Results tagged “economic downturn” from Marilyn Sewell

Let us be clear: the Bible does not say that money is the root of all evil--it says that the love of money is the root of all evil.  Money is merely a means of exchange.  I give my time and energy to some pursuit, and I am given money in return, so that I can exchange it for what I need to sustain myself and others.  It's a mere convenience.  Without money, we would be spending much of our time trading and bartering. 

As societies grew more sophisticated, more complex economic systems evolved.  These systems are based on conceptual models, and they espouse certain values.  This country's system of capitalism assumes that (1) competition is good and yields the best products at the lowest price for the consumer; and (2) when it becomes out of balance in one way or another, the system will "right" itself by market forces.  It is self-regulating, and ultimately serves the greater good. 

All this sounds dandy--except that it just doesn't work quite that way.  The system doesn't take into account (1) the endless and impossible demand for "growth" and "products" (as in GNP), which overtaxes our natural resources; (2) the cost of production to the earth and to living creatures (these costs are dismissed as "externalities"); (3) the needs of those people who fall through the cracks when the market doesn't need them any more; (4) and finally, what this system does to the character and integrity of people and their relationships in a given culture.  It is perhaps this number four that is the least mentioned, but that is perhaps the most pervasive and the most dangerous, for it infects almost every element of our living.

Consider the following:

1.  Drug companies spend more money on gifts and stipends to doctors than they spend on research or consumer advertising.  They give free drug samples, free food, free medical refresher courses, and they pay doctors handsome stipends for marketing lectures.

2.  The popular culture offers very little of value, and yet billions upon billions are spent on producing artistically degraded films, derivative music, and escape literature.  Meantime, serious poets and independent filmmakers, artists and musicians who have much to offer, languish without support.

3.  We are inundated with advertising of all kinds, all day every day.  Billboards ruin our cityscapes and countrysides; radio and television ads can hardly be avoided.  There is no escape.

4.  News shows are really entertainment now, with very little hard news or enlightening analysis--"if it bleeds, it leads."  Their job is not to thrive, but simply to survive.  So how are citizens truly informed in what is supposed to be a democracy?

5. We have been told since the '50's that we need more (of everything from  beautiful hair to bigger houses), and we can't get off the cycle of getting and spending.  There is never enough.

6.  Our best and brightest students, we are told, have been majoring in "finance" for years and years now, and their goal is to get a lot of money--quickly.

I could go on . . . and so could you, but we both get the picture.  How did we get stuck with a system that seems to bring out the worst in so many of our people, that sets people apart instead of bringing them together, that is laying waste to the earth? 

You tell me--I don't know.  But I do know this: the first step in change is awareness.  We have accepted the assumptions of this economic system far too long, and we are sick of heart and sick of character.  We need to stop.  (Well, maybe the economic downturn pushed us to this step.)  We need to re-imagine how we want to live together and how we might more equitably share the resources of the earth. 

As President Obama said today in his press conference, "These changes won't be done in the first 100 days, or in the first year.  But one day we will look back, and we will say, yes, this is when we started, this was when the great change began."

How do you want to live?  Begin to imagine it.  Then begin to go there, as fully as you are able.  We don't have a moment to waste. 

 Share this

Apparently the Catholic hierarchy--Pope Benedict, in particular--is bringing back indulgences (NY Times 2/10).  This is big news, because they have been out of favor since the Mother Church was selling them to some profit back in the 16th century, setting off the wrath of reformer Martin Luther and fostering the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Just what are indulgences, anyway?  The name gives us some hint.  It works this way: Catholics can commit sins, go to confession, but still have to do time in that unpleasant in-between-place, Purgatory, which is sort of a way-station to heaven, after you've paid your dues with enough suffering for said sins.  To avoid this stop, you can say certain prayers, make certain devotions, or go on certain pilgrimages--such will keep you safe until you commit another sin, which is almost certain to happen, knowing ourselves as we do. You can also reduce purgatorial time for dead people--but as one baffled Catholic complained, "What does it mean to get time off in Purgatory?  What is five years in terms of eternity?"  Good point.

Why are indulgences coming back into favor now?  Well, sin is out of favor these days.  People just "make mistakes."  Or have "dysfunctional families."  If only every child were given milk and cookies at bedtime, there would be no such thing as evil, many secularists believe.  Instead of going to a priest, we go to a psychiatrist--or if money is short in the current economic downturn, we check out a self-help book from the library.  Without sin, of course, there can be no repentence.  (And no real need for confession or indulgences, of course.)

I see the point.  I'm for sin, myself--that is, I believe we all commit them.  And repentence is a good thing.  But personal sins, which seem to be the focus of confession and indulgences, pale in the face of systemic sins, like war, hunger, and the lack of health care (for starters).  Just think about the systemic sins of the bankers and investment firms!  How many prayers or piltrimages would it take to wipe out these sins?  It boggles the mind.  Of course, the Church allows "charitable contributions" to count toward indulgences as well (presumably, to the Church, among other worthy organizations), so perhaps some of the TARP money could go for that.

According to the article in the Times, Portland, Oregon, is one of the locations where the Church has enthusiastically offered indulgences this year.  For those looking for an alternative, I would like to counter with the Universalist view of "universal salvation," in which we posit a God who is too good to send anyone to a burning lake of fire for eternity--or even for a few thousand years to Purgatory.  We believe that hell is what we make for ourselves right here on this earth, when we separate ourselves from God and from one another. 

Like the Catholics, we also take contributions.  But we don't guarantee heaven.  Our God doesn't do deals.  Sorry. 

 Share this

Greenspan Passes the Buck

People are mad at Greenspan.  Yes, the Lord of the Stock Market, the One True God we worshiped, has failed us, we see.  Alan Greenspan, almost three years after retiring as chair of the Federal Reserve, is realizing that free markets don't always self-correct.  Last Thursday he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "Those of us who have looked to the self interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."  (NY Times 10/23)

Lawmakers asked him to say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry."  Pretty simple.  But Greenspan declined.  At a time when unprecedented numbers of people all over the nation are losing homes and now losing jobs, as well, the former Chair refused to accept responsibility for the crisis.  He did say, however, that his faith in deregulation has been shaken.  We were hoping you might have noticed sooner, Mr. Greenspan.  And since you have fiercely opposed deregulation for almost 15 years, one would hope that you would at least apologize for letting ideology rather than market realities determine our economic policy.  "The whole intellectual edifice . . . collapsed in the summer of last year," he said. 

This kind of real-world crash is what happens when leaders hold to a blind faith in abstract notions of how things work, to the exclusion of what is happening to real people in real time.  (Another good example of the dominance of ideology over common sense and the lessons of history is President Bush's belief that the war in Iraq would be quick and easy, and we would be "greeted as liberators.")

Did Alan Greenspan really believe that people would fail to act in their own (short-term) self-interest in a culture in which that is the absolute name of the game?  Did he think that most bankers would fail to sell mortgages to people, if these bankers had no risk of losing money and had every reason to gain?  Did he think that ordinary people who had always wanted a home but thought they might not ever be able to afford one would turn down a loan that was handed to them so readily?  Did he think that speculators would not try to speculate, when easy money is available?  I am not an economist--my field of study is theology.  But I could have told Mr. Greenspan, had he asked, that people do tend to act in their own self-interest most all of the time, even if their actions might very well hurt others--yes, even if their actions stand to cause massive social dislocation and the suffering of many. 

This is how it works, Mr. Greenspan.  With sin, I mean.  First you decide what you want to do, out of your own need, or greed.  Then you rationalize that this action is not harmful to others--in fact, it probably will even benefit others (consider the totally discredited "trickle-down theory").  Then you ignore the consequences of your behavior, when they don't match your rationale.  When it turns out that your chosen ignorance and your greed have harmed another (or many), you say, "Gee, I just didn't know!" 

Greenspan blamed our troubles on "the modern risk-management paradigm."  Theologians might use the word "concupiscence," meaning lust or greed.  Maybe you economists should consider lacing your curricula of mathematics and logic with a little study in ethics and theology.  You could even consider meditation and prayer, to attempt an engagement of the heart.

 Share this