A few weeks ago my friends and I got into a pretty heated argument about wealth distribution worldwide; and the need for Christians to view ourselves as part of a global culture instead of individuals in a capitalist society, chanting mantras to Caesar (I bet you can guess where I stood). But it really wasn't as easy as everyone agreeing. There were people heavily disagreeing in fact, arguing that personal freedom of consumption and free-market capitalism is the way to help the poor. We didn't see eye to eye. But in light of the conversation I then read this entry by Ben Witherington on his blog and thought I would share it. He mentions briefly the question of place of credit cards in it--and my friend just watched a documentary on the debt we are accumulating by credit cards, and I wonder about the place of them in our lives...
The Expensive Cost of Cheap Goods (By Ben Witherington)
There was an interesting story on ABC news tonight about the fallout from the lead paint recall of Mattel toys made in China. The story stressed that the Chinese workers now laid off were making about 18 cents an hour for their toil. Compare this to what blue collar workers would make over here performing the same task, but factor in the differing cost of living in the two places.
But the interesting sidelight to the story was an interview with a small toymaker here in the U.S. who makes toy trains. Suddenly he has been flooded with order requests, though this is probably short lived. There are some 10,000 toy making companies in China to which we out source, and only 50 made in the USA companies doing the same thing. Why? The answer is simple-- America's lust for cheap goods, which has destroyed more American companies than I care to count. Pretty soon all blue collar jobs will be out sourced, the way things are going.
I grew up in a furniture town-- High Point N.C. There used to be about 25 or more furniture plants making excellent furniture. Today if you ask how many companies actually make furniture there the answer is one--- just one. High Point is hardly furniture city any more. I think this is a loss. Americans have lost many opportunities to learn numerous trades which used to require artisanship, apprenticing, and the like. Now it only requires press board, and wood chips and slave labor.
Now I must tell you that I am not an advocate of no out sourcing of jobs, nor am I particularly enamored with protectionism. But I do think there is a heavy price that we pay for the right to buy cheap goods. And I wonder how as Christians we should view these things.
For one thing I wonder why it is that we have simply acquiesed to the culture of conspicuous consumption. Why is it that we feel compelled to buy so much stuff, ranging from junk to luxuries, neither of which we need? Shouldn't we be wiser about our purchases, and seek to buy things that are of quality and will last? Of course that might mean we might have to save up for it, instead of buying on credit! Imagine that.
I used to know a lot of Christians who believed on principle that we ought to never buy anything on credit-- no credit cards, etc. Sometimes they would make an exception when it came to a home, but that was about it. I am afraid we have not thought through, from a Christian perspective, either how we spend our money, nor what we spend it on, nor whether we ought to spend it at all, nor whether it is an ethical thing to buy cheap foreign goods to begin with. No we just stumble from one recall to another, and temporarily may repent and do better, but all the while 'shop until we drop' is the American motto, or "whoever dies with the most toys wins".
When we buy shabby goods with built in obsolescence we simply cheapen ourselves-- and frankly that's an expensive price to pay for conspicuous consumption. From a Christian point of view a person should not be defined or judged by what they have, but rather by what they give.
The Expensive Cost of Cheap Goods (By Ben Witherington)
There was an interesting story on ABC news tonight about the fallout from the lead paint recall of Mattel toys made in China. The story stressed that the Chinese workers now laid off were making about 18 cents an hour for their toil. Compare this to what blue collar workers would make over here performing the same task, but factor in the differing cost of living in the two places.
But the interesting sidelight to the story was an interview with a small toymaker here in the U.S. who makes toy trains. Suddenly he has been flooded with order requests, though this is probably short lived. There are some 10,000 toy making companies in China to which we out source, and only 50 made in the USA companies doing the same thing. Why? The answer is simple-- America's lust for cheap goods, which has destroyed more American companies than I care to count. Pretty soon all blue collar jobs will be out sourced, the way things are going.
I grew up in a furniture town-- High Point N.C. There used to be about 25 or more furniture plants making excellent furniture. Today if you ask how many companies actually make furniture there the answer is one--- just one. High Point is hardly furniture city any more. I think this is a loss. Americans have lost many opportunities to learn numerous trades which used to require artisanship, apprenticing, and the like. Now it only requires press board, and wood chips and slave labor.
Now I must tell you that I am not an advocate of no out sourcing of jobs, nor am I particularly enamored with protectionism. But I do think there is a heavy price that we pay for the right to buy cheap goods. And I wonder how as Christians we should view these things.
For one thing I wonder why it is that we have simply acquiesed to the culture of conspicuous consumption. Why is it that we feel compelled to buy so much stuff, ranging from junk to luxuries, neither of which we need? Shouldn't we be wiser about our purchases, and seek to buy things that are of quality and will last? Of course that might mean we might have to save up for it, instead of buying on credit! Imagine that.
I used to know a lot of Christians who believed on principle that we ought to never buy anything on credit-- no credit cards, etc. Sometimes they would make an exception when it came to a home, but that was about it. I am afraid we have not thought through, from a Christian perspective, either how we spend our money, nor what we spend it on, nor whether we ought to spend it at all, nor whether it is an ethical thing to buy cheap foreign goods to begin with. No we just stumble from one recall to another, and temporarily may repent and do better, but all the while 'shop until we drop' is the American motto, or "whoever dies with the most toys wins".
When we buy shabby goods with built in obsolescence we simply cheapen ourselves-- and frankly that's an expensive price to pay for conspicuous consumption. From a Christian point of view a person should not be defined or judged by what they have, but rather by what they give.
11 comments:
Some good thoughts, yes! I wonder if having credit cards, and used wisely, can be an excellent way to be a steward of God's money. By using cards that give you points and rewards, and making sure you always have the money to pay it off each month, you are buying the same stuff, but gaining a little extra from the VISA corporations through rewards (oh but a slippery slope though - can we pay it off this month!).
My brother always tithed in secret, until someone told him that if he tithes, and gets a tax receipt, the extra money back from the government can be used to tithe some more.
Indirectly getting the government and corporations involved in our stewardship and giving - I like that!
Delayed gratification has been totally lost in our society. I am not sure it is even viewed as a positive discipline any more. By delaying a purchase we have time to consider if the purchase is truly necessary or if we really want an item. Time to save for a purchase, time to seek out value and time to seek Gods wisdom on how we are to be good stewards of what He has entrusted to us.
The thing that few ever talk about with regards to debt is how it binds us both to the obligation of repayment and to whom we owe.
Good points! I wonder what God's view on debt is? He discusses it in Leviticus and elsewhere...
The world is crippled by debt both on an individual and corporate level--relieving third world debt, which these counties will never be able to pay the first world, for instance-- many believe should be the number one social justice issue for Christians.
What do you think?
Even within the western world the combined personal debt and individual portion of the national debt is getting to the point where it will never likely be paid off. We are all living a life we can only afford because of leveraging what assets we have to their maximum value thereby allowing the lender to dictate the terms of the future.
On the issue of 3rd world debt forgiveness, I think there are two big issues. One is the debt is an asset to which the country is able to borrow money from another for themselves. The Second roadblock for countries to forgive the debt of another is that it they want it done with strings attached. They want certain assurances such as ongoing democracy, elimination of corruption, to continue purchasing goods from the forgiving country but not compete with the forgiving country. From what I remember, in the year of jubilee, debt forgiveness was for all, no strings attached.
We are likely too selfish a society to ever be able to collectively forgive another's debt.
And what's so bad about having strings attached, especially democracy, corruption, and free market strings? Every wealthy country in the world, with perhaps the exception of China, is a democracy with relatively low levels of corruption and a generally free market. It's the only solution, so why shouldn't it be attached?
As for why governments are so averse to forgiving debt, there are many reasons. Some are monetary, sure, but the biggest reason is that it doesn't work. If Canada were to write off their loan to, say, Somalia, where would the extra cash go? Infrastructure and the economy? I think not. It would go straight into the Swiss bank accounts of whatever faction is currently running the place and would provide even more incentive for the next warlord to try to take over the government. Simply forgiving third-world (read African) debt is only a recipe for more death and destruction and repression.
Yes, forgiving debt is the good, Christian thing to do, but at what cost?
Josh,
Good comments, and you are seemingly schooled in this realm, which I am not, but I must say that no one is arguing that debt just be forgiven...and that's it--these things you mention must be in view and things must be done to protect the defenseless etc., not doubt in my mind...
I am not sure how relieving the debt of say Somalia just automatically equates to more warlords though...I understand you to be saying the extra money will go to them, but it need not do so if we forgive by being involved in their lives (i.e. that the money saved is streamed into the right programs and that the right people benefit from it like the poorest, on vaccinations--some of which cost as little as 20 cents)
Maybe that is part of the forgivenss is that we don't just stop taking the money they owe but that we find out the greatest points of need say in Somalia and meet those needs, slowly helping their country to become stronger and healthier, then come along side of them and help them build infastructre and create a free-market...for the long haul..."Teach them to fish"
Thoughts?
I totally agree with most of what you said. The problem is that this is not what Bono and all those other activists want. They want all that money to go straight to the governments with no strings attached or to those massive NGOs with huge overhead costs. As I said in my previous post and you agreed, the way to bring Africa out of poverty is to teach them to fish. But the One Campaign and the others only want to give them fish. Why? Because at the root of these campaigns is the post-modern liberal thinking that they (Africans) are the victim of Western greed/neglect/ignorance and that it’s up to those same Westerners to save them from their fate. To quote a columnist I read, “You have to be pretty powerful and superior to be both Satan and Jesus at the same time.” As I mentioned before, the only way to solve this problem is for the 3rd world to adopt Western values, which according to liberal theory is not allowed, since the West is the problem. Anyone see a problem here?
A good book on the subject (which I admit I haven’t read yet, but it’s on my wish list) is White Man’s Burden by William Easterly. He apparently dives deeply into these NGOs and highlights in detail exactly why they’re wrong and won’t solve anything.
I guess my beef with you is not that we shouldn’t be helping the 3rd world, it’s just how we go about it.
I'm sorry if I don't see the "Christian" aspect in any of this, a question that people, as human beings, should be asking.
If we, however, want to look to scriptures, there will be some major differences between an ancient Hebrew society and early Christian counter culture that focused a lot on its opposition to empire and was deeply skeptical of anyone with money. An original reader of the letters contained in our New Testament would barely be able to recognize the "Christian" perspective of money over the last 1700 years.
As for some of the things Josh said, it makes me weep. Obviously he has a certain ideology of "tough love" or "a hand up not a hand out." All very common sense ideas. That is, of course, if your end goal is financial benefit. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Only those in the pretentious western society can say it can, and those that do are usually not the ones making two-week mission trips of pity to third world countries to get an emotional/spiritual high.
Here is a problem with have a certain ideology like some of your commenters: you could care less about any good that someone is doing because it isn't your good. Josh accused Bono, someone who I definitely have my own issues with, of having a "liberal" ideology that wants to give poor nations money without any strings attached. This is BS Josh, and if you cared enough to look past your blinders, you would see that this isn't true. Nobody is throwing money out the window. The fine print isn't advertised, but if you want to know the truth I would suggest you check out sites like charitynavigator.org or go to Africa youself and see some of the amazing work the One Campaign has been involved with.
Thinking Ape,
Interesting comments; and hopefully Josh isn't taking personal offense--I find the liberal/conservative polarization to be problematic for so many reasons, including that the labels are unhelpful, distracting and simply not true--meaning: what is the difference between both sides of the aisle--is it mostly an illusion to give our democracy's the feeling of choice?
Anyway--I agree "ape" with your assesment about the end goal (teleology)--let us agree to an end goal of the conversation as it does inform the content along the way; is it a healthy global economic scene, helping people in the name of Jesus, or economic upperhand and stability for the western world...?
And I do believe in many ways the Western world is able to "play Satan and Jesus" to people...think about it...
we equip nations to kill our enemies and then ride into to liberate them when the weapons we sold them are mismanaged; that is one of many hypocritical decisions we make all the time and it happens in more places than Iraq; including when the US trained the very terrorists that attacked them on 9/11 when they were fighting Russia in the early eighties...
The problem with some of the common beliefs about US foreign policy is that it has the US wearing the white hats (Jesus in your quotes terms) and everyone else wearing the black hats (satan) but life of course is never this black and white it is messy to the core...
And that includes who we wants to get rich, who we want to keep poor because it benefits us...someone has to be poor for the west to do well don't they?
Where to start?
First, Ape, if you want to debate economics, go ahead, but I fail to see where supply-side economics was mentioned. And what end goal isn't financial? Better health and quality of life all have financial implications and vice versa.
As to your comment that "No one is throwing money out the window", I strongly encourage you to read the Easterly book I referred to in my earlier post. I just finished reading it and let me tell you, we (the West) have spent $2.3 TRILLION on aid in the past 50 years with almost nothing to show for it. Yes there are local successes, but nothing to justify that kind of money. The book goes through example after example of why centralized aid planning has never and will never work. A new solution is needed - and Easterly suggests, and I agree, that a market-based aid program is needed with accountability for the aid agencies to get the money to the people instead of in the hands of thugs and despots. No amount of aid will "make poverty history", you need a systematic change that Bono or any other celebrity do-gooder can't and won't offer.
And Mark, if you can't see the differences between the aisles, I don't think you've been paying attention for the last decade. Yes, in Canada there's less of a difference compared to other places, but it's getting more polarized every day (well, at least between Conservative and Liberal/NDP/Green).
As for foreign policy, you're bringing in a whole other dimension with totally different priorities. Yes, sometimes they are intertwined (ie. foreign aid during the cold war was sometimes reduced to simply buying the loyalty of a country). But, in the examples you mentioned, there were plenty of sound reasons for those actions, even if there turned out to be repercussions later.
And I probably won't win any friends here by saying that the US has done more good than bad in the last 50 years. I won't ignore their mistakes (mostly due to liberals, and no, Iraq and Afganistan aren't mistakes, at least not yet), but their white hats are definitely bigger than their black ones
And finally, whoever said that if one person gets rich, another gets poor? Economics 101 - specialization leads to comparative advantage leads to trade, which benefits both parties and generates more value for everyone. The idea’s been around for 230 years, so why do so many people still think this way?
Josh,
Though I agree with your final statement; that wealth does not necessitate others to be poor it has often played out that way. Building Empires on the back of slaves is not only ancient history.
As for the polarization-- I pointed out that I am well aware of it, and feel it all the time around us; my point was whether the options we are given are really all that different to begin with or whether they might have more in common than we think, and that people love to think that right is so much different than left etc., but really are they all that different when it comes to the bottom line?
Also, when these parties/media control the discourse they set the agenda-- tell people what is really important, when my question as a free-thinking person has to be: are the issues they are raising really the actual issues that matter to the way our society runs? Are these the all-impoortant issues of our time? By asking the question I am not saying that some of the issues are not important I am just trying to stay critical.
These are the questions (not answers) that rumble around in my mind as I read this dialogue we have been having: is a two or three party system representative of our national population?
How has 'sound bite' politics/thelogy shrivelled discourse?
Are we, as Christians, really being critical of celebs when they actually try to do something good for people with HIV/AIDS instead of just having sex with everyone in Hollywood, being addicted to Drugs, and losing custody fo their kids?
Though 2.3 Trilion dollars "on aid in the last fifty years" is a lot of money, what is it iin relation to what we have made off the very countries we have had to then aid (i.e. the diamond industry, supplying thee countries with weapons)?
Also-- estimates are that the war in Iraq is going to end up costing that much by itelf("the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day"--http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/).
Thus in the words of British MP, Tony Benn "If we have the money to kill people (with war), we've got the money to help people."
Blessings as we continue this very important discussion...
Post a Comment