This section is titled “The Economics of Jesus” instead of “Christian Economics” as the institutional church and individual Christians of all varieties have gotten so many things wrong. This has often been in the form of substituting worldly ambitions for true faith, and attempting to employ Jesus as a helper in those fleshly ambitions in the same way that the ancient pagans called on their gods to support their worldly causes. That’s not exactly abiding in the true vine. Much of Christendom since Constantine has been and is nothing more than paganism with a cross on top. So much unspeakable evil has been done under the “Christian” banner that the word itself is a distraction from the content being presented. Using the explicit context “of Jesus” makes it clear that this is intended to be referenced from the Son of Man and not the human error that tries to associate itself with his name. That error through the centuries to today includes everything from imperialism (hegemonic and cultural) to slavery (economic as well as classic) to cultish deception outside and inside the church. It is indeed a tall order to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) Even so, there is still plenty of wheat among the tares; and prosperity of all kinds flourishes when the wheat is allowed to grow. But the challenge is how to recognize the wheat, and then how to cultivate it.
Arguably, both socialism (which has been more authoritarian than social) and capitalism (which was and is built on slavery) have failed. There are common threads evident between them, and among those is an emphasis on control over result. So then, are we our “brother’s keeper,” or is the best general good produced when all people are in it just for themselves? Which is it?
“All the believers were together and had everything in common.” (Acts 2:44)
OR
“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
I think both are valid as well as compatible with each other; we’re all in this together and it is equally valid that community is a two way street. The free market purists jealously guard their personal freedom, and social justice advocates pointedly call foul on a rigged system that denies so many their own personal freedom. There is a place for all of these approaches, and in the text below I will suggest how I think they fit together.
We must first agree on a range of living standard levels that are acceptable for a decent life. These are mostly material standards, as economic benefits beyond basic human needs have decreasing effectiveness as a sole cause of happiness. That in and of itself provides a good starting point for an acceptable economic living standard. Above that level one would look to non-material things (friendship, accomplishment, love) for personal fulfillment, which is outside the scope of economics. Different cultures will consider different levels of material possessions to be minimally acceptable. In most of the industrialized part of the world running water, functional sewer or septic, and heat and light are bare minimum baseline requirements. Public health and sanitation make these essential, and it would require a different type of technology to provide these needs by other means. Today there is a strong case for Internet access being integral to these minimal requirements, as global relationships have made it as necessary as the bread we eat.
I think that an acceptable living standard may be defined as one in which all physical needs are met, including food and shelter, as well as civil liberties, and freedom from crime, including financial crime. That covers basically the physiological and safety levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Neither socialism nor capitalism has solved how to provide that in a sustainable manner, and with rapidly advancing automation the role of employment to meet those needs will continue to diminish. Regardless of your ideological orientation, we have a growing problem.
As a general rule, I think the government should function as a safety net of last resort that provides for the first two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. But that means this last resort should always be in place. For the government last resort to be never needed, some fundamental changes must occur in the values that are now dominant in civil society. This is more than just corporations being more benevolent (although that is needed), individuals must be more open to learning and doing things beyond the limited set of talents they have developed and procedures they are familiar with. To be fair, many people have developed the talents they have in response to their environment. So change is needed in both the environment (opportunities and education) and individuals buying into the tangible practice of helping their fellow humans. It’s reasonable to assert that the “I’ve got mine, and so I don’t care about anyone else” concept must be abandoned by both organizations and individuals. Imagine requiring a section in quarterly financial reports for contributions to the community, and making it standard practice to include in resumes things done to help your fellow humans. Such requirements would certainly be gamed, but as everyone became increasingly aware of such attempts, it would be increasingly difficult to slip through deceptive content (although it appears that such an arms race between deception and detection is as old as humanity).
Another flaw in economic operating assumptions is that the worth of a thing or a person is measured primarily by the income generated. I consider it axiomatic that profits are necessary for economic functioning, but focusing solely on profits (as our current economic system is set up) destroys the human element that produces the profits, and eventually diminishes the profits so ardently sought after. Such enterprises are literally eating their own house. We need to recognize that there is tangible value in things that do not directly generate financial profits, and that these things should be supported by profits from classic economic activity. This is not a bug in humanity, but a feature; embrace it and profit.
However, the counterargument goes, you can’t meet payroll with this kind of fluff. But that is the heart of the problem: Dominant economic assumptions consider human concerns to be only fluff, and not relevant to real economic considerations such as sufficient income to meet expenses. It is clear that hard numbers are an open and shut case against which there is no argument. Therefore the numbers themselves make a solid case for a societal safety net of last resort. Those people dropped from a payroll will land somewhere, and if it’s not with another place of employment or other support, then they will either be wasted or possibly become dangerous. I think it is not only immoral to kick them to the curb, but also strategically unwise to do so.
From an Economics of Jesus perspective, whether the people affected are deserving of their fate, such as being dismissed for cause, is irrelevant. Moral judgement in that regard can only be left to God. And there will always be those who will take more than they give. Oh the horror of such a concept! Corporations and individuals rich and poor already take more than they give routinely; and although most will agree that doesn’t make it right, the more substantive challenge is to apply the best approach to deal with such injustice in a practical way.
Jesus’ parable of the talents is of great help in this regard, but not in the context of prospering by serving the Man (as distinguished from the Son of Man). Nowhere in that parable is the rich owner justified in his reaping where he hadn’t sewn and gathering where he hadn’t scattered seed. Instead, this parable accurately presents established worldly values of getting what you can from whomever by whatever means you can get away with (legal or not). The first two slaves (the ones who doubled their master’s money) had to have accomplished their financial acrobatics through excessive usury (forbidden in the Hebrew scriptures), property foreclosures, and similar oppressive tactics on vulnerable victims. One doesn’t accomplish that by feeding the poor and advocating for the oppressed (the very ones they oppressed to obtain their returns). The term “vulture capitalist” hardly approaches the degree of evil needed to obtain that level of ROI. The lesson for us in that parable is to minister to the victims of such a system to help them reestablish a fulfilling life. It also involves ministering to the masters by showing the way to spiritual health, which will be manifested in their temporal behavior. That doesn’t mean a master needs to become St. Francis (adopting a life of poverty), but it does need to inform their investment decisions.
The solution is in the two way street aspect. We as humans need to cultivate reciprocation of good will. This is a requirement, not an option. It is obvious that the scorecard on that is very bleak at all levels, from individuals through nation states through differing cultures. But one can receive without giving up one’s human identity. Far from being a monolithic culture, the kingdom of heaven is populated by people from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages. Naturally a team must be pulling in the same direction (the house divided problem), but without individuals there is no team.
One of the problems with historical applications of capitalism and socialism was that of robbing people of their individual selves in return for their living. Concurrently, people naturally have difficulty dealing with receiving something for nothing, by refusing to believe there is such a thing as something for nothing (look at the problems we have with accepting the grace of God separate from our actions). Another facet of this problem is that of not grasping the concept of giving when there is no definable ROI in some form (rhetorical question: who is willing to work for nothing?). The two way street facet seems nuanced to a degree that makes is very difficult to manage. But refusing to try to make it work is not an option, given the alternative.
We start with acceptance of the simple principle that no one goes without provision for their physiological and safety needs, regardless of who they are or what they have done or not done. Encourage private society to handle it first, whether by generous individuals (from back when “compassionate conservatism” was in the lexicon) to community assistance networks to large and viable nonprofit organizations. But the bottom line must be that when these fail to meet the need, the government has both the authority and the resources to make people whole at this level. If we don’t have agreement on that, the discussion unravels and human meanness is laid bare.
Why would I draw the line here? Shouldn’t people proactively see to their own survival? The answer is yes they should, and this is just as much of the bottom line as anything. But ideological theories notwithstanding, the reality is that those who are seeing to their own welfare as best they know how are kicked to the curb if they don’t measure up to someone else’s arbitrary definition of success. That arbitrary measure is often based on established privilege of some type, whether that is inherited wealth or position, or a mental or physical ability separate from privilege, which enables maneuvering around obstacles that stymie the average competition. In plain language that is unjust advantage. In the legal and business structure of most countries, the adage of “do unto others before they do unto you” is institutionally axiomatic.
But gaining advantage is what the game is all about, one would protest. Yes it is, and in the Gospel account Jesus forbids this by saying “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45) This perspective is foundational for the economics of Jesus, including in every practical sense.
And practical it is; that’s the point of the economics of Jesus. Shadows of this approach are found in the open source software communities that share at no cost computer code they’ve written. This is not just some dreamer’s fantasy; very large corporations (such as IBM and Google) and governments (such the US DoD) routinely participate in this sharing process as well as smaller organizations down through independent individuals. For example, Apple built the Mac OS (OS X) on the open source Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of Unix. Apple had not developed BSD; they just took it to build OS X on top of it, and that was okay by the permissive BSD license. In this case, and many others, Apple took something they didn’t create and used it for their own profit, all fully legal. However, such arrangements are only practical if there are sufficient contributions (from someone) back to a project, which serves to make an open source project sustainable in the long run. There is an underlying understanding in open source that being a taker in this regard without reciprocal care of the enabling ecosystem is worthy of increasing disapproval. Although there are plenty of takers in this regard, the open source ethos is gaining acceptance both as a viable business model and in practice.
Why should this ethos remain limited to software? Imagine similar approaches to other fields such as architectural designs, machining specifications, farming methods, product formulas, and any other realm of intellectual property. This also could be applied physical products, and to labor itself; it already is in the form of business partnerships, but the concept could be expanded much further than is currently practiced. The objections that such an approach are impractical are ably refuted by the same arguments that show open source software is not only viable but clearly more profitable. There would still be a place for patents and copyrights, just not suffocatingly so as is the current case.
So what would the optimal economic arrangement look like? Let’s start with the two premisses at the start of this discussion: They had all things in common, and those who (are able) will not work shall not eat. I would add a third that Jesus did not directly imply forcible removal of the ill gotten wealth from the rich man who reaped where he didn’t sew and gathered where he hadn’t scattered seed—although Jesus clearly disapproved of such behavior, as evidenced in his interaction with the repentant Zacchaeus.
Before we proceed to discussion of practical remedies, some perspective is in order. It comes down to a matter of trust. Authoritarian governments have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy at managing public resources for the benefit of their populations. This fact, however, in no way validates the equally misplaced trust in private financial institutions (as evidenced by the destructive casino impulses of financial oligarchs and their trickle up robbery of the general population). Remember also that we are a community, regardless of societal structure, and no one is wholly self sufficient—the “community” aspect is integral to our existence. Okay, take a deep breath and continue reading.
It seems to me that the following are practical guidelines for a viable and prosperous economy:
- The vast majority of the population should be within a middle range of economic prosperity. This range would be wide, such as annual income between $50,000 and $250,000 for a single individual—and a household balance sheet up to $1 million. Let’s call that range the standard range, as it will be used as a benchmark for actions that apply to those both within this group and outside it. Note that this amply allows for the more industrious individuals to reap the rewards of their superior effort and talent, without making everyone “equal” by mowing down those who are more prosperous. At the same time, it also allows inherited advantages in resources or mentorship to be plyed without penalty; it just limits the degree (that is, as long as it’s within the standard range) to which it can be applied. This is basically the concept that your stomach is only so big and you can be in only one house at any one time—the upper end of this range is far more than any one person could use.
- Wealth over the standard range (not counting that in the standard range) would be fair game for graduated restrictions and taxes even at a confiscatory level. But you have the prerogative to direct where that goes.
- Income and assets held by anyone within the standard range will be treated as anyone else within the standard range—that is it will be free from the additional taxes and other restrictions. In this way, no one would be taxed into poverty or avoid producing as much as they can to avoid having the benefit of that taken away from them.
- Incentives to contribute to non-profit causes would be numerous and generous. If you want to influence things for the good of your fellow humans, then you can contribute to causes other than the government up to the whole of your extra tax liability over and above that from your standard range income. You would also have the option of letting it go to the government, as your choice and there should be a compensatory means that does not compromise the integrity of the standard range system. Business investments are also in this category, however the businesses will be valuated on their contribution to the community, such as services produced or quality jobs created—not just pure profits and other financial ROI that do not benefit the larger community.
- Lobbying the government (that is, paying someone to influence the government) would be limited to the amount allowed by the standard range rules. In other words, you don’t have a greater voice in the public square as a result of your extra resources, even those left after taxes, investments, and non-profit contributions.
- Wealth below the standard range would be defined as annual income below $50,000—and a household balance sheet less than $100,000. The graduated taxation on this group would trend down to a point where it reaches zero.
- The zero tax point would be determined by the local cost of living. A determination is made as to what is a reasonable income necessary to feed a family of four a diet of healthy foods (not cheap processed or fast food loaded with cholesterol, sugar, and carbs).
- Now for the safety net: Those at or below the zero tax level for income and also a zero balance sheet would receive “negative taxes,” very much the way conservative economist Milton Friedman described negative income tax (NIT) during the Nixon Administration. Consider this to be akin to a mixture of the the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Universal Basic Income (UBI).
- This would save the costs of food stamps and other special welfare programs, as they are no longer needed in this arrangement. Everyone will have their needs met without all the complexities of those programs.
- Everything will be processed through the IRS—with its auditing features, cheating the system would be much more difficult and much more easy to detect. It would also be much less intrusive to those in this category, thus protecting their dignity as no one would be “on welfare.”
- An opinion shared across the ideological spectrum is that most if not all money fed into this channel would go directly back into the economy, as people in this range would spend it immediately upon receipt. This is a much more reliable method of stimulating the economy than providing tax cuts to those who least need them, and who have repeatedly proven that such tax cuts do not boost the general economy as they were advertised to do.
- A requirement could be placed on receipt of NIT that it would only become active upon exhaustion of other assets (savings, land, stocks/bonds, etc.) similar to that for Medicaid. Otherwise people with remaining other accumulated assets could merely continue at the zero tax point (where they could retain a balance sheet of up to $100,000) and forego the below zero tax status. This would be a workable option for entrepreneurs after a failed business venture, allowing them to bootstrap a new venture with their remaining assets, and if successful they would return to standard range living or even better; good for them, we all win when entrepreneurs have a safety net to fall back onto.
- Free housing is also on the table at this level; remember, home owners would have to sell their houses to qualify for NIT. This does not mean bringing back the housing projects of the Great Society era, and all of the ugliness that went with them. It could be provided as a simple rental subsidy, which in turn would go straight back into the economy (in this case benefiting property owners first).
- Think twice before concluding that a safety net only encourages people to become lazy bums. It provides creative people the free time and space to pursue their individual productivity, entrepreneurs a springboard to get back onto their feet, and a means of training/re-training employees for advancing skills requirements at no cost to businesses.
- In all of this, the guiding principles are that in general we have all things in common yet we each retain our individual dignity and our individual industriousness.
- With a strong community bolstered by healthy non-profit organizations, it is likely that the extreme needs we see today will be greatly diminished. Very few would be homeless. It would be practical to build strong businesses, that partner with each other in profitable endeavors.
There are two other very relevant factors that cannot be ignored, as their intrusiveness into the daily lives of most people is only going to increase. Those are globalization and automation:
- Globalization is here to stay, regardless of whether any more formal trade treaties are established. The impact of globalization means in practical terms that people, for example in the United States, can no longer ignore the conditions of slavery in China, Congo, and Uzbekistan (a non-exhaustive list), or any other places where current day slave labor or slave-like conditions allow goods to be produced at job-killing prices in the US. Over and above the pure dollars and cents (sense too) of it, the tragic human cost is unsustainable. Perhaps those in the developed parts of the world, who are thousands of miles away from the inhuman conditions that would be illegal in their own country, will find it in their heart to do what they can to alleviate that suffering. We are inextricably in a global community, and we need to right the ship abroad if we are ever to right the ship here. In our time, now more than ever before, the fate of others has a direct impact on our own fate.
- Automation is a juggernaut that has already placed thousands out of work, and those jobs are not coming back. The cost of skilled operators (increasingly fewer in number and at lower paid skill levels as the technology advances) is far less than a much larger number of human employees formerly needed to do the same work manually. Humans are not only more expensive they are, well, human and come with a load of baggage that is not job related but requires care and attention if they are to be productive. If a business can meet production or service goals without the expense of health care and training and management diversion to addressing personal issues, then the answer is a matter of simple arithmetic. As profit margins continue to be squeezed, having a payroll that is minimal is increasingly the only way for a business to remain in operation. The human costs will be further aggravated, as there is no ready place for the displaced to go—and the increasingly fewer number of people with disposable income to purchase goods will accelerate the economic spiral downward.
Resisting globalization and automation is futile, as both are well underway and support each other. The wealth inequality gap continues to grow, as the extremely wealthy take even more for themselves at the expense of large numbers of people merely trying to eek out a living. Under these circumstances, social upheaval and even revolution are not inconceivable.
A retort countering the above could be that slavery and all manner of unfairness has been in existence for several millennia, therefore the situation is normal. Yes, but humanity also dispensed with the divine right of monarchs several centuries ago and this is a similar time. And as the current situation is unsustainable on multiple fronts, we appear to be on the verge of a new era in history. Patchwork to save the current economic framework has not relieved the pressure for change. Cutting taxes on the very wealthy did nothing for those not already wealthy (as it was premised to do), and the points about globalization and automation are only part of the reasons this failed. Those with great possessions are understandably disinclined to relinquish them willingly, and doing so by force is not a guarantee of any degree of fairness anyway—being poor or rich in and of itself does not automatically convey virtue toward one’s fellow humans or lack there of.
So then, where is the love? Jesus himself foretold this situation (Matthew 24:12), and he also wondered aloud whether he would find faith on earth upon his return (Luke 18:8). We have it within us, through the power of Jesus’ Spirit, to both love God and our fellow humans with agape, and nurture a strong and effective faith to power that love. I would add that any follower of the Son of Man who does not see that as a practical remedy to the otherwise impossible situation described above has an impaired spiritual existence.
Now it’s time to get to the work of spiritual healing for our dysfunctional economy, in the practical sense expressed in the letter of James and the Jubilee decrees in the Hebrew scriptures.
Consider the following additional thoughts:
- Bargaining for a lower price is by its nature making someone else pay for (at least part of) what you get. Such a modus operandi is the opposite of the merit based ethos it claims to be. Clever ≠ productive.
- One cannot speak out on moral issues when the consequences of doing so jeopardize one’s livelihood. This is a very real situation in many business environments (both for employees and business owners). More people are self-censoring their conversations and social media posts, at the personal cost of integrity guilt.
- Globalization is a reality. And going off the grid is not practical for the vast majority of average people; many products you are dependent on are sourced or manufactured with slave labor.
- The conflict between advertising/marketing and stewardship/frugality is very real. The economy as we know it would collapse if advertising lost its influence; that would be good if it is replaced with something that is both fulfilling and sustainable.
- Reference the People’s Budget.
Here are some additional ideas that I think are practical:
- Enabling micro-entrepreneurship, starting with support of maker spaces
- Reduce and mitigate hair trigger litigiousness and eliminate fear of frivolous lawsuits.
- With creeping “überization” of many areas formerly supported by traditional employment (partly as a last resort for individuals), at least regulate it to the extent that neither customer nor provider is taken advantage of. Eliminate ways the system can be gamed by anyone, and make it a viable way to make a living.
- Develop housing standards that are affordable, for example by allowing simple much cheaper cottages to be built that are structurally sound, environmentally efficient, attractive to view, and less administratively and legally complex to market, purchase, and own.
- Give people tangible credit and incentives to participate in and support their community (all properly supervised). Examples could be tax breaks for picking up neighborhood trash, taking groceries to those who cannot get out, mowing highway medians, and repairing road signs with provided materials. If everyone does this and reduces their taxes, great, the work is getting done.
- Requiring a section in quarterly financial reports for contributions to the community (and monitoring it to prevent it from being gamed). And making it standard practice to include in resumes and business capability statements things done to help your fellow humans.
I think you get the idea. Let’s go do it.
mcw
—