Speaker 1: Life Audio. Should Christians be capitalists?
Speaker 2: There are some general principles that we need to be
Speaker 2: talking about. God owns it all. God has entrusted this
Speaker 2: to us. God has given us a responsibility towards taking
Speaker 2: care of the poor. I think those are things that
Speaker 2: we can be talking about when we talk about money.
Speaker 1: Imagine some Christians can go well, as long as I
Speaker 1: support capitalism, that's creating a system. I've done my duty.
Speaker 1: That is definitely not what you're arguing for here. We
Speaker 1: still have a responsibility. What are the virtues of capitalism
Speaker 1: better referred to as market economics? Should Christians be capitalists? Scott?
Speaker 1: People have asked us to talk about this. You wrote
Speaker 1: a book called the Virtues of Capitalism, which makes your
Speaker 1: position clear. This is part two. In part one we
Speaker 1: did a critique of a book about why Christians should
Speaker 1: be leftists. Now we want to kind of give a
Speaker 1: positive moral case for why Christians should embrace market economics.
Speaker 1: Now that says, I'm really curious, is socialism making a comeback?
Speaker 1: And why do you think it is?
Speaker 2: Well, I think it is making a comeback, but among
Speaker 2: gen Z and the reason is because I think of
Speaker 2: historical myopia. Fair enough, you know, I grew up in
Speaker 2: the you know, I was born in the fifties and
Speaker 2: grew up in the sixties and seventies at the height
Speaker 2: of communism, and washed you just watched it fail. In fact,
Speaker 2: I was nineteen seventy two, I was in Czechoslovakia, and
Speaker 2: I watched what socialism had done in the country. He
Speaker 2: was trying to be amazed at the number of people
Speaker 2: who were standing around doing nothing and being paid virtually
Speaker 2: nothing for it. And the the number of people who
Speaker 2: were under who were under employed, was just staggering, and
Speaker 2: the you know, the lack of the lack of goods
Speaker 2: on the shelves. I mean, it was it was clear
Speaker 2: that the system was failing.
Speaker 1: I saw that personally, by the way, going to Russia
Speaker 1: thirteen times, starting in the early nineties, grown up in
Speaker 1: the eighties when big movies were like Rocky fo Us
Speaker 1: Versus Russia. Of course I saw it with my own eyes.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't actually surprise me at all. I think
Speaker 1: the other piece is socialism just it sounds good, like
Speaker 1: social good, collective community. So on the surface, it makes
Speaker 1: a lot of promises that are appealing to people. But
Speaker 1: we'll get to why it doesn't work. What's the maybe
Speaker 1: just lay out for us, what is the basic difference
Speaker 1: for people to understand between socialism and market economics, again
Speaker 1: known as capitalism.
Speaker 2: Who owns the means of production?
Speaker 1: Okay, that's a basic dividing life, basic dividing Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean even under socialism there is a limited right
Speaker 2: of private property. I mean, even in the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: there were laws against theft, you know, so that just
Speaker 2: just because their laws against theft doesn't mean you've got
Speaker 2: a market economy. But it's who is who is able
Speaker 2: to own the means of producing the stuff that we have,
Speaker 2: and it's a high emphasis on private, private ownership as
Speaker 2: opposed to public ownership or state ownership of the things
Speaker 2: that produce our stuff. That's the main difference.
Speaker 1: So there's other philosophical theological differences that tend to go
Speaker 1: with it about the nature of the world, about the
Speaker 1: nature of human beings, but at its core, we're talking
Speaker 1: economic systems.
Speaker 2: That's right now. I think we should be We should
Speaker 2: be aware too that there's pure capitalism and pure socialism
Speaker 2: exist on the extremes, and there's probably probably neither of
Speaker 2: those exist in real life. I mean, I mean, even
Speaker 2: you know, you know commentists China head markets, you know,
Speaker 2: and they've got you know, they have a dynamic market
Speaker 2: based economy, and you know, and we have in the
Speaker 2: US we have certain socialist tendencies, like we have Medicare,
Speaker 2: social security, social security, you know, things like that. So
Speaker 2: it exists on a bit of a continuum. So where
Speaker 2: you are exactly on the continuum. So the US would
Speaker 2: be here and maybe Scandinavia would be, you know, a
Speaker 2: bit a different market, different set of marketing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense, that's fair. I'm going to quote
Speaker 1: you directly that you wrote with your book, Austin Hill.
Speaker 1: You said, quote, despite its flaws, failures, and imperfections, capitalism
Speaker 1: remains the most moral choice among the world's economic systems.
Speaker 1: Explain and defend.
Speaker 2: Well, there's three reasons, okay. One is it historically is
Speaker 2: the best. It's the it's really the only proven me
Speaker 2: means for lifting the poor out of part lifting large
Speaker 2: numbers of the poor out of poverty. And it is
Speaker 2: it is clearly the best means to obey the biblical
Speaker 2: mandate to care for the least among us and Sean,
Speaker 2: if throwing money at the poor around the world would
Speaker 2: have worked, it would have done so right. We've been
Speaker 2: thrown with doing that for the last fifty years and
Speaker 2: it hasn't worked. What works are systems in place that
Speaker 2: allow people to start small businesses, to take part in
Speaker 2: entrepreneur in entrepreneurial activity that enables them to lift themselves
Speaker 2: out of poverty by pursuing their own self interest and
Speaker 2: also in ways that meet the common goals. That's that's one.
Speaker 2: The second reason is the best way to fulfill the
Speaker 2: Genesis one creation mandate that God gave to human beings.
Speaker 2: The first imperative that God gave to add if after
Speaker 2: they were both created, was to be fruitful. And we
Speaker 2: typically put be fruitful and multiply together, meaning procreation, but
Speaker 2: they are separate. Multiply and fill the earth go together
Speaker 2: for procreation. Be fruitful has economic and vocational overtones to it.
Speaker 2: It means to be economically it means to be vocationally fruitful.
Speaker 2: It means unlocking what God has embedded into his creation
Speaker 2: and bringing it to a place where it can benefit
Speaker 2: the common good. So in market systems, I think are
Speaker 2: the best way to do that because they provide incentives
Speaker 2: for innovation and initiative. Okay, third, maybe there'll be a
Speaker 2: fourth third, I think it best accords with the freedom
Speaker 2: that God has created human beings with by virtue being
Speaker 2: made in his image. Economic freedom is a sense of
Speaker 2: religious freedom, I think is the most basic freedom, But
Speaker 2: economic freedom is right behind it, and lots of other
Speaker 2: freedoms go with that. And the freedom to order your
Speaker 2: economic life according to your own self interest. And the
Speaker 2: Bible never condemns self interest, it only mandates that it
Speaker 2: be balanced by needs the concern for the interest of others.
Speaker 2: So and then a fourth reason is that market based
Speaker 2: systems both require and nurture a certain set of virtues
Speaker 2: that are essential. They require creativity, initiative, innovation, what we
Speaker 2: call entrepreneurial traits. But they also require perseverance, They require
Speaker 2: a work ethic, you know, they require punctuality, they require
Speaker 2: personal responsibility, they require good stewardship. All of these virtues,
Speaker 2: they both require them and they nurture them at the
Speaker 2: same time. Think about who would you rather hire? Somebody
Speaker 2: characterized by the fruit of the spirit or by the
Speaker 2: deeds of the flesh. That's not even close. And so
Speaker 2: I think, I think, you know, we get we get
Speaker 2: a lot of we get a lot of comment about outliers,
Speaker 2: But the vast majority of people who succeed in the
Speaker 2: marketplace do so because it's assumed that there's at least
Speaker 2: a modicum of virtue that's necessary to be successful.
Speaker 1: Which is why, and this is a separate point. Sometimes
Speaker 1: capitalism is not the best system for a nation where
Speaker 1: it's at just morally experientially. You want to get nations there,
Speaker 1: but it's not a cookie cutter for every nation of
Speaker 1: all time. That doesn't necessarily fall through the point.
Speaker 2: That markets have to be planted in fertile ground.
Speaker 1: There you go, well said, Okay, Now, in some ways
Speaker 1: you might have answered this question, but another quote that
Speaker 1: you and your co author said is that not only
Speaker 1: do believe that it market economy economics is the preferred choice,
Speaker 1: we also believe that capitalism is the most consistent with
Speaker 1: a with a Judeo Christian view of the world. Now
Speaker 1: you might have answered this because your second one was
Speaker 1: about be fruitful economically, grow about certain virtues, about caring
Speaker 1: for our neighbor, but any other specific reason why you'd
Speaker 1: argued it's the most biblical.
Speaker 2: I would say here that the most biblical and the
Speaker 2: most moral or interchangeable.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, So that's fair.
Speaker 2: I think I've answered that, unless unless you got something
Speaker 2: you want to add to that.
Speaker 1: No, that's that's fair. I think that's good. Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: So why does capitalism work? And there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of irony there because we're talking about work and what
Speaker 1: work is. In other words, why has it driven so
Speaker 1: many people out of poverty? And again, to quote the book,
Speaker 1: he said, it's transformed entire regions of the world and
Speaker 1: as a result, generated such robust economies. So from kind
Speaker 1: of a worldview perspective, why does it do the things
Speaker 1: that you're describing?
Speaker 2: Well, because sean part of human nature, and part part
Speaker 2: of it, I think, is because we're made in God's image,
Speaker 2: but also I think part of it because we're falling.
Speaker 2: Also is that human beings respond to incentives. And if
Speaker 2: people don't have incentives to work, to take risks, to
Speaker 2: go the extra mile, they're probably not going to do it.
Speaker 2: Most people are not motivated for the long term. Now
Speaker 2: they'll do it in the short run maybe, but they're
Speaker 2: not they're not motivated to be volunteers for the long haul.
Speaker 2: I mean, both of us, we love what we're doing,
Speaker 2: and we do it because of its intrinsic value. But
Speaker 2: I suspect if we weren't getting paychecks for it, we'd
Speaker 2: be doing something else. Right, Maybe I shouldn't speak to you.
Speaker 2: Maybe you're just more altruistic than I.
Speaker 1: I'll just let that one sit.
Speaker 2: But let me for our viewers, you be well served.
Speaker 2: I think there's a there's a short video that's been done.
Speaker 2: It's gotten it should have. If it hadn't gone viral,
Speaker 2: it should have. The Swedish demographer Hans Rostling did a
Speaker 2: piece about four minutes called two hundred Years two hundred Countries,
Speaker 2: and it charts how over two hundred years most of
Speaker 2: the world emerged from two dollars a day poverty into
Speaker 2: thriving middle and upper classes. It's a fascinating look at it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he does it like.
Speaker 2: He does it in like three or four minutes. And
Speaker 2: everywhere markets have been tried, they've succeeded because they wed
Speaker 2: the pursuit of self interest with the common good.
Speaker 1: So you reject the idea, and I agree with you
Speaker 1: by the way that we read in the book why
Speaker 1: Christians should be Leftists, that we're kind of wired to
Speaker 1: just feel good. We want to work, we want to
Speaker 1: contribute to the hall like that's often framed as being
Speaker 1: sufficient for a work ethic, and you just say that's
Speaker 1: not sufficient.
Speaker 2: That's well, that's that's just not that's not the reality
Speaker 2: of living in a fallen world. Now, I think part
Speaker 2: of it. You know, we're not you know, we're not
Speaker 2: what economists call homo economicus. We're not just driven by
Speaker 2: our economic needs and our self interest, but we're driven
Speaker 2: by by more things than that. But but I don't
Speaker 2: want to minimize how important it is. And the Bible
Speaker 2: mandates Sean that we pursue our self interest sufficient to
Speaker 2: care for ourselves and our dependents. I think that's what
Speaker 2: the Bible means when it says if you don't work,
Speaker 2: you don't eat, it means you're not If you don't work,
Speaker 2: you're not entitled to the community's goods that are set
Speaker 2: aside as a safety net. And what Paul says, the
Speaker 2: person who doesn't provide for his family the strongest possible
Speaker 2: language in the script calls them an anathema, let them
Speaker 2: be a curse. That's that's really a significant statement from
Speaker 2: the apostle Paul about the importance and strong of pursuing
Speaker 2: your self interest sufficient to care for yourself and pure dependence.
Speaker 2: So that's the reason this is is what Adam Smith
Speaker 2: was onto. You said, you don't you don't get your
Speaker 2: meat or your milk from the butcher and the milkman,
Speaker 2: and you don't get your bread from the baker out
Speaker 2: of their concern for altruism. You get it because of
Speaker 2: their concern for their self interest, which also meets the
Speaker 2: common good.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Bible says love others as
Speaker 1: no excuse me. The Bible says to love others as
Speaker 1: you love yourself. The assumption is we naturally love ourselves,
Speaker 1: and that's good. We're supposed to. In fact, we can
Speaker 1: only really love other people and care for their interests
Speaker 1: if we first care for our own. It's not a
Speaker 1: bad thing. That's how God has made the world. So
Speaker 1: you've talked about why capitalism works. Why does socialism always fail?
Speaker 1: What is it on a worldview level that, no matter
Speaker 1: how good intention we are, doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Well economic well, For one, its it misunderstands what a
Speaker 2: human being is. But on economic reasons, the reason socialism
Speaker 2: fails is because, as Mark with Thatcher put it, you
Speaker 2: eventually run out of other people's money, and I think
Speaker 2: she was right about that. I agree, because socialist systems
Speaker 2: don't create wealth, they redistribute it and people there's no
Speaker 2: incentive for people to innovate, to take risks, to work hard,
Speaker 2: to put themselves out for their companies. And if your
Speaker 2: income is capped, basically there's Once you reach the cap,
Speaker 2: you lose incentives to work hard. This is why France
Speaker 2: several years ago raised their tax rate to seventy five
Speaker 2: percent and people stopped, you know, money fled the country
Speaker 2: and entrepreneurs stopped innovating. Because I say, what's the point
Speaker 2: they're not you know, yes we have we have altruism,
Speaker 2: but out in a fallen world, altruism is not enough
Speaker 2: to carry us in the long term. And that's the
Speaker 2: genius that Adam Smith was onto, is that pursuing your
Speaker 2: self interest in many cases, not all of them, but
Speaker 2: can provide for the common good.
Speaker 1: And you guys are not shy of talking about some
Speaker 1: of the weaknesses and flaws. You're not saying this creates
Speaker 1: a utopian society. So you're not saying it's it's perfect.
Speaker 1: You're saying it.
Speaker 2: And the other reason socialism has failed is what you
Speaker 2: mentioned about utopia, because Utopia's almost always require totalitarianism to
Speaker 2: pull them off. And the reason for that is because
Speaker 2: people don't like to give up what they've achieved. They
Speaker 2: don't like to give up the freedom to pursue their
Speaker 2: own self interest and to better themselves.
Speaker 1: Economically self interest. It's themselves and their family and their
Speaker 1: church and their community, rather than some amorphous government that's
Speaker 1: out there. It just doesn't work right, and the government
Speaker 1: had there's no accountability. If the government spends money, it
Speaker 1: doesn't affect them. It's somebody else's money. But when I
Speaker 1: spend my own money, I see it subtracted from my
Speaker 1: bank account. It's very personal, so I'm as a whole
Speaker 1: going to spend it differently. That's that's the disconnect that
Speaker 1: often exists.
Speaker 2: I think there's a dynamism to market economies that doesn't
Speaker 2: exist in socialism.
Speaker 1: So there's a number of objections and you deal I
Speaker 1: think I think you deal with each one of these.
Speaker 1: But these are ones that I've heard and would love
Speaker 1: your take on it. Scott. One is that capitalism is Darwinian.
Speaker 1: It's kind of dog eat dog. It's competitive structure encourages disunity,
Speaker 1: non cooperation. If you don't create this product, you fail,
Speaker 1: so I've got to beat you to get to the top.
Speaker 2: I'd say not it's competitive, But to say it's non
Speaker 2: cooperative is clearly not true, because nobody creates their own
Speaker 2: products by themselves. That didn't happen. As we mentioned, I
Speaker 2: think in part one, bringing a product to market requires
Speaker 2: incredible cooperation among competing businesses and businesses that are pursuing
Speaker 2: their self interest. In fact, you know, when I hit
Speaker 2: send on an order for a new computer, hundreds of
Speaker 2: people spring into action, going to work to fulfill my order,
Speaker 2: and if they don't do that, then I don't get
Speaker 2: my computer. Yeah. Is it competitive, Yes, competitions. The competition
Speaker 2: is a good thing because competition enables us to get
Speaker 2: make sure that the best products are the ones that
Speaker 2: received and the ones that have the most benefit are
Speaker 2: the ones that succeed. Now to be to be fair,
Speaker 2: you know, the more markets reflect the virtues and values
Speaker 2: of the participants in it, which would suggest that there
Speaker 2: are times when to get to get to another major objection,
Speaker 2: that it is going to all be based on.
Speaker 1: Greed exactly actually was my next one. So tell them
Speaker 1: respond to the claim that capitalism is about greed.
Speaker 2: Well, for one, greeds of human a vice, not an
Speaker 2: economic one. To say there are no greedy people among
Speaker 2: socialists is absurd. They said other ways too, you know,
Speaker 2: to satisfy their greed that we're not. That's why they
Speaker 2: That's why most socialist countries they have thriving black markets,
Speaker 2: which are i'd say, much more pure market exchanges than
Speaker 2: what exists above ground. And I would say profit and
Speaker 2: greed are not the same thing. Profit just means that
Speaker 2: you're using your resources efficiently. And I think I think
Speaker 2: what I would say is an honest profit actually means
Speaker 2: that you are fulfilling the dominion mandate faithfully. So an
Speaker 2: honest by an honest profit, I mean that's not one
Speaker 2: that's not fraudulent or producing a product that's inherently evil.
Speaker 2: Like pornographers are not fulfilling the dominion mandate even though
Speaker 2: they're very profitable. That's a dishonest distinction.
Speaker 1: So you're right, like greed is in every economic system,
Speaker 1: because human it's a matter of the heart that we
Speaker 1: carry with us. Is there something you would say to
Speaker 1: Christians though, like we have to be especially careful and
Speaker 1: cautious in a culture where I can create a business
Speaker 1: for my own good I can buy products that I'm
Speaker 1: promised will fill my heart. That there's at least more
Speaker 1: temptation to greed here in a capitalist society, or it's
Speaker 1: just a different kind.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's it's because market systems have the
Speaker 2: capacity to create wealth like no others, there probably is
Speaker 2: the temptation toward greed and toward over consumption mm hmm.
Speaker 2: But with that there's also it also creates the resources
Speaker 2: for charity and for a safety net like we've never
Speaker 2: seen before. And so the you know it would would
Speaker 2: Would I rather be tempted by greed than by grinding poverty?
Speaker 2: Sure I will. I will deal with my greed. Uh.
Speaker 2: And I think the reason that the Bible has as
Speaker 2: as a solution for greed, it's called giving. Now, God
Speaker 2: commands giving, not because he needs it. The kingdom will
Speaker 2: get along just fine if we hoard all our wealth.
Speaker 2: Our heart is what needs our giving, because that's that's
Speaker 2: what breaks the power of money in our lives.
Speaker 1: That's fair. So one of the other critiques that comes
Speaker 1: up often is that in the capitalist system, the rich
Speaker 1: get richer at the expense of the poor.
Speaker 2: Now, you got to be careful how you say that
Speaker 2: because that's saying it clearly, okay. When they leave out
Speaker 2: the at the expense of the poor and just say
Speaker 2: the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poor.
Speaker 2: Sometimes that at the expense of is implied but not
Speaker 2: stated clearly, and that you're right to state it clearly, okay.
Speaker 2: And I think that for most of the history of
Speaker 2: civilization that was true and as a result, everybody was
Speaker 2: equally and they were equal, but they were equally poor, wretched,
Speaker 2: and miserable. And once markets were introduced, then you could
Speaker 2: do well financially and do good at the same time,
Speaker 2: which was not true in the ancient world to market
Speaker 2: systems being introduced. So I would say yes, just because
Speaker 2: just because the richer getting richer doesn't necessarily mean that
Speaker 2: the poor are getting poor, because there is a sense
Speaker 2: when a profit is made and when economies grow, the
Speaker 2: size of the pie actually gets bigger. And just because
Speaker 2: the rich are getting richer, you know, factory wages can
Speaker 2: be up at the same time. Now there are things
Speaker 2: that there are things about market systems where you do
Speaker 2: have dislocations sometimes and so sometimes there are temporary, temporary setbacks.
Speaker 2: It doesn't say that there is consistent economic growth all
Speaker 2: the time. But it does say that the general pattern
Speaker 2: has been that the size of the pie generally gets
Speaker 2: bigger over time.
Speaker 1: That's really the key. That it's not a finite If
Speaker 1: I get that means you lose. Wealth can actually be
Speaker 1: created and generated, so the pie gets bigger.
Speaker 2: Wealth is being created every day.
Speaker 1: Hence not at the expense of the pores. Why you
Speaker 1: focused on that point. That's correct, Okay, all right, So
Speaker 1: you talked about this a little earlier, that capitalism leads
Speaker 1: to over consumption and materialism. I think I think you've
Speaker 1: addressed that one.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, materialism is a is a human vice.
Speaker 1: An you might say in a different economic system, there
Speaker 1: might be other vices that are emphasized more, but it's
Speaker 1: not like there's just no vices in other economic systems expressed.
Speaker 2: When when you are stuck in your economic strategy, the
Speaker 2: vice is envy in coven dioustance is that's all you
Speaker 2: can do is look up with envy at the person
Speaker 2: at the social media understanding above you and I. In
Speaker 2: my view, envy and covetousness are far worse in socialistic
Speaker 2: systems than they are in market systems.
Speaker 1: That's I'd love to explore that, but that point is fascinating.
Speaker 1: I'm let that sit with folks. So the last objection
Speaker 1: that is often raised is that capitalism leads to economic busts.
Speaker 1: So in our last episode, one of the I think
Speaker 1: there were seven or eight factors that led the author
Speaker 1: of the book Why Christians Should Be Leftists to abandon
Speaker 1: kind of a capitalist system, and one was the economic
Speaker 1: crash of two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine.
Speaker 1: So you think about like the dot com bust of
Speaker 1: the early two thousand's mark a crash of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight. I'm sure another one is coming in due time.
Speaker 1: Some people are talking about an AI crash. Maybe that
Speaker 1: could happen in the future. Doesn't capitalism lead to economic
Speaker 1: busts like that? It can, okay, but I.
Speaker 2: Would say by contrast, socialism is a constant economic bust,
Speaker 2: not just at one time.
Speaker 1: I didn't expect that answer.
Speaker 2: You know the doc you know the part of the
Speaker 2: reason for these booms and bugs, there's that's a whole
Speaker 2: complicated subject. But part of the reason for that is
Speaker 2: because people don't always act in their economic self interest.
Speaker 2: The dot com bust was labeled irrational exuberance and I think.
Speaker 1: That was I remember it, that was right. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I think the you know, the market crash and
Speaker 2: you know when the financial system nearly melted down, Uh,
Speaker 2: I think was largely through this is a quick and
Speaker 2: dirty summary of it, but largely through unethical activity where
Speaker 2: the people who were foised, the people were foisting securities
Speaker 2: on the investing public, knowing that they were useless and
Speaker 2: knowing that they were going to get bailed out.
Speaker 1: That's my, that's my And they were going to get
Speaker 1: bailed out because of because the systems that were arguably
Speaker 1: more socialist on the spectrum would bail them out. Is
Speaker 1: that a fair way to characterize that?
Speaker 2: Or not? Quiet because because the federal government recognized that
Speaker 2: they were too that the institutions that were failing were
Speaker 2: too big to fail.
Speaker 1: Got it?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Okay, now we can there's a I'm sure that's the
Speaker 1: whole story.
Speaker 2: I've read. I've read everything published on that market crash. Okay,
Speaker 2: And I encourage our listeners if you've not read the
Speaker 2: best thing on this is Michael Lewis's book called The
Speaker 2: Big Short, which was which was made into a movie,
Speaker 2: which I think really captures that really nicely about and
Speaker 2: it was the it was excesses, and it was it
Speaker 2: was putting risks onto investors unknowingly. And I think the
Speaker 2: conclusion of Big Short was that the people who did
Speaker 2: that knew they were going to get bailed out. So anyway,
Speaker 2: that's longer. Lots of people we can agree to disagree
Speaker 2: about some of that. But is that endemic to capitalism,
Speaker 2: I say not necessarily. I mean Australia's had a market
Speaker 2: system for a long time. They've they've basically avoided a
Speaker 2: lot of these booms and busts.
Speaker 1: And they have a capitalist system largely speaking.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Interesting, Okay, So even if it were, some of this,
Speaker 1: I guess has to be our expectations. If our expectation
Speaker 1: is constant growth for without any steps back, and your
Speaker 1: home is going to increase ten percent every year, like
Speaker 1: if you have that expectation, can't then the bust is
Speaker 1: going to be a negative. But if you compare it
Speaker 1: as a whole capitalism in America with some of the busts,
Speaker 1: which some people really have been hurt by it, and
Speaker 1: we can ask whether or not those are caused by
Speaker 1: capitalism or not, but they exist.
Speaker 2: And whether those arms are permanent or temporary.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, it still doesn't compare whatsoever to a socialist system.
Speaker 1: So the comparison shouldn't be capitalism during its upswings versus
Speaker 1: the down swings. It should be capitalism with the upswings
Speaker 1: and down swings versus socialism. Then it's not even in
Speaker 1: the same ballpark. It's like JV versus the NBA. Something
Speaker 1: is that something somebody You don't want to be too
Speaker 1: nailed down to that example, but generally makes the point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think. I think most people if they had
Speaker 2: their choice in living in socialist systems living in market systems,
Speaker 2: they would choose market based. Now they may choose it
Speaker 2: maybe something that's a little a little differently structured. They
Speaker 2: may choose Europe Scandinavia, and they may choose higher taxes
Speaker 2: and more services. That's it's not an unreasonable choice. What
Speaker 2: it lacks, though, is the incentives for innovation, because you
Speaker 2: just get to keep less of your income and there's
Speaker 2: I think less incentive to go the extra mile.
Speaker 1: Look, people in a capitalist system have different proclivities to
Speaker 1: take risks. Right, If somebody wants a more secure, solid job,
Speaker 1: you could go in the military, you could become a teacher,
Speaker 1: you could do certain things but you have the opportunity,
Speaker 1: and there's a trade off with that, but also to
Speaker 1: take the kind of risk that create wealth, create jobs.
Speaker 1: It's just the opportunity to do that doesn't mean people
Speaker 1: can't follow systems and give up some of that for security.
Speaker 1: A capitalist system allows that, it just doesn't require it
Speaker 1: and squelch those who want to take the risk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's correct, all right.
Speaker 1: So are there any goods and services that should be
Speaker 1: off the market? Like slavery is an obvious one that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't buy and sell human beings. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: obvious now, not throughout the history of the world.
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is something to say about that.
Speaker 1: There, there you go. So it wasn't obvious about the
Speaker 1: history of the world, but it's obvious now. But are
Speaker 1: there other pressing issues today? And you and I have
Speaker 1: talked about this, such as srerogacy just to give one example,
Speaker 1: but you could give others that we should not allow
Speaker 1: on the market. And how do we make some of
Speaker 1: those decisions about what's for sale and what's not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would think I would say adoptable children should
Speaker 2: not be for purchasing sale on the open market, even
Speaker 2: though that's probably a much more efficient way to do
Speaker 2: it than the system we have in place. Efficient, I
Speaker 2: would say, not effective. Those are two different things. Okay, explain, well,
Speaker 2: it does it wouldn't. It wouldn't prevent people from, you know, simply,
Speaker 2: you know, using financial financial means as the only determinant
Speaker 2: of whether you get a baby or not. Okay, So
Speaker 2: it would take away the sort of the fitness of
Speaker 2: the parents, all of that, and it would it would
Speaker 2: force people and this is this is part of the
Speaker 2: reason that something should be off the market, because we
Speaker 2: don't want financial dire straits to be coercive to people,
Speaker 2: to force them to do things that they would otherwise
Speaker 2: never consider doing. So that would be I always say,
Speaker 2: you know, organs for donation should be for donation, not
Speaker 2: for sale. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't have I
Speaker 2: would have been okay if my brother paid me ten
Speaker 2: for my kidney.
Speaker 1: So you're saying not so, it's not an in principal problem.
Speaker 1: But having a system in which they're for sale is
Speaker 1: going to create a supply and a demand that's going
Speaker 1: to have a negative net effect.
Speaker 2: Is that what you're I'd also say, for for organs, yeah, yes,
Speaker 2: and I mean I think they're you know, again, having
Speaker 2: a market would make it a lot more efficient, but
Speaker 2: it would also create this huge level of unfairness because
Speaker 2: it would assume it would exacerbate the medical the gap
Speaker 2: between the medical haves and have nots. It already exists,
Speaker 2: and I think the way we distribute scarce resources medically
Speaker 2: is as first come, first serve for the most part.
Speaker 1: That's part of the concern about surrogacy is that the
Speaker 1: rich could hire the poor to be a surrogate, and
Speaker 1: then people would feel inclined to do that in a
Speaker 1: way that's not hopeful and good for them. That's why
Speaker 1: is that the main reason why we don't want that.
Speaker 2: And I'm not thrilled about, you know, women's eggs or
Speaker 2: a man sperm being for sale in the open market,
Speaker 2: because then you can put specifications on what kind of
Speaker 2: characteristics you might be inheriting in your child, leads us
Speaker 2: toward designer children, which I think is a which undermines
Speaker 2: the notion of children being a gift.
Speaker 1: So so part of the core issue then is like
Speaker 1: are we selling something that's going to do undermine human dignity,
Speaker 1: like selling sex and prostitution is going to undermine the
Speaker 1: dignity of the family, the dignity of the woman. Surrogacy
Speaker 1: undermines the dignity. And of course just because there's clear
Speaker 1: cases like I would say drugs and prostitution, doesn't mean
Speaker 1: there's not more difficult cases that could go either way.
Speaker 1: And there might be some of those. But capitalism doesn't
Speaker 1: mean we sell anything whatsoever.
Speaker 2: And here the principal problem showan is that if everything's
Speaker 2: a market transaction, then then it crowds out altruism.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the concern also with socialism is
Speaker 1: that it removes giving to the government and takes away
Speaker 1: the need and incentive to give individually to people, potentially
Speaker 1: takes away oh and the resources to do it fair enough. Okay,
Speaker 1: Well again, we can have a huge conversation on this,
Speaker 1: but one of the big topics that people talk about
Speaker 1: is healthcare. Is the problem that we don't have enough
Speaker 1: market economics and competition, or that we're not enough like
Speaker 1: Canada and don't have it more of a or say Europe,
Speaker 1: a more state run kind of healthcare system, or is
Speaker 1: it really not simple enough.
Speaker 2: I say it's neither of those, okay, and because both
Speaker 2: both our system and the Canadian system share the same
Speaker 2: basic flaw, and that is we have we have objectives
Speaker 2: and goals that are incompatible. Our healthcare system is trying
Speaker 2: to provide world class innovation and care at low cost,
Speaker 2: with universal access and full freedom of choice. And you
Speaker 2: can't have all those things at the same time. You
Speaker 2: just can't. You can't have the You can't have the
Speaker 2: pharmaceutical industry that we have coming up with these incredible
Speaker 2: life all during game changing medications and have and have
Speaker 2: everything be low cost at the same time. The pharmaceutical
Speaker 2: companies are you know, most of what the experiment on
Speaker 2: fails and they pour billions of dollars into things that
Speaker 2: never get to market, and rightly so, and so we
Speaker 2: have to make choices in this. Now that the merit
Speaker 2: of a system like Canada and the UK is they've
Speaker 2: made their choices consciously, we've defaulted into our choices.
Speaker 1: We have to.
Speaker 2: I'm waiting for the politician to say in healthcare, you
Speaker 2: can't have it all at the same time, and nobody's
Speaker 2: been willing to say that.
Speaker 1: So last question for you. You've been an advocate of
Speaker 1: capitalism again market economics, and you're one of the first
Speaker 1: people that I had as an undergrad. I think my
Speaker 1: senior year now my brother in law took your class
Speaker 1: on economics, talked about this a little bit, and then
Speaker 1: in grad school some and then really for me, reading
Speaker 1: Jay Richards' book God Reread Money was like, oh, my goodness,
Speaker 1: this is I agree with what you said about it
Speaker 1: being the engine or the mechanism that has liberated more
Speaker 1: people from poverty than anything else in the history of the.
Speaker 2: World, just since nineteen seventy.
Speaker 1: Just since nineteen seventy one point five people, and that's
Speaker 1: because of a shift towards market economics. So how much
Speaker 1: do you think churches should talk about this because I
Speaker 1: don't think I've ever heard a sermon on capitalism. I'm
Speaker 1: not even saying they should give a sermon of capitalism.
Speaker 1: In some ways, I don't have a lot of power
Speaker 1: over the kind of government system that I live in.
Speaker 1: My responsibility is to my neighbor, like we talked about,
Speaker 1: But should especially since we're seeing socialism grow within maybe
Speaker 1: younger millennials and Gen z Ers and arguably in the
Speaker 1: next generation, should this be an issue that more churches
Speaker 1: are champion And if so, how.
Speaker 2: Well for one sean I think we should be honest
Speaker 2: about the history of socialism in our public schools.
Speaker 1: You mean how it's taught public schools, Okay.
Speaker 2: But I think in our churches, I think we talk
Speaker 2: about money a lot. We don't talk a lot about
Speaker 2: a lot about economic life in general. And I think
Speaker 2: part of the reason for that is because we don't
Speaker 2: know what to do with the first centense, with the
Speaker 2: first century economy, which was so different than our own,
Speaker 2: and we don't we don't know what to do with
Speaker 2: things like Jesus statement that it's harder for a rich
Speaker 2: man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and camel to
Speaker 2: go through the eye of a needle, And we don't
Speaker 2: know what to do with the with the Bible's lack
Speaker 2: of teaching about ambition, was virtually nothing to say about
Speaker 2: economic ambition, and the reason for that is because people's
Speaker 2: place was fixed.
Speaker 1: Right it was it was, it was a moot point
Speaker 1: the system that wastten And so.
Speaker 2: I think we need to be talking about economic life,
Speaker 2: but we have we have to take into account these
Speaker 2: vast differences, and that should that should govern how we
Speaker 2: interpret the Biblical text on this. But I think there
Speaker 2: are some general principles that we need to be talking
Speaker 2: about one. God owns it all. It's his. God has
Speaker 2: entrusted this to us. God, God has God has given
Speaker 2: us a right of ownership. God has given us a
Speaker 2: responsibility towards taking care of the poor. God has given
Speaker 2: us an obligation to pursue our self interest sufficient to
Speaker 2: take care of our own needs and those of our dependents. Uh.
Speaker 2: You know things like that which we lay We lay
Speaker 2: out all of those in the book. There's several more
Speaker 2: of those. I think those are things that we can
Speaker 2: be talking about when when we talk about money. Most
Speaker 2: of most churches talk about money when it comes to giving. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but there's that's it's just a smart piece of the
Speaker 2: Biblical wisdom about money and economic life.
Speaker 1: I imagine socialism can take away the incentive and resources
Speaker 1: to give. I imagine some Christians could go well, as
Speaker 1: long as I support capitalism, that's creating a system. I've
Speaker 1: done my duty. That is definitely not what you're arguing
Speaker 1: for here. We still have a responsibility biblically over and
Speaker 1: over again, take care for those to give.
Speaker 2: You have more responsibility because you have more resources at.
Speaker 1: You're okay, fair enough, that's a good, good way to
Speaker 1: put it, well, your book is fascinating The Virtues of Capitalism,
Speaker 1: a moral case for free markets, and it's now in
Speaker 1: my top two books, alongside Jay Richards book I just
Speaker 1: think is fantastic. Virtus of Capitalism, God Gred Money. I
Speaker 1: think is the title makes a biblical, a historical, and
Speaker 1: an economic case that capitalism really is what's best for society.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to check out that video you mentioned,
Speaker 1: that four minute video. We'll try to link to that below.
Speaker 2: That's a good call.
Speaker 1: All right, friends, let us know what you think about this.
Speaker 1: You can email us at Thinkbiblically at Biola dot edu.
Speaker 1: If you're watching this on YouTube, you can comment below.
Speaker 1: Is this kind of content helpful? Would you like more
Speaker 1: about how to think biblically or kind of defend free
Speaker 1: market economics or if there's enough objections that people write
Speaker 1: in and send us, maybe we'll do a full episode
Speaker 1: responding back to it. But we would love to hear
Speaker 1: for you. This is a little bit of a unique
Speaker 1: two part series that we've done, so make sure you
Speaker 1: subscribe and follow, and thanks for joining us on the
Speaker 1: Think Biblically podcast. Hey friends, if you enjoyed this show,
Speaker 1: please hit that fall button on your podcast app. Most
Speaker 1: of you tuning in haven't done this yet, and it
Speaker 1: makes a huge difference in helping us reach and equip
Speaker 1: more people and build community. And please consider leaving a
Speaker 1: podcast review. Every review helps. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Sean McDowell Show, brought to you by Talbot School of
Speaker 1: Theology at by Iola University, where we have on campus
Speaker 1: and online programs and apologetic spiritual formation, marriage and family,
Speaker 1: Bible and so much more. We would love to train
Speaker 1: you to more effectively live, teach, and defend the Christian
Speaker 1: faith today and we will see you when the next
Speaker 1: episode drops.