Global Economic Imbalance From a Christian Perspective?

(Image from flickr.com/photos/that_james/2894922538/)

I had one of those 'stream of consciousness' thoughts on the way back from the high school drop-off this morning.

First, a bit of background: The issue of global poverty, and more importantly what to do about  it, is admittedly very complex. Having spent some time in Africa over the past couple of years I can make the simplistic-sounding statement that they want what we have in the west. Now, the sad reality is this planet could not sustain itself if everyone were as well off as those of us in the 'developed world'. I'm quite certain if all six-billion-and-change of us awoke tomorrow morning living as well as you and I, the earth would instantly explode. That's the reality--we need the poor to be poor so that we can be rich. Apparently that's a trade-off we're willing to live with, all the while pretending we're not happy about it.

This notion has formed the crux of several conversations I've had lately. Most participants in these discussions agree with me when I say that if the poor cannot become as rich as us, then the solution must lie somewhere in the middle: Their standard of living must rise, but ours must fall. Theoretically many of us agree with this statement. Heck, theoretically I agree with it.

Here's the problem, and I'm speaking to myself here. As the ones on the rich side of the equation, we want the right to control this decision, to choose to lower our standard of living, or not. The evidence for this is in the way we have responded to the current economic meltdown. Here is an external event, more or less beyond our control, which has the potential to impose a lowering of our standard of living. How do we respond? FIX IT! We look to the powers that be to ensure our standard of living, to guarantee it. To enshrine it.

It seems we want the option of choosing to do something that we seem to agree is necessary, but that we'll never actually do. 

To quote my friend wilsonian (out of context but still applicable), "Where the hell is the church on this?"

Thoughts?

"You can't worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you'll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can't worship God and Money both."
(Matthew 6:23-25)

Comments

[Jamie Wallace]

Is the problem that the rich need to become poorer or that the rich simply need to consume less?

[robert]

I don't know about the rich but I know that this Christ-Follower (albeit of the atheistic variety) intends to simplify. Or at the very least, try like hell to simplify...

[Mike]

I think I know where you're going with that one Jamie. I sympathize (believe me), but I think there's more to it. Assuming we're going with the financial meaning of rich, I need to acquire and accumulate in order to qualify. I need to have more than just my "daily bread". And whatever I accumulate, I keep from someone else.

I know that's heavy, and trust me, I'm no where near that mark (as we discussed in Addis!), but I really believe it's about more than consuming less.

And as an aside, how many blogs can claim to have an atheistic Jesus Follower in the crowd?

[wilsonian]

Yea, I think you're totally right on this. No surprise there, I guess. it occurs to me that we probably need to re-think how we make our living too. If we're in retail, are we counting on sweatshops to make up the margin for us? Do we depend on cheap oil to make a profit? Do we depend on others going into debt for us to make a commission? etc...

I don't know, Mike. I think that if we lived more equitable lives, it would ripple out in so many beautiful ways.

And as an aside... Robert, dude... you're freaking fabulous. It's good to be a Christ-follower along side you, whatever that might look like.

[david]

robert, I can't wait to see the look on your face when we all connect for a pint in heaven. You'll be all like "what the hell?!" and then we'll all laugh and it'll be just like a mormon commercial forever and ever. ;-)

Nutty atheist tendencies aside, you continue to teach me so much...

[Russ Weir]

If you're really interested in this, I recommend reading "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith. Powerful book written in the 1950's that you'll find so applicable in today's economic mindset.

In the end, it's been proven over time that reducing one person's standard of living does little to raise another's. In fact it's quite the opposite throughout the history of the world. That said, the culture of affluence that buys stuff to buy stuff certainly steals from itself the virtues that are most valuable in life.

[Timmy]

Why can't we all live comfortably? There is absolutely no reason why we cannot. We just have to make it so. The only thing that is standing in the way is everything that you and I control. Our everyday decisions determine the welfare of the world.
http://patienceloveandpleasure.blogspot.com/

[Mike]

Russ - I'm familiar with some of Galbraith's work, but it's been a while, so I can't speak intelligently about it. Personally I think there is something wrong (sinful?) with me having 2 shirts while someone else has none. (Of course, I own a bunch of shirts, so my beliefs are outpacing my life right now, but let me run with the metaphor.)

Timmy - It depends what you mean by comfortably. If you mean the way we live now, then no, I don't agree. As indicated in the post, environmentally it is impossible.

[Russ]

o.k. Here's a twist on this. Sorry for the length. You actually need the rich to be rich so that the poor can rise out of poverty. It is the technologies and capital investment of the rich that will ultimately fuel growth for the poor and drive them out of extreme poverty.

Follow me on this. Throughout the history of man up until about 200 years ago, there was near zero economic growth and nearly everyone aside from a handful of royalty lived in poverty. What changed? The world began experiencing economic growth which really began to accelerate as of the industrial revolution. Since then, the living standards of most every region across the world has improved - some greatly more than others.

Global economics is like pulling up a blanket from the middle with a string. The part of the blanket closest to the string will rise the fastest and the most outer parts may appear not to rise much at all, but eventually, unless the blanket stops rising altogether, the entire blanket will rise.

This means we will all rise and fall together - only some will rise or fall faster. There is no middle ground of equality - either we are all poor or there is economic inequality.

You can also see this effect in that the income gap will grow during any growing economy and shrink during any slowing economy. In a growing economy, the living standard for most everyone will rise; however, it will rise faster for the highest producers. Is that a bad thing? No, because everyone is better off in the end. Who should care that some benefit more than others if everyone benefits? The alternative is non-growth, which does lead to equality, but equality at low living standards for most everyone.

So how does economic growth spread to the outside of the blanket? As the wealthy incur the cost of creating new technologies, new medicines, etc, the impoverished world is able to more cheaply leverage or replicate. In other words, it may take the U.S. years to develop a new technology, but Africa can benefit at nearly the same time as the U.S. at a fraction of the investment.

We see this happening today. In fact, much faster than is apparent. Consider that the U.S. has averaged ~3% economic growth since infancy and that many impoverished regions are growing at multiples of that today.

This ability to transfer knowledge and new technologies from developed world to developing world comes from significant capital investment and entrepreneurial risk taking. Both of which only come where there exists consolidated capital for investment and significant potential payout opportunity.

So, all that to say this. You actually need the rich to be rich so that the poor can rise out of poverty. The wealthy incur the cost of innovation, which the impoverished can leverage more cheaply to fuel their economies and grow out of poverty. If we attempt to squelch growth and redistribute wealth to the impoverished regions, we will see the income gap shrink, but we will all be worse off.

That said, this reality does not excuse greed or lack of compassion. There is no problem with inequality; however, there is indeed a problem when the resources exist for everyone to have the basic necessities of life and yet they do not have access. There is something wrong, when some peoples do not have even the opportunity to jump on the ladder of progress. These issues should be addressed; however, these issues can be addressed in more productive ways than merely taking from the producers.

[Mike]

Russ - Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Mine will probably be less intelligent, but let me throw some thoughts out there.

I think you give an excellent overview of the neo-liberal view of capitalism. And to be honest, I used to believe exactly the same thing. But, as you might have surmised, I no longer do. Here's my theory, and it's as much (if not more) theological than economic. I'm sure Sam and Jamie heard me spout off about this in Addis... maybe they've already warned you about me!

Capitalism is based on a system of 'enlightened self-interest.' Adam Smith was a good Christian man, and he honestly believed that one could best help the world by first creating wealth for themselves. (The birth of trickle-down economics, which is a conversation for another day.) My problem with this model is sin. In a fallen world, enlightened self-interest eventually devolves into greed. If you figure out how to ethically manufacture widgets for $1 profit, somebody somewhere will eventually figure out how to do it for a $2 profit, even if it means cutting corners, etc. After all, there are quarterly targets to hit and analysts to impress.

Greed, for lack of a better term, (oops, just slipped into quoting Wall Street! I must have seen that movie 25 times back in the day.) just about destroyed the US economy, if not the global economy. (There's a whole other argument we could start here about using economic growth as an indicator of happiness, but we won't go there.)

On the other side of the equation, I believe the Gospel (if I can play around with words for a moment) is based on a system of 'enlightened other-interest.'

So we have self-interest and other-interest. In my opinion the two are incompatible. Yes, we all know good people doing very good things with their wealth, but they are the exception to the rule. You seem to want to differentiate between good prosperity and "greed or lack of compassion." The problem is from my point of view they are simply points on the same line.

The other problem is, of course, that the Gospel is completely unreasonable.

OK, now I'm getting preachy so I'll leave it there. Thoughts?