On economy new and old

Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Matthew 20:13-14

Adam Smith began his essay “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” with stressing the connection between labour and wealth, his theories and those of his followers being mainly aimed then at increasing production, while the value and purpose of consumption seems to be a lesser matter indeed. One of the first to disagree with this one-sided view was John Ruskin, victorian pre-eminent, devoting himself to the problems of consumption, perhaps in particular those of distribution. For some the problem of distribution of wealth is of course not a problem, being distributed amply themselves; while others may overvalue the power of distribution, as the utopian communists who overthrew the Tsar, imagining housing the entire Russian populace in evacuated mansions and palaces. But the problems of consumption does not end there, for it is a matter of some consideration what the fruits of our labour eventually shall be: a meal on our table, a wide-screen telly with Surround-Sound, or maybe just the thorns and thistles promised of old.

Ruskin is interesting in this regard, because he doesn´t concern himself overly with present political correctness, but rather bluntly states that the purpose of both work and consumption is happiness AND nobility among humanity, nobility then not understood as counts and barons, but a dignified manner of life. Some may say that nobility is an elitist concept, based on the assumption that some walks of life are better than others. I can only reply that such an assumption must be made nonetheless. The demand this places on our political economy is then one of providing constant quality rather than excess quantity, both for the dignity of the worker as well as the consumer´s. This suggestion to a large extent fell outside conventional concepts of Left and Right in politics, even might one say fell by the wayside and therefore perished. His view on accomplishing this ubiquitous sense of quality, is that it should be the only factor in the market`s competition, everything else such as wages and prices set at fixed and equal values. In effect, the good and bad worker are paid alike, the price of a tasty meal doesn´t differ from a lousy one. Consequentally, the industrious worker is employed, the lazy starves at home; food of quality is enjoyed on tables everywhere, the worm-ridden is thrown in the waste bin. A story that comes to mind is of the native of one island in South East Asia, who asked if they had any Art on the island replied: No – we just try to make everything as good as we possibly can. An attitude very foreign to the Western world of trash food and Michelin guides happily (or miserably as one could see it) co-existing. For Ruskin quality was joy in labour made manifest, so in this sense to desire quality is to wish joy upon your fellow man. And THAT´S nobility!

To retrace a few steps in economic history, Joseph, sold for twenty pieces of silver by his brothers, is the first economist of the Bible, so shrewd in fact, that he on Pharao´s behalf buys all of Egypt in a time of continual drought in the land; in exchange for bread he first aquires all money from the people, then their cattle, and lastly the land and themselves (Genesis 47:13ff). Which is also the economical hierarchy we're accustomed to, money deriving their value from goods, all founded on the means of production. Now God wasn't too pleased with this state of affairs, and prohibits both the interest economy and squeezing the poor in exchange for bread (Leviticus 25:37). This law even precedes the commandment of tithe in Deuteronomy 14:22, meaning that it's no use giving to God, if it be booty stolen from another man. Even the high priests that condemned Jesus refused to accept Judas Iscariot´s money, when he wanted to return his thirty silver pieces, claiming it be blood money even though they themselves gave it to him in the first place.

It appears that nowadays this order is reversed, we´re told to consume in plenty, blood money or otherwise, lest economic collapse be upon us, followed or preceded by unemployment and due social collapse. In commerce, the company closest to the consumers is the king of the hill. Who cares about steel companies these days, when IKEA and Marks & Spencers sets the agenda? The real shakers and movers are perhaps not so appearant as Ingvar Kamprad, but do their business in sunny office studios in the high and quiet parts of the city. It is the advertising guru who sustains the economy of supra-consumption and the society of the superfluous. We´ve become so efficient in production that needs must be invented, or else the wheat rot in the siloes. Or maybe we should solve the problem of distribution first, for as Ruskin said: “There is no wealth but life”?

Is then property theft, as some would have it, only to steal it back again? Maybe God disapproves of the whole concept of money? Well, I don't understand it such; Jesus often uses money in his parables, to signify the kingdom of Heaven and gifts of God, because He know money to be precious to us, but also that what God offers is even more so precious. Money is the least, and if we're not faithful in these little things, how could we then be faithful in those great things entrusted to us? He also says that one with riches enters hardly into the kingdom of God, yes, that even a camel will sooner pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man enter Heaven (Mark 10:23-25). There's the story of poor Lazarus and the certain rich man, the first recompensed by God for the miseries of his life, lying outside the palace gate in wait for help that never appeared, listening to the parties and merriments behind the closed door; the rich man made to pay heavily for his lack of mercy and wallowing in luxury. And there is great beauty in Jesus naming the beggar, Lazarus, and leaving the rich man anonymous, he that always was greeted in the streets, whose name opened doors and was mentioned with utmost respect. Who knows him now?

Which leads us to the one rebellion possible, effective, plausible: be content with such things as ye have, for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Be content, that´s quite provocative these days, what on earth is there to be content about? I could get a better job, a faster car, a more winning personality and cooler friends. Still, be content is the only real rebellion I can see on the horizon, though it costs very much, and very little.

But what of Attac, anti-WTO rallies or whatever, you may ask? By all means go, if you feel it´s appropriate. I certainly agree with most of their agenda, but I feel they´re one-sided in one respect, both based on the teachings of Jesus and everyday experience: They seem not to grasp that greed is a part of each and every one of us, naturally differing quite substantially from person to person, but it is an evil within us all. No, greed is NOT good, but it´s just as prevalent in the lower as the upper classes. At least where I come from, where most people are guaranteed a standard of living which objectively speaking is materially sufficient. Yes, there is real poverty in Sweden as well, but mostly just simultaneous seduction and envy of the rich. Incidentally, that´s the only power money has, and it´s mighty indeed. However, there is always a choice involved, we cannot JUST blame it on the ad guru. So if there´s to be rebellion, better make it an inward one.