 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
Ok, before you start reading this, go back and read the title again willya? (Main title only! — Ed.)Thanks. Think about it for a minute … about 2/3rds of you turned over the page to find something more interesting, am I right? I mean, “Christian Economics”? What’s that?
In trying to answer that last question, I want to focus first on the economics bit. Now call me biased, but I think economics has a bit of a hard time. I believe this is, in part, to do with misunderstandings and confusion, and as such want to spend a bit of time discussing them. This is coz I think it’s important you lot stop taking the piss, at least some of the time. You have been warned, and you have full permission to skip to whatever part you want or, indeed, join the 2/3rds of your peers currently laughing at some of the Thinker’s answers.
Often misunderstanding economics is just that — not really focussing on or comprehending the issue. A prime example of this leaps to mind. It concerns a columnist in the Daily Mail (it was a friend’s, ok?!) who examined what he perceived to be the Euro’s (many) failures. One issue he focussed on was currency stability, which the Euro is supposed to facilitate. The columnist pointed to the Euro’s dramatic fall in value since its creation; hardly stable, after all. But this is confusing the issue. The currency argument with relation to the Euro is not about how much it fluctuates with other currencies, but about facilitating currency stability within member nations. And just how much has the Deutschmark fluctuated relative to the French Franc since the Euro’s creation? Zilch. The exchange rates of participating countries have been ‘locked-in’ since the Euro’s creation. Yes, it’s a simple distinction, and a simple mistake to make. That’s why I used it as an example (observant readers will note I have said nothing about whether the Euro is a good thing overall).
This example bodes ill for the rest of us. If a (doubtless) well informed and intelligent tabloid columnist can misunderstand the issues and focus of practical economics, what chance have the rest of us got?
Economics is about resource allocation. On the simplest level, it’s about choices. Which T- shirt you wore this morning, for example. Your decision of which one to wear could have been based on comfiness, or a desire to impress a friend (male/female/duck/Com pSci; delete as appropriate) or on any number of different things. If you’re John Cook, it was probably a based upon a weighted average of how smelly and how close to you it was when you woke up, relative to the one you woke up in. Given a set of priorities, economics is a tool to implement decisions.
A suitably convoluted metaphor about the economist’s role is thinking of building a house. The architect designs it and then the builders get on with it (pending council permission, a friendly bank manager, etc.). But unless the architect is also a builder by trade, the chances are they’ll leave the actual building to those who specialise in it.
At this point some bright spark out there will point out that the best policy in economics will depend not only on priorities but also on how (you think) the world works. If they also point out that economists have spent a large part of the 20th century ‘debating’ this point, please glare at them.
Recklessly abandoning my right to plead the fifth, I do, in all fairness, acknowledge this. As such there is a case for the economist to con his mate, the econometrician (normally some poor mathematician who hung around with the wrong crowd), into trying to work out how the world works for you. Doubtless the aforementioned annoying clever bugger will point out that results from such analyses can be a bit inconclusive at times. But despite this, economic policies can work. For all of you doubters out there, I refer to the MPC’s recent record with respect to inflation — since July of last year, it has been within 0.1% of its target value.
Enough about economics already, I hear you cry. You’ve probably been shouting it for some time. Where’s the Christian bit?
I was afraid you’d ask that. Well, there was this man, and he had three daughters … nah, only kidding.
On one level Christianity enters the discussion in terms of ‘ preferences’, i.e. what issue (e.g. unemployment, inflation, etc.) is focussed upon. This decision of what to prioritise is not (just) an economic decision. It is also determined by social, political, ideological etc. concerns. Admittedly the distinguishing line may be blurred, sometimes beyond recognition, but it’s there nonetheless. And whilst some readers may think a Christian faith implies somewhat left-wing tendencies, it is not incompatible with more ‘capitalist’ focuses. Admittedly I lean left a bit, but our individual preferences will be shaped by our (individual) faiths. Somehow I suspect you don’t want to be told what your faith should be like. Just as well — I wouldn’t want to anyway.
But some things stick out as a bit of a problem, that I hope we can agree on. Hands up all those who think that Third World Debt is not a problem that concerns us (see Ms. Cavill’s wonderful piece in issue 61). In all seriousness I hope no-one out there actually extended an appendage.
So that’s it? Christianity shapes our priorities and economics gets on with doing what these tell it? Well, not quite. The parables of the Ten Minas (Luke 19 v 11–27) and the Talents (Matt 25 v 14–30) are two that always seem particularly relevant to me, because they talk about making the most of what you’re given. In my own dodgy way I interpret them not just on a personal level, but also on an aggregate one — in terms of efficient allocation of resources. That’s what economics is all about. It’s not enough to ‘solve’ a problem in economics — you must do so in the best way possible. On these lines, it’s not enough to simply increase unemployment benefit in an attempt to help those without work. The causes of unemployment, and what can be done about them, must also be addressed.
Whilst ‘ordinary’ economists do this, I believe there is a space and a need for the “Christian Economist” to get in there up to his/her/its elbows too, to ‘do the best by God’. Unfortunately this means mugs like me, although in my case some people would probably contest at least one of those terms. Within the policy implementation structure there is a need for Christ’s priorities to be aired and His suggestions listened to, albeit as we perceive them.
Although this argument is largely a form of letting our faith permeate our lives, albeit with respect to one particular (fantastic!) subject, economics can also serve as a reminder to Christians that we must constantly strive to be the best that we can. It is not enough to nurture a talent to a point. We must allow ourselves to learn constantly in order that our potential is never curbed. We must constantly strive to be the best we can for God today and to be even better tomorrow. And we must also be honest enough to look at ourselves and discover what our choices are based upon. The next time you buy coffee, will it be Nescafé or Café Direct? What does your choice imply about what is important to you? Many of our choices will be visible to others — is God really evident in them?
Well, there you go. Those of you who are still awake probably regret being so, and may (rightfully) claim that there’s not actually a great deal of content to this article. For this, and the subject matter, I do apologise, pausing only to blame onrushing finals. I probably wouldn’t have agreed to write anything at all if Blair wasn’t so darn sexy. But all Christians have a responsibility to make themselves heard about the things that concern them, as much by their choices as by speaking. This is not just with respect to Third World Debt but so many other issues as well — what are the Christian implications of the Euro, for example? (answers on a postcard ;-). In a world where economics, money and choice are so intrinsic to everyday life, we cannot afford to ignore them.
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005