Economics

I am not an economist.  Whatever understanding I have of economics comes from reading general interest stories about economics.  I also have my own views based on my observations of my own and others behavior.  I thought a bit about economics yesterday. 

As part of my exercise routine I use a nordictrack ski machine (I know very old school, but there it is).  I watch TV while I'm working out and I find it difficult to hear dialogue sometimes over the noise of the exercise machine.  I have addressed that problem recently by watching a Swedish detective show on Netflix called "Wallander" I read the subtitles and don't have to worry about hearing the dialogue.

In yesterday's episode, a priest was shot.  As the detectives and policemen were discussing the crime it came out that the priest worked with an outfit that purchases used and surplus medical equipment then resells the equipment to Africa and makes a profit on the sale.  This revelation was accompanied by disapproving noises and comments.  The company's business was not seen as a voluntary interaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, but evidently as a transaction in which the Swedish party was taking advantage of the African party.  The key issue seemed to be the profit the Swedes made in the transaction.  If was a minor point in the show, but it got me thinking a bit.

At an emotional level I got the complaints voiced by the Swedish policemen.  It felt wrong somehow as if the Swedes were taking advantage of the Africans because I perceived the Swedes as strong and the Africans as week.

At the same time, the business was filling an unoccupied niche.  If a charitable organization existed to perform that function, the business would not have been successful. In the absence of such an organization was it not better that the Africans had access to some medical equipment rather than none?  And if the policemen really felt that the company was acting inappropriately, why didn't they form a charitable organization and undercut the company?

I think my dual reactions are pretty typical.  Most of us feel at some level that material inequality is somehow wrong or at least it makes us feel uncomfortable.  Why is that?  I think that our feeling of discomfort is an echo in our spirits from our pre-mortal lives.  I think that our spirits at some level realize that the appropriate order is for all of God's children to be "equal in earthly things." 

Most of us also are disinclined to act completely without reference to our own benefit.  The answer to the question about why the charitable niche went unfilled is that people were not sufficiently charitable.  I think that our lack of charity is a result of (or demonstrates) our fallen nature.  We are separated by our sinful nature from God the source of all charity.

So how do we address the dichotomy and what are the results of our "solutions"?


One way of reacting is to use the force of law to attempt to prevent the inequality: enact legislation making it illegal to buy used medical equipment and sell it to third world countries or requiring that used equipment be provided to Africans for free.  This is the communistic impulse.  In the real world this doesn't work because if people were inclined to perform that sort of charitable service they would do so without legal coercion and if they are not inclined to such performances legal coercion will not make them.  We have fallen and our nature cannot be changed by force.  True believers ignore the nature of our fall and insist that the failure to change results simply from the application of insufficient force.  This approach may provide some psychic reward, but it causes much physical suffering.

One way of reacting is to allow the inequality.  This works in the real world because it allows men to act in accordance with their natures, the physical suffering is less, but it does not sit well with many people because they sense that the results are inappropriate. Allowing such freedom is a much better resolution of the problem than the use of force, because the use of force inevitably leads to corruption of those who wield the force.

So, what we do is attempt to find a middle ground: partially socialistic governments or mostly free but highly regulated societies.  But those attempts are never stable because people tug the system one way and the other and in the background, the adversary foments discord leading to violence whenever possible.  He attempts to distort all of our impulses noble or base to vicious ends.

The only solution is to change mankind's nature.  That cannot be done with outward pressure.  Such a change can only be wrought by God working with people who are willing to change and accept him as their leader and guide.  Neither unrestrained freedom to act, nor complete control of everyone's actions is the answer.  The so-called third way does not consist of any mix of the two extreme approaches; the third way is in fact the only way accepting God in our lives and allowing him to change our nature.