Last week, I linked a post about falling wheat prices. Jim, an occasional visitor to my blog who usually asks challenging questions, got a good discussion going with his comments. Jim believes recent developments may point to serious unaddressed justice questions in the world economy. My (slightly edited) response is the remainder of the post.
***************
You [Jim] wrote, "…the goal of our economy should be to ensure the basic physical needs of all the world's people." Let's take that as a starting point. The next question is epistemological. How do we know there is a better system?
The libertarian mind views market economies as working with near-perfect efficiency. Therefore, little better could be hoped for. What is, is good. Meddling is almost certain to make things worse, not better.
The more left-leaning mind views market economies as seriously flawed, needing considerable intervention (the most extreme view being communism.) Therefore, we could achieve far better than we are. What is, is flawed. Failure to "meddle" in the markets will lead to greater harm than not acting.
My point is that there is considerable hubris in both positions. My position is that what is, is what is. From there, we enter a murky foggy landscape of imagining how things might work better. How do we proceed?
I believe considerable wisdom is accumulated in societal arrangements that emerge over time. Interrelated social realities are always far more complex than we realize. Radical, swift, and comprehensive changes are fraught with peril. Yet, as a Christian, I have the words of Isaiah 65 or Revelation 21-22 ringing in my ears. I know we are so far from shalom, including an economy where we meet "the basic physical needs of all the world's people." I also know that the collective wisdom built over time is thoroughly entwined with human sinfulness. Furthermore, I know sinfulness will always be part of the equation until the new creation. How much better can we hope for short of the new creation? If the answer is a great deal better, then why do you or I think we have found the silver bullet solution to economic issues that humanity has been blind to throughout the millennia?
Hear these words from Isa 65:20 about redeemed Israel:
“No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed.” (NRSV)
I look to the historical record, as pointed out above. What has worked and not worked? We are living through a time of unprecedented and previously unimaginable expansion in worldwide prosperity. Far fewer infants live but a few days and life expectancy has advanced from less than thirty years worldwide to upwards of seventy in barely two hundred years (a blink of an eye in human historical terms.) In this regard, there is a greater and growing measure of shalom in the world. For the first time, we've found a treatment that alleviates significant impacts of the sin disease and restores a measure of health.
When you characterize present food inequities and social unrest due to the latest fluctuations in the commodities markets as a definitive indictment of the entire economic system, I hear an indictment of an effective existing treatment for the disease's impact because it has not cured the disease. Yet, you offer no cure or improved treatment regimen. I won't condemn the AIDS cocktail therapy and work for its elimination because it doesn't cure AIDS. I am going to look for improvements.
Markets work far better than many critics are willing to give them credit. They are far from perfect efficiency. The bread and butter of economics journals are case studies on the imperfections of markets. I agree with you about Adam Smith. If you read his Theory of Moral Sentiments along with Wealth of Nations (the way they were intended), you realize that the highest virtue of all to Smith is benevolence. Yet, human nature being what it is, we cannot reliably depend on benevolence for smoothly functioning and just societies. Thus, it is more prudent to have the butcher and baker see their self-interest as related to our well-being rather than acting purely out of benevolence.
Market economies are a remarkable advancement. Market economies where virtues of mercy and benevolence are deeply engrained are even better.
Leave a Reply