I am not an economist. My working life revolves around teaching and researching in the area of the New Testament. So what can the New Testament say about the current economic situation, and should what it says be brought into current thinking?
I would say, “Yes” for this reason. The fundamentals of economics, as with any human endeavour, at heart do not have to do with how money works, or how economic systems develop or operate. The fundamentals lie in how people think, and the attitudes and values they bring to bear on how they organise their lives politically, socially and economically. The fundamentals, then, are essentially spiritual: that is, they have to do with how we understand ourselves as humans, what makes us happy and what brings “the good life”.
In this respect, the New Testament has a great deal to say: and some of it is very specific to economic life. Luke’s Gospel tells us of an incident when a man asks Jesus to arbitrate in a dispute over a family inheritance (Luke 12:13-15). Jesus’ reply is rather unpromising. He refuses to get involved, and goes on to say, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed”. Greed: there’s a word that has found its way into our economic discourse in the past few years. But, I suggest, the New Testament answer to economic turmoil is not simply: “Don’t be greedy”.
Here are what have been some of the drivers of our economic life in recent years, so it seems to me. These are the values and attitudes that have driven economic activity.
Firstly, money and managerial skills are the most important factors in economic well-being. In other words, the most important outcomes of economic activity are to ensure a good return to shareholders, and high remuneration for managers, especially CEOs. The latter outcome is motivated by the fact that “top dollar” is needed to attract top talent, to ensure a well-run, productive enterprise that will return the highest profits possible to shareholders. What is not asked is why this should be? In other words, why is it that the skills and talents of employees should not also be equally kept in the frame, so that rewarding good productivity and the loyal and hard effort of the workers is as important as ensuring high return to shareholders and largesse to the top management?
A second value is maintaining relativity of incomes and pay rates. This has essentially become a game of “catching up” and “keeping ahead”. In other words, income earners are either trying to catch up with other income earners whom they consider to be doing work of equal worth or value to theirs. Or else they are attempting to keep ahead of the pack, relatively speaking, in order to demonstrate the greater worth and value of their contribution to society’s economic well-being. When relativity begins to operate in a global market, things can go seriously out of whack. Hence, “top dollar” must match or reflect what is earned in other overseas economies regardless of other factors such as the relative cost of living.
Another set of values revolves around rewarding the few at the expense of the many. In the arena of remuneration what this loses sight of is the interdependence of all in generating wealth in the first place. Hence, CEO’s, employers’ and shareholders’ interests or abilities are considered more important and more worthy of reward than those of employees. But, stop a minute: what successful enterprise or business really reaches its success solely on the efforts of a CEO (even a “top dollar” executive), or the investment of shareholders? Any enterprise will depend on the efforts of many in the organisation, from top to bottom. And a truly successful business will be blessed with employees who are dedicated to their jobs, hardworking and responsible. As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, it will be the efforts, competence and goodwill of the employees at the “coal face” of the enterprise that will truly determine its success.
Rewarding the few at the expense of the many has been a marketing ploy in use for several decades now. Hence, one may buy a block of chocolate and win a block of land, or purchase a new shampoo and win a Subaru. The cost of the land or the Subaru, of course, are not divorced from the price of the chocolate or the shampoo. In this case, the many consumers contribute to the reward of the few. In some ways, it is amazing that we consumers continued to be suckered by this kind of extortion: why do we not simply demand lower prices, and fewer “marketing costs” built into what we pay?
These all represent “forms of greed”, but a positive way forward may be found by applying two principles drawn from the New Testament. The first is, “look after one another’s interests, and not just your own” (Philippians 2:4). There is not much more that need be said here. Looking after each other’s interests would mean that those at the top of the economic pile would be concerned for those at the bottom. In this case, the principle of relativity might translate into concern that the differential between top earners and those at lower down the scale not become too great: “top dollar” remuneration would keep sight of “bottom dollar” circumstances. It would mean that rewards would be shared around in a justly proportionate manner.
Another principle is: “There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment” (1 Timothy 6:6). The “godliness” aspect may not be much understood these days, though focusing on godliness is a way of living with a concern and love for others that reflects God’s character. Contentment would mean that we know when enough is enough: that we recognise where true happiness lies. To return to the saying of Jesus about greed with which we began: Jesus went on to say that a person’s life is not made up of the abundance of their possessions. This strikes a blow at the root of consumerism, for it recognises that our discontents are not helped by indulging in ever more “retail therapy”. Real happiness is always a by-product: and mostly arises out of our attention to the needs and interests of others. Allowing our economic values to be shaped by attention to humans and human needs, rather than human greed and the mighty dollar is, no doubt, what Jesus means about being “rich towards God” (Luke 12:21b, NRSV).
No comments:
Post a Comment