What the Market Economy Needs to Be Moral
Oct 7, 2010
Joe Carter
You’ve likely heard the field of economics referred to as "the dismal science." And if you took a course in macroeconomics you probably recognize that the appellation was given by the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle. But what few people realize is that Carlyle coined the term in an 1849 magazine article titled Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question in which he denounced the two groups within the United Kingdom who championed the cause of anti-slavery: market economists and evangelicals.
In our day we have become so accustomed to hearing criticisms of free market economics from socialists, Marxists, and others from the political left that we find it difficult to imagine that it being opposed by conservatives. Attitudes toward the market economy, however, often have less to do with the political spectrum than they do with the conception of who should retain control over economic life.
Progressives, fearing that no one is in control and that the powerful will take advantage of the weak, believe the state must prevent an inequitable and unjust society. Conservatives—as we would classify them today—believe that markets unhindered by the state lead to the most equitable and just society possible. Libertarians, who view markets as morally neutral, contend that the individual allowed total liberty will create the ideal society.
While all of these positions have some merit, they all fail because they leave out the most compelling reason for putting our qualified trust in the markets: Because they are the primary means God has provided for us to carry out these economic tasks.
Recognizing this fact, however, does not release homo economicus from all responsibility for the way he acts in the market—for what he buys and sells. A market is, after all, merely a mechanism for the exchange of goods and services. While they are often viewed as highly individualistic and selfish, markets cannot exist without a network of humans in relationship with one another.
Of course, as with all human interactions, our natural proclivity to sin leads us to mistreat and exploit others using the mechanisms of the market. Market forces and outcomes are prone to injustice and the inequitable distribution of goods precisely because man is by nature a sinful creature.
As Christians, we can never embrace any system or institution without being wary of how we will abuse it for our own depraved purposes and how we will rationalize our reasons for doing so. This is the reason we cannot fully embrace either a conservative or libertarian view of market economics.
But we should also be leery of falling for the progressive tendency to believe that government is the proper defender against economic injustice. While we might agree that some agent should protect society and particularly the vulnerable against exploitation and abuse, we should reject the notion that the state has the moral authority to carry out that task. As William McGurn argues in Is the Market Moral?, it is naive to expect government to counter powerful market forces when the state has a monopoly on power. There are few examples in history where government has circumvented the natural inclinations of its citizens in order to make a market more moral, rather than serving the interests of those who control the government itself, whether businesses or bureaucras.
If governmental intervention is not the answer, how should we show concern for the poor? By providing them the opportunities, the resources, and the freedom to more fully enter the market economy. As McGurn points out, "For the poor the real danger is almost never markets and almost always the absence of them."
"It strikes me as not a coincidence," he adds, "that the God who made thinking beings in his own image appears to have put us in a world in which our wealth and well-being depend not only on our own freedom but that of our neighbors."
How odd it is that we believe that free markets benefit our own lives yet reject them as a solution for our neighbors' struggles. We object to having our own economic freedom and access to markets stifled by an intrusive government, yet we often believe this is the best option for our poorest neighbors, whether in our own inner cities or on the continent of Africa. Why are there two sets of standards for how to increase freedom and prosperity?
In a post on ethics and markets, Andy Morriss recounts an anecdote he heard on the radio:
One minister recounted how another minister had told him how God had answered his prayers and healed a headache the second minister had before a major sermon. The first minister commented on how arrogant the second minister was, to demand a miracle to cure his headache when God had already provided aspirin. Surely it is arrogant for us to pray for miracles to relieve drought and poverty when God has already handed us the means to do so—markets. Again, however, we rarely hear moral criticism of those who refuse the miracle of the market and insist that God (or someone) perform the far greater miracle of making economic planning work.
This raises an interesting question for Christians: Does God's sovereignty not extend to markets? If so, why do we expect God to circumvent the institution he has created and provided for our well-being by providing a "miracle"? The primary reason, in my opinion, is that we no longer think theologically about economics.
While we Christians often form our views on such institutions as marriage and the family from our theology, we acquire our understanding of markets from our politics. If we subscribe to a progressive politics, we adopt the Left's criticism of markets and support for government control over them. If we subscribe to conservative politics, we embrace the Right's unquestioning allegiance to unfettered markets.
What we need is a third way of viewing markets. We need a clear Christian vision that understands that markets are a moral sphere, contra the libertarians. We need to promote the idea that free individuals rather than government force is necessary to carry out this task, as the left often contends. And we need to realize that the "market" is not a mystical system that will miraculously provide for our neighbor, as many conservatives seem to think.
Most of all, we need to develop a coherent Biblically-based conception of how the market as a human institution can be used for the redemptive purposes of our Creator. Christians to spend less time treating the markets as abstractions and more time working within them as models of Christ-like behavior.
RESOURCES
Thomas Carlyle, Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question
Comments:
10.7.2010 | 5:19am
Ian says:
Why demand a miracle to cure a headache when God had already provided aspirin? What an excellent point!
And what a revolutionary idea that God has provided free markets as a way to help the poor. One only has to look at the progress China has made in hte last 20 years to see that even with a repressive government, economic miracles can occur.
Sadly I fear I may never hear a sermon in church about this.
And what a revolutionary idea that God has provided free markets as a way to help the poor. One only has to look at the progress China has made in hte last 20 years to see that even with a repressive government, economic miracles can occur.
Sadly I fear I may never hear a sermon in church about this.
10.7.2010 | 6:06am
Kishore says:
I don't understand how calling for a moral market economy is a "third way".
There are two ways of running an economy - central planning or letting buyers and sellers exchange their goods and services freely. Making sure that those buyers and sellers do so morally is a function of the moral/ethical and legal culture surrounding a market economy and so not opposed to a market economy.
Central planning has been shown to fail both economically and morally over and over again. The previous comment shows what happens when conservatives forget about or dismiss economics - they tend to use the state for central planning and welfare programs just as the left does. Arguing against human liberty, especially now that so much of the world has tasted it, is useless. So the task is to moralize that liberty and the instrument that has been most effective in reducing poverty.
There are two ways of running an economy - central planning or letting buyers and sellers exchange their goods and services freely. Making sure that those buyers and sellers do so morally is a function of the moral/ethical and legal culture surrounding a market economy and so not opposed to a market economy.
Central planning has been shown to fail both economically and morally over and over again. The previous comment shows what happens when conservatives forget about or dismiss economics - they tend to use the state for central planning and welfare programs just as the left does. Arguing against human liberty, especially now that so much of the world has tasted it, is useless. So the task is to moralize that liberty and the instrument that has been most effective in reducing poverty.
10.7.2010 | 9:18am
Maureen says:
Since slavery had been outlawed in Christendom for hundreds of years before African and Carib slavery began, clearly Wilberforce and his crew were acting conservatively. It was the forces of slavery who were liberal.
:) Not that you can really map these political categories onto the politics of centuries past in lands far away.
:) Not that you can really map these political categories onto the politics of centuries past in lands far away.
10.7.2010 | 9:18am
Catherine says:
Joe,
Very interesting piece! However, your Christian "third way" already exists in the teachings of St. Josemaria Escriva and the practice of members of Opus Dei. To be sure, those teachings need wider exposure, as does the practice. To that end, here are a few remarks:
1) what we need is not so much a Biblical conception of how markets can be redemptive (whatever that means), but the lived experience of countless Christians who believe their professional lives actually to be redemptive. Such people would submit the many practical decisions of their working lives to Christian scrutiny. The net result of their efforts would be a Christian society. We don't know what that would look like in advance, and inevitably, "the devil would stick his tail into it" to a certain extent. But a Christian response to modernity will occur (and does occur) as Christians respond to modernity; not as they produce theories about it, useful as theory can be.
2) while sound doctrine is necessary to such an exercise, and sound economic ideas as well, the key to success is piety and the contemplative soul. In a religious society, people are surrounded by reminders of their faith; in a secular one, we must carry our icons within. This requires a significant, daily investment of prayer. A Christian economic model will be the fruit of Christian prayer, in the minds of those Christians with the relevant professional formation.
3) But that model - or those models, since there needn't be only one - will respect the secular nature of economic theory. It will rest on economic principles, not theological ones. As a consequence of its secular character, such a theory will draw on the contributions of non-Christians as well; just as a just and functioning society draws on their contributions.
4) A Christian theory of markets will not look Christian; but it will look human.
Very interesting piece! However, your Christian "third way" already exists in the teachings of St. Josemaria Escriva and the practice of members of Opus Dei. To be sure, those teachings need wider exposure, as does the practice. To that end, here are a few remarks:
1) what we need is not so much a Biblical conception of how markets can be redemptive (whatever that means), but the lived experience of countless Christians who believe their professional lives actually to be redemptive. Such people would submit the many practical decisions of their working lives to Christian scrutiny. The net result of their efforts would be a Christian society. We don't know what that would look like in advance, and inevitably, "the devil would stick his tail into it" to a certain extent. But a Christian response to modernity will occur (and does occur) as Christians respond to modernity; not as they produce theories about it, useful as theory can be.
2) while sound doctrine is necessary to such an exercise, and sound economic ideas as well, the key to success is piety and the contemplative soul. In a religious society, people are surrounded by reminders of their faith; in a secular one, we must carry our icons within. This requires a significant, daily investment of prayer. A Christian economic model will be the fruit of Christian prayer, in the minds of those Christians with the relevant professional formation.
3) But that model - or those models, since there needn't be only one - will respect the secular nature of economic theory. It will rest on economic principles, not theological ones. As a consequence of its secular character, such a theory will draw on the contributions of non-Christians as well; just as a just and functioning society draws on their contributions.
4) A Christian theory of markets will not look Christian; but it will look human.
10.7.2010 | 11:07am
Roger McKinney says:
Carter: “Of course, as with all human interactions, our natural proclivity to sin leads us to mistreat and exploit others using the mechanisms of the market. Market forces and outcomes are prone to injustice and the inequitable distribution of goods precisely because man is by nature a sinful creature.”
Carter seems to be totally oblivious to the centuries of debate by church scholars over this issue. It’s no different than the just price debate. As the church scholar determined centuries ago, the only just price, and therefore justice, is in a free market. Therefore, Carter is wrong. Free markets cannot produce injustice. Only coercion in the marketplace can cause injustice, and only the state is powerful enough to use coercion in the market. Any citizen who attempts it will be crushed by the market, as Adam Smith pointed out. And inequitable distribution of goods is not unjust if it results from free market activity and the rule of law. Inequitable distribution of goods can be God’s fault.
Carter: “But we should also be leery of falling for the progressive tendency to believe that government is the proper defender against economic injustice.”
Who is the “proper defender” then? The state’s role is to protect life, liberty and property.
Carter: “If we subscribe to conservative politics, we embrace the Right's unquestioning allegiance to unfettered markets.”
Here Carter sets up a straw man so that he can defeat it and propose his alternative. There is no one on the right who give unquestioning allegiance to anything, and there is no one who believes in unfettered markets. Even the most radical anarchist insists on the rule of law. So then his “third way” comes out being what most libertarians want anyway. So he rejects the libertarian straw man he created in favor of real libertarianism.
Carter: “Most of all, we need is develop a coherent Biblically-based conception of how the market as a human institution can be used for the redemptive purposes of our Creator.”
That has already been done. Read the Late Scholastics and Adam Smith.
Libertarian economics is the essence of Biblical economics. The Bible sanctifies private property, but property equals control. Free markets are nothing but the instantiation of Biblical private property, for without free markets, owners don’t have control over their property and therefore don’t own it, regardless of whether they have a paper title to it. And Church scholars determined centuries ago that justice in the market can happen only with a free market.
Carter seems to be totally oblivious to the centuries of debate by church scholars over this issue. It’s no different than the just price debate. As the church scholar determined centuries ago, the only just price, and therefore justice, is in a free market. Therefore, Carter is wrong. Free markets cannot produce injustice. Only coercion in the marketplace can cause injustice, and only the state is powerful enough to use coercion in the market. Any citizen who attempts it will be crushed by the market, as Adam Smith pointed out. And inequitable distribution of goods is not unjust if it results from free market activity and the rule of law. Inequitable distribution of goods can be God’s fault.
Carter: “But we should also be leery of falling for the progressive tendency to believe that government is the proper defender against economic injustice.”
Who is the “proper defender” then? The state’s role is to protect life, liberty and property.
Carter: “If we subscribe to conservative politics, we embrace the Right's unquestioning allegiance to unfettered markets.”
Here Carter sets up a straw man so that he can defeat it and propose his alternative. There is no one on the right who give unquestioning allegiance to anything, and there is no one who believes in unfettered markets. Even the most radical anarchist insists on the rule of law. So then his “third way” comes out being what most libertarians want anyway. So he rejects the libertarian straw man he created in favor of real libertarianism.
Carter: “Most of all, we need is develop a coherent Biblically-based conception of how the market as a human institution can be used for the redemptive purposes of our Creator.”
That has already been done. Read the Late Scholastics and Adam Smith.
Libertarian economics is the essence of Biblical economics. The Bible sanctifies private property, but property equals control. Free markets are nothing but the instantiation of Biblical private property, for without free markets, owners don’t have control over their property and therefore don’t own it, regardless of whether they have a paper title to it. And Church scholars determined centuries ago that justice in the market can happen only with a free market.
10.7.2010 | 11:25am
"Most of all, we need is [sic] develop a coherent Biblically-based conception of how the market as a human institution can be used for the redemptive purposes of our Creator."
Have you seen the Jubilee Centre's Cambridge Paper "Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational economy" and its prequel "Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt? Five moral flaws and their social consequences"?
Have you seen the Jubilee Centre's Cambridge Paper "Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational economy" and its prequel "Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt? Five moral flaws and their social consequences"?
10.7.2010 | 11:40am
Joe Carter says:
@Kishore ***I don't understand how calling for a moral market economy is a "third way".***
That part was added by my editor for the sake of clarity. Unfortunately, I think the connotation associated with the term "third way" ended up confusing what I intended. I changed it to reflect what my original purpose: "What we need is a third way of viewing markets."
***There are two ways of running an economy - central planning or letting buyers and sellers exchange their goods and services freely. ***
I'm not sure those two options exhaust the possibilities. In many ways the American economy is neither centrally planned nore completely free. There are a number of gradations between those two poles.
@Catherine ***Such people would submit the many practical decisions of their working lives to Christian scrutiny.***
I agree.
@Roger McKinney ***Therefore, Carter is wrong. Free markets cannot produce injustice.***
I think you may have missed my point, though I admit that I am to blame for the confusion. In my piece I don't use "markets" and "free markets" interchangeably. They are obviously two very distinct things (hence the need for the modifier). My points are about the market as it really is, rather than in some abstract theory. There are no truly free markets (at least not of any size) so it isn't really useful to talk about what doesn't exist. (But yes, free markets could produce injustice. Justice is giving people what they are due. The market is blind to what people deserve so it does not really care about justice.)
***Inequitable distribution of goods can be God’s fault.***
You say the inequitable distribution of goods is neither God's fault nor the fault of the market. Who then is to blame?
*** and there is no one who believes in unfettered markets.***
You must not read many libertarians.
***Even the most radical anarchist insists on the rule of law.***
Unfettered means free from restraint. The purpose of the rule of law in markets is partially to prevent unjust restraint (e.g., coercion, collusions).
***Libertarian economics is the essence of Biblical economics..***
No, no, no it's not. The essence of libertarianism is that individual liberty is the highest political good. None of the Biblical commands about economics start with that presoposition.
Libertarian economics may be consonant with Biblical economics but in no way, shape, or form could it be considered its "essence." (Unless, of course we are using "libertarian" to mean that which is not really espoused by modern libertarians.)
That part was added by my editor for the sake of clarity. Unfortunately, I think the connotation associated with the term "third way" ended up confusing what I intended. I changed it to reflect what my original purpose: "What we need is a third way of viewing markets."
***There are two ways of running an economy - central planning or letting buyers and sellers exchange their goods and services freely. ***
I'm not sure those two options exhaust the possibilities. In many ways the American economy is neither centrally planned nore completely free. There are a number of gradations between those two poles.
@Catherine ***Such people would submit the many practical decisions of their working lives to Christian scrutiny.***
I agree.
@Roger McKinney ***Therefore, Carter is wrong. Free markets cannot produce injustice.***
I think you may have missed my point, though I admit that I am to blame for the confusion. In my piece I don't use "markets" and "free markets" interchangeably. They are obviously two very distinct things (hence the need for the modifier). My points are about the market as it really is, rather than in some abstract theory. There are no truly free markets (at least not of any size) so it isn't really useful to talk about what doesn't exist. (But yes, free markets could produce injustice. Justice is giving people what they are due. The market is blind to what people deserve so it does not really care about justice.)
***Inequitable distribution of goods can be God’s fault.***
You say the inequitable distribution of goods is neither God's fault nor the fault of the market. Who then is to blame?
*** and there is no one who believes in unfettered markets.***
You must not read many libertarians.
***Even the most radical anarchist insists on the rule of law.***
Unfettered means free from restraint. The purpose of the rule of law in markets is partially to prevent unjust restraint (e.g., coercion, collusions).
***Libertarian economics is the essence of Biblical economics..***
No, no, no it's not. The essence of libertarianism is that individual liberty is the highest political good. None of the Biblical commands about economics start with that presoposition.
Libertarian economics may be consonant with Biblical economics but in no way, shape, or form could it be considered its "essence." (Unless, of course we are using "libertarian" to mean that which is not really espoused by modern libertarians.)
10.7.2010 | 12:41pm
Joseph says:
@Roger - I don't think it was the writer's intention to imply that the free market system itself is unjust. But take a look around you. We are not perfect. We are prone to sin. Because of this proclivity towards sin, injustice can exist within the free market when employers treat workers not as fellow human beings but as automatons, and when people who have wealth capable of rivaling that of Bill Gates don't care one whit about helping those who are in need. Basically I think this entire article is arguing for the return of the economy this Republic is supposed to have. Namely an economy where people are free to exchange goods and services as they see fit as long as no crimes are committed and where help for the needy is the sole jurisdiction of private entities who aren't in business to make a profit and that rely solely on free-will donations to cover the cost of carrying out their business, which is charity.
10.7.2010 | 1:06pm
Stephen S says:
Free markets are pre-requisites, not guarantors, of economic justice.
10.7.2010 | 2:35pm
Paul E. says:
Our diocesan paper this week included an editorial by Fr. John Rausch, a Glenmary priest, who contends, "People of faith recognize all wealth has a social mortgage, a lien payable to the common good. Only appropriate tax laws, and not simply voluntary actions, will promote justice for the least in society." While I viscerally disagree with this priest, he does make an interesting backdrop for Mr. Carter's article. The problem posed by a free market for a person of faith is a tolerance for success and failure, and I think Mr. Carter neatly avoided this necessary discussion.
A free market implies winners and losers. Winners are held to be normative, losers informative. A winding path to success is created as a paradigm. Inherent is a free form hierarchy where "trickle down" necessarily occurs and is sought. But if we cannot accept winning and losing as moral alternatives, we can find no morality in the freedom of the market.
The concept of class has become so deeply ingrained in our vocabulary we are confused by the market vision and the virtue of a classless society. We insist on grafting the Socialist's vision of class onto the free market, and we make of those who win a separate class from those who lose.
The use of law to create a common moral framework for the market is not contested by the Conservative. Anti-monopoly legislation, insider trading legislation, laws prohibiting theft by taking or by deception are examples. The battleground, however, lies in what disposition is to be made of success. I would simply contend that for a free market to exist, the decision of some to behave immorally with the fruits of success must be tolerated. The true work of the person of faith is the reform of the individual.
A free market implies winners and losers. Winners are held to be normative, losers informative. A winding path to success is created as a paradigm. Inherent is a free form hierarchy where "trickle down" necessarily occurs and is sought. But if we cannot accept winning and losing as moral alternatives, we can find no morality in the freedom of the market.
The concept of class has become so deeply ingrained in our vocabulary we are confused by the market vision and the virtue of a classless society. We insist on grafting the Socialist's vision of class onto the free market, and we make of those who win a separate class from those who lose.
The use of law to create a common moral framework for the market is not contested by the Conservative. Anti-monopoly legislation, insider trading legislation, laws prohibiting theft by taking or by deception are examples. The battleground, however, lies in what disposition is to be made of success. I would simply contend that for a free market to exist, the decision of some to behave immorally with the fruits of success must be tolerated. The true work of the person of faith is the reform of the individual.
10.7.2010 | 2:46pm
Charlie Collier says:
There was a recent contribution to the NYT's philosophy blog, The Stone, that I think makes an interesting contribution to conversations like this. Professor J. M. Bernstein argues that intelligible free market action actually depends upon regulation. Why? Because regulation functions to provide a context of intelligibility to self-interested profit seeking. One way it does so is by preventing self-interested profit taking from becoming unhinged or severed from the larger point of market relations, namely, wealth creation. Glossing Hegel on market relations, Bernstein concludes: "regulation is the force of reason needed to undo the concoctions of fantasy," the fantasy here being the idea that autonomous self-interest will produce by itself the good that free markets seek, wealth creation. It's worth a read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/hegel-on-wall-street/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/hegel-on-wall-street/
10.7.2010 | 3:04pm
Clare says:
1884 of the Catechism says we should model our governance on the way God governs the world. It has the phrase "great regard for human freedom" which means that God does not use power to stop people from sinning. Sinners will still be responsible for their acts and suffer the effects of their sin both in this life and the next. St Thomas teaching that the "prince" should not legislate in all matters of morality, but only in those which gravely affect society as murder and theft also sheds a beam of light on the situation. While libertarianism gets a bad name, libertarianism circumscribed by natural law (for the pagan) or by the moral law (for the Catholic), i.e. the individual man should be free to do everything that is not a sin best describes the economy God has placed us in seems to be closest to 1884.
Fr C Hendricks
Fr C Hendricks
10.7.2010 | 3:08pm
Stephen S says:
@Paul E.
The difference with free markets is that Monday's losers can become Tuesday's winners. Tuesday's winners have increased their odds of success on Wednesday.
Dinesh D'souza reported on this phenomenon. In more restricted countries, Monday's loser is never given another chance on Tuesday.
The difference with free markets is that Monday's losers can become Tuesday's winners. Tuesday's winners have increased their odds of success on Wednesday.
Dinesh D'souza reported on this phenomenon. In more restricted countries, Monday's loser is never given another chance on Tuesday.
10.7.2010 | 5:02pm
JP says:
We should remember that "market economics" came about through the efforts of many Enlightenment philosophers. And Enlightenment was a secular project. Thinkers such as Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and Smith used Nature and not God as a guidepost. And they mined the lowest common denominator of Human Nature in order to construct a system of civic life that would hopefully be free of the kind of catastrophic religiious and successional wars that plagued Europe from the 12th through the 17th Centuries. Remember, the Thrity Years War was fresh in thier minds. As one thinker put it, the Enlightenment Thinkers built on low, but very firm ground.
What is ironic is that the hardest hitting critiques of market capitalism were primairily from the Right, and not the Left. Some would find this odd, since Marx's thought had such a deep impression on most thinkers from 1885 onward. But writers from Rousseau through Nietzsche, Weber, and Heidegger are and were the foundation stones for most of the criticisim of market capitalism. Progressive thought from 1900 onward went beyond mere Marxism, as Marx had nothing to say about Art, religion (other than it was an enemy of the Proletariat), and culture. Marx was really nothing more than a historicist who could pen some memorable phrases. But when you hear a European or an American Progressive criticize market capitalism, they do it using the language of the Old Right. For they go beyond economics and extend thier ire for the Philistines (an old term used primairily by aristocrats), or bourgeoisie (Rousseau); they do not trust the Masses (again, a sentiment left over by the aristocracy); and the complaint that capitalism does not engender the Masses towards morality (think of Pope Pious X). Today's Left essientially co-opted the old arguments from the Right, gussied them up with a bit of Marxist thought and today presents them as Progressive. In short, the Leftist critique is nothing more than disdan for people dressed up as social justice.
The reason I bring this up is we should think about the categories we use. We should also remember that Locke and Smith assumed the "people" would always retain thier religious morality -even as they sublimated thier religious longings for economic improvement. I really don't think they ever considered the kind of "creative destrcution" dynamic capitalism creates amongst a society. The 19th and 20th Century literary world was filled with stories of how quickly the old order decayed; of how families became seperated, old moralities and traditions died. For every shining new city there was a grave yard of past beliefs, manners, and traditions. Both Chesterton and Tolkien despaired about the death of the English rural life. Some nations took this economic/social dynamsim easily (the UK), others (France) did not. And the United States has always thrived in this social chaos.
Finally, I think we can put to bed the notion that the Market in and of itself can create a just morality. The Market, however, does best when its practioners are moral people. After-all, laws must be obeyed if contracts are to mean anything. And this is not to say that Weber was totally correct. I think he was putting the cart before the horse. In his estimation, the underlying force of the markets is not Reason (which Lockes and Smith believed), but religious irrationality (the Protestant Work Ethic). In the US, there are both secular practioners of market capitalism, and those with religious convictions. I find it ironic that those who have the most success practicing market capitalism are those from the Secular Left. One only needs to visit Long Island, Manhatten, Silicon Valley, San Francisco and Los Angles to see this.
What is ironic is that the hardest hitting critiques of market capitalism were primairily from the Right, and not the Left. Some would find this odd, since Marx's thought had such a deep impression on most thinkers from 1885 onward. But writers from Rousseau through Nietzsche, Weber, and Heidegger are and were the foundation stones for most of the criticisim of market capitalism. Progressive thought from 1900 onward went beyond mere Marxism, as Marx had nothing to say about Art, religion (other than it was an enemy of the Proletariat), and culture. Marx was really nothing more than a historicist who could pen some memorable phrases. But when you hear a European or an American Progressive criticize market capitalism, they do it using the language of the Old Right. For they go beyond economics and extend thier ire for the Philistines (an old term used primairily by aristocrats), or bourgeoisie (Rousseau); they do not trust the Masses (again, a sentiment left over by the aristocracy); and the complaint that capitalism does not engender the Masses towards morality (think of Pope Pious X). Today's Left essientially co-opted the old arguments from the Right, gussied them up with a bit of Marxist thought and today presents them as Progressive. In short, the Leftist critique is nothing more than disdan for people dressed up as social justice.
The reason I bring this up is we should think about the categories we use. We should also remember that Locke and Smith assumed the "people" would always retain thier religious morality -even as they sublimated thier religious longings for economic improvement. I really don't think they ever considered the kind of "creative destrcution" dynamic capitalism creates amongst a society. The 19th and 20th Century literary world was filled with stories of how quickly the old order decayed; of how families became seperated, old moralities and traditions died. For every shining new city there was a grave yard of past beliefs, manners, and traditions. Both Chesterton and Tolkien despaired about the death of the English rural life. Some nations took this economic/social dynamsim easily (the UK), others (France) did not. And the United States has always thrived in this social chaos.
Finally, I think we can put to bed the notion that the Market in and of itself can create a just morality. The Market, however, does best when its practioners are moral people. After-all, laws must be obeyed if contracts are to mean anything. And this is not to say that Weber was totally correct. I think he was putting the cart before the horse. In his estimation, the underlying force of the markets is not Reason (which Lockes and Smith believed), but religious irrationality (the Protestant Work Ethic). In the US, there are both secular practioners of market capitalism, and those with religious convictions. I find it ironic that those who have the most success practicing market capitalism are those from the Secular Left. One only needs to visit Long Island, Manhatten, Silicon Valley, San Francisco and Los Angles to see this.
10.8.2010 | 3:56am
JB in CA says:
JP: "I find it ironic that those who have the most success practicing [free-]market capitalism are those from the Secular Left. One only needs to visit Long Island, Manhattan, Silicon Valley, San Francisco and Los Angles to see this."
I agree, and I find it doubly ironic that so many religious conservatives seem to miss this point when they argue that free-market capitalism represents the most just economic system. After all, if the most just economic system works to the advantage of those who advocate secular liberal values, it would stand to reason that secular liberal values represent the most just values.
I agree, and I find it doubly ironic that so many religious conservatives seem to miss this point when they argue that free-market capitalism represents the most just economic system. After all, if the most just economic system works to the advantage of those who advocate secular liberal values, it would stand to reason that secular liberal values represent the most just values.
10.8.2010 | 11:08am
AFZ says:
Good conversation - I think the main point is that free markets depend upon solidarity for their just nature. Just as culture is made up of the people in it, so with markets. It is ultimately our responsibility how we spend our money, and we make moral decisions every day when we spend our money on this or that, or give it to this or that person.
The idea that the market is a "magic box" that will do good and/or produce good without our will directing it is absolutely foolish.
Personally, I am a subscriber to Chesterton and Belloc's ideas of Distributism, and find that they are consistent with the social teaching of the church. Property, yes. But just as a man is limited to one wife, so a man should not seek to accumulate more capital than his just share. Distribution is never perfect, but can be limited by the community and by individuals. We should support independent entrepreneurs, whenever possible, and should seek to be responsible for our own capital needs.
Short story: money matters, and God's kingdom includes our wallets. Pray before you pay.
The idea that the market is a "magic box" that will do good and/or produce good without our will directing it is absolutely foolish.
Personally, I am a subscriber to Chesterton and Belloc's ideas of Distributism, and find that they are consistent with the social teaching of the church. Property, yes. But just as a man is limited to one wife, so a man should not seek to accumulate more capital than his just share. Distribution is never perfect, but can be limited by the community and by individuals. We should support independent entrepreneurs, whenever possible, and should seek to be responsible for our own capital needs.
Short story: money matters, and God's kingdom includes our wallets. Pray before you pay.
10.10.2010 | 8:10pm
Gideon Ertner says:
"What we need is a third way of viewing markets. We need a clear Christian vision..."
Ever heard of Distributism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Ever heard of Distributism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
10.14.2010 | 7:41am
Nathanael Snow says:
I think it is a mistake to simultaneously claim that markets are a special provision of God, an institution of specific creation, and then to claim that markets fail to take notice of the least of these. Does God create flawed institutions? Nay.
It is better to recognize markets as spontaneously emerging given our fallen human nature.
It also should be recognized that claims of market failures can most often be traced to a government failure of some kind.
Finally, the attempt to synthesize markets with a Christian ethic reflects an idolatrous underlying statism. The Christian ethic is peculiar, it stands apart from the world and it's institutions.
The market has no room for individuals that cannot contribute productively. Rightly so. They should be tossed out lest they create a drain on those who are productive and dis-incentivize work. (see the Laffer curve). Instead, care and concern for those who cannot add to the size of the pie (the real "least of these") becomes the peculiar responsibility of the church and the Christian. No unregenerate soul has a rational justification for giving a damn about the least of these beyond what empathy can generate.
Markets, then, are a-moral compared to the Christian ethic, but also the best (most efficient and therefore just - for on what other basis is the unregenerate to determine justice?) institution for coordinating the actions of individuals.
Notice, this understanding provides no space for state action beyond perhaps the protection of rights and enforcement of contracts.
It is better to recognize markets as spontaneously emerging given our fallen human nature.
It also should be recognized that claims of market failures can most often be traced to a government failure of some kind.
Finally, the attempt to synthesize markets with a Christian ethic reflects an idolatrous underlying statism. The Christian ethic is peculiar, it stands apart from the world and it's institutions.
The market has no room for individuals that cannot contribute productively. Rightly so. They should be tossed out lest they create a drain on those who are productive and dis-incentivize work. (see the Laffer curve). Instead, care and concern for those who cannot add to the size of the pie (the real "least of these") becomes the peculiar responsibility of the church and the Christian. No unregenerate soul has a rational justification for giving a damn about the least of these beyond what empathy can generate.
Markets, then, are a-moral compared to the Christian ethic, but also the best (most efficient and therefore just - for on what other basis is the unregenerate to determine justice?) institution for coordinating the actions of individuals.
Notice, this understanding provides no space for state action beyond perhaps the protection of rights and enforcement of contracts.
10.14.2010 | 11:08am
Chuck says:
I believe John Medaille's book "Toward a Truly Free Market" outlines the way forward in achieving morality... his is one of the rare books that even mentioned "usury" as a problem!
10.14.2010 | 11:54am
Tom Grey says:
Hi Joe, long time, no comment -- glad you're still blogging.
But I strongly disagree with you:
Justice is giving people what they are due.
If this is true, than each and every American is committing an injustice in NOT giving the poor of Darfur, or Mexico, or India, "what they are due".
But I dispute this.
"Justice" is the response to some IN-justice. Before justice comes into place there must first be the commission of an injustice, and justice is the response (whether restitution, punishment, exile, or some combination).
Life is not fair. It's not fair that Americans are born in America instead of Darfur or Mexico. But that doesn't make it an injustice.
What is missing is the discussion of morality is the difference between means and ends. Peaceful, voluntary, honest agreements are what the Peaceful (Free) Market is about.
If a "deal" is based on some dishonesty, or is involuntary (non-peaceful), that is not the Peaceful, nor Christian, market.
And, because of the fallen nature of man, there is a need for some gov't Force to stop the dishonest unjust deals. Especially to protect the poor from such all-too-common dishonesties from the rich.
When deals are honest and peaceful, they benefit both sides -- this is how "wealth" (utility) is increased. Both (usually greedy) parties, feel they are better off by accepting the benefits and costs the deal.
The "third way" you're looking for is this: honest peaceful markets without coercion or dishonesty, PLUS a society which celebrates generousity from the successful. We have the latter already -- but among Leftists there is a feeling of being generous with other people's money, thru taxation and other non-peaceful methods. That does not make them really generous. Instead, it is a false moral superiority which hides their sin of destructive envy. The desire to destroy the good fortune, or success, of others.
But I strongly disagree with you:
Justice is giving people what they are due.
If this is true, than each and every American is committing an injustice in NOT giving the poor of Darfur, or Mexico, or India, "what they are due".
But I dispute this.
"Justice" is the response to some IN-justice. Before justice comes into place there must first be the commission of an injustice, and justice is the response (whether restitution, punishment, exile, or some combination).
Life is not fair. It's not fair that Americans are born in America instead of Darfur or Mexico. But that doesn't make it an injustice.
What is missing is the discussion of morality is the difference between means and ends. Peaceful, voluntary, honest agreements are what the Peaceful (Free) Market is about.
If a "deal" is based on some dishonesty, or is involuntary (non-peaceful), that is not the Peaceful, nor Christian, market.
And, because of the fallen nature of man, there is a need for some gov't Force to stop the dishonest unjust deals. Especially to protect the poor from such all-too-common dishonesties from the rich.
When deals are honest and peaceful, they benefit both sides -- this is how "wealth" (utility) is increased. Both (usually greedy) parties, feel they are better off by accepting the benefits and costs the deal.
The "third way" you're looking for is this: honest peaceful markets without coercion or dishonesty, PLUS a society which celebrates generousity from the successful. We have the latter already -- but among Leftists there is a feeling of being generous with other people's money, thru taxation and other non-peaceful methods. That does not make them really generous. Instead, it is a false moral superiority which hides their sin of destructive envy. The desire to destroy the good fortune, or success, of others.
4.24.2011 | 6:17am
Bettyann hpq2612a says:
I think it is a mistake to simultaneously claim that markets are a special provision of God, an institution of specific creation, and then to claim that markets fail to take notice of the least of these. Does God create flawed institutions? Nay. 1) what we need is not so much a Biblical conception of how markets can be redemptive (whatever that means), but the lived experience of countless Christians who believe their professional lives actually to be redemptive. Such people would submit the many practical decisions of their working lives to Christian scrutiny. The net result of their efforts would be a Christian society. We don't know what that would look like in advance, and inevitably, "the devil would stick his tail into it" to a certain extent. But a Christian response to modernity will occur (and does occur) as Christians respond to modernity; not as they produce theories about it, useful as theory can be.
8.20.2011 | 3:20am
Quiana Zawasky says:
Personally, I am a subscriber to Chesterton and Belloc's ideas of Distributism, and find that they are consistent with the social teaching of the church. Property, yes. But just as a man is limited to one wife, so a man should not seek to accumulate more capital than his just share. Distribution is never perfect, but can be limited by the community and by individuals. We should support independent entrepreneurs, whenever possible, and should seek to be responsible for our own capital needs. 1884 of the Catechism says we should model our governance on the way God governs the world. It has the phrase "great regard for human freedom" which means that God does not use power to stop people from sinning. Sinners will still be responsible for their acts and suffer the effects of their sin both in this life and the next. St Thomas teaching that the "prince" should not legislate in all matters of morality, but only in those which gravely affect society as murder and theft also sheds a beam of light on the situation. While libertarianism gets a bad name, libertarianism circumscribed by natural law (for the pagan) or by the moral law (for the Catholic), i.e. the individual man should be free to do everything that is not a sin best describes the economy God has placed us in seems to be closest to 1884.
Similarly, they supported state welfare as a police measure, to check unrest and disaffection.
Real "Throne and Altar" Conservatives would consider most American soi-disant Conservatives to be Liberals and Radicals.