Wow - this was one with which I have the strongest possible disagreement. The notes are what he said, not what I think. I asked some pointed questions, and I'm afraid the answers offered were as unsatisfactory as the talk itself. Dr Hughes is an able scholar, and of course he was speaking within the British context. Nevertheless, the defense of forced redistribution of wealth rather than the creation of new wealth was, as I see things, deeply troubling.
Rev Dr John Hughes
Moralism and the Market
Morality and the Market
* Claims that the Free Market is bound up with secularism.
Since 2008-09 intl leaders note that the mkt cannot be an end in itself. “It should be free, but not values free.”
“Are there global economic rules? Markets cannot self-regulate but they can self-destruct.” - Gordon Brown
This is a disavowal of liberal market
“Wealth without fairness...capitalism without a conscience...markets are there to serve...we must shape capitalism to serve...the market is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end...” - David Cameron
The politics of virtue is on the rise.
(But whose principles informing whose conscience?)
Completely laissez faire approaches are only materialist in their view of humanity. It is utterly Darwinian.
Secularism - according to Schmeman - areas of life are viewed as separate from God; Faber notes the dis-enchantment of the world authored by the Puritans led to a work ethic that was inherently secular and materialist.
(Watch out for the Law of unintended consequences!)
The market crisis was a moral crisis in relationship to risk, debt, and de-regulation. These are choices made, not inevitabilities that were impossible to avoid.
“We need rules that make hedge funds and risk visible...” - G Brown
Move away from a culture of irresponsible debt to a culture of Jubilee.
(Seriously???)
But what is needed is not the pruning of excesses but the a new moral economics and mutuality in market relations.
Red Toryism - Philip Blond (formerly a theologian of the RO)
Re-Moralization of the Market
Classical Liberalism cannot offer authentic moral ends
Resistance to monopolistic capitalism strangling the economy
This is the distributization envisioned by Chesterton and Belloc
2. Re-Capitalization of the Poor.
Compass Group (Blue Labor)
From work ethic to ethic of care
Free from poverty and exclusion
Making economy more local.
The co-inherent economy is ‘body-politic’; it is Christendom in its orientation.
Questions
What is the role of the state?
Blond - some role; Compass, more so.
International Justice?
Though global, Blond and Compass are primarily concerned with national issues.
What is the ‘theology’ of the proposals being made.
Caritatis in Veritate - B16 (3rd Encyclical)
Economic Sphere is not Neutral
Economic Decisions are moral Decisions
Profit not an end in itself, but rather service.
Socially responsible businesses
Unionization as Protection of workers (Oh really? Which workers?!!!?)
Decision Making at Local Level rather than state centralism
Global Collaboration
World-wide re-distribution of Energy and Economic Resources
World Polity - Family of Nations
Waste of Intl Aid by Oppressive Governments is Condemned
Large-Scale re-distribution of wealth global
“Civilizing the economy”
- Charitable works associated with private companies
Implications
Charity as ‘Gift-Exchange’
Augustinian and Johannine - participatory not merely private, and reciprocal
Love moves to courageous action
Sharing is at the Heart of the Gospel Message
C. The old division of nature/grace and faith/reason must be overcome.
2 comments:
veral comments. First, is this lecture available?
One thing I notice about Christians when it comes to the economy, is that we tend to speak in moral abstracts with little regard to the fact the economics is a chaotic set of systems that interact with each other. We should take care in understanding these systems as well as the moral concepts that should govern them. I can't say if these gentlemen do, but I suspect not as much as they should.
On the "redistribution of wealth"... I despise this phrase when used by socialists or when used by laissez-faire types. Socialist use the term as a justification for plunder, but others use it as a pejorative against those that see inequities in our economic system. What about corporations that get huge tax abatements, pay low effective income tax rates, and pay their employees minimum wage. These employees use public transportation, welfare, and a host of other government services. Why not make companies that do business in this way pay for the real cost of doing business? What about oil companies that we have literally spent billions in war to protect their assets? Not only have we protected their assets, but the shortage caused from the wars has lead to an increase in their profits at those funding the wars expense (i.e. taxpayer). Would an increased tax on these profits be "redistributing the wealth" or would it be asking them to pay their fair share? At least its a discussion worth having.
Response to Brett R.
You are compassionately concerned about the impact of economics on individual lives and I agree that we Christians should have more understanding of how to live ‘Christianly’ in all aspects of our lives, especially those areas that are often thought of as ‘secular’, like government and economics. However, I think you should spend some time reframing your questions to focus on underlying biblical principles that can guide our actions and decisions in these areas. I believe any discussion you might have along the lines you have suggested in your response would get sidetracked into a political debate. Not all concerned Christians share your point of view about corporations, oil companies, the purpose of the recent wars, whether or not oil companies have profited by the wars, etc. You have also used many comparison phrases such as “huge tax abatements”, “low effective income tax rates”, “real cost of doing business”, “fair share.” The questions then arise, “According to whom? Who decides what is “huge”, “low”, “real”, or “fair”? From my perspective, more productive, and less acrimonious, discussions might focus on the role of government in our lives and what part it can, or should, play in relieving many types of suffering. What is the Church’s responsibility? Can a government force societal or economic change or must it come from a change of heart in the citizens? Does government have the responsibility, and/or right, to make moral decisions and impose them on its citizens through its economic and social policies? If so, who decides what is moral? From a biblical perspective, what is the proper sphere of influence of government? Are there limitations to its power? If so, what are those limits and who, or what, decides?
God bless your search for understanding and truth.
Post a Comment