Energion Direct

Category: Capitalism

  • Type X or I Motivation

    By Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
    One of the common criticisms of those on the left, particular the religious left, is that capitalism is an evil system because it treats individuals as commodities of momentary worth, rather than as people made in the image of God.  This is really just a self-serving definition that tells us more about the person making the claim than about capitalism itself.
    One reason for this is that at its core capitalism is based on a mutual giving among individuals that is, at least ideally, freely chosen.  There is nothing in this that demands greed or exploitation.  Granted we live in a fallen world where people are not always driven by the highest motives, but this is a problem with all systems, from sports to science, movies to teaching, the private sector, government, and yes, even socialism. It is hardly limited to capitalism.  People are people, regardless of where they are. One of my favorite quotes is by Victor Frankel from his book Man’s Search for Meaning (If you have not read it, you should do so now).  Frankel, from the perspective of one who had recently been freed from a Nazi Concentration Camp, wrote,

    From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two — the “race” of the decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people.

    What Motivates You?There is nothing inherent in capitalism that makes men greedy or teaches them to exploit others, in fact if anything it is the opposite for capitalism simply seeks an exchange that is best for both sides, where what is best is determined by each individual.  Since it is based on mutual consent, it encourages people to be concerned with the needs of others, which I believe is one of the reasons those supporting capitalism are on average more charitable than those supporting socialism.  If someone were driven by greed and a desire to exploit others, unless there was some mechanism to restrict choice, they will find it difficult to find those who will freely want to be exploited.
    You will notice that I have talked about a generic “exchange” instead of money.  While money is required for most transactions, this requirement is not inherent in capitalism. Capitalism, for example, functions just as well in a barter system where no money changes hands. It is only economic conventions, and in some cases laws, that require the use of money.
    Nor is there any requirement to accumulate great wealth, though this might be the result of one or more exchanges.  Again each side decides what is of value to them.  While for some profit is important, it is also often only a means to a different end, and not an end in and of itself.  For many companies profit is just a means of staying in business, for if there is no profit, the business fails. For many profits are reinvested back into the business so it can better serve customers, open new locations, and yes, even hire more employees and to pay them better.
    [ene_ptp]Many may find this strange, particularly given that there are some sections of the economy that are more profit focused than others.  For example, the stock market is very profit focused, but is this really greed? When you combine households, mutual funds, pension plans and government retirement plans invested in the market, you are looking at about 70% of the total market. Insurance policies’ holdings that protect people from risk make up another 7%.  Is it really greed that is driving people to save up for retirement?
    Add to this the growing number of purpose driven companies, companies where profit is seen as simply a means to other and often more noble goals. Again, to many it might seem strange, but the companies that focus less on profit and more on a purpose often do much better.
    This is because there is a growing body of evidence that the traditional carrot and stick approach to motivation, what is called Type X motivation, is of limited value, and may not be a very good fit for a 21st century economy.
    Extremely briefly, for thousands of years societies have been based on extrinsic rewards and/or punishments to motivate people.  While these worked in some situations, they become increasing ineffective and even counter-productive the more a task requires creativity or originality, something a growing number of modern jobs require.  For example in one study, some artists were commissioned to produce a work of art while others were ask to contribute a work without pay. Later a group of judges, without knowing where these pieces came from, ranked the works of equal quality, but consistently ranked the art works that had been commissioned to be lower in creativity.
    Where all this enters into capitalism is that the motivation behind an exchange is left to the individual. Sure a person could seek a higher wage because they are greedy, but they could also seek a higher wage as it allows them to travel to third world countries on their vacation to spend that time helping those in need.  The motivation is up to them and capitalism works either way.
    Democracy coverIntrinsic or Type I motivation is much more powerful than type X, which is why purpose driven companies often do better than those who seek only profit. While we are in a transition to purpose driven, like the transition into the industrial age it will not be easy. Intrinsic motivation is driven by Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.  People must believe in what they are doing, spend the time and effort to master what they are doing, and be free to determine how they do it.
    Since capitalism does not care what motivates a transaction, only that it is freely entered into by both sides, both forms of motivation are consistent with capitalism, though the freely-entered-into part requires at least some autonomy.   Intrinsic motivation strongly conflicts with socialism, at least in its current form, as socialism requires a strong central government.  While mastery might still fit, purpose is questionable. It would be fine if your purpose just happens to line up with the Government’s but if not, you have to try and find a way around the government.  The biggest problem however is autonomy. Government by its very nature is based on the older extrinsic motivation model. Do one thing and you pay a fine, or even go to jail.  Do another and get a tax break. Classic type X.   Government restricts autonomy, at times even the ability to freely enter into a transaction.  The bigger government is the more laws and regulations it passes the less autonomy people can have.  This is a big mark against socialism, and in favor of capitalism.  It also to some extent helps explain the success America, with its emphasis on Liberty (autonomy) and until recently limited government, has tended more towards Type I.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]
  • Goodbye to Politics

    Goodbye to Politics

    [Editor’s Note: This is another post in our series of “Why I changed my mind.”]

    by Steve Kindle

    Head-Brown smallI am the grandson and great grandson of two North Dakota state senators. In fact, my great grandfather, Steen Nelson, was the first state senator in his district when the state was accepted into the Union in 1889. His son and my namesake followed him in office. Steve Nelson’s only child was a woman, so that ended our family’s lineage in the senate. (Women earned the right to vote six years after my mother was born,) Norman Brunsdale, the state governor at the time, was my grandfather’s best friend. My family ate dinner at the governor’s mansion so often, it was like a second home. Later, when Brunsdale became a U.S. Senator, he called on my brother where he was serving in the army in Germany. The chief justice of the North Dakota supreme court was often a guest in our home.
    My family was steeped in conservative Republican views. We loathed FDR and JFK. Barry Goldwater represented our views perfectly. I cast my first presidential election vote for him. I became the son and grandson that made the family proud. Naturally, I was encouraged to follow the men of the lineage into politics. This led me to a very conservative Christian college where I first majored in political science. My intention was to return to North Dakota with eyes on public office.
    But, something happened. I became a Christian. I was convinced that politics was a secondary pursuit, and that I should change my major to Bible and enter the ministry. However, Right Wing politics would be my handmaiden in my ministry, as I saw it as what God wanted for America. My controlling understanding was this: If America can get its politics right, everything else that follows would be good and right.
    A lot has happened over the years to move me away from right Wing politics in particular and politics in general. It parallels my move away from fundamentalism and into progressive Christianity. Where I once felt that what was best for the individual was best for the nation, I now believe that the community’s needs are prior. As an example, quality health care in America is based on one’s ability to purchase it. This leaves out millions of Americans who can’t afford it. For me, health care is a right, on par with any right articulated in the Bill of Rights. To achieve this end, those who can afford it, will be the source for those who can’t. My model for this is the idealized conception of early Christianity practiced by the Jerusalem church where everything was held in common, and everyone’s needs were met by the whole church.
    Today, I am as far removed from the political as possible. It has become increasingly apparent to me that not only is politics not the answer, it is largely the problem. As long as we believe that a political solution will cure our ills, we will never attempt to implement God’s realm on earth.
    I recently conducted a seminar I call “Jesus versus Caesar.” In it, I attempt to show that Jesus’ ministry was the counterpart to how Rome ruled the world. Jesus vision of how God wished the world to work was in opposition to Rome’s view, and led to his crucifixion as an enemy of the state. Rome’s use of military might, oligarchy and its patronage, usury, and income inequality, all reinforced by Imperial Religion, served as a contrast to Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God as an egalitarian community ruled by Jubilee. Luke  4:16-19 In this community, the only rule is the Golden Rule. The only ethic is love God and our neighbor as ourselves. There are no enemies, only each other and our call to work for the well-being of one another.
    Politics works on another plane altogether. Its notions of “to the victor goes the spoils,” divide and conquer, us versus them, winners and losers, has no place in God’s vision for the world. Therefore, I engage in political conversations merely as a good citizen. I have no illusions that anything resembling the Kingdom of God will emerge from political activity. With the church’s consumerist mentality and unwholesome entrance into the political sphere, I have my doubts that it can do any better than Rome.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]

  • “Does Capitalism best express Christian economic values? —NO!

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

     by Chris Eyre

    Chris has been with Energion Publishing since 1997 and fills a variety of rolls, mostly behind the scenes. Expect to hear more from him in coming months. The English spelling in this post reflects his London roots.

    Eyre picThe question asked is “Does Capitalism best express Christian economic values?”, which I interpret as meaning free market capitalism, rather than (for instance) the nascent Chinese authoritarian-capitalist model.
    So, what passages in scripture best enable us to see what Christian economic values might be? One might start with the account of the early Jerusalem church in Acts 2:44-45, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need”.
    Having all things in common would be an expression of the second part of the Great Commandment from Mat. 22:36-40 “You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Selling their possessions and distributing them to all would seem to flow from the parable of the rich young man in (inter alia) Mark 10:17-31, “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’” He went on to say, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Also, of course, according to Luke’s version of the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20-26), “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”
    Many reading this will immediately think that this had to be a short term situation, perhaps having regard to the expectation of Jesus’ imminent return and the institution of the Kingdom of God on earth. And some will think of Paul’s collection for the Jerusalem church, referred to in 1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8 and Rom. 15, and suspect that the Jerusalem church had effectively beggared themselves. I am, however, mindful that Jesus also said (Matt 6:25-34), “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?” and “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
    If there is a major fault I can see in the Jerusalem church attitude, it is that the evidence is that it shared equally only between its own members. Implementing the principle of “love your neighbour as yourself” however has guidance as to who your neighbour is in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in which it is clear that your neighbour includes those of another religion and race, and traditional enemies. These days, it should probably be the parable of the Good ISIS insurgent. Help should have been for the whole community, and not just the group of followers of Christ.
    But, I hear said, this is just totally impractical, it cannot work. G.K. Chesterton however said “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” There have been some decent attempts (generally shorn of explicitly Christian content, for instance the anarchist communal enterprises during the Spanish Civil War), but never a widespread trial. I should underline that a statist controlled economy (which is often seen as the only alternative to unbridled free market capitalism) is not what I think is the nearest to a system Jesus might have approved of. However, something like the Jerusalem church might well be a halfway house to a truly Christian economics.
    Let’s turn to free market capitalism. At first sight, a free market looks a wonderful idea. You produce something which someone wants, and you agree a price with them. If someone else sells cheaper than you do, you have to lower your price to compete with them, and without any conscious decision making other than everyone getting the “best buy” and, on the other hand, selling at the “best price”, prices are kept low and competitive.
    There are two problems with this. The first is in the motivation it assumes on the part of both buyer and seller – the buyer is looking to pay as little as possible for as much as possible, the seller to sell as little as possible for as much as possible. Both are assumed to be working entirely out of self-interest. Self-interest is not a Christian value; it ignores the command to love your neighbour as yourself.
    The second is that it fails to work in practice except in very limited circumstances. What we actually see are monopolies (even on a very small scale you get those – there just is not room for two competing sellers of some goods in my town, for instance) and, where there isn’t quite a monopoly, a cartel, agreeing not to compete on price. As time goes by, one supplier becomes dominant because they can sell a little cheaper, and then economies of scale kick in and they become cheaper yet, and you have another monopoly (which is then protected from someone else entering the market by selling at a loss until the new entrant fails, at which point the losses are recouped by raising the price).
    Another problem kicks in when talking about markets in, for instance, stocks and shares. What governs those prices is more what people think is going to happen to the price in the future than a dispassionate view of how well the underlying company is doing, so they are prone to boom and bust cycles.
    Of course, except on a very small scale (without economies of scale), it is not a matter of a single person producing something, it is a matter of an employer with multiple employees, it is a matter of needing capital from somewhere in order to set up the business; both separate the work of production from the sale of the product. But, I hear, workers contract freely to work for the capitalist, and there is again a free market. The fact that the employer or the provider of capital makes most of the money, and not those who actually produce, is fair because it is a free market.
    This is just not the case. A free market demands that both seller and buyer are free from overwhelming need to contract at whatever price the other demands. Except in circumstances of labour shortages (which rarely arise except in the case of people with specialist skills), the employer can employ anyone, the worker fears starvation and the gutter and is compelled to accept what the employer is willing to give. This is good free market capitalist economics; it reduces the cost of production for the employer and increases the profit margin.
    It is not, however, remotely Christian. The employer is not only failing to love the employee as himself, but is taking advantage of rather than benefiting the poor (for instance by giving them all his money…). In a truly Christian economy, the fear of starvation and the gutter would not be there, because the rich would be queuing up to give the poor money.
    Indeed, free market capitalist economics value people only as units of production or units of consumption. The less you pay in wages the better, the more they pay for what they buy (and the more they buy) the better. A Christian economics would value them as people and, I suggest, value them the more if they are poor (hungy, thirsty or unclothed), a stranger, sick or imprisoned (Matt. 25:31-46). Capitalist economics, in other words, values only money. If you work for a capitalist enterprise, you are likely to be sacked for giving anything away or for selling it at a lower price than the employers demand; you are forever going to be pushed to produce more at a lower cost and sell more at a higher price. To make more money. As Gordon Gecko says in “Wall Street”, “Greed is good”.
    There is the problem. Paul said “The love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10) and Jesus said “You cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13). The word used for money there is “Mammon”, which Christian theology has traditionally seen as a false god or prince of hell (Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian and Jerome certainly thought this way; Gregory equated Mammon with Beelzebub).
    All this for something which you cannot eat or drink, which you cannot wear, and which has only the value we permit ourselves to be deceived into giving it unless and until it is converted into something real. In addition, if you consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, while the lowest level (physiological) can be attended to fairly readily with money, safety requires more than money, and having more money links badly with all the higher needs of humanity (“Money can’t buy you love”), though we are deceived into thinking that money gives us security and others are deceived into esteeming us more for “having” more of it.
    It is also the case that in every free market capitalist system (and the more so the more nearly that approaches the ideal), the principle of “trickle down economics” which benefits the poor because it benefits everyone does not work. Marx got a lot of things wrong, in my eyes, but the one thing he got right was that free market capitalism concentrates wealth (and so power and the ability to choose what one does with life) in fewer and fewer hands, particularly where there is no labour shortage. “Thus says the LORD:  For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals – they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and push the afflicted out of the way. “ (Amos 2:6-7)
    So, capitalism gives us a system which results in us valuing each other by the amount of this Satanic fiction we consider each of us to have and concentrating that in fewer and fewer hands. We live in fear of not having it (which is a primary reason why we do not try a truly Christian economics) and are compelled into getting more of it, and letting others have as little of it as possible.
    I therefore think that I was entirely justified in a recent Global Christian Perspectives webcast in calling Market Capitalism the “system of Satan”. It is the opposite of a Christian economic system.
    The trouble is, just as Jesus observed when he said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), we are stuck with this system. I am myself too consumed with the fear of destitution to go as far as I think I should towards a truly Christian view of economics, and can only chip away at the edges (by, for instance, not buying from companies which I know oppress workers particularly badly, and by paying more than I need to where a seller is plainly poor, as well as the normal charitable imperatives for which there is no justification in Market Capitalism). The fact that we are stuck with it, however, should not blind us to its Satanic character and the fact that we should aim at something better.
    Capitalism is not a matter of “best expressing Christian values”, it’s a matter of expressing their opposite.
     

  • Does Capitalism Best Express Christian Economic Values? —YES!

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    PicThe quick and easy answer is a resounding yes. However, many have a distorted view of capitalism and thus will be puzzled by such a response so it requires some explanation. To begin with we must define what is meant by Economics, then Capitalism and finally we must determine just what Christian Economic values are.
    Economics is the study of the means for creating and allocating scarce resources. At first blush an equal distribution might seem to be the best, but many factors quickly arise. What if there is not enough to go around? These are, after all, scarce resources. How do need and desire factor in to the distribution? Numerous other such questions and concerns can be raised and in dealing with these the study of economics is born.
    While historically there have been a number of economic systems, today there are two main camps, differing in their method of controlling the allocation of resources. The earliest of these camps, Capitalism, dates from the late 18th century, seeing the means of control in a marketplace governed by competition in which individuals are the ultimate deciders, choosing what is best for them.
    In the early to mid-19th century others saw Capitalism as too chaotic and began developing an alternative theory. Inspired by the tremendous advances in science, advances that led to improvements in the quality of life by taming and controlling nature, the proponents of socialism sought to adapt scientific principles to likewise tame and control the economy.
    Now the preceding descriptions are by necessity brief, but it is the means of control, whether in the chaos of the marketplace, or the scientific determination of planners that marks the major division today. It is also noteworthy that these two camps are mutually exclusive. The more you pursue one, the less you can pursue the other.
    It is also important to point out that the common characterization of Capitalism, i.e., that of corporate leaders controlling the economy, is as antithetical to Capitalism as it is to socialism. The key to capitalism is a marketplace governed by choice and competition, not central planning. It does not matter whether the central planning is done by government, or by corporate leaders acting in their own self-interest; it is still centralized planning and therefore not capitalism. To be clear, I would not see planning by corporate leaders as a form of socialism, just a corruption of capitalism, though at times business and government do act together to control the economy. This is crony-capitalism, a corruption of both Capitalism and Socialism.
    As for values, just what, as Christians, should we seek in an economic system? While the reduction of poverty, is fairly easy, I am not sure a completely biblical list can be given. This is because the concerns of the Bible are somewhat different than our daily economic well-being. Nor are economic systems themselves inherently concerned with values. That said, some of the things I look for in an economic system beyond just the reduction of poverty, are more abstract concepts such as an improved quality of life, self-determination, and empowerment.
    When it comes to judging Capitalism and Socialism against these standards, some final factors need to be considered. First while theory is all well and good, what is more important is what the system actually produces in a long term and sustainable fashion.  Second, while it is important to compare likes, in reality, critics of Capitalism often compare the goals of socialism against the worse failures, or even a distorted caricature of capitalism.
    In fact, Capitalism is often caricatured as grounded in greed and producing selfishness. To the contrary, the studies are pretty clear that those supporting free market approaches tend, on the whole, to be more generous and charitable.
    Nor should this be much of a surprise. In any actual marketplace governed by choice and competition, the caricatured Capitalist would fail as people took their business elsewhere. Rather than greed, the core of capitalism is mutual exchange, and this exchange encourages a concern for others. While, as in all human endeavors, examples of human failings are all too common, that does not change the core. Thus management books and seminars deal with topics such as keeping your employees happy, providing better customer service, developing long term relationships, the importance of honesty and integrity, seeking Win-Win situations, etc..
    Capitalism encourages individuals to improve themselves, deferring satisfaction today, and working hard for the future. In doing so it encourages the earned success that studies show is strongly linked to happiness, and as I mentioned earlier its focus on others also results in people who given more of their time and money to others than do their socialist counterparts.
    In addition, the closer one moves to capitalism, i.e., the more competition and choice there is, the better things will be. In contrast, while space does not permit a complete explanation here, socialism faces three huge problems. The first is that the economy is so large and complex that understanding all the various factors needed to create a plan is impossible. Second, the power to enforce a plan results in a loss freedom, which for large plans move the state towards and sometimes to totalitarianism. Third, there is a question about long term sustainability of large socialist governments on issues of debt and demographics.
    Nor is government immune from the same human failings that afflict every other human organization. When you are wronged by a business in a free market you can go elsewhere, and even appeal to government for redress if need be. When government wrongs you, where can you go?
    Ultimately, the key advantage of Capitalism is that it focuses on the creation of wealth rather than its redistribution, resulting in a better standard of living and providing the means to being more generous. The results of this are seen in the fact that since 1970s the worse form of poverty has fallen by 80% as a result of the introduction of capitalist programs such as micro-credit.
    Thus while not really Christian, Capitalism reduces poverty, allows people to live better and happier lives, and results in people who are more generous in their giving to those in need. Not bad for a system who primary focus is the efficient creation and distribution of resources.

    Elgin’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-d-k/elgin-hushbeck-jr
Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.