Half Past Noon

Sorry, I got waylaid by health care debates. I should have known better, particularly since I never have anything constructive to say about that topic. Back to Medaille (where at least I’ve achieved a degree of level-headedness).

The Economics of Distributism II: Political Economy as a Science

Medaille kicks off talking about how economists have longed to make their craft (economics) a “perfect” science. He quotes Friedman:

As Milton Friedman puts it, “Positive economics is in principle independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgments. As [J. N.] Keynes says, it deals with ‘what is,’ not with ‘what ought to be.’”

I start with this because I think it’s important to qualify that most of the Christian free market capitalists I know would strongly disagree with Friedman here. In fact, this is something my father taught us early on in life: economics alone doesn’t save you, nor can we live as if economics can’t be touched by our biblical worldview.

Why is this important? Because here we come to one of the downsides of adopting a general label (like “capitalist” or “Reformed” etc.). Labels, as Davey and I have discussed, are inevitable and certainly not all-evil. But I think it’s important to remember that these labels we fight over and try to define are never to be accepted wholly. They must always be accepted with exceptions, because the world never fits in any of those little boxes. Should we even bother with labels? Of course! As Davey pointed out to me, to try and make for yourself an independent patchwork quilt of beliefs is a fruitless and even dangerous exercise. But when we seek to defend such labels, we should do so while noting their weaknesses, while noting where our life experience or other influences have persuaded us to disagree.

Conversely, when we seek to attack another label, we ought to employ the same tactics. Take, for example, my attacks on socialized medicine. Take them as an example NOT because it’s a good one, but because it’s the opposite. I would have been better off focus on specific criticisms, specific things instead of spouting off. (And no, this isn’t an invitation to revisit the topic. Please no.)

Back to the article.

I don’t have much to contribute about the rest. His point about statistics (that they involve judgments and can’t be trusted as objective numbers) is a good one. The final conclusion? Every “humane” science must be concerned with the end of man, which is to say, before we try and decide what economic system is best, we must first wrestle with the question of what is the chief end of man.

Nothing new, and I might add that this isn’t something that the Christian free market capitalists I know would disagree with. (Again.) Perhaps the next post will bring something more controversial.

So, I have been prodded and poked out of silence. Here goes.

It appears impossible to escape economic discussion these days. I write this with a sigh, because I happen to find economics a dull topic. Sure, it’s important and worthy of discussion, yadda yadda yadda. I just dislike it. Kind of liking visiting the dentist and flying, economics is one of those things I talk about just because that’s what grownups do.

I don’t have anything profound to say, except that I remain suspicious of both “sides” of the discussion. They’re both so impersonal. And touchy.

Take the capitalists. If you suggest that a businessman is noble for giving something away that he could justly sell for profiit, this camp immediately assumes you’re a devoted follower of Marx and Lenin and all of those horrible people who think that collectivism actually works.

The other side isn’t guiltless either. If you dare talk about wealth as a blessing or the desire to live in a nice house, send your kids to college, or save up an inheritance for them, they immediately assume you’re a selfish middle class wannabe who lacks all compassion.

Yes, these are both slightly exaggerated generalizations, but I’ve met both responses in real life conversations. It’s not that both sides are evil; it’s actually quite the opposite. The people I’ve talked to are very sincere in their desire to make the world a better place. They just happen to emphasize certain things—things they feel have been lost or wrongly condemned—and that unfortunately blinds them from seeing the good and fair points from the other side.

So. I have finally encountered “the rub” in N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: the bit about economics.

Allow me a few “preface” points. First, I realize that this is not the heart of Wright’s argument. (I love this book very much and consider it lifechanging.) Second, what I have to say is a personal statement: please keep that in mind. Third, I am no expert in these matters. What I offer here is merely the best sense I can make of my own gleanings and meditations. Fourth, I make no claims to 100% sound logic or clear thinking. It’s late, I never really understood all those danged symbols, and the brain doesn’t work that straightly anyway. If you can point out my errors, miscalculations, or misjudgments, I will truly be most grateful.

To proceed, the quote:

The Cold War years enabled the United States to build up its persona as God’s answer to communism. Many conservative churches there still live by the belief that what’s good for America is good for God—with the result, for instance, that if their country needs to produce more acid rain in order to keep up car production, then God must be happy with it and anyone who talks about pollution or is disappointed that the president didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol is somehow anti-Christian or is simply producing a “baptized neosocialism,” as one reviewer accused me of. Rampant belief in the rapture lends strong support to this, as we saw earlier: Armageddon is coming, so who cares what state the planet is in? The irony is that those American churches that protest most vocally against the teaching of Darwinism in their schools are often, in the public policies, supporting a kind of economic Darwinism, the survival of the fittest in world markets and military power.
– N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, pages 219-220.

[1] I am not an economist. To be honest, I’ve disliked economics for a long time, despite the fact that my father taught it to me in high school. (Sorry, Dad. I love you, I promise.)

[2] My father (the economist) taught me long ago that just because a person gets one thing right, doesn’t mean that they’re white as bleach.

[3] The common accusation against conservative Christians is this: they have fallen to the temptation of dualism (that is, thinking merely in terms of “right” and “left”). This is true. Far too often human beings are lazy in their discernment and thinking. Instead of weighing every issue, they side with what is familiar, what rings true. (Is this ideal? Of course not. I won’t even claim it’s inexcusable. However, it is inevitable. No one person can weigh every single issue fairly and come out with a fair answer. We should do our best, of course, but it means we ought to be fair in our condemnation of others who fail in this manner. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”)

[4] I’d like to suggest that Wright (and possibly others who follow/parallelize his critique) misjudges “conservative churches.” Now, given that he is more experienced with the broader world than I, I admit that it could simply be a case of “being sheltered.” That said, the “conservative churches” that I have been a part of do not fit into Wright’s description. My parents taught me from an early age that “Republican” did not equal “white knight in shining armor.” They may have disliked Bill Clinton, but they did not consider Bob Dole an ideal candidate. And while they did oppose the Kyoto Protocol, they did so not merely because left-wing environmentalists like David Suzuki promoted it; rather, they opposed it because its science was far from certain.

[5] May I level a modest accusation? I will, with or without your permission. I believe that Wright unfairly implies that those who oppose the Kyoto Protocol are close-minded. And I believe that similar unfair implications often lie behind attacks on “capitalism” and the “free market.” Is the “free market” abused? Most definitely. But may I also remind you that many other good things—including the written word, non-totalitarian government, and even (*gasp*) the church—have been similarly abused?

[6] My primary point (resting, perhaps in a muddle fashion, on the previous points) is this: I believe that conservatism is often unfairly condemned. Is it perfect? Of course not. Any conservative worth his or her salt would admit that immediately. And I’m not upset that Wright or others may have problems with conservatism in general. After all, if we conservatives cannot listen to criticism, then we are indeed close-minded.

[7] I believe there is good to be found in the writings of F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, and Gary North. I also believe that any who treats those writings as solid, unshakeable gospel is a fool. (And I know for a fact that the “free market economists” I know would never do such a thing.) Furthermore, I believe there is much good in “free market economics” to be gleaned, and I’m rather tired of hearing it maligned. Is capitalism perfect? Of course not. No system is, nor ever will be. That’s the beauty of humanity: it can never be systematized.

[8] As I wrote earlier, these points may be muddled. I am not a philosopher, a theologian, or an economist. I am merely a layman, trying to sort this out and make some sense of how these theories can actually be lived out in this world. As such, I’m not looking for a label or to label anyone else. I merely ask, “Can someone please stand up and tell me that there is something worth saving in ‘free market’ economics?” Because until Cavanaugh, Wright, or someone else is willing to do so, I can’t listen to them: they’re merely making the same mistake they accuse others of making.

Frank threw down a friendly gauntlet earlier which I’m reluctant to pick up for several reasons: 1) protectionism is a label applied by its enemies to a scatter shot group of economic theories; 2) the question on the table requires lots of back-story and a bibliography way too long to appear on such a fey little webzine like HPN; and most importantly, 3) I’m not even a protectionist, by the common definition.

Nevertheless, here are my 8 theses, naked and unsubstantiated as they may be. A real discussion of all this would require picking up volumes of Friedman, Adam Smith, William Cavanaugh, and G.K. Chesterton, among others.

I.
Protectionism can = selfish nationalism. I’m sure there are plenty of economic jingoists who proudly hold to protectionism. But that’s not anything I wish to defend. I much prefer the “localist” label. So…

II.
Localism stands against globalism, which isn’t to say that it is not concerned over the plight of other peoples. Rather, localism makes the case that globalism is actually one of the great oppressive forces in the modern world. Globalism wishes to provide products and services for the cheapest cost that “The Market” can offer. If a Chinese factory can produce G.I. Joes for one-quarter the cost of a domestic toy manufacturuing plant, guess who wins out? In 1965, manufacturing made up 53% of the American economy. As of 2004, that number is just 9%. So first, from the American point of view, globalism has made us utterly dependent on countless foreign industries to continue to exist. We are no longer self-sufficient. If a foreign power felt emboldened enough to completely shut down its exports to the US (e.g. if the UAE enacted an oil embargo), we would be in a desperate condition. Globalism has fueled almost limitless growth in the first-world, but at a tremendous cost to both the first-world and the third-world.

III.
Localism, even in its most “protectionist” forms, is not against trade between nations. It is not against the idea of imports. And it is certainly not mercantilism—not by a long shot.

IV.
Positively defined, localism prioritizes community rather than growth.

V.
Localism manifests itself in a number of different movements, including agrarianism and New Urbanism. It stands against modernity and its ugly bastard children: suburbanism/urban rot, strip malls, industrial agriculture, corporatism, Washington D.C., and iPods. It stands for urban renewal (read: parish life), regional architecture, small businesses, local and seasonal agriculture, city councils, and the local symphony. Localism doesn’t believe that economic hegemony (i.e. having a McDonalds on every street corner from St Louis to Turin to Bangkok) is healthy for a society. Localism disapproves of putting the liveihoods of a third-world village entirely at the disposal of a first-world corporation.

VI.
Localism emphasizes that in a global economy, the winners are the US corporations who can cut costs and the corrupt foreign leaders who offer up their laborers at unimaginably cheap rates. The losers are the third- and second-world poor. Even worse, when third-world villages are conscripted into the global economy, they become dependent on the “mercy” of their foreign employer. If the first-world corporation closes down production in the village, the workers are even worse off than before.

VII.
Localism believes that just rulers should protect the weak against the powerful. Some might argue that tariffs are a good way to do this. Others might advocate an alternative. See Phillip Blond.

VIII.
Localism is skeptical of the Babelesque goals of globalism. Christian localists often point out the religious dimensions of economic globalist rhetoric. Cavanaugh has an excellent article on this, as well.

Have fun with all this. My neck is on the chopping block.

#2:

Jesus’s words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor…. In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich … but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson…. This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenceless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it … was continually disarmed by the words: “Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the Kingdom of God.” — Ludwig von Mises

Sara Nelson, Editor-in-Chief of Publishers Weekly, responds recently (10/13/2008) to a call that authors need to boycott our latest big-bad-big-business wolf: Amazon.com.

Perhaps my experience with Amazon belongs to a different world, but I have nothing but good things to say about what they have done for the publishing world and particularly for small publishing companies and small-time authors. Sure, they’re big. Sure, they demand large discounts. But it’s worth every penny we don’t make: having your book on Amazon.com is quite possibly the cheapest marketing tool you can use.

Nelson writes,

Obviously, it’s true that Amazon poses a real danger, and not just to independent booksellers who are finding it harder and harder to make their numbers work in the face of Amazon’s economies of scale. Publishers both large and small are often caught in its economic stranglehold—there are reports from abroad that Amazon threatened not to list certain new titles because publishers wouldn’t meet their terms—and many fear, perhaps rightly, that it’s just a matter of time until Amazon controls what gets published. But indie bookstores have contributed to the problem, too: by not stocking “small” titles, by “small” authors or publishers, by limiting readings and signings to “big names” and so on, according to many.

While there’s a lot of truth in that, I would like to say that people who decry Amazon.com and Wal-Mart for stifling the marketplace are little more than fearmongers. For one, they live and write and scream as if God doesn’t lovingly and Providentially look out for the world He created. (And yes, believe it or not, that world includes authors, too!)

For two, they forget that human history is riddled with examples of innovative people who burst through the “chains” of the “big bad wolfs.” Amazon happens to be one of them. (Ask any older bookseller what it was like to have Barnes & Noble take over the bookselling business 10-15 years ago.) To worry that “it’s just a matter of time until Amazon controls what gets published” is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, I think that such talk is a result of mere envy. Amazon is doing a lot of things right, and there are a lot of sulkers around who don’t like it one bit.