate it whenever the government increases the minimum fuel efficiency rating. Let the market decide, they say – let the people decide what they want to buy, and we will supply their demand. The problem is that it is quite rare that an individual will do what is in their own financial worst-interest in order to “help” with something as abstract as the environment. For example, if Company A and Company B produce the same product, but Company A’s version costs more because they spent a lot of money on proper disposal, then the usual person will buy the product from Company B. And if someone comes running up to them and says, “Don’t buy that! Company B disposes of their waste improperly,” the common person will just point out that Company B’s product costs less. The way to solve this problem is to actually make it illegal for Company B to dispose of their waste improperly, rather than to hope that Company B’s board of directors becomes populated by tree-huggers.
There are many situations in which the government must interfere for the sake of protecting the environment, because people will always do exactly what capitalism tells them to do: buy the product as cheaply as you can! The burden of making companies change their environmental policies is not the responsibility of the consumer, but of the government. In Bush’s first week, he repealed an astounding number of environmental regulations that were established by the Clinton administration, all in the name of “freeing the marketplace.” We need a government that, while sensible about protecting big business where they can (because we all need big business, even though we may not like to admit it), has the will and the courage to regulate the market by making certain practices illegal.
3.10.2008
American Politics, Part II
Out society is not primarily controlled by the government. Rather, our society marches to the beat of the drum of the capitalistic marketplace. I do not wish to say that this is good or bad, for there are many positive and negative features of capitalism. I just want to say that this is our reality, so instead of thinking of America as controlled by the government, it would be more accurate to think of America as being directed by business, and merely managed by the government.
By analogy, the market could be thought of as a fire. Fires are nearly miraculous in that they provide a natural source of heat and light. If you have trouble imagining how central this is to life, imagine how terrible a frontier lifestyle would be without a fire. But like most good things, a fire can quickly turn disastrous and deadly if it leaps out of its intended boundaries. Likewise, the market can provide untold good and prosperity, and in an instant can lift a family out of generational poverty. But it can also be quite disastrous, as a fire that jumps over its boundaries. So the analogical conclusion is that just as we need the fire controlled, so also we need tight reigns on the economy. There are two primary ways that the marketplace can cause mischief, although I will only address one this week.
First, the market itself provides no incentive whatsoever to help a person who is not yourself or not in your immediate family. The market, rather, by its very essence, actually encourages every person to look out only for her own interests. “Its just business,” they tell you after they announce a company restructure. There is no basis to complain about or criticize any single businessperson who triumphs over someone else over on the way to more money, provided he does it within the bounds of the law. Indeed, this is what is required of a successful capitalist society. I, for example, will enter the meager philosophy professor job market in a couple of years. My hope is that I will be better, more intelligent, etc., than the other PhD students entering the marketplace, and that I will get the job instead of them. Correspondingly, the institution will only higher the best candidate and turn the others away. That is not positive or negative, but merely a description of how a capitalistic society improves itself.
Given the harsh realities of competition within capitalism, it is quite easy to see how our society can quickly become a society of “haves” and “have-nots.” But no single person is to blame – every “have” is simply doing his job. Capitalism, then, unchecked, can bring absolutely wicked outcomes, from the perspective of the Christian. James nails down the whole point of religion in general: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” (James 1:27). If this is true, then we should be worries about creating as society of “haves” and “have-nots,” which means that we need a government that is willing to step in and disrupt the marketplace when the marketplace in creating too much inequality. The Republicans despise this kind of thinking as “big government” – capitalism needs to be free to play itself out. If the market operates without interference, they claim, then it will continue to grow. And after all, they add, “A rising tides raises all ships.”
But I have a question for my Republican friends: What if you are wrong about how the economy works? Even the top economists in the world have vast difference in the way they conceive of successful capitalism. I must confess, I have NO idea how the economy works, but even the most well-equipped economists have only possible theories. But if we are going to make an error, as we may be by interfering in the marketplace, we should be concerned to err on the side of making an economically equal society. If those republican economists are wrong, and the “trickle-down” economic system is not the right model for the economy, then we will hamper economic growth AND exacerbate economic inequality. So if I am right that no one really knows how the economy works, and we are concerned about creating a equal society (making sure the orphans and widows are economically secure, even though they are not economically viable), then we should favor a style of government which is willing to step in if conditions are becoming unequal. There is the possibility, I am willing to concede, that the Republican economic policies are better for everyone; after all, I nor anyone else who doesn’t have a Nobel Prize in economics really has any idea. But I do know, as a Christian, that it is not acceptable to have the kind of society that doesn’t do anything about the plight of the vulnerable. But the Republican says, again, “Yes, but a rising tide raises all ships,” which is true. But just in case the “trickle-down” system doesn’t work, I would rather lose the whole world while pursuing justice. I don’t think that losing the whole world for the right reasons would be such a bad thing.
By analogy, the market could be thought of as a fire. Fires are nearly miraculous in that they provide a natural source of heat and light. If you have trouble imagining how central this is to life, imagine how terrible a frontier lifestyle would be without a fire. But like most good things, a fire can quickly turn disastrous and deadly if it leaps out of its intended boundaries. Likewise, the market can provide untold good and prosperity, and in an instant can lift a family out of generational poverty. But it can also be quite disastrous, as a fire that jumps over its boundaries. So the analogical conclusion is that just as we need the fire controlled, so also we need tight reigns on the economy. There are two primary ways that the marketplace can cause mischief, although I will only address one this week.
First, the market itself provides no incentive whatsoever to help a person who is not yourself or not in your immediate family. The market, rather, by its very essence, actually encourages every person to look out only for her own interests. “Its just business,” they tell you after they announce a company restructure. There is no basis to complain about or criticize any single businessperson who triumphs over someone else over on the way to more money, provided he does it within the bounds of the law. Indeed, this is what is required of a successful capitalist society. I, for example, will enter the meager philosophy professor job market in a couple of years. My hope is that I will be better, more intelligent, etc., than the other PhD students entering the marketplace, and that I will get the job instead of them. Correspondingly, the institution will only higher the best candidate and turn the others away. That is not positive or negative, but merely a description of how a capitalistic society improves itself.
Given the harsh realities of competition within capitalism, it is quite easy to see how our society can quickly become a society of “haves” and “have-nots.” But no single person is to blame – every “have” is simply doing his job. Capitalism, then, unchecked, can bring absolutely wicked outcomes, from the perspective of the Christian. James nails down the whole point of religion in general: “to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” (James 1:27). If this is true, then we should be worries about creating as society of “haves” and “have-nots,” which means that we need a government that is willing to step in and disrupt the marketplace when the marketplace in creating too much inequality. The Republicans despise this kind of thinking as “big government” – capitalism needs to be free to play itself out. If the market operates without interference, they claim, then it will continue to grow. And after all, they add, “A rising tides raises all ships.”
But I have a question for my Republican friends: What if you are wrong about how the economy works? Even the top economists in the world have vast difference in the way they conceive of successful capitalism. I must confess, I have NO idea how the economy works, but even the most well-equipped economists have only possible theories. But if we are going to make an error, as we may be by interfering in the marketplace, we should be concerned to err on the side of making an economically equal society. If those republican economists are wrong, and the “trickle-down” economic system is not the right model for the economy, then we will hamper economic growth AND exacerbate economic inequality. So if I am right that no one really knows how the economy works, and we are concerned about creating a equal society (making sure the orphans and widows are economically secure, even though they are not economically viable), then we should favor a style of government which is willing to step in if conditions are becoming unequal. There is the possibility, I am willing to concede, that the Republican economic policies are better for everyone; after all, I nor anyone else who doesn’t have a Nobel Prize in economics really has any idea. But I do know, as a Christian, that it is not acceptable to have the kind of society that doesn’t do anything about the plight of the vulnerable. But the Republican says, again, “Yes, but a rising tide raises all ships,” which is true. But just in case the “trickle-down” system doesn’t work, I would rather lose the whole world while pursuing justice. I don’t think that losing the whole world for the right reasons would be such a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)