Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
Today, I’m looking through the book of Deuteronomy. I’m grabbing excerpts from the first 15 chapters, but I think one can make the case that these excerpts represent a line of reasoning offered by God for HOW and WHY we ought to care for the poor, the foreigner, the outcast, and what that would look like at a societal level. These passages contain the rather audacious and amazing claim: There need be NO poor among you.
!
Do these rules/guidelines/commands really represent a systematic plan from God for EFFECTIVELY dealing with the problem of poverty in the real world – in a real nation? It seems to me the answer is Yes!
[With the caveat that this passage goes on to point out that there WILL still be the poor amongst them, presumably because they would not follow a systematic plan to deal with poverty.]
How does that work?! Something worth considering, seems to me.
Deut 6:
In the future, when your son asks you, “What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?” tell him: “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand...
The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.
Deut 8:
Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the LORD promised on oath to your ancestors.
Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep God's commands. God humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years...
Observe the commands of the LORD your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him. For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with brooks, streams, and deep springs gushing out into the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing [!?!]; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.
When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe God's commands, laws and decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
God led you through the vast and dreadful wilderness, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. God brought you water out of hard rock. God gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never known, to humble and test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the LORD your God, for it is GOD who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.
Deut 10:
And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to God, to love God, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?
...For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
Deut 14:
At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
Deut 15:
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.
You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, God will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.
Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.
Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.
What do you think? Are these type of passages speaking of a specific plan (for that specific time and place) for effectively dealing with poverty on a societal level?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Bible and Economics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
How about this: For at least THIS post, let's keep comments relatively close on topic and relatively snark free and entirely ad hom-free. No comments ABOUT someone else, just comments about the topic. Feel free to disagree ABOUT THE TOPIC or about a comment ABOUT a topic, but do so respectfully and on the points made, not on the people making them.
To that end: The very first comment on here, I have deleted, as it was snarky. But the question raised was a reasonable one and so, I rephrase it here.
The commenter asked, in not so many words:
So, if you don't believe every line in the Bible is factually true, how do we know God said this?
Did God do anything literally here?
If you don't believe these OT texts were written in a more linear, factually accurate historic style, how do you know anything about this text?
To answer those questions, I'd say there are at least a couple of points to make:
1. No one takes the Bible completely, line for line literally. We all recognize that some texts are symbolic or a metaphor or otherwise non-literal. So, those of us who don't consider all of the Bible to be line-for-line literally, factual take these passages the way we take any other passages: For the truth to be found therein.
2. IF, indeed, God did not literally, factually state these places where it has God speaking, that does not change the TRUTHS being taught.
One Truth being taught in these series of passages, for instance, is that God cares for the poor and expects God's followers to do the same. Now, if God LITERALLY said this, or only inspired someone to write/tell it, the TRUTH being taught remains True. So, in that sense, it does not matter if God literally said it. It doesn't matter if God did anything literally here. Not to the point of the truths being taught.
And how do we know the Truths of these texts are True, if God didn't literally write it down or cause it to be written down exactly as it states here? Because we can see it throughout the Bible. We can see it throughout the world. It IS true that we ought to be concerned for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed.
We know it to be true the same way that those who would take it literally to be true: Because our God-given reasoning, because God's Spirit within and all around us, because the evidence of the world around us all support such a conclusion.
A separate commenter made two unrelated to the post comments in an ad-hommy sort of way and I've deleted them. Not for any other reason than I'm asking commenters to make comments on the post, not ad hom attacks on people.
If either of the commenters want to make commentary on topic and not on the person, I welcome those comments.
you deleted my fail whale. :(
That one, I'll let stand. It amused me.
Well, no promises on the snark content. With me it can run as high as 25% of total content from time to time, but I'll see what I can do.
From an economic stand point giving to the poor may in fact help fewer than simply shredding the money (which increases the value of all remaining dollars), or investing that capital in areas that would bring down the cost of things the poor are in want of. A good example of that might be the golden rice or whatever it is, feeds many more people from the same acreage. That's much better investment than simply buying rice for them.
We can't forget that while we can have all the government programs and charities in the world, but as soon as demand increases, so too does price.
My point is only that surely there is no reason for us to have any 'poor'. However, as I presume that God is at least as close a student of economics as I am, I would say that amassed wealth invested or loaned is better than amassed wealth spent.
I have to run out the door, but I'll try and contribute something more coherent later.
Nate, your snark level is fine, thus far. Thanks.
You said...
I presume that God is at least as close a student of economics as I am
And I'd agree. I just don't know that God subscribes to the same theories of economics that you (or I) do.
I'm interested: What do you think of some of the OT rules for the ancient nation of Israel to avoid poverty in their land?
A Sabbath year, where all debts are simply forgiven?
Sabbath rules that require landowers/farmers (ie, most of Israel - what we might call their vast "middle class," although that's a tricky comparison, perhaps) to allow the poor to harvest a section of their property?
Jubilee years that require property be returned to original landowners?
Laws that require debtors be released from prison?
Requirements to give to those who are in need?
Do you think these OT teachings would be called "inefficient" or outright WRONG by modern laissez faire capitalists?
Also running out the door, but I am appalled (not really ) that Dan chose to delete my initial comment. It was nothing more than that which I learned from him and Alan was appropriate. It took Dan's words to the absurd extreme to make a point. What's more, it did so far more accurately than Dan or Alan has done to me. Further, it would have put the statements Dan reprinted in the context intended.
"A Sabbath year, where all debts are simply forgiven?"
Too easily abused by those who borrow more than they could possibly hope to repay.
"Sabbath rules that require landowers/farmers (ie, most of Israel - what we might call their vast "middle class," although that's a tricky comparison, perhaps) to allow the poor to harvest a section of their property?"
Any farmer is certainly entitled to do this of his own volition. But the state couldn't possibly determine when this practice might be detrimental to the farmer in harder times.
"Jubilee years that require property be returned to original landowners?"
A great idea for lawyers. Not so good for the rest of us. Especially in this country where no one owned the land at one time.
"Laws that require debtors be released from prison?"
Similar to forgiving debts, this can be abused by anyone not concerned with giving up some time rather than working to pay back debts. People need to pay back what they borrow. If I choose to forgive a debt, that's my business. No law should force such a thing as it harms the one owed.
"Requirements to give to those who are in need?"
Do you need to be forced? Worse, is that it puts more pressure on those who strive to achieve and less on those who choose to live simply.
So, Marshall, is it fair to say then that you find the OT rules for ending/easing poverty to have been a bad set of ideas?
sigh...
Alan's comment, excessive snark removed...
Wait....is [it the position of some that] those rules shouldn't be followed literally?
[Does that mean they think those rules are] just epic storytelling?
[Or, if not, what is the reason for not finding these rules to be applicable today?]
:)
It's fun having my very own Alan-to-Dan dictionary.
I'll have to see if I can achieve a comment of such overwhelming sarcasm that not a single original word can be retained.
It's good to have a goal. ;)
You nutty guy...
:)
I seem to have hit a snag, but I'm working on how to make articles like a, an, and the, sarcastic so you have to change those too. I'm thinking of developing a sarcasm algorithm.
Maybe there's an app for that.
You shouldn't look too closely at the debts forgiven issue.
You are assuming that money would still be as freely lent. What is more likely to happen is less lending, only to those who could pay it back and be trusted to do so.
I would also say that requirements for giving do not equal charity and compulsive rules like that don't solve the underlying problem of need. If you are bleeding, the solution isn't more blood in an IV line, its to stop the bleeding.
None of these rules does anything to fix the problem of poverty, in fact the debt forgiveness is likely to increase it. I don't see anything here that requires allowing the poor to harvest a portion of your land, what I see is a direction to essentially pay people in food to harvest a portion of your land. That is probably the best thing on the list.
So, Nate, is it fair to say then that you find the OT rules for ending/easing poverty to have been a bad set of ideas?
Nate...
I don't see anything here that requires allowing the poor to harvest a portion of your land, what I see is a direction to essentially pay people in food to harvest a portion of your land.
I'm not sure what you mean, Nate. What "direction to pay people in food to harvest" some of their land?
Leviticus 19:
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.
No mention of "paying" the poor to harvest crops FOR the landowner. Instead, they are just to leave portions of the land for the poor to harvest for themselves. God is reminding the Israelites that ALL things belong to God, not us. And God is commanding the nation of Israel to deal with poverty in these various ways. Do you think it was a mistake?
Nate...
You are assuming that money would still be as freely lent. What is more likely to happen is less lending, only to those who could pay it back and be trusted to do so.
I think the text has God specifically commanding the nation of Israel NOT to do that.
Nate...
I would also say that requirements for giving do not equal charity...
You may have a point. And yet, that is what we see happening in these texts. God has commanded us to give, and to do so with a cheerful heart.
Do you think that maybe God can command something and we can do it, and it still be charity?
Also, some people would say giving to/providing for the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner is NOT charity, but justice. Can giving-as-justice be legitimately "required," do you think?
...and compulsive rules like that don't solve the underlying problem of need. If you are bleeding, the solution isn't more blood in an IV line, its to stop the bleeding.
Agreed. If someone is homeless, they don't need a meal. They don't even need a home. They need a change in circumstances that led them to being homeless.
But, in the meantime, they DO need a meal and a home, right?
"So, Marshall, is it fair to say then that you find the OT rules for ending/easing poverty to have been a bad set of ideas?"
No. It's not fair to say that.
All right, thanks for the clarification. Help me out then:
It seems you're saying you think all these ideas listed in the OT are not good ideas. You said, for instance, about the idea of a Sabbath year debt forgiveness, "Too easily abused by those who borrow more than they could possibly hope to repay."
That SOUNDS like you're saying it's a bad idea. Are you saying it's a GOOD idea?
Dan,
You implied the notion of adopting those rules for today. If this is correct, it is that which I reject. They are not workable in a so-called pluralistic society. I don't think the administration of such rules would be simple and free of corruption. I believe people would abuse such rules regularly.
I don't think that just because God instituted the rules, which of course makes them good rules, guarantees that mankind will follow them without abuse or corruption. So many of His other rules are ignored and corrupted and twisted.
To impose such laws now would simply be men imposing intrusive laws that ignore property rights our founders cherished.
If you wish to gorgive debts, fine. Good for you. I hope your family doesn't suffer as a result. But if Harvey wants to squeeze every dime out of the person who borrowed from him, he has that right. After all, if one borrows, one does so with the knowledge that it must be repaid. Imagine the change in attitude if one borrowed knowing that there's a way in which one would NOT have to repay the debt. Where would be the justice for the borrower? Why would he ever lend again?
I've forgiven debts in my time. At least once that I can recall easily, doing so was a burden to my family. We did it anyway on the assumption that we could more easily weather it. Now, we think more in terms of the lender's likely ability, desire and history to repay. If we don't believe repayment is likely, we think in terms of merely giving the sum requested (or whatever amount is possible), and forgetting it entirely.
But if we find we're viewed as an easy touch, then obviously our generosity is being abused. To some extent, we have enabled bad behavior at this point.
Thus, while some might avail themselves of such rules in an honorable manner, as we know not everyone abuses welfare handouts, it is within the nature of too many people to abuse such opportunities and thus, it promotes bad behavior rather than good. Charity needs to be encouraged, not forced by law for it to work properly.
Marshall...
You implied the notion of adopting those rules for today.
Not intentionally. I asked simply, "Do you find the OT rules for ending/easing poverty to have been a bad set of ideas?"
"HAVE been." As in, "WERE these bad ideas when instituted?"
That is my question to you.
But looking at the question you're answering, rather than the question asked:
DO you think these ideas are a good idea today?
Your answer is No, am I correct?
I would agree. These were SPECIFIC rules for a SPECIFIC time and place. For one thing, MANY of our poor are located in the city. They would have no easy way to get to the edges of farms to glean from the edges and, thus, survive.
So, MY answer to your question: Are these good ideas today? would be, no, not so much. It's a different time and place.
Now, having said that, let me ask yet ANOTHER set of questions.
Do you think THE PRINCIPLES behind these ideas are good?
cont'd...
And, of course, to answer that, we'd have to decide what principles are being promoted... How about these:
1. We, God's people, have an obligation from God to tend to the needs of the poor.
2. Also, NATIONS have an obligation to tend to the needs of the poor.
3. Nations and people are to institute policies that address the needs of the poor, that provide a means to keep them from starving.
4. IF nations implement such policies, there is no need for there to be those suffering from poverty.
5. We are NOT to rely upon our wealth as our source of strength and sustenance.
6. We ought to realize that this world is God's, and all the stuff we "own" is God's, as well. God is our source of strength and sustenance, not wealth.
7. If ANYONE is poor among your "fellow Israelites" (community? Faith community? Nation?), we should be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.
8. Having some systematic way of dealing with the problems who accumulate debt and helping them out of that debt is a good thing.
9. Having some systematic way of accumulating food/goods to provide for the needy is a good thing.
10. God blesses us, smiles upon us, and we find ourselves doing well when we implement such policies and establish community with and support for the least of these.
11. Having a way to provide for needs that allows for folk to work, rather than just get handouts, is a very good thing.
You are correct on the harvesting, I couldn't find the passage and was going from a pretty faded memory.
Still the better option (even today) is surely to make use of the labor and pay them in spoils. Thus the best produce is picked and the poor still get theirs, for equal effort, but with an added economic benefit and incentive for the land holder.
In response to your question. These are not economically workable ideas, as another has pointed out. At least not today. We no longer live just above the subsistence level.
As I pointed out, its best to try and address the poverty issue, simply adding more blood doesn't stop the bleeding. How do you address poverty?
I would say by giving incentives to those of means to invest their wealth. It almost always lowers prices through expansion of enterprises and creates more opportunity for employment and additionally lowers required skills for employment. That means increased opportunity.
Thanks for the thoughts, Nate. So, you don't think these rules would be a good idea today.
Do you think they were a good idea at the time they were implemented?
BTW, as I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'me wrong, but I believe there is no historical evidence that demonstrates that Israel ever actually implemented a Jubilee year.
I do find it fascinating that people think these verses can just be thrown out, however. Start throwing out all the verses on economics and you'll have a tiny Bible indeed!
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Economics have always worked the same way. Expanding you business with the use of loans or savings means that you will probably either produce more (lower prices) and/or hire more workers (lessening poverty).
Issue one would be the fact that these things work 'betterer' in an economy with a common trade currency such as gold or silver coinage or a fiat currency. This was really more of a barter economy.
Issue two is that there is a rule here that precludes effective debt use. A big part of economic growth. No credit means you can only draw on your savings to expand. That makes it hard to react to demand changes and competition.
God might have done more to mandate interest rates on debt rather than forgiveness.
However we are talking about very complex systems here. God took a less effective but easier to understand and implement route to address issues.
Alan...
there is no historical evidence that demonstrates that Israel ever actually implemented a Jubilee year.
That is my understanding, too, Alan. If you're into "historical evidence."
Perhaps that's why God, right after saying "you need have no poor among you" proceeded to say "You WILL have poor among you" - knowing that no one would implement that system?
I wonder if God overtly, vocally, loudly called for such a system of forgiveness today, how many would have to turn away from God saying, "I just don't believe that will work, God..."
Nate...
Economics have always worked the same way. Expanding you business with the use of loans or savings means that you will probably either produce more (lower prices) and/or hire more workers (lessening poverty).
I am not convinced that economics ever work exactly the same way, especially not in vastly different cultures/times.
You suggest expanding a business with loans will "probably" either lower prices or increase employment, thus helping the poor. But on what do you base this? That seems like a pretty big assumption to me.
Couldn't expanding a business with loans ALSO lead to the business going under due to taking on too much debt? Thereby leading to LESS productivity and LESS employment?
I'll own up to having studied economics a good bit and generally find myself mystified by some of the assumptions made by "economists," as well as some of the measurements and the amount of "faith" economists have in a large complex economy behaving in a rational manner.
Now, I'm just a dumb ol fella who isn't all that good at math, but when I hear/read most economists speaking of their field of "science," that it tends to sound more like voodoo and witchcraft than an actual science.
Probably due to my own ignorance, but that's how it sounds, nonetheless.
Nate...
God might have done more to mandate interest rates on debt rather than forgiveness.
However we are talking about very complex systems here. God took a less effective but easier to understand and implement route to address issues.
Interesting point of view. Is it your view that "God took a less effective" approach to dealing with poverty because it was "easier to understand and implement"?
Do you think God's ways are the best ways of doing things, or that sometimes, they may just be the most expedient, and not necessarily the best?
Nate...
Issue two is that there is a rule here that precludes effective debt use. A big part of economic growth. No credit means you can only draw on your savings to expand. That makes it hard to react to demand changes and competition.
I'm not entirely clear what you're saying there. Are you saying that the prohibition against charging interest is a bad thing - back then and/or today?
Do you think that it possible that it MAY be that our complex economic systems may not always be the best hunches as how to best, most morally run a community?
It's simply incentive. There is little incentive to lend if you either may not be paid back and have to forgive the debt or if you can't charge interest.
Economics can fall flat if the economist goes too far. Descriptive theories describe how people DO behave. Prescriptive theories describe how people SHOULD behave. Economics should be kept to describing how people do behave. Learn how people behave, not try and change their behavior.
If 100 loans are given out to 100 businesses, they will not all be successful in expanding (assuming that was the intention). Some will. In fact if some of them do go out of business as a result, their assets would likely end up on the market for sale. Just because a business goes under doesn't mean the production gets lost. Economies will typically weed out the worst competitors and still result in consumer benefits.
Why would God prescribe these rules? Well God is involving himself more in sociology than economics. God surely knows that widespread debt forgiveness every 7 years would retard lending and thus growth that would normally be fueled by lending. Why would God do that? Perhaps he isn't interested in economics but social policy.
Perhaps he isn't interested in economics but social policy.
Indeed, perhaps.
"So, Marshall, is it fair to say then that you find the OT rules for ending/easing poverty to have been a bad set of ideas?"
So sorry for misunderstanding the question.
No. I do not think they had been a bad set of ideas. They were God's ideas, so how could they be bad?
It must be remembered that many of God's "ideas" were milk before the meat, as it were. They were, in some cases, not necessarily the ideal, but a move toward them from what was before. An eye for an eye was never the ideal, but it did regulate what went on before. No command to take by force the virgin daughters of the vanquished was ever given, but a regulation on how that should be done was a step toward an ideal, a step away from what went before. I think these laws of economics and debt forgiveness worked the same way.
Dan wrote:
What do you think? Are these type of passages speaking of a specific plan (for that specific time and place) for effectively dealing with poverty on a societal level?
Yes, they seem to be advocating a particular plan.
They probably wouldn't be effective today. For those interested in advancing the plight of the poor today, I would suggest the expansion of free market capitalism. There is no greater engine of poverty reduction.
Hear, hear!
In general, the idea that economics is a science, and its subject matter some "thing" that is rooted in "nature" are ideas that are so wrong it is difficult to imagine how they ever took root. Adam Smith was describing human behavior, and always saw political economy as subordinate to the inculcation of what he termed "the moral sentiments", social practices for making society better. David Ricardo's specific concern was the detrimental impact upon society of restraint of trade imposed after the Napoleonic Wars. The rules set forth in the Bible expressed the desire for a social system rooted in the basic Hebrew notions that society is ruled not by "nature", but by God.
To argue, for example, that the Sabbath year, forgiving debts, freeing slaves, etc., would wreak havoc are rooted in the idea that economics is a thing, rather than a way of describing a rather small part of human interaction. Were we a people who prized good relations with our fellows above the sanctity of contractual obligations, debt forgiveness as a matter of course would be understood, perhaps, as "natural", as the so-called law of supply and demand.
Throughout human history all sorts of schemes for the ordering of our economic life have been set up, all with their pluses and minuses. The rules set forth in the Levitical code would work quite well in our society, which is just as tied to casuistry and the primacy of legal obligations as were the ancient Israelites. The ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Hanseatic States on the Baltic, and at times the Chinese monarchies all practiced a kind of rotating system of debt forgiveness as a way of preventing the kinds of dislocations we in our time are currently experiencing. Learning from their experiences rather than demanding adherence to a set of principles that only increase suffering and reduce human interaction to a set of hierarchical obligations is all to the good, so I see no reason in principle to dismiss various propositions from the Hebrew Scriptures regarding economic activity.
Certainly Adam Smith was looking at human behavior. That IS economics.
Like I said economics should be kept to descriptive theories, not prescriptive ones. It can tell us how people do act, but not how they should act.
That's a job for so called social architects.
Do you include Christians and other people concerned with their nation's direction in with "social architects?"
That is, do you think social architects are a good and necessary thing?
Or do you think that their opinions should come behind those of economists (and, perhaps more specifically, "supply side economists")?
Or, put in yet another way: If there is a conflict with "economists" (whichever economists you are referencing, since there are a range of economists) and "social architects" (also with a range), do you tend to side with your economists?
And as far as debt goes, there is little difference between a default and forgiving debt.
If a government or God wants to crash a credit market on a schedule, than that's fine, but lets not try and call a spade anything other than a spade.
I would promise it to be a pretty small credit market with scheduled mass defaults.
John...
I would suggest the expansion of free market capitalism. There is no greater engine of poverty reduction.
While I tend towards a well-regulated capitalism (as opposed to socialism or even democratic socialism) and think there are advantages to capitalism, I would not go so far as to say "there is no greater engine of poverty reduction."
That seems to me to be placing WAY too much trust in an economic system. Besides which, what about Christian work for justice, charity and community? I'd certainly say that COULD have a greater impact than mere capitalism. "COULD," that is, if people lived it out.
Social scientists of all colors and creeds. It isn't for any economist to prescribe any behavior. They should merely be providing a glimpse into human behavior.
I didn't mean social architects in any real specific way. Everyone who seeks to change society is a social architect.
Nate...
And as far as debt goes, there is little difference between a default and forgiving debt.
If a government or God wants to crash a credit market on a schedule, than that's fine, but lets not try and call a spade anything other than a spade.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean here, Nate. Are you suggesting Christians living out their faith teachings, giving to those who are in need, working for justice for those in need, that this MUST lead to economic calamity, and is NOT good in the real world?
Nate, could you clarify:
Do you include Christians and other people concerned with their nation's direction in with "social architects?"
That is, do you think social architects are a good and necessary thing?
Dan,
I think you would need to define what you mean by "social architects". And would they be seeking designs based on some "ideal"?
All of us are "social architects". All politicians, when proposing legislation, are "social architects", because they are attempting to construct the ground rules for the operation of society. Even if those rules specify that the state is not to interfere with the workings of the free market, just by setting those rules one becomes an architect of society.
The notion that only weird activist liberals and socialists are such creatures is preposterous. Society doesn't spontaneously create itself, and the rules of economic behavior are not "natural laws" that, once a bunch of human beings get together, just "happen" like a social perpetual motion machine. The sheer variety of choices as to what makes a "best fit" for economic behavior requires setting general guidelines for such behavior so that the confusing array of choices doesn't create as much conflict as it does commerce.
Marshall, "social architects" was brought up by Nate, you'll have to ask him.
And Geoffrey has provided a pretty good response.
One difference, it seems to me, is between those who'd advocate laws and regulations (or the lack thereof) based upon whimsical, subjective "ideals," (which is not to denigrate ideals or idealism, just pointing out their subjective nature) and those who believe laws ought to prohibit/regulate those actions which cause harm.
Adding to Dan's comment a bit, I would add that the ends - a just economic order the benefits the greatest number of persons in a society - is always the goal, with the exception, perhaps, of totalitarian states, or the kind of kleptocracies one sees in various places around the globe, like the Philippines under Marcos. Far too long the argument between neo-classical economists and various Keynesians and others who support certain mixed economic models has been misunderstood as an argument about ends, yet, really, it is only an argument about means.
The notion that incorporating certain elements of Biblical ideas of economic justice - debt forgiveness, that kind of thing - won't work assumes that there is some qualitative difference between ancient Hebrew society and our own. There isn't. There are differences to be sure, many of which we don't and never will know or understand, but at heart, we are a bunch of people living together trying to make a go of it together. We need to stop thinking of economics as a "thing", and rather a description of human actions that are amenable to change because human beings change all the time.
Geoffrey,
You'll have to elaborate. You said there are no qualitative differences between the ancients and us, but then say humans change all the time. Which is it?
Art, to answer your question, there are no qualitative differences between us and the ancients because we and they are all people.
Societies change all the time. People make changes, some that are incremental and accrue over time, some that are revolutionary, sweeping out an old order and inaugurating a new one, but it is always people who do it.
As regards the topic at hand, it is important to remember that ancient peoples and civilizations were populated by people, human beings, folks like us who were intelligent or not, insightful or not, most of whom most of the time were most concerned with going about their daily rounds in the manner fitting for their time and place, loving their wives and and husbands and children, obeying the laws, doing the best at whatever tasks were their allotted place in society. The differences are important, of course, but the similarities, in terms of how societies go about consciously or otherwise deciding how best to distribute the benefits of goods and services, rely, in the end, on people.
I don't really subscribe to any notion of some kind of "human nature", beyond a theological position held in faith that people are (a) sinners from the word go; and (b) dependent each nanosecond of their lives upon the grace of God merely to continue in existence. All the same, it would be ridiculous to make the claim that there are qualitative differences between ancient people and moderns. That is a modern conceit that just doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny. Because, well, we're all human beings, sharing the same DNA, having the same strengths and weaknesses and talents and limitations.
Just to be helpful, according to at least one source, Israel did observe the Jubilee until the conquest of Israel in the 6th century BC.
Thanks for the link, Stan.
Ah, interesting. I had read somewhere that there wasn't evidence that the Jubilee year was ever observed.
Post a Comment