There has been resistance in some quarters to the proposed
stimulus plan which will send out checks to the American public. In many ways
it's rightly viewed as somewhat crazy – borrow or effectively print money to
give to people. Take the government even deeper into debt so that citizens will
have money to spend. What kind of economics is that?
The previous cash disbursements in 2001 and in the wake of
the 2008 financial crisis were about getting Americans to support the retail
sector. Our economy is a service economy. Manufacturing is only a faint shadow
of what it once was. Today's economy is less about production of goods and more
about moving money around, in and out of the markets and banking system. And so
if the flow of money stops, then the economy crashes. It's like a game of
musical chairs. Also when the music stops it's like a poker game where the hand
is called and everyone has to show what they have. Let's just say a lot of the players
are faking it and don't really have the hands that they want everyone to think
they do. That's no less true today, even with the numbers produced by the
Obama-Trump recovery.
Many have talked about how robust the Trump economy was
before the recent pandemic. Well, I would be among those that would differ. I
don't see Coronavirus as having wrecked a strong economy but rather as the
trigger, the spark that set off an explosion – that revealed that what everyone
thought was there, wasn't really there. The level of the collapse is telling
and demonstrates that much of the wealth was in the realm of what Marx called
Fictitious Capital, manipulated numbers within the usurious market that only
function as long as the vast majority of holders believe in it and keep their
money invested. Once people start pulling out (and of course those initial
withdrawals have the potential to be huge money-makers) it starts collapsing.
But apart from the few whose timing is right or inside information, it's a
disaster. The rest quickly discover that what they thought was there, isn't
there. The money ends up only being real for those on the inside, for those
whose timing is right or for those who withdrew the fictitious capital in bits
and pieces along the way and turned it into real money. But in terms of the
bulk 'value' of the market, it's little more than a pipe dream.
The economy never truly recovered from what happened in 2008.
Wages never really rose. They had just started to develop a noticeable uptick
over the past few years but this was only in response to the steady inflation,
a reality that government and market statisticians sought (and ever seek) to
obfuscate and downplay. The labour market was manipulated, the parameters
changed and a new economy developed, one with even less security and stability
for workers, one in which the remaining power of the unions was broken and
through the utilisation of technology those at the bottom were reduced to a
kind of slavery unimagined even during the Gilded Age. With modern Smartphones
employers can string wage workers along, keeping them ever available but with
no promise of consistent hours or wages. But even the employers are struggling
in this great 'recovery'. Due to the growing power of monopolies and the nature
of globalist logistics the profit margins are growing ever tighter for mid-level
retail outlets and franchises and well before the pandemic the 'booming'
economy was in the midst of what some called a 'retail apocalypse'.
The health care reforms under Obama helped many, harmed some
but because it did not sever the control of the insurance companies or the
foolish system of employer-based coverage many employers and corporations have
worked and manipulated the system by putting more workers on a part-time basis
and in some cases have created a workforce that's compelled to work two, three
and four jobs, sometimes each offering no more than 10 hours a week. As a
consequence life is inherently unstable, plans are impossible and days off are
rare or nonexistent. This sector is absolutely beaten down and apart from those
employed by 'essential' services, they are certain to face grievous dilemmas
during the pandemic shutdown.
Some sectors, like those invested in the markets made a lot
of money during the Obama-Trump recovery, and yet it was really just on paper
and now once the system was put to the test, it has collapsed in spectacular
fashion. And here's where the 'trickle-down' really comes into play as the
middle and upper-middle class decides to hold on to its money and no longer
requires the services that keep people like me employed.
The present bailout or round of subsidies is a little
different than what we saw during the first decade of the 2000's. This isn't
about merely propping up the retail-service sector. This time it's about
survival. The rapid decline is so severe that if something isn't done there
will be not only an economic collapse but a social collapse and literally blood
in the streets.
I'm sure Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate
and by many estimates the most corrupt man in the congress told his resistant
fellow senators, there's a lesson to be learned in the person of Herbert
Hoover. In the wake of the 1929 market crash, he did very little and the
country was coming apart at the seams. He largely stuck to his market
principles and it cost him the 1932 election because at the end of the day
people don't care about ideals and maintaining a pure economic theory. What
they care about is eating.
Hoover's political fall was pretty spectacular and I'm sure
McConnell thinks about that, all the more as this is an election year.
But the lessons in many cases haven't been learned and I'm sure
McConnell felt serious resistance coming from certain sectors within the GOP.
Roosevelt inherited a disaster in 1933 and struggled to remedy the situation.
He was resisted at every turn and many of his ideas failed... or in other cases
were doomed to fail by being politically undercut. In the end he realised that essentially
paying people to dig holes and refill them was better than idleness and
financial stagnation. People working and spending started moving the money
around and got the economy moving. Some of the history of that period has been
forgotten. There was a growing communist movement that had the people in power
alarmed. With 25% unemployment and no social safety net, the situation was
desperate and society was nearing the point of collapse. The country was coming
apart and FDR and those around him knew it.
And that's the rub. Do you stick to your guns, hold your
principles and let everything collapse? Many would point out that there are
other principles and commitments. Leaders are committed to the survival and
security of the nation and thus when two principles come into conflict, they
have to prioritize and that's what was done. In the end the market argument was
abandoned for the sake of preserving the country and preventing collapse.
And many recognise and celebrate this fact, even while in
terms of basic principles holding to the integrity of the free market. They
believe in the idea but at the same time will grant there are times when it
must be abandoned.
Does that not suggest the ideal itself is in fact flawed? Is
this not an indictment of the system and an admission that it is ultimately (at
least periodically) doomed to fail?
Opponents of this view marshal a host of arguments, insisting
the market would work if the state would quit intervening or suggesting that we
already live under a socialist system and thus all failures are attributable to
that fact. One wonders if they're really sincere or really don't understand
just what it is that they're saying?
In other cases the lessons of Hoover do not get through
because there's been a great revisionist effort within Right-wing Capitalist
circles. Hoover was not at fault. Things
were getting better but the people were deceived by a populist campaign and were
too impatient. FDR made things worse and because of his efforts the Depression lasted
longer and was exacerbated.
And they have many think tanks, including the Stanford-based Hoover Institution (no less) to generate
the needed data and research to make their case. And as long as the case is
made and aggressively promoted, the myth-narrative regarding Capitalism, Wall
Street and the Great Depression can be perpetuated.
And yet when the situation becomes dire, when the chips are
down (as it were), then the custodians of power step forward... happy to profit from the unsustainable and
exploitative system on a normative basis – they also realise that at times they
must act and the (suddenly less than sacred) principles must be jettisoned.
It's a telling moment.
Finally those who in principle oppose such subsidies and
believe that payouts are immoral and in opposition to their principles, a form
of socialism, I can only say this... don't take the money. You cannot if you
truly believe any form of redistribution is wrong. But if you do, then you're
no different than the congressman who voted for the package and in taking the
money you admit that the market system (which many erroneously believe to be
godly) is in fact a failure. This is a real dilemma. In taking the check you're
either abandoning your principles or admitting that the so-called godly order
is incapable and insufficient... and therefore something less than godly.
Or if you have integrity you would admit that the order you
support is in fact something less than Biblical or godly and the whole
discussion needs to be re-framed and re-considered. History reveals its
failures as does an examination of New Testament ethics. From every angle the
system (while certainly enriching to some) is nevertheless unsustainable from
whatever angle you attempt to view it.
Do I champion another system or solution? There is only one
solution to the world's problems, repentance and belief in the person and work
of Christ. But that doesn't build nations or empires, nor is it meant to. All
systems fail in this fallen evil age. Anyone who says otherwise is teaching
error. Anyone who presents one of these man-made, man-contrived systems as
godly risks heresy. Some systems are perhaps better than others and some work
better than others in certain contexts. None are godly. As Christians we don't
serve mammon nor do we lay up treasures on Earth. The system we live in is therefore
largely immaterial. Work, live, eat and have a roof over your head and be
content. Everything else is just the love of money and a road to evil. You say
you trust God is in control and that He has ordained the powers that be, but
then you act in an opposite manner.
Criticising the evils and weaknesses of Capitalism is not an
apologia for Socialism or anything else. Capitalism is understandable in a lost
world. It reflects worldliness and the values of lost people and minds given to
vain pursuits and vanity. Don't fall for the propaganda. The stuff I hear from
pulpits makes me shudder. If these so-called preachers really believe what
they're saying than they demonstrate less wisdom and moral capacity than a lot
of lost people.
We should expect the lost to be given over to the pursuit of
temporal glory and power, just as we should expect the alternative systems men
propose to ameliorate and rectify Capitalism's abuses. None of these systems
are in accord with Scripture as indeed the New Testament ethic concerning money
is pure foolishness and even reckless and immoral in the eyes of the world. My
dispute isn't with lost people and their doomed-to-fail solutions but with
those who insist these same solutions are godly, gospel and glorifying to
Christ. My argument is with those who would baptise mammon and would sanctify
its acquisition and even the evil the love of it is certain to spawn.
The system is doomed to fail because it has nothing to do
with New Testament doctrine or the Kingdom ethics we as Christians are bound to
embrace. It is an ungodly system, something that's plain to see if you would
only open your eyes.