Capitalism, or... What Derivatives Would Jesus Buy?

We went out last night to see Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. I'll say it's a must-see and leave it at that. (Except to add that the man is another of those modern-day prophets, and the fact that so many people don't like him simply helps prove the point.)

The movie got me thinking again about some things that I have said here before, to little or no reaction. So, being the stubborn son of a gun that I am, I thought I'd say them again and see if I can provoke anyone into responding.

Here's something I said some time ago that bears repeating:

Capitalism is based on a system of enlightened self-interest

The Gospel of Jesus is based on a system of enlightened other-interest

As such, they are diametrically opposed, and more than likely incompatible.

Any comments on that rather bold statement? If you still support the idea that capitalism is God's preferred economic system I'd like to hear from you. But even if you don't, how about the idea that they are possibly incompatible? Anyone?

The problem, as I see it, is this: The concept of enlightened self-interest is a simple one. If I take care of my business first, or if I look to my own economic interests first, then I will be in a better position to help others. It sounds reasonable... maybe. But we live in a fallen world. And in a fallen world it is a slippery slope leading from "enlightened self-interest" to "greed". It's as simple as that. That is why Jesus always points us to the "other". If we focus on ourselves, even with the best of intentions, the temptation is too great, and the slope too slippery.

On Sunday I had the chance to share with friends in Port Moody my thoughts on the question "Is Christianity Too Political?" We talked about ideology, and defined it as “a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions.” In that sense, we all live according to some ideology, but in this case I meant the more nefarious (and blasphemous) practice of co-opting religious imagery or meaning to further a societal, cultural, economic, or political goal. I used another line that I posted here some time ago. I'll adapt it slightly here for our current consideration:

Does our faith inform our politics ideology, or does our politics ideology inform our faith?

Hopefully the meaning is obvious. How do we prioritize faith, ideology, or politics? I think our views on capitalism fit nicely here. (On Sunday I suggested that if your Jesus completely adheres to the platform of your political party, I would respectfully suggest that you fit into the latter half of the above statement. I went on to propose that as Followers of Jesus we should not be aligned with any particular political party on any kind of permanent basis, but I'll leave that aside for now.)

Capitalism and Jesus. Your thoughts please.

Comments

[Pete]

In a perfect world, Jesus and capitalism could be compatible. You are right about the fact that the self interest is generally understood to be at the heart of capitalism. If that is the primary motivation, I agree that Jesus and capitalism are incompatible. My question (to everyone including myself) is: Can capitalism be defined in terms of profit and growth not for the sake of the individual, but rather for the sake of us all. In a utopian society, that may be possible. Of course, in that same utopian society, capitalism and communism would have the same definition.

So what is the solution? How do we live like Jesus in an imperfect world?

[Erin Wilson]

I don't 100% understand some of these concepts (which might ordinarily keep me from commenting), but I'd like to suggest an over-simplified approach.

How about reverse-engineering this. Start with love. Loving well. Love does not exploit. So if one can produce + purchase + profit without exploitation, then go for it. If the process of production, profit or purchasing involves the exploitation of people or the planet... then it harms us as Jesus followers to do it, as well as harming those being exploited. I'm not sure the means (ie. capitalism or not) is the necessary starting point.

Difficult to do? Of course. I've been working on being intentional about what I buy and how I live, but I have to admit that I've got some money in investments that are most likely exploitave. Not entirely sure how to totally step out of the system yet.

[Wes Roberts]

...trouble maker! :-)

...keep writing

...your wise and radical thoughts are so needed

...are you giving up Starbucks and now going with "made-at-home" coffee?

...oh, that's right, you're now only into tea

...all brings me back to the larger question...what does it truly mean to love God, neighbor AND self?

[Mark Petersen]

Thanks Mike for encouraging me to comment...

I'd like to focus on your statement above: Does our faith inform our ideology, or does our ideology inform our faith?

I don't think it's possible for either to exist in isolation. It's not either-or. Both our ideologies and our take on faith inform/taint/influence/mar/define/enrich each other. You will notice I don't use exclusively positive or negative verbs above.

I'd submit that the faith expression you are moving towards is just as culturally bound as a fundamentalist USAmerican faith expression. It isn't pure. There are holes in it that we aren't aware of.

My culturally-bound perspective is that what you are articulating is a needed antidote, a prophetic correction, to where we have come from. But I fear any human construct will have flaws, despite our good intentions.

So in light of that, I think I would say God is bigger than any ideology or metaphor or attempt to box him/her in. He/she can overcome the excesses and abuses that the capitalist system or any new system urges through hearts that are tenderized to being other-centred in the midst of the place of exile.

My 2c worth...

[shallowfrozenwater]

Gordon Gecko summarized capitalism succinctly with "Greed is good". In that light, Jesus isn't a capitalist and I agree that we need to make a shift to the other-focused paradigm.
I've read some arguments that if we don't have a better suggestion than capitalism then what are we really suggesting, anarchy? No, but I do think that there are elements of social democracy that I like as a political system. It's one of the reasons that I'm happy to be Canadian.

[Ryan]

I would modify your statement in bold above to something like this, Mike:

Capitalism is based on a system of a particular understanding of enlightened self-interest.

The Gospel of Jesus is based on a system of enlightened other-interest whereby we come to (paradoxically) discover that our own deepest and most lasting interests are best served by promoting the flourishing of all that God has made.

In other words, we discover that when we love God and love our neighbours as ourselves, we are actually promoting our own interests along the way (imagine that!).

[Beezy]

can we please get Jesus the hell out of the conversation already? He has nothing to do with anything! He is sooooo yesterday's news.

[Justin]

You're understanding of capitalism is shallow at best, and sure it's easy to defeat an argument when you create the definition for the system you're "debunking".

Capitalism is a biproduct of liberalism. It is merely the way economies set themselves up in the absence of intereference from the state, except to enforce contracts created by (relatively) free people. It does have tremendous potential to create wealth and to do so as a bottom up enterprise rather than a top down one.

Are there flaws? Surely... Until the kingdom comes in fullness we won't really know what gods economy looks exactly like. But I have a feeling it doesn't look like crony state corporatism here in the us, and I doubt it looks like what Michael Moore desires, because like it or not, when you take away the right to property (which both systems do to differing extents) it creates a more unjust system with those in power being the wealthy and those at the bottom the serfs. We don't have capitalism in America and we haven't for a long long time. And Michael moore's desire for state controled everything leads to more injustice. Not to mention I don't remember Jesus forcing people to give away their wealth by pointing a gun at them. Capitalism allows for people to do what they are good at and orient their lives towards justice if they choose. Central planning screws everyone for the benefit of the powerful.

[Andrew]

I'm curious what alternative economic system the author here would propose? Surely capitalism is not nearly as evil as it's alternative--a state-run economy.

[robert]

Mike,
I agree with your definition of capitalism as encouraging people to seek enlightened self-interest and this being contrary to Jesus' message. That is, only if we define enlightened self-interest as greed. What if someone's enlightened self-interest is to leave behind a healthy planet? What if enlightened self-interest includes helping those most in need?
Capitalism as displayed in the movie (saw it at TIFF) would obviously not be consistent with what Jesus taught but why must it necessarily be so? In every case but one, as a society has evolved it has taken greater care to ensure its most vulnerable members. It may be self-serving and rationalization but I believe that capitalism in the Canadian or Scandinavian models may be the best compromise.

[Mac]

In these areas Mike, the gospel response can be overly clear (the more polarized and paging the ideologies get, the more they show themselves to be contrary to Kingdom teachings.
Another simple story is from those who wanted to catch Jesus on the issue of the temple tax. The drachma in the fish's mouth to be given to Caeser suggests the wrong questions are being pursued (just as those who wanted Jesus to overthrow the Romans in a Davidic way could not think of the higher goals of defeating sin and death).
It seems tome that both polarized camps come under a similer "debunking". Neither takes into account the nature of the Fall. The Neo-Cons assume that wealth will "tricle down" and not the slippery slope of Greed instead. Well, that is just nonsense.
On the other hand, to make the State (if indeed some would have a utopian Socialism enforced on all) that is equally as naive.

Of course much of this talk of "Socialism" or worse as scare tactics (worthy of McCarthyism) is silly. Those feeding this to the media, or the media itself know well that fear and smear works with people whose primary fears are based in the inevitability of death (Becker, 1974). Pr-Life and Pro-Choice groups have been using such tactics for years with no end in sight.
One of our finest young minds around is my friend Joel Miller. He, like so many others, may already be on your list (I cannot find a good site where a link to Wes Roberts is not found!). he sent me a review copy of "God and Guiness" by Stephen Mansfield.
I highly recommend it to EVERYONE. Mansfield himself confesses early that his previous books (and having recently done the one on Obama's faith) had left him tired, strung out and a bit cynical (there had been thrats made against him).
But Mansfield tells the the story of Arthur Guinness, a deeply spiritual man, who had been influenced by folks like Wesley. Not onky did he end up brewing what is regarded as one of the best beers on the planet, his industry and vision for his workers, for social issues and his willingness to allow his own devotion to drive almost all of his efforts (and pass them down to his children) is a shing example of what Christians can do completely outsid eof the political arena.
Not that he did not have an effect there as well. He is attributed to have started Sunday school (education) for the masses in Ireland, lobbied against anti-Catholic laws (while being a Protestant.
It is a different paradigm. I'll leave it at that. You will enjoy it as well.
~Mac
spokeblog.wordpress.com

[JJ]

I wonder if there is a way that we can be pro-small scale capitalism (ie: micro credit) where I often see it doing really good things, and anti- large scale capitalism? It seems like when corporations become large enough to trump democracies you have a workable system gone terribly wrong.

I too used to be heavy on the "self-interest is incompatible with Christ" sort of idea, but I think, as Ryan says, Christ, in telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves, shows how healthy other-love and self-love are intertwined.

[Doug]

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the Kingdom and the posture Kingdom people must have toward others. Greed is not good, and it is not capitalism, though popular belief seems to perpetuate this myth. The free market becomes the scapegoat because people believe the popular myth. We don't have capitalism in the United States. The market is not "free" in any real sense because of massive government intervention in many industries.

As Kingdom people, we are certainly to love our neighbors, treat others with respect, honor, and dignity, and help those who are in need. Whenever somebody aligns themselves with the Kingdom of God, we are called to keep ourselves aligned together for a common purpose of redeeming the world from its sinful and fallen state. But what about those who don't agree with us? What about those who decide that's good for us, but for them, they don't buy into our faith or our ethics? Our posture toward others is critical as followers of Christ, because coercion and violence are not Kingdom methods. A free market is the result of a society where everybody permits others to act freely according to their own desires. Inherent in that definition is the natural limitation on aggression or direct harm to other people. Capitalism is simply the economic and social result of how people interact when they are required to act peacefully, which a free society/free market demands of people.

If you think about it, when rule of law protects acts of consent between rational human beings, greed (which is not good) is channeled into service. If I want your money or other possession, under a free market, I have to do something for you in exchange. It is in this way that capitalism is compatible with Jesus' message of "love your neighbor," because such an ethic demands that we respect the property and life of other people. Boundaries of Order is an excellent book (particularly Chapter 9) about property rights and how such a framework is the optimal channel for peaceful activity among human beings who are fallen.

It is not hypocritical or unethical or immoral for Christians to consent to permitting others to live according to their conscience, even if that means they don't agree with our ethics.

More of my thoughts on www.liveloud.net

[Pastor Mack]

Some good comments above, and some less so. Jesus versus capitalism? Is that really the argument? I guess it depends on who you see Jesus as, and who gets to decide what capitalism's definition.

No one has brought up Adam Smith's invisible hand. Smith found that the reason the free market worked so well is that, in pursuing their own interest, people inevitably helped others in so doing. In other words, the greedy Gordon Gecko type (here I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the worst caricature of the free market) may be a selfish bastard. But in his greed, his companies grow, he invests in companies and that benefits them, and he hires others to further his own interests. Imperfect, but true. The idea is that an individual or private entity has more incentive and ability to manage his or her wealth, to use it will and do more with it, than a state program or state run program. This is where central planning runs aground - the state, especially one the size of the US, is a bloated, wasteful hog with no incentive to do better (because who holds them accountable? not the taxpayers!).

But let's say this (forgive me, but I think this may echo some of Justin's comments):

Any institution of the human mind is not going to look like the kingdom. It's a question of degrees of injustice and freedom. I'm of the mind that the free market is about the best we can do. I would commend to you all a reading of 'Is the Market Moral?' by the Pew Forum.

For all of its problems, one aspect of the market is essential for Christians: in a free market in which people are indeed allowed to choose and follow their own interests, charity is possible. When we allow the state to do our neighbor-love for us (see the current discussion over health care, as well as the general descent into the welfare state), Christian charity (especially on a large-scale) is nullified. The government is essentially force; forcing people into doing the right thing by taxing them into charity is not a legitimate Christian alternative.

Jesus enjoined the rich young ruler to sell all he had and follow; in a capitalist society, nothing is stopping us from doing the same. Jesus did not encourage the Roman governor to tax his followers into caritas.

For more musings:
www.pastormack.wordpress.com

[James Pearson]

Good thoughts Mike. Thanks for being bold and making us think.

In short, my answer to your implicit question is no, I don't think that capitalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. Here's why.

I'm going to agree with a couple of the commenters above and say that capitalism does not have self-interest at its core. It is quite near the core at this point, but it's not the chewy molten center. The true core is simply the private ownership and management of capital.

However, capitalism's great success has been that it unleashed one of humanity's more fundamental drives - that very self-interest (which, unenlightened by things like foresight and empathy, becomes greed). You can think of capitalism like the car industry, and self-interest like the world's vast, hidden oil reserves - you don't need the Saudi oil fields to build a car, but their existence made cars ubiquitous enough to pollute the world.

And I will also echo the sentiment that self-interest alone is not the problem either. Jesus himself canonized our self-interest by telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are all aware that one who care for others only will quickly lose his capacity to do so. Self-interest keeps us healthy, rested, and resourced to engage with the world.

The problem, in my estimation, is the divorce of our better values from capitalism. John Maynard Keynes, legendary economist and shaper of the New Deal, said:

"For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight." And he wan't joking!

And Milton Friedman, an economist of similar cultural and political stature, wrote a highly influential piece in the New York Times Magazine in 1970 titled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits.”

We made self-interest the only guiding principle of business. And as I mentioned above, self-interest unenlightened becomes greed, and greed lacks foresight and empathy, mortgaging everyone's tomorrows for my today.

So what we're learning now with cars and their oil, we must also learn with capitalism and it's self interest - there are fuels that do less harm. I have found that a hybrid model works wonders - self-interest combined with others-interest. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself. In a business environment you might translate that, "Let your success be your neighbor's also." The Socially Proactive Business model says that the success of a business must be inextricably tied to the alleviation of a social ill or the promotion of a social good.

This, I believe, is capitalism that God can invest in, capitalism with a heart. Your success is not your own, but lifts those around you as well (by design, not just trickle-down theory).

Moreover, I believe that business is powerful, perhaps the world's most powerful force just now, and that it's power can and ought to be put to good use in alleviating poverty and reaching vast populations with cures and fixes for many of their problems. Indeed it has already done so. It is up to us to guide capitalism in the direction of our better values. This, I believe, is one of the great callings of our moment in history.

[Dan T.]

Mike, once again you've sucked me into commenting with this topic.

Your question seems to be provoking both thought and knee-jerk reaction. I strongly disagree with the all or nothing, black or white, capitalism vs communism assumptions taken by a few commenters (Justin, Andrew, et al). I lean more towards the approach of JJ and Robert to look for a third way.

Isn't there a distinction between capitalism and free enterprise? And is the world-wide economic system truly free for ordinary citizens like me (let alone the 3 billion who live on less than $2/day)?

This system is analyzed every minute by our media. We've been bailing it out for the last 12 months, and will continue to for generations to come. Yet this system is far more concerned with "capitalists" (those with vast sums of capital...real or on paper) that with protecting freedom. When it does protect "free trade" it does so to the benefit of huge multi-national corporations and often to the detriment of small-scale, local business.

I haven't seen the movie nor do I claim any expertise. But I believe the state has a role to play, especially when it comes to protecting free enterprise and private ownership for the "least of these."

[sonja]

Wow ... lotta people with a lotta ideas about what everybody else should do. Planks and moats come to mind.

[Mike]

Don't bail on me friends, I'll take some time later today to respond to the feedback. In the meantime, please keep it coming.

[Jonathan Brink]

Mike,

I saw the movie and liked it for different reasons. The movie, from my perspective was pure propaganda because it showed only a very limited one side of the argument. It wasn't really about capitalism. It was about greed and should have been titled that.

Capitalism is first about providing capital to the free markets in order to stimulate growth around existing and new ideas. The idea, much like any system is not inherently evil. In other words, the system is not the problem. People are the problem. Capitalism doesn't require people to be thrown out of their houses. Greed does.

What I loved and hated about the movie is the same thing. He forgot to provide any basis around understanding capitalism, which then made it propaganda. He ignored the value of capitalism. He forgot to show the local business owner who is making a living and providing for his family by working hard selling goods and services. Instead he focused almost exclusively on people taking advantage of the other.

I would also disagree with both of your premises above. Many business owners are not purely self interested. And the Gospel is not a purely other interested idea but a collective interested idea. To be purely other interested excludes the self, which defeats the end point.

[Mike]

OK... A couple of thoughts to perhaps keep the conversation going.

The definition of capitalism that I have used is just that; its a definition, not an explanation. And it's the classic definition, the one I learned in school, so I didn't make it up myself, and I'll stand by it. Yes, we all know business owners who are not singularly self-interested, but that is not the point. In a fallen world, A self-interested system (not everyone operating within the system, but the system itself) will devolve into greed. Just look around and read the papers to see that this is true. That there are many who will not lower themselves to this level does not justify the system itself. (We could go on about public companies in particular, which are singularly focused on shareholders. More to the point, they are singularly focused on equity analysts, and the quarterly conference call. For them, long term thinking doesn't extend past the current fiscal quarter, and any action on the part of management that should impact profitability negatively, even if it's for the good of others, is actionable.)

All this has happened in a relatively short period of history. Can we not see the trajectory this is on?

Some are asking what I would replace the current system with. I don't know. But, I think we are ignoring the prophetic aspect of being a Jesus follower. If a system leads to injustice, then we are to name it, refuse to participate, and stand against it. We are to be the alternative, not suggest one. No, I don't know what that looks like, but that doesn't change anything. We too often default to a position of working within an unjust system because we can't see any alternative. I think that is accommodation, and is being of the world as well as in it. There is a role for the prophet who stands and says, "This isn't right. Stop it." I believe the term is "repent." We must stand against injustice before the alternative is obvious.

(As an aside, James Pearson, who has commented above, is someone who is doing fantastic things with a "hybrid" capitalism. We differ on some key points, but I respect James immensely, and if you're interested in learning more you need to look into what he's up to.)

The reverse engineering comment above hits the nail on the head I think. We don't start with capitalism and see how we can make it work, or make it less self-interested. We start with love, and work our way out from there. What would an economic system look like in a world where we truly loved our neighbour? Utopian? Absolutely! But, we are promised nothing less than utopia eventually, and I believe our time is best spent working towards it, and not against it.

While we're at it, the self-interested aspect of love is an interesting point. After all, the command is to "love your neighbour as yourself." And I agree with those who would say that you can't love others of you don't love yourself. But, I believe that is precisely the purpose of self love; to give us the ability to love others.

Cornel West says it so well:

I want you to be so full of self-respect that you cannot but respect others. I want you to be so self-confident that you breed self-confidence in others. I want you to elevate yourselves by uplifting others and to love yourselves by being of service to others."

In short, I worry that we have forgotten that as the People of God we are to present an alternative to the status quo, and not simply work to Christianize it.

PS. I just hung up from a Skype call with my South Africa brother Tom Smith. In his words, the current system is so loaded in our imagination that we can't see anything else.

Lord, give us eyes to see.

[Elaine]

I saw my investment advisor this past week. I declined to start investing in stocks again. (I sold everything in March - a decision I don't regret for many reasons, though, yes, I did shed some tears about the $$$ losses.)

Jesus' and Michael Moore's words and actions influenced my decisions at the meeting with my advisor. I'm not kidding. (I'm also surprised I'm telling you this...but I decided to follow-up on your provocative tweet.)

[Ben]

Jonathan Brink's statement "people are the problem" hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?

Any objection to Capitalism assumes that in a non-Capitalist system, people will stop being greedy and self interested. But, in the Real World, the opposite happens- they become incredibly greedy and corrupt. It is Eastern Europe, not west, where the ecology was poisoned. It is North Korea, not South, where people were reduced to eating grass.

Functionally, Capitalism offers better outcomes than its alternatives. The method is quite obvious: it harnesses Human greed, yes, but also relies on Human freedom- the freedom to trade with other Humans as you wish.

Capitalism's trump card is the Free Market, without which, it doesn't truly exist. And anyone who has ever bought or sold can tell you, in a Free Market, you only profit when you fulfill someone ELSE's wish.

Make something, create something, do something that other people want, and they pay you for it.

So, in truth, in functional nuts and bolts reality, it is actually Capitalism that is about other-interest. But it reaches this by making other-interest the route to self-interest.

If you take away the capitalism, you leave behind the greed and self-interest, but now, there is no mechanism left to serve self interest by serving others. So the ruthless serve themselves.

[David]

Mike,

Your fundamental premise is flawed, but I was having a hard time explaining just why until your follow up comment. You said " If a system leads to injustice, then we are to name it, refuse to participate, and stand against it."

Here's the thing: EVERY system devised by man, whether political or economic, leads to injustice. Why? Because they are filled with man, run by man, managed by man and ultimately corrupted by man.

This brings to mind two quotes I've long admired:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams

"Democracy is the worst form
of government except all those
other forms that have been
tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill

I know these quotes are not directly on point vis a vis Capitalism, but they do serve my point about systems created by men.

All that said, I firmly believe Capitalism/Free Markets to be the best economic system man has yet devised. No other system lends itself so readily to "be fruitful and multiply".

The other flaw in your premise seems to be that self-interest is mutually exclusive of other-interest. However, the command from Jesus is to 'love your neighbor AS yourself'...not MORE than yourself or INSTEAD OF yourself.

[Ben]

I could add, Christianity is at heart a Capitalist theology. The core of it is Free Exchange.

It is a free-market exchange between Human and Deity. The Human agrees to provide Belief, the Deity agrees to provide pleasant eternal afterlife.

If it was NOT capitalist, no free exchange would be needed. Either the Deity would offer Heaven in exchange for nothing at all, or the Human would be compelled to Believe with no promise of return.

It was actually a Sufi philosopher, Rabia al Basra, who pointed out that pursuit of heaven and avoidance of hell were simply self-interest.

[chuck aka xtnyoda]

Did Jesus, or does God teach that humans are personally responsible for their actions and decisions?

That is the real issue here.

Find a better system that encourages individual responsibility than capitalism.

God has given us the freedom to fail as well.

[ron cole]

I think " Capitalism " is the institution of greed, much like "Christianity" is the institution of the faith of Jesus. I think on the most basic level it is self, and greed. But it gets a whole lot more messy on an institutional level, where boundaries get very blurry. Especially in countries like the US ( not slamming the States, just stating a fact ). The institutions of finance, politics and Christianity are co-opted, and all influence each other to certain degrees. I'm amazed at how many evangelical churches still look at Romans 13:1-5 as lens to look at ruling authorities and institutions. Maybe Paul in his zeal to appeal to the Roman Empire sacrificed more than Jesus would have.On the most basic level it is greed. There is more than enough in the world for everyone...Really! We need to learn to share. Live with what we need, not what we want. We also need to hold institutions accountable, the problem with of Capitalism is...for the few that profit, there are much more that loose.

[Sabba Hillel]

Actually if Michael Moore is a "modern prophet" he would be subject to the punishment described in Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Someone who prophecies falsely and pretends to have been told by G-d or someone who gives a true prophecy but pretends that it is from a "false god" (small g deliberate) is subject to that punishment. Even someone who hears a true prophet and repeats his words pretending to have been told it directly is subject to that punishment.

[Caroline TOO]

I suspect that it's the phrase 'based on' that I struggle with, Mike.

replace it with words like 'involves' or 'is shaped by' and you get a subtler argument

I don't think that capitalism and christianity are antithetical... but they are uncomfortable bedmates.

so, here I come alongside you to say "let's make ourselves uncomfortable" to the rich and strong

but also, lets trade... let's pay people fairly for how they serve us or the products they sell us....

let's look around our world and wonder what product or service we could offer... so that we can earn our keep and not be a burden to others

phrased like that capitalism looks ok... the trouble, of course is that it doesn't stop there...

[Doug]

Mike, thanks for your rejoinder. I'm confused why you would stand by a definition that is false, just because it's what you learned. Are you willing to revamp and nuance your understanding of capitalism, or is that your "final position"? I think it's a bit unfair for defenders of capitalism who are claiming you're not describing it accurately, just as a skeptic would call Christianity a "money-grubbing power-seeking religion." Any true believer would wholeheartedly reject such a caricature. Please don't use a conveniently easy-to-reject definition of something you don't believe in.

Capitalism as a system is not inherently just or unjust. It is a consequence, not a structure that was decided upon. Nobody said, "We're going to structure society to be capitalism." No, what happened was, based on principles, many of them Christian principles, people were permitted to act freely as long as it was peaceful. The economic outcome of such a philosophy is what we call capitalism. A basic course in economics would yield a more nuanced definition and description of the free market.

Mike, could you perhaps answer some of the questions that others and I have posed regarding your position? Or to perhaps the link I provided called "Greed is not Good, and it is not Capitalism"?

Also, I think you are correct in that our prophetic voice is not merely to point out but to be and live out the Kingdom, or better stated, the alternative way of life. But it is nearly impossible to evaluate accurately the current system and events that are taking place all around us and declare that this is a consequence of a free market. Not to mention the Federal Reserve providing incredible incentives for excessive greediness to be the norm in the business and particularly the banking world. Blaming the problem on greed is not an answer, but simply begs the question, "Based on what incentives?" The free market does not incentivize the greediness by which our current recession/depression is the result. No, this wouldn't have happened apart from a politicized central bank offering as much "alcohol" to anyone willing to drink all they can.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the free market has actually succeeded, given the current scenario? Just as a body vomiting out poisonous food does not assume a "body failure," a recession where toxic economics assets that should not have been present is not indicative of the failure of capitalism. Indeed, it is the opposite: a properly functioning body will vomit; a properly functioning market will also vomit toxic assets.

[Mike]

Quick response - Doug, I'm not sure how I gave you the impression I really didn't believe the definition I've used. This is how those who first identified the tenets of capitalism defined it, and I think it's accurate. I'm not just making this stuff up.

Blaming the problem on greed is not an answer, but simply begs the question, "Based on what incentives?"

So the federal reserve made us do it? Blaming the problem on greed--a sin, the last time I checked--is exactly the answer.

Sabba Hillel - Can you identifiy the false prohecy for us?

Thanks for the comments. Carry on.

[Ryan]

Whew... This is a good one, Mike. Thanks for brewing it up.
I've been thinking simply about the incompatibility of "competition" with the life and teachings of Jesus.

I don't know of too many relationships that I have in which I havn't sensed at least some smidgen of competition. The economic ideology that I've been immersed in all my life encourages it even at the kindergarten level. And western christianity is right there in the thick of it- typically wedded to it.

Thanks for bringing it up and encouraging us to "be the change we wish to see in the world."

[Doug]

Mike, what I meant was that you seem to be standing by your definition of capitalism, yet many have pointed out that such a definition is inaccurate. I for one strongly disagree with your premise. And if you diagnose a problem incorrectly, your treatment will of course be incorrect, even if your treatment is based on sound "medicine" (principles/ethics). If I continued to critique Christianity because it is a religion based on domination of society, you would likely keep telling me my premise was wrong. On what basis do you believe that your definition of a free market is accurate?

The Federal Reserve Bank did not "make" anybody do anything; it does, however, incentivize excessive risk-taking by those who would otherwise not make such decisions. The "blame" is, of course, on acting individuals; on that we agree. But the results of the greediness we are witnessing could not have happened under a truly free market system on such a large scale because the incentives would not be there. Banks don't lend money they don't have. People don't borrow more than they can repay. Interest rates were artificially low, creating incentives for people to buy when they should have been saving (because a natural interest rate would be higher). The economy for the past 8 years was based on a phony prosperity led by corporate cronyism, not capitalism. Why would we expect a system based on unethical money production, highly incentivized risk-taking (at others' expense), and a politically-motivated banking system to produce anything less than the result we're getting.

I highly agree with you that whatever current system we have is a disaster, and it needs to be deeply reformed in so many ways. The current economic system does encourage greed, self-aggrandizement, and corruption. So on the reform piece, nobody will stand up and shout louder than I and say, "WE NEED REFORM!"

But please do not label it capitalism, because it is nothing of the sort.

[Mike]

Doug - You're indirectly helping me prove my point here. If only we had true capitalism/a free market, and not what we've ended up with. My point is any system of enlightened self-interest (I'm sticking with it... that fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less accurate) will always devolve to what you're lamenting. The ideal does not exist. Nothing stays the same. If someone figures out how to make $1 dollar a unit ethically, eventually someone will come along and find a way to make $2, even if they have to bend the rules to do it. And especially of the analysts and shareholders demand it. And especially when others sympathetic to that "plight" end up in positions of authority and leadership.

I could go on. What you seem to be positioning as a departure from capitalism I see as its inevitable metamorphosis. In a weird way we're saying the same thing here.

And Ryan, thanks for engaging with the ideas!

[Doug]

Ryan, what about competition don't you like? Because true capitalistic competition isn't about "being better" but "serving better." Yes, that's an idealistic representation, but isn't that what we are to seek?

Businesses and individuals compete for the money of others by offering something of value at the lowest possible cost. For poor folks, that means being able to afford things they otherwise could not afford because more than one person (oftentimes many persons) are trying very hard to make things less expensive than the other guy because they want your business.

Without competition, computers would be for the wealthy. Automobiles would be for the wealthy. Electricity would be for the wealthy. Refrigerators would be for the wealthy. What 100 years ago passed for affluence is now commonplace in our society, and we owe that to the competition of companies trying to offer the lowest price for the highest value to fellow human beings. It's also a great measurement of stewardship. When people compete, they are forced to find ways to do more with less, which conserves resources that have alternative uses in other areas.

In sum, competition, if properly implemented, encourages good stewardship and promotes serving others. It's a "race to serve the best," so to speak. That's one element of real progress.

[Sabba Hillel]

If Michael Moore is a "modern prophet", the he would be subject to the punishment described in Deuteronomy 13 (1 - 5). Someone who claims falsely to have heard a prophecy from G-d (even if it is a repeat of a valid prophecy) or someone who claims that a prophecy is from a false god (small g deliberate) is subject to the punishment of a false prophet.

Michael Moore both lies and ascribes his lies to a false god. His very existence disproves his thesis.

As a result, the basic premise of your discussion is false. Even if true statements are made, the fact that they are based on lies shows that they should not be made.

[Doug]

Mike, I believe we do share the same contempt for whatever the current system is. But I disagree that this is what a free market devolves into. If you wish to label it "capitalism," go ahead, but you're still not describing a free market; you're describing a system where people can get away with self-interest at the expense of others. That is, by definition, not a free market. Of course we do not live in an "ideal" world, but we don't describe the Kingdom of God based on our poor representation of it; we describe and define it by what Jesus said it was. Likewise, any definition of something must be accurate to its purpose, not just a mythical manifestation. So in some ways, I suppose it's a semantical disagreement here, but you seem to want to stick to it because a more nuanced perspective would require reconsidering your disdain for capitalism. On the other hand, I'm offering a description of a philosophy of liberty that defies your definition of capitalism while staying true to your disdain for greed and an economic system based on moral hazard and power-grabbing tactics (which is at the heart of the ethics of the Kingdom). You may as well be saying that you don't like bunny rabbits because of their scaly skin. You may not like scaly skin, but that doesn't mean you dislike rabbits. (Apologies to Bugs Bunny.)

I'm not sure if your example of making money unethically was intended to join/counter my example of money production, but I wasn't talking about the actions of businesses done unethically. I'm talking about unethical creation of fiat currencies. When an economy is built on fiat currency with a central bank tied to the government that is able to print money at will and adjust prices, we have nothing close to a free market. When the government is able to steal money from the poor and middle class in order to give it to the wealthy in supposed favor of "the greater good" (a.k.a. "too big to fail").

If you take out the horrible, evil, greedy, and unethical aspects of the current system, you will find it incredibly different from what it is today, and you will find that it involves not regulation by a central governing agency, but a natural regulation by a standard of money that no politician, banker, or corporation can manipulate at will.

[Shifty1]

If Capitalism and Christianity are, as you say, opposed to each other, and "true" Christ-followers cannot embrace capitalism, then the majority of the New Testament was written by an "in-authentic" Christian! Paul himself extolled the virtues of each person working to support themselves ("he who will not work, shall not eat"), even as he himself had done. Paul worked as a tent-maker, trading his skill and labor for a price agreed upon by all parties involved in the transaction. Sounds like a working definition of capitalism to me. No government, trade society or un-involved thrid party was establishing price/wage guidelines, only those directly involved in the transaction. Paul got paid what the MARKET determined was a fair price for his talent and experience.
Further, capitalism is only an economic system. So are communism, fuedalism, socialism etc. None of these are inherrently compatible or incompatible with Christianity. Followers of Christ have existed under all of these. What sets apart the Christian is what he or she does with their life in whichever system they happen to exist. Who is more un-Chrisitian, the unethical shopkeeper overcharging for a loaf of bread in a capitalist society or in a communist one? Of course NEITHER is more un-Christian than the other....both are acting in a manner most definately at odds with Christ's teachings. In the same vein, honest, loving, giving people conducting business in etiher economic setting are behaving just as "Christian-ly". The economic system does not determine the relative Christianity of man.
What you are postulating is the notion that a Capitalist society is somehow less Christian (from a business stand-point) than a more "collective" society. Why? Is it more authentically Christian to be COMPELLED by the government to support the "less well-to-do"? I would argue the exact opposite. It is when man is given the freedom to be charitable to his fellow man or not that Christ is best modelled in the Christian. TO paraphrase Jesus, " Don't expect praise when you do good because you HAVE to, everyone does that. Instead do good when you DON'T HAVE to; few do this!"

[Doug]

Shifty, you make very good points about the Kingdom of God existing and even thriving within structures that are neutral with respect to the gospel. And I've also made the point you made at the end with regards to morality.

[Randy Turney]

Christianity is a call to each of us individually to acknowledge our true nature, understand the need for salvation, and perhaps as best as possible, to rise above our nature.

Capitalism is a system that takes into mankind's inescapable nature in organizing a society and economic system.

[Darius]

If anyone is interested in a good analysis of why capitalism isn't just compatible with a Christian viewpoint but actually the MOST Christian economic system discovered to date, see Jay Richards' new book, Money, Greed, and God.

[J R Frey]

As a first time reader/commenter, I'll go ahead and chime in to say that I believe that the conversation has finally come around to the true point (and I wasn't fully understanding of it either, until further down the thread).

Capitalism/free enterprise are not a system. They are IMO, a natural law that simply posits: Actions and Things have Value; and, Value can be Exchanged between People.

Your problem with "capitalism" as you understand it is actually a people problem. People are fallen. Thus, people acting within any system will demonstrate failings. And systems which fundamentally contradict the natural law (e.g. communism and to a lesser extent, socialism) will retain the fallen aspects of the individuals, as well as constantly fight against the natural order, resulting in economic inefficiencies and eventually, failure.

[brad]

The older I get, the more I realize that God is always being molded to the human ego and self-interest.

Wal-Mart, for whom I have worked, is America's poster boy of capitalistic success. It is the largest retailer and retail employer in the world!

For all you saying capitalism is the best I ask: How many of you have worked for them?

Here is Wal-Mart. It pays it's employers POVERTY WAGE jobs. So that's good? It provides crap benefits. More good? It is male dominated at the executive level. I underscore "dominated." They tend to be arrogant as hell. They show you a movie in training on the evils of unions! So forget about collective worker rights or personal needs. You have none under their tent! They give the appearances of caring for employees, but on large, you are their serf! Wal-Mart sells the cheapest goods in bulk. Remember their mantra "Buy American"? Guess they got over that little problem.

Wal-Mart has, as Teddy Roosevelt discovered 100 years ago, perfected the Darwinian side of capitalism: KILL the competitor!!!

Some above complained about "state run" economies. Isn't the FACT that corporate tax cuts and cuts for the wealthy (trickle DOWN economics)was the government giving legislative and deregulation advantages to the corporate systems???

Anyone who says that capitalism, which has brought us to a place where the top 1% population own 90-95% of our nations wealth, is "the best we can do" is obviously NOT worked for "Mal-Wart."

As for Jesus, it seems to me he took sides. Matthew 25, Luke 1,6 & 18, Acts 4. How can anyone read about his teachings and NOT be influenced about his criticisms and outright denunciations of the wealthy???

Ah, I see, when Constantine turned the cross into a spear (Military is BIG business after all, just ask Cheney) Christendom has conveniently ignored Jesus the man and made him into an OBJECT OF BELIEF. For true capitalist, Jesus has nothing to do with economies, in spite of the historical record that it was the rich and powerful who had him arrested, tortured and killed. Coincidence? Ha. I think not.

God is on the side of the poor. That is an economic reality throughout the bible. READ the book. God takes sides against the exploiters of humanity (see Pharaoh, corrupt Jewish kings, etc).

You who would wrap Jesus in an American Capitalistic Flag deny the VERY story of the Bible: God's Justice!!!

Nuff said...

[Todd]

David and Doug really nailed it and I align myself with their comments. I add to theirs with the following:

Is a monk who takes a vow of poverty or silence acting in their own self-interest?

Is the promise of eternal life one each Christian seeks out of any interest beside their own eternal well being?

Who alone can determine what is in the best interest of any sane individual better than that person?

And why do left- oriented partisans decry legislating morality viz. abortion but are perfectly fine when it comes to legislating their own economic morality?

Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

[sonja]

This conversation is very interesting because a number of people have made statements which are variations of the following, "Yes, capitalism is bad, but not as bad as it's alternatives." Which is usually meant as a veiled reference to communism/socialism.

I'm sorry, but first of all, communism/socialism are NOT the only alternatives to capitalism. A capitalist economy is not the only economy that the world has ever known. For many millenia we existed using bargaining without capital at all as an economy. There are many micro economies which are quite valid.

A couple of weeks ago, I took my kids to visit the birthplace of George Washington and took the guided tour. The state park guide was very good, while giving the tour he gave us a brief bio of GW and ended it with a discussion of the internal conflict that GW experienced over the issue of slavery. He was deeply and morally opposed to slavery, but was so entrenched in the economy which depended upon it that he could not imagine any other way of life.

I read the comment thread here, and see much the same thing. There are many (indeed I am one) who are at various stages of understanding the damage that capitalism/greed does to the Kingdom of God, but we are so entrenched and enmeshed in it, that it is difficult to imagine any other way of life. Yet a reading of history and understanding the way that capitalism evolved and developed, helps to understand the way a new economy can develop out of the old.

[Doug]

Brad, I understand your concerns about Wal-Mart's business practices, but that is not the entire story. If it weren't for Wal-Mart, many poor folks in my township and surrounding area could not afford certain food essentials. Wal-Mart may pay less, but nobody is required to work there, nor are they required to stay there after gaining skills and desiring to move on. Describing them as "poverty wages" is insulting to those who are actually in poverty.

Your concern for corporate special interest is very legitimate indeed, but it is not capitalism. Or, it is not capitalism as truly found upon free market principles. Corporate welfare is not a free market. It is corporatism, and as a free market supporter I wholeheartedly stand with you against it. But you blame capitalism because it is what the United States has nominally but not functionally. Like those who name Jesus as Lord but live otherwise are not the true representations of Christ, your description and understanding (like many others opposed to capitalism) falls short of its true nature.

And I'd like to reiterate that capitalism isn't a "system" per se, but a result of human beings being permitted to make decisions within a society that values a philosophy of liberty. That philosophy is not only compatible with but very much aligned with gospel ethics. Jesus came to provide freedom from oppressors and tyrants; the only "master" anybody should have is Christ, and that should be voluntarily chosen, not forced upon anyone.

Sonja, you are right about making God in our own image. We should never forget that tendency in theological discourse. I will disagree, however, that economies in the past offer a different alternative to the current milieu of posited economic theories. From an economic standpoint, capital is part of life. Tom Hanks on a deserted island creates and saves capital. What is different throughout history is how different societies and individuals treat capital. Embracing a philosophy that free and voluntary trade has been the catalyst for explosive economic growth, catapulting even the poorest among us to have the luxuries of the past. 40% of those beneath the poverty line own their own homes. Most of them have TVs. While some micro-economies operated just fine, what structures undergirded their trade? Was it mercantilism? I doubt it. Or was it free trade, where people were free to exchange with one another as they pleased? To argue that the past was better or more economically sound ignores history and basic economic principles.

[Doug]

How can anyone read about his teachings and NOT be influenced about his criticisms and outright denunciations of the wealthy???

Was it wealth in and of itself that was denounced? Or was it the poor use of wealth? Is it sinful to be wealthy? What level of wealth means "rich"?

Context matters, and in a first century, second-temple Judaism, wealth was not accumulated always by providing services to others who were willing to trade something in return. It was often confiscated by those with more power, or by the state, or both. In a market economy, somebody who gains lots of wealth can only do so ethically when he/she has provided a good for society. Bill Gates became wealthy because he offered something that the world is a much better place without that which he has provided.

[Mike]

Doug, with all due respect you've just dismissed Brad's real-life example and substituted your theory. And, as you keep pointing out, the capitalism you keep defending doesn't actually exist anywhere. So... why are we having this discussion? (I don't mean that facetiously, I'm just a little frustrated. That's OK though... it builds character.)

If it makes some folks here feel better, I'll stop calling it capitalism. (I still believe it is, or at least is what capitalism devolves to, but I'll let it go for the sake of the discussion.)

I want to know what we as Followers of Jesus do with this reality (I won't call it a system--see my explanation for capitalism above) formerly known as capitalism.

Anyone?

(And, I can't help it. While we're at it let me point out the obvious, partly in defense of Brad, who has presented the most salient comment in this thread so far. How do we think Wal-Mart is able to be the place where "The Lowest Price is the Law", and where they are able to extort constant price reductions from their suppliers? Move jobs offshore. Manufacture with less than safe or ethical standards. Ship the stuff back to the US, put in the final screw, and stick on the label that says "Made in the USA".

In a system where constant growth is the standard, eventually our demand for constantly lowered prices becomes a justice issue. The stuff doesn't just show up on the shelf. It all comes from somewhere.)

[Brad]

Say Doug, you are a smooth talker indeed. So you have no comment on the Justice theme throughout the bible that runs from the release of slaves from Egypt to Jesus criticizing the plight of a poor widow's mite given to the wealthy temple attendees??? I'm not surprised.

I wasn't born yesterday Doug. I have seen first hand how even moderately rich folk make their wealth largely on underpaying their employees while taking their profits to not only increase business, but to pay for that 3rd home and multiple condo-shares around the world.

To answer your question, "is having wealth bad?" No. But I have yet to see or know a person who is satisfied with a mere million, or 2, or 3. Capitalism, not as theory, BUT AS IT IS PRACTICED IN REALITY (i.e. the sky is REALLY blue) is not about the general welfare of The People (NOT individuals as per The Constitution), it is about having too much wealth and power in too few hands. History bares out this truth. Try reading it (unless it is Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck revisionist history....).

You are right. I chose to work at Wal-Mart, but not because I wanted too, but because I couldn't find other work at the time. Not everybody has choices like you apparently do. Let's just say reality (and I would say "truth") looks a lot different from the bottom side of society! I would guess you haven't been there long, if at all. And IF you did, you have obviously left your deeds of compassion far behind.

You talk about the proverbial "take away" in business. Bill Gates may have provided something, but what does an investor in Windows stock provide??? What does investment in Credit default-swaps on housing provide??? Nada.

Yes, Jesus was harsh on the wealthy (as God was in the OT) because he saw, with his own eyes, that the poor were kept poor by the injustice of 1st century economics where Palestinians were subjected to taxes from the Roman elite (Empire) and the Temple elite. Land was confiscated right and left upon those who could not keep up with the taxes. Obviously, the rich were not subject to the same expectations. Sound familiar???

Exploitation is exploitation, no matter the century. The poor and powerless did not arrest and execute Jesus, the rich and powerful did. That's a fact. So yes, it DOES matter how the rich conduct themselves. They get richer as the poor get poorer. Same old story, different century, same thugs.

Using your standards, you would be willing to repeal the Child Labor Act because, after all, those kids "chose" to work there! How arrogant.

There is an old saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him a day, teach him to fish, feed him a lifetime." But the problem today is that the rich and powerful own most of the lakes that are fishable!!! THAT is the problem with capitalism. There is NOTHING FREE in a market that is CONTROLLED by the relatively few. FACT.

Try reading Zachaeus' response to Jesus' teachings. He gave away his wealth to those he cheated (legally cheated I might add). Jesus called that act of justice "SALVATION." I think Jesus cared about how people made their money and their exploitation of power. Again, the bible hits on this economic justice theme from beginning to end. Unfortunately, the empires of western history (read USA here too) turned justice into a belief system and not a way of life!!!

[Doug]

Art Carden is a Christian economist whose writings I've enjoyed quite a bit. He is also a very good speaker, and has done economic research on the impact Wal-Mart has had in our society.

Article Archive
Medie archives (I strongly encourage listening to his "Common Objections to Capitalism")

[Doug]

Hey guys, I just realized that I posted a really long and thoughtful post (in my opinion, at least) about injustice and the free market. It was long. Here's the gist:

1. Justice is a major theme in Scripture; on this we agree
2. The current system, whatever we name it, is unjust, but not because it is a free market; the free market doesn't yield the unjust results that have been named
3. Returning to a truly free society and a removal of corporate interests would go a very long way in healing the injustices we see before us
4. Since money is the root of all kinds of evil, control of money is likewise a very big economic concern; unethical money production by the Fed and our government was not created out of a free market, but in spite of it. Without sound money, and with a fiat currency, economic structures will yield wealth inequality, wealth transfer (from poor to rich), favor corporate special interests, and fund violent and unnecessary wars

I'm on facebook, for anybody who wishes to have a personal dialogue... or you can visit www.liveloud.net for my thoughts on the Fed climate.

[Doug]

hehe... when I said I posted a "long reply," I meant to add that it wasn't really posted, or accidentally deleted... or something... hence my four point post above

[sonja]

Doug you responded to me and said in conclusion, "To argue that the past was better or more economically sound ignores history and basic economic principles."

Um ... I'd like you to point out where I argued that the past was somehow "better or more economically sound." I merely stated it was different. Just because something is different does not necessarily imply that it is better. That's an assumption that you've made. You need to take it back, dude ;-)

As an historian (by education), I know very well that the past was not better. I was pointing out that we can learn how things developed and evolved in the past in order to move forward into the future. It would be helpful if you'd read all of our posts more carefully and with a little more respect, please.

As to Brad's post about Wal-Mart, many people who live below the poverty line have no other place to shop than Wal-Mart because W-M has created a virtual monopoly in many areas around the country. They have driven out all other places to shop, smaller family owned businesses, etc. So that sounds great, but when you're the only employer and the only shop in town ... hmmmm ... it seems to me that John Steinbeck wrote a novel about that.

[Doug]

sonja, you are right... that was my inference. My apologies. And for apparent disrespect... my passionate typing on my keyboard can at times "come off" the wrong way. Thanks for the feedback!

[Brad]

Art Carden is full of shit. Has he ever had to work for Wal- Mart? "They pay "above" the minimum wage. Hahaha! Try paying a mortgage on $7 dollars an hour! I had years of experience in retail, banking and ministry, a graduate degree and they started me at $7!!! This guy is an absolute insult.

I wonder how Wal-Mart has helped wage earnings decline these past years? Where is the study on that??? Gee, guess that is not on their bias radar! This whole study is a farce written by those who are looking down from their ivory perches. Then again, anyone who writes for The Independent says it all. In God's eyes, all of creation is interdependent. Guys like Carden thinks he can reflect sunshine out his butt all by himself. Having a college degree is not a license to practice intelligence. His articles/study(?) proves that point. Thanks for sharing Doug, but I have seen, heard and met his type before. I call it systemic evil. Looks good on the inside, insidious on the inside.

[Doug]

Brad, your ad hominem attacks aren't very helpful. Nobody has said, ever, that a mortgage should be paid for by entry-level employment at Wal-Mart. I've never said that. Carden has never said that. I've not even heard the right-wing talk radio hosts say that! (I used to listen to them. Not anymore.) Further, nobody is entitled to ownership of a house, either.

Your perspective about Wal-Mart tends to be all about you: Wal-Mart didn't pay you enough, despite your education and experience (then don't work there!). They didn't treat you well enough (then don't work there!).

Most of your attacks are anecdotal, not based in actual philosophy. You throw out platitudes about systemic evil, yet if you're really concerned about systemic evil, you'd be ranting about government, not a "free market." You've not countered any of my arguments other than, "Wal-Mart sucks... I know, cuz I've worked there!" So what if Wal-Mart sucks. Even if I granted you that it does, my argument wouldn't change. But what does that have to do with the discussion about free markets and the kingdom of God?

I've pointed out again and again you and I share the same complaints and concerns for the current system. You and i just point out different manifestations of that evil.

[Mike]

As a proverbial fly-on-the-wall in this exchange between Brad and Doug, let me point a couple things that I am seeing.

Brad is arguing from his experience, Doug from his philosophy/ideology. It's always risky to make assumptions about people when you don't know their story--so I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this--but I would hazard to say that Doug has not (or at least is not) in a place where he would be forced to take a job at Wal-Mart, where Brad has been there. So for Brad, this is real, whereas Doug is giving the impression that this is an intellectual exercise or debate. It isn't, it's real life.

Your perspective about Wal-Mart tends to be all about you: Wal-Mart didn't pay you enough, despite your education and experience (then don't work there!). They didn't treat you well enough (then don't work there!).

In a country and an economy where the unemployment rolls are growing at an insane rate, the assumption that people have choices in situations like this comes across as callous. I don't think Doug intends that; I've had enough "off-blog" conversation with him to know that he's a good guy with a good heart. But, I can understand Brad's anger and ivory-tower assumptions. Again, this is not theory, it is real life.

My 2 cents worth.

[Doug]

Mike, thanks for your comments and perspective. I see the conversation the same as you. Whenever I was in a position I had to take "whatever job I could," I was not paying a mortgage. I was massively in debt (wage-relative, that is), had to live in a very small room with 2-3 other guys in a house (fortunately they were believers), and found a job 80 miles away, which barely paid the bills. I also lost that job six months later (wasn't the right fit). Finally, I worked two part-time jobs, just to pay rent and buy an engagement ring for my now-wife. It was only two weeks before our wedding I was finally full-time employed, and even then money was tight.

I'm not writing that to say, "I've been there, so now we're even." That wouldn't be a very helpful approach for either of us, or our onlookers. So while I've been in the "can't find the job I want or went to school for" scenario, it was unlike yours. My point in pointing out the self-centeredness of your Wal-Mart comments is that it seems as though your comments about Wal-Mart are filled with bitterness about a perceived (or real) injustice toward you. That it happens to others may have been mentioned, but the "tone" (as much as text can have such a thing) is very much, "I was screwed!" Art Carden, on the other hand, has done economic analysis, and devotes his life to studying economics from a Christian perspective. I've heard no indicators that Brad has studies economics very deeply. I could definitely be wrong, but anecdotal evidence does not necessarily negate economic analysis. Art Carden is likely to miss things; he is human, after all, and has a perspective... just like you, Brad. If I were to say global warming doesn't exist, and said all the climate scientists and Al Gore were "full of shit," simply because I'm personally not experiencing global warming, I'd be laughed off the face of the earth. Anecdotes don't prove the point, only the exception.

On a similar note, and perhaps this will explain my responses to Brad, I have a habit of complaining about what I call "problems of affluence," where I complain about not having something that were I living in another country, I wouldn't even be entertaining the complaints at all. I've visited developing nations like India and Cambodia, and the people there are genuinely "stuck," either on the streets for handouts or sending their kids to ask for handouts. Those folks would love a job that pays very little, because it is better than not paying at all. Yes, I'll admit that much of my counter-arguments are based in philosophy, and there are aspects of my experience that cannot even touch that which others have been through. But the experience I do have, the studies I have engaged in, are very much part of my experience (anecdotally). Case in point: I've labored nearly two years for an understanding of economic and political systems: to have Mike label capitalism by a definition I find inadequate rubs me the wrong way (no offense, Mike, we've already had this part of the discussion). So while my philosophical comments rub Brad the wrong way due to his experience, the other way around is also true.

Needless to say, I'm much aware that my online comments seem disparate from some real life experience, mostly because I tend to argue from my head. But that doesn't mean I've got no experience to back up my arguments.

[Mike]

As an aside, don't get me started on economics.

At best it's an imperfect science. Or, as my university economics prof used to say, without fail, when presenting a new theory, "If this stuff actually worked in the real world, this is what would happen..."

[Doug]

To aside your aside, my understanding of economics is not necessarily about advocating a particular theory, but that it is about studying the behavior of human beings and the consequences of their actions and interactions. It is an important field of study if we are to engage at all about the nature of injustice, especially if we are decry wealth inequality and capitalism (or whatever bastardized version we tend to hate).

[Mike]

Economics will not help us with our justice issues. I would argue that economics, constrained by assumptions that can be fudged to assure desired outcomes and support for pet ideologies, has exacerbated injustice.

Injustice is caused by our failure to love. The solution to injustice is just as simple.

[Doug]

Solutions to injustice are certainly solved by people actually loving each other. That is certainly true. Loving others as we love ourselves, loving our neighbor in need, all these are necessary for justice to occur. But loving others occurs as human beings act and interact, which means we must observe, study, and understand human action and exchange.

I don't need to be a climatologist to know practical things to help take care of creation. I don't need to be an aerospace engineer to become a pilot. And I don't need to know all sorts of things about economic systems, business, and macro- or micro-finance in order to "do justice."

Studying economics in order to fight against injustice is not about discovering the "right system," or whether or not capitalism, socialism, or any other -ism is the "Christian system." We don't even HAVE to know much about any of those systems. We do, however, have to take care of our world, and do so in a manner consistent with our ethic of living. Studying basic economics, for the follower of Jesus, is about understanding cause and effect, stewardship of scarce resources, and realizing that ideas have consequences. "Love each other" becomes more and more helpful when we know more about how our actions affect others, and how others' actions affect the rest of society. That's basic economics in a nutshell. It's not about graphs and theories and imposition of "systems."

[Brad]

"I've heard no indicators that Brad has studies economics very deeply."- Doug

"I don't need to be a climatologist to know practical things to help take care of creation. I don't need to be an aerospace engineer to become a pilot. And I don't need to know all sorts of things about economic systems, business, and macro- or micro-finance in order to "do justice." - Doug

Am I missing something here, or are you giving yourself a free pass and giving me a hypocritical wash down the toilet.

I've studied "philosophy" for 35 years. Here is what I think of it. It can be quite fun for those who love rubric cubes. But it can have NOTHING to do with real life and real issues.

Human nature. Yes. Another of my past times. I enjoy Otto Rank and person centered psychology along with family systems. So just what kind of credentials does one need to discuss justice, fairness, love of neighbor, love of enemy, truth telling, prophetic naming, economics, etc??? Please tell me Doug, seems you got me pigeon holed "in your head" just the way you like it.

I'll take my experience and historical facts over head trips any day of the week.

Here is what I think about the US Capitalistic system. It is based upon a freedom to exploit our fellow human being, to make them an object/commodity for ones own purpose(s). "Socialistic" laws were put in place by our government in the early part of the 20th century to buffer what were clearly inhumane use of human beings. Last year we saw, again, what unregulated "freedom" does when some people are allowed to exploit a system (which they conveniently put together) at the expense of human beings (lost homes, lost saving, lost pensions, lost jobs, etc).

To me, this is NOT theory or philosophy! It is real people making real decisions that have, in your words, negative "consequences!" Systems are obviously man made. They do not come from a vacuum. The FACT that 1% of our population control/own 90-95% of the nations wealth is a sure sign that this was/is a corrupt economic system that has tried to die twice in the last 80 years but is kept on life support by, who, those who have the most to lose! Not a coincidence.

Love= the hated Samaritan who bankrolled the care of his enemy, the Jew left for dead in the ditch, bypassed by wealthy philosophers and learned lawyers who probably thought this dude deserved his plight because he was too lazy to better himself or some other nonsense (purity laws not withstanding). I read nowhere where the Samaritan expected a "return" on his expense.

"Oh my God, that's socialism!" some may cry out. Or maybe they think, at the very least, the Samaritan was just a fool wasting his money on a "welfare queen" (Reagan quote) who is obviously out to get rich on government handouts! So just how do we see love in action Doug? Does it have to balance on a ledger sheet? Does it have to make sense philosophically?

[Doug]

Am I missing something here, or are you giving yourself a free pass and giving me a hypocritical wash down the toilet.

No free pass, I was responding to Mike's thoughts on economics being useless in issues of justice. I don't buy your comparison. I was merely pointing out, in the first comment, that you seem to state your thoughts out of a naiveté of economic fact. My point in the second is that you don't need to be an economics major, or an economics connoisseur, to do good in the world or to love your neighbor. But just as nobody needs to know mechanics to drive a car, you do need to know how to turn it on, how to steer it, etc. Silly analogy, I'm sure. But the point is, one cannot speak of injustice when there is no understanding of the source or nature of the injustice.

And do I really need to mention AGAIN that I don't deny your claims of power concentration, or your outrage at the injustices of our economic system? Can't you accept that I agree with you on that? You're preaching to the choir, brother! Let me say it clearly: WE AGREE.

But... here's where we differ: what you've described is neither a result of nor the natural outcome of a society built on freedom. Inherent in the definition that freedom is intended to be equal among every human being is the notion that nobody is able to take advantage of another person. The problem is not the philosophy or the notion of freedom, but of the protection of everybody's freedom. The current system is indeed unjust, but not because it is unregulated, but because laws protect those with power (mostly corporations and special interests) more than they protect those without it. In other words, the Big Guy is treated differently from the little guy (the individual). Hence the injustices we see.

Consider this: in 1913 the government (not the free market) authorized a central bank that was designed by the wealthiest bankers in the country (and perhaps the world). Does that sound like actual freedom to you? Not in the least. In the 1930s, the president ordered the confiscation of gold by citizens to supposedly help in the depression. Does that sound like freedom to you? Not at all! In the 1970s, Nixon said that the country is going to leave the gold standard in favor of a fiat currency. Not exactly an act that protects the little guy, but instead gives huge secretive powers to a central bank incredibly connected to the Congress and the president. The Israelites were warned about not having a "just weights and measures" with regards to their money. Simply stated, it is unjust for the government and the Fed to operate a fiat currency instead of hard assets such as gold or silver. Do you really want fallen individuals in control of the supply of money? Since 1914 our dollar has lost 95% of its value. Does that sound like justice to you when a cartel of bankers legally allowed to print money can control the value of our hard-earned wages? The fact is, the Fed's existence has done more economic damage to us than we probably realize, because nobody is even allowed to see inside their books to know how they are operating! Hence the Audit the Fed bill that has gained 75% support from the American people, and an overwhelming majority of cosponsors in Congress.

I beg to differ that the system under which "what happened last year" was a free market. Whatever or whoever led you to believe that has their heads up their butts. People got greedy, nobody denies that. But a free market channels greed so that people think twice before risky investments. Sure, there may have been a few regulations that could stop a few problems. But the real question is: what fostered that greediness in our economy? Not a free market. The Fed's mere existence negates the existence of a free market where people and business are accountable for their actions, rather than relying on a "lender of last resort" to bail them out if they make horribly risky actions. Fannie and Freddie are ostensibly "private" but are backed by the government if they happen to fail.

What you're railing against is indeed worthy of contempt. Since I need to say it again: WE AGREE. But your hatred is in the wrong direction. It should be against a corporatism or fascism that was hijacked by corporate interests being able to collude with the government. Everyone loses except those in power. Why do you think Wall Street has "recovered"? Believe me, you ain't seen nothing yet. Great Depression II is coming, and it won't be because of capitalism. Capitalism has succeeded, actually, because it is doing exactly what it always does: vomit toxic assets out of the system. Just as a body vomits unwanted toxic "junk," so does the market.

The Good Samaritan did something out of love, but that does not negate the legitimacy of exchange and trade. Getting a "return on investment" merely means two folks have made a voluntary exchange that both feel will benefit them. The Good Samaritan did exactly that, but with a different "return." I can't speak for him, of course, but apparently helping a neighbor in need was more "profitable" to him personally than leaving him for dead. Nobody can do things without their own interest in mind. That is axiomatically true.

So just how do we see love in action Doug? Does it have to balance on a ledger sheet? Does it have to make sense philosophically?
Not sure if you remember Jim Wallis a few years ago, going to Congress saying, "Budgets are moral documents!" He's right. When we do something, either individually or collectively, what we do has moral consequences. Stewardship is an incredibly biblical theme, and economics ties directly into that theme. As for philosophy, "love in action" will indeed make sense, which is why I believe strongly in a philosophy of freedom. How exactly is it freedom when one person can collude with the State to take the wealth of another person? How exactly is it freedom when a business is protected by law to exploit others? Freedom to act implies not only a respect for human dignity and value, but it also includes that everyone has the right to not be aggressed upon.

[Doug]

For what it's worth, I've just posted a new blog post, which was started before this conversation, but I was prompted by it to finish. You can discuss there, too, if you wish. A few thoughts are copy/pasted from my thoughts written here, though.

www.liveloud.net

[Brad]

I can't believe it. We DO AGREE!!! I would give an amen to each point you have made. I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. I grew up on the lower end of our social system, my father was murdered and left my mother with 4 kids and a mortgage all by herself in 1959, so I get quickly suspicious of people who I perceive to be throwing me lines. As you point out clearly, our government, Wall Street, the Fed, and our top corporations are really one entity! There is NO two party system, not that that would make a difference anyways. Kurt Vonnegut stated before he died we have one party in Washington D.C., it's called The Money Party!

Yes, we are free, free to chose. Our choices are largely determined by our biases, our genetics and how culture has informed and shaped us. I believe it takes great courage and an open mind to change, to see life from another perspective. History tells me change is possible. However, change usually comes at a great price. Like most parents, I worry about the world we are leaving our children. Our generation (so-called "babyboomers")are leaving them a great mess indeed. I, for one, will not sell out as most of my generation has to "The Big Guy" (i.e. The Establishment). I will continue to speak out at every chance I get to get clarity and witness to what is morally right. Again, I thank you for your words to this endeavor we share.

[Doug]

Brad, I'm glad we can unite on our dissatisfaction with the status quo. God bless you in your efforts to help change the world, one choice at a time.

[Mike]

Nice work guys.

[Doug]

I was thinking the other day that, when we're finally in God's presence, and we meet "in person," we'll very likely both say, "Yeah, I was really off in my beliefs."
"Yeah, me too."

[Paul Johnston]

I think the issue for Christians, isn't the economic model per se, but rather how to balance the material (materialism) with the spiritual.