Today I wish to head in a different direction than my typical posts concerning the Spiritual life, ministry, and leadership. Today I wish to return to a theme of economics and its relationship to politics.
In 2008 I began to read and think deeply in the classics of economics. Why? Because in our political culture someone had to be lying about how economics work in the real world. As a nation, and as a world, we were presented with several competing economic systems, and all of them claimed to represent reality. The problem is that the solutions each system offered excluded the others. Thus, someone has to be at the very least more right and someone else has to be more wrong when it comes to economic theories. I know in our postmodern world we think that logic does not hold because it is all up to the individual, but such thinking is not logical (to quote Spock)! Eliminating logic also does not work when discussing answers to real, but large problems.
So, the quest began. I began with classical economic theories. I read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and I re-read John Stuart Mill. Boring, but helpful. It does not take much historical understanding to see how these economic theories provide the basis for Marxism, and even the Austrian school of economic thought. I then read deeply in Keynesian economics. In many ways, John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) is clear and easy to understand. Perhaps this ease of understanding is the basis of our current fascination with his thought? Yet, I did find myself often asking, "Yes, but what about..." as I read his clear pronouncements about how the government must intervene in economic down turns because the business cycle can get out of hand. As opposed to this view, I read some of the Austrian school of economics by reading Ludwig von Mises' The Theory of Money and Credit. I found this book so technical and boring that it was hard to pick up! I believe I should have picked a better guide. Finally, I concluded by reading Milton Friedman's short work Capitalism and Freedom (1962). This book was the guide for much economic thought throughout the administrations of Reagan to Clinton.
All in all, I read some, but there is much more that I could have read (and should read). I think I had enough to prime the pump in terms of thinking, but not enough to speak authoritatively on the subject. I like to think that while I am not technically an expert, I am an interested observer that can keep up with the debate. I just wish we were actually having a debate!
Here is my thesis for this brief post: All of these financial cliff, tax the rich, fair share pronouncements are distractions. They are not meant to address any real problems within our economy, but they draw attention away from the real issues.
In fact, I believe the middle class (a Marxist term by the way) is sinking toward poverty, even without paying taxes directly, through inflation. The economic theories being promoted through the media and this administration have nothing to do with helping the middle class, making it fair, or anything of the like. The whole purpose of this shell game is to distract us so we do not see the loss of liberty, freedom, and even upward mobility that used to be the American dream. Instead of this vision of freedom, we are moving toward, with increasing rapidity, centralized governmental control of our individual "pursuit of happiness."
Why?
Today's rhetoric makes some horrible assumptions. Let's address a few.
Today's economic rhetoric assumes that economic production is capped and limited. Thus, if someone gains wealth, they can only do so by screwing others out of their wealth. In other words, today's rhetoric assumes that the amount of money (economic output) is a pie, and if "the wealthy" have a larger share then the rest of the world must eat the scraps. Thus, the rich eat at the pie of production by starving the poor.
There are many, many problems with this simple and erroneous view.
First, the size of our economic pie is not set. It can grow and shrink as the general productivity and consumption grows and shrinks. If disease were to wipe out half of the world's population, the size of the pie would shrink greatly. If population increases or just worldwide consumption increases, then the pie will grow bigger and bigger. Thus it is not merely theoretical but also practical that a growing economy, particularly a growing worldwide economy, means the rich get richer, those in the middle get richer, and the poor get richer.
Does this mean that poverty can be wiped out completely? No. Even Jesus says that "you will always have the poor with you." (Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8). Such poverty is a result of living in a fallen world. Our response should be that of compassion and assistance. The question and focus of the political debate should be "Who can offer assistance the best?" Since the 1930s and particularly since the 1960s, this question has been answered by the mainstream in both political parties clearly and unambiguously. Both sides agree that the best way to help the poor is to let government do it. This answer has led to a huge increase in the size of our government.
Notice, it also has led to a huge increase in the power of the politician!
Notice the shell game again. Blame economics. Blame the abstract "rich". Blame the corporation greed. Yet, the economic pie is not static. It is flexible, and for years it has been growing. As an historian, I am appalled that we claim today's poverty matches the poverty of the past. This is not true! I would suggest that we have two distinct classifications of poor in America and the world today.
First is the poorest of the poor. The poorest of the poor remain as they were and have been throughout time. They are destitute. They do not have enough food for today. They do not have jobs because they are not qualified to have them and there are none to be had in their community. A trip around the world would help illuminate the needs and personalities of these folks. They need and should get help!
Yet, in America the poorest of the poor are not as numerous as other places within the world. Those who fit this bill here often have some sort of physical, cultural, or mental handicap that keeps them from engaging in the culture. Perhaps they do not know the language well because they are first generation immigrants. Perhaps they have physical or mental deficiencies that keep them from engaging and working. Perhaps it is merely a lack of education. Regardless, these folks need compassion and community assistance to survive and those who are able should be encouraged to move from this classification toward middle class.
Yet, in America when we talk about poverty, these folks are often not the focus. Instead, because the definition of poverty has radically changed, we are talking about a totally different group.
Like who?
As a pastor with children, our family has qualified and been labeled as a family living in poverty for most of my working life. Yet, we have never starved. Our children are not in rags. We do not live in squalor. Instead, we have to diet to keep our weight in check. We are blessed with an abundance of all necessities to the point that we give away much to help others. In fact, we have three cars, great electronics, and many of our economic wishes fulfilled. As the years have passed our income and standard of living has increased.
Do we have to worry about paying our bills? Do we wish we had more? Of course to both. As I write, I shake my head because such concerns were understood to be the concerns and needs of the middle class not too long ago. Now, such living is called borderline poverty.
How many others fit this same category? Does this match the poverty known by my relatives who lived in West Virginia through the depression? Does it match the poverty of many first immigrants? No. A thousand times no! Many of our "poor" now are better off than the middle class or even the wealthy in places around the world that know true poverty.
Why the change in classification? Is it true concern by the government? No, I think it is all about political power.
In fact, I would offer that the economic shell game distracts from the real game. This is all about power. Our country was founded on the principle that each individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government's role was to protect and provide for maintaining these rights. We are the only lasting country in the world with such promises. Why are they important?
The individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is important because these principles endow and make the "pie of liberty" as big as possible. When we give up even part of these rights to the decisions of the government, we are left eating the scraps.
Some might be willing to give up their freedom in the name of protection or security. Every time we do, we have given the government more of the static, but nourishing pie of liberty.
Why aim for making more and more of the population dependent upon the government? Power. Control. I can assure you it is not compassion. Want proof? Try to get anything from the government bureaucracy. Can you not feel the love?
The entire economic talk is a shell game. "Look over here!" Meanwhile the real game is being played without comment, debate, or discussion. I do hope more people wake up.
Tomorrow I will continue on this theme. Way too much on my mind to stop now!
No comments:
Post a Comment