June 7, 2012
Brooks is correct in seeking to offer a defense of capitalism, but there is little about his methods I admire. The problem arises because he is reactionary in his stance, hoping to respond to a plurality of Americans who believe that capitalism is at odds with Christian values (cf. http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/04/plurality-of-americans-believe-capitalism-at-odds-with-christian-values/ ). As a result Brooks falsely suggests that there is a "fundamental choice" between "[continuing]] our current public spending binge, where 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed" and "[unleashing] a new wave of free enterprise". Of course, whether or not we follow pro-business policies is only partly related to public deficit spending vis-a-vis taxation, while there are in fact many other issues at play.
The task worth doing is not offering an apology for capitalism (in the sense of "defense of"), but rather seeking to address those concerns with the system that lead the plurality of Americans to view it as immoral. Doing so means, e.g., addressing structural and systematic issues related to practical limits on opportunity rather than, e.g., dwelling on a 14% salary premium for federal workers that largely disappears or becomes negative for the highest paid workers and, together with benefits and job security, represents only a roughly 2% savings to the Federal budget (cf. http://www.aei.org/files/2011/06/08/AEI-Working-Paper-on-Federal-Pay-May-2011.pdf ).
Ultimately we should reject the idea that we must choose government or the market. Both have a role and we must ask how each best fulfill that role together with the other institutions of society.
There is no need for a â€œChristian call for free enterprise.â€ Christians are already inextricably,Â and shamefully,Â linked to far too many of the abuses of free enterprise already. (Is this another Acton Institute piece in disguise?)
Which is not to excuse this trampling through Scripture in defense of a economic theory. What able-minded person actually believes that a snippet from Proverbs and a one-liner from Paul suggest divine approval of capitalism?
What is here called the â€œwelfare state,â€ which elsewhere is called â€œgood society,â€ has provided significant and far-reaching benefits in education, health, and opportunity for as long as anybody alive can remember. Marilynne Robinson goes about this point in great and poetic detail in several essays from her most recent book, â€˜When I was a Child I Read Books.â€™
I would think that a person who is the head of a well-known conservative think tank may not be in a neutral position when it comes to economic prescriptions. Indeed, one might even come to think that he is actually advocating policies that benefit certain constituencies (oh! the horror!). It is not surprising that Mr Good should like Mr Brooks either, given the common circles they both swim in.
Two issues intertwine here: there are the economic theory/practice questions. (Does Brooks have his economics right?) Secondly there is a set of Christian moral reflections, with lots of folks writing on the subject. For now, I will take my social democracy, thank you, and like Christian Bell, call that a good society.
there are plenty of folks to choose from.
Thanks for commenting William. This piece wasn't intended to offer a neutral position. We're hoping to have a conversation about Christian views of free enterprise, and such conversations often start by staking out a position.
To that end, who are some of the "plenty of folks to choose from" you would suggest when it comes to alternative models? That's the sort of alternative perspective we'd like to add to the discussion.
I think the interaction between ethics and economics haunts Christians so much because it is precisely the point at which "being in the world and yet not of the world" grows some teeth. It is also the one place where the doctrines of human sinfulness most visibly show their teeth--among those that society would not necessarily even judge, but which the biblical standards of equity in the divine image would.
Basically, as I see it, capitalism and the free market work because of human sin...greed and acquisitiveness function inextricably in how the free market works. Christians are right to balk at this. Were there no sin nature, the free market would inevitably fail. Period.
But alternatives, such as socialism, also fail...again, because of human sinfulness. The capitalist apologies I have found most persuasive, for my own two cents, are those that argue along the lines that capitalism at least spreads the evil around a bit, instead of concentrating it in the hands of a very powerful few.
But, being a member of the middle class, I also know that I am inextricably biased myself. So the cycle begins again.
The only economy that will ever be truly biblical is a benevolent theocracy...the kind envisioned in the book of Revelation after the new heavens and the new earth have come.
The notion that capitalism is predicated on greed would have been foreign to its early champions. Smith et al. spoke, rather, of "self interest" of which greed was a perversion, one which destroys the viability of any capitalist system.
Whether or not the capitalist system would fail without sin is a bit moot, since notions of economics in a garden of abundance in which toil is absent are rather different than those of the world in which we live. For this reason I think we would do well to not reject this "season of God's patience" as incapable of responding to biblical norms. No, it will neither be creation nor eschaton, but it need not be removed from biblical guidance.
In the same way, I think it is false to suggest that only in the new earth is a biblical government possible. Clearly we operate imperfectly, but there are norms that can find expression in the world now.
When I tossed off the line that there were plenty of people to choose from, I was simply thinking of the long reflection on the issues of wealth and society in Christian theology. E.g. the medieval church was death on usury, today we're oblivious to it. Or if you were to look at Christian business men of another era, you would find interesting approaches; a good place to start would be with JP and Max DePree of Herman Miller, who not only shared profits through the Scanlon plan but also capped CEO salary of 33x the base salary -- a cap that was in place until early 80s. Max has written some interesting stuff on the conduct of business. For them, profit maximization was not the point.
And on that point we should also note how in the Dutch culture the habits of thrift and modesty were considered normative. Example: the billionaire Meijers lived in a rather modest ranch in the city.
In short, we cannot talk about the question of free enterprise without considering the status of wealth. And as noted, Christian businessmen have wrestled with this, and generally integrated it into a more social framework than the current individualistic one manifested by Josh Good.
As to Mr. Good being non-neutral. Of course he is. Quoting from documents from the Heritage Foundation as a source of proof simply invites dismissal. (Case: he cites a 61 percent differential between public and private sectors; the figure is more complicated as the <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LbTf7o_4dmAJ:www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-30-FedPay.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjpgcxFJoKErtyCiyb5XITxObmcizVkG0g2ZC7fSaz5WpDPdvOPUSiGZTrucoD8XthRg7ysDKJKUsw3g32L8cA5mM0N9KKqM7cMc7J84rd4xO-yDLpSQmHrJ1KQYI1NGUFA_jjC&sig=AHIEtbT0XLLnIoK1qXA2PDadNtvf9EGrZw">2012 CBO study</a> indicates -- the number is 17%). But rather than totally dismiss his argument, I will instead point to two areas left untouched: nothing is said of the social responsibilities of the wealthy or of the spiritual danger wealth poses. One simply cannot read Scripture without learning that wealth not only brings blessing but also can easily twist us into harming others. We cannot talk about free enterprise and the poor by talking about the moral duties of the poor.
Secondly, on a policy point, it would have been highly useful had Mr. Good come clean on his view of taxation. At present the plans from conservatives deny taxation with the result that they can only generate extraordinary cuts to social programs, as </a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/rand-paul-republicans-have-compromised-enough/2012/06/07/gJQAEFnxLV_blog.html">Ezra Klein pointed out</a> today in a discussion of Sen Rand Paul's plan.
One of the great lies of the past 50 years has been equating "free enterprise" with labor.
"Free enterprise" suggests that some people *shouldn't* have to work for their breadâ€”that the holders of capital can have people work *for* them, pay those workers less than the value theyâ€™re providing, and keep the excess for themselves.
If "earned success" means work, did Mitt Romney, who made $20,900,000 in 2011, truly work 423x as hard as the median household did for $49,445? Was Romneyâ€™s money truly 423x as valuable to society in 2011 as the actual labor of â€œoverpaidâ€ public workers like teachers, firefighters, or cops?
Let's acknowledge that most government spending, even on things like Medicare, ultimately goes to *workers* either in the conservatives' vaunted "private sector" or in the public sector (earning less than their skills/education would fetch in private employment). Government spending goes to people who provide value to our society.
Reducing government spending to promote "free enterprise," where holders of capital profit from othersâ€™ labor, is the *opposite* of everyone laboring to earn their bread.
You will take your social democracy? Would you take Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal? They are social democracies as I understand them. If you would take them, put your money where your mouth is and buy some sovereign debt. But kiss your money goodbye first, because social democracy is driving those countries bankrupt.
Just got done reading Gary North's economic commentary on the 5th commandment. His commentary is available for free here:
In brief, the 5th commandment does not leave room for a messianic welfare state. Instead, it recognizes the transfer of wealth between generations and highlights the responsibility families have to care for each other. The messianic welfare state disrupts this God-sanctioned system to capture the wealth for itself. In return, it attempts to displace the family by promising to care for the young and elderly. Unfortunately, the welfare state can only destroy wealth, not create it. So in the end, not only is the family wealth destroyed, the welfare state itself is destroyed.
Turns out Europe isn't just facing the consequences of bad economic planning, it's facing the judgment of God.
Add your comment to join the discussion!