The BBC recently interviewed a farmer in the American Midwest. He was upset over rising fertilizer prices connected to the Iran War. The markets have spiked due to petroleum and natural gas interruptions and 'supply chain' problems associated with the conflict.
The farmer contended that the US is energy independent. After all this is a point the Right has championed for a number of years - a point even associated with Trumpism. If the US becomes energy independent, it will be able to divorce itself from Middle Eastern instability and entanglements - or so it was argued. Not everyone agreed.
Some were critical of this approach contending that US interests in the region were never exclusively economic but also had to do with geo-strategic concerns and calculations. As such, they insisted the US would remain engaged and interested in the politics of the region.
Others argued that even if the US became energy independent, viz. able to meet all of its own energy requirements, it wouldn't matter. Because the markets are global and thus price spikes would affect US markets. Wall Street is never going to be isolated.
The current controversy demonstrates this reality in emphatic terms.
The farmer in question is upset because he knows the US has enough supply of phosphates etc. required for fertilize. He's grieved because US companies are trading away US supply on global markets and prices are spiking, leading his farm to near insolvency. Why are these corporations doing this? Because the price is high and they can generate a lot of profit. As a consequence US farmers are forced to import the fertilizer materials they need off the currently elevated global market.
The farmer is bitter, recognizing that he's been exploited by corporate greed. He's right but he's also seemingly blind.
It was evident over the course of the interview that he supports Trump and the war. His complaint is in reference to the companies. He doesn't understand how the system works.
In other words he wants American companies to look at the markets and all the possibilities of profit and to then say, "No, we'll forego those profits and help American farmers."
Why would they do that? They wouldn't and not a few would even argue it would be wrong for them to do so.
In the ethics of capitalism these companies have obligations vis-à-vis their investors. To forego the possibilities of profits and dividends out of altruistic or humanistic concern (which is pure fantasy to even contemplate) is not something they will do - or in some cases can do. For example financial managers in fiduciary arrangements can be accused of bad faith or conflict of interest malpractice if they ignore profit potential in order to be 'nice' to someone down the line. They're not there to be nice or socially minded. Their task is to make money for investors.
Some might argue it's the patriotic thing to do. Well, that's all well and fine, but companies are not about patriotism. They are about profits. That's the nature of capitalism and that's its ethic. Yes, it has its own ethical system and calculus.
The great irony here is that the farmer (without realizing it) is actually making a case for nationalisation of the means of production. He wants these companies to set aside their profits in the interest of the workers, their economy, and the good of society. He's a right-wing Trump supporter but in reality he's making an argument for socialism. He thinks Trump is for the common man, oblivious to the fact that Trump is a creature of Wall Street and the investors in Lower Manhattan couldn't care less about some farmer in Iowa.
Maybe it's in the public interest that certain resources and utilities be regulated and not in the hands of profiteers. Advocates of this position will also argue that if say something like the electric company is a state entity, then they have a means of recourse. They can call their congressman or senator and vote against them if they don't respond and rein in the company or correct abuses. The only recourse we currently have are rigged public utility commissions (PUC's) and in the case of something like phosphates for fertilizer - there is no recourse at all. You have to lobby congress to pass regulatory legislation - a pipe dream, especially in today's political climate.
Of course since farms often rely on credit and given that this is the time of year they're going to the bank - they're in real trouble. As the farmer indicated, the banks are looking at the numbers and with the elevated overhead costs, the numbers aren't working and they're disinclined to extend the credit. A lot of farms stand to fail before the end of 2026. This is capitalism. This is how it works. It's survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, the law of the jungle - or whatever cliche or metaphor one wishes to employ. But it's true.
I expect as much from the fallen world but continue to remain baffled as to how this system is the one championed by Christians and worse - to many of them, it's explicitly the Biblical model. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The socialist/nationalisation policy is far from ideal and certainly subject to abuse - but no more than the current system.
The truth is this - there is no Christian solution to this. The answer is Christ, and for people to live in a Christ-like way which means you don't exploit your neighbour. You treat them as you would want to be treated. This will never happen this side of glory. There is no Biblical basis to believe the world will be Christianised and the world will become regenerate. This fallen state of things will continue to the eschaton. As such, we Christians can recognize this and proceed. The answer is not to get caught up in the world's concerns, to not chase after the coin that turns to rust - the coin that leads men to maim, kill, and butcher those who contend with them. Be content and live as pilgrims and exiles.
The few actual socialists that are out there look at a situation like the one presented by this farmer and say, 'See, he's one of us without knowing it'. They hope to slowly but surely educate people and win them over - eventually turning the tide.
In response to such arguments and dreams of social renewal, I will repeat - Socialism isn't Christian, but it doesn't claim to be either. Apart from a handful of dwindling Europeans, there are almost no Biblically serious Christians who advocate the system. But that's not the case when it comes to Enlightenment Capitalism - which is every bit as un-Christian, doomed to fail, and spiritually dangerous.
Others like the supposed socialists in the US Congress are really hoping for a Social Democracy model which is a compromise between the two systems - akin to what you see in Scandinavia. These are capitalist societies with socialist characteristics - especially when it comes to large-scale resources and the like. The problem there is that everyone is on board with the model. Everyone is invested. As a Christian I don't want to live in Norway and be part of the North Sea Oil investment scheme, while true socialists (who are internationalists) are critical of the national element to the scheme - one that still exploits workers in other contexts.
And I would argue that in nations like Norway and Sweden which both have populations the size of cities, these systems might work to a point. Even there the tensions have grown over immigration. It was one thing when the society was homogeneous - something nearly possibly with a population of 5 or 10 million. But in the United States with its population of 340 million, it's an impossibility.
But this isn't really an issue for Christians as we're not trying to fix the world and we live as strangers in all lands. Whether we have rights or what taxes we pay don't really matter that much. Whether we can seek wealth and status isn't a concern - whether we should is the question we need to ask.
Let the dead bury their dead.
Here's another example of the ethics of capitalism....
A women needs some work done at her house. I go in, look at the work and figure up roughly how much time and materials are involved. Based on my hourly rate I come up with about $1200 to cover everything. To be safe, I'll tell her $1400 and hopefully if the work goes smoothly I'll end up handing her bill for less than that. It's a time and materials estimate. There's a risk. If we run into something unforeseen, we may have to talk about it and come up with a plan - and yes, costs will increase. But if I am halfway decent at what I do, my estimate will cover the costs and if I come in under - she'll pay less. I still make a decent rate that's based on the hours I actually worked.
Now if I was forced to 'bid' the job at a fixed price, to be safe I'd probably say $2000. That way any small hiccups would be covered. And yet if it's a bid and all goes well, I stand to pocket an extra $600 or more. The job might prove lucrative. In the end the lady might end up paying me a lot more than she would have otherwise.
Would I be wrong to take that extra money in a bid arrangement? In capitalist ethics that was the agreed upon price and so I would be within my 'rights' to take the extra money. She agreed and therefore no matter how much profit I made - it would be acceptable to pocket that money.
Is that the way I would want to be treated? Is that the way you would want your widow or your mother to be treated?
A lot of people feel like if you hire someone on an hourly basis they'll be lazy and stretch out the job. There is that risk. There has to be some trust which is why you use things like references. This is why when trust is established you'll have people who give you the keys to their houses and don't even bother with estimates when they want something done. They'll hire your daughter to come and clean because they know what kind of people you are.
The thing is, there's also a risk with a bid. The contractor might decide to go extra quick, cut corners, use cheaper materials to save money - and get out as fast as possible in order to maximise profit. I know of roofers who will give bonuses on the basis of how fast their crew can get the roof installed. That's not usually something a homeowner likes to hear. There's working hard and steady, and there's working at a frenzy and missing things and papering over mistakes.
Now here's the sad part. I know of another Christian contractor who in the exact same instance would charge $3000 for the aforementioned work. And here's the worst part - he cuts corners too. I've dealt with him several times and won't deal with him any more because I'm tired of watching him do this. I've calculated what he's actually making based on his hours and the materials involved - he's frequently pulling in over $125 per hour. It's no wonder he's buying houses, trailers, RV's, and other properties. He's doing very well and obviously eating well too. His family is getting rather fat - a physical manifestation of what's happening with him and his business philosophy. He's making more in a week than I would in a month.
As a Fundamentalist-type he's very strict about clothing, not interacting with pop culture and the like. He works long hours - usually six days a week. Like the Amish I know, he doesn't have any clue as to what to do with free time. He doesn't read. He's not interested in anything cultural, historical, or nature. He works and then spends the money on the next project or enterprise. Several of his kids are a wreck. Some are still in the faith but they are dysfunctional with bad work ethics, spoiled, lazy, and insufferable. He's all about his testimony but it's actually pretty poor. There are people who appreciate his work (in ignorance I think), and yet there are many who think he's deceitful and phoney. There are other issues connected to building codes, zoning, and the like. As a Libertarian-type he ignores these, obviously believing he shouldn't have to follow them, and he's had some trouble as a result - earning the scorn of some local leaders.
He's 'successful' to be sure. If he was in the PCA or OPC, they'd make him elder. I have no doubt about that. But in all actuality he's strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel. He's worried about tucking his shirt in and buttoning his top button even while he's taking advantage of people who think he's honest and don't realize that they're being ripped off.
He's doing nothing illegal in terms of American law - as far as his business dealings. These people all willingly hire him. My late father who was a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of free markets believed fervently in caveat emptor. And no wonder, for that's how he made all his money - which he later lost and died alienated from everyone and destitute. From his standpoint if you're too lazy or dumb to realize that $3000 (for the aforementioned job) is a rip off, then that's on you. It's not the contractor's responsibility to attach a valuation to your project and so if he gives a price (even if outrageous or ridiculous) and you're willing to pay it, that means the market will sustain it.
It's all very coherent on paper but of course in real life it often doesn't work that way as it assumes people are being up front and honest with each other. The argument that a crooked contractor or someone producing a bad product will go out of business as work spreads (in other words the market cuts them out) doesn't often work as people will manipulate the news and competitors spread false information. From my standpoint the system seems to rely on a low view of man's depravity - and for good or ill, many historic groups of Christians such as the Puritans would agree.
In addition to financial upheaval and ruin, such 'free markets' can result in people getting hurt and even dying from bad work and products. While someone like Ron Paul might shrug his shoulders and say that's the price of freedom - most people aren't willing to follow through on that when it's their kid that was killed by the toy, or someone's wife that got poisoned at a restaurant - or someone's house burned because of incompetent electrical work. We won't even talk about banks issuing credit and securing it by means of collateral, insurance companies, and oh yes - the lawyers.
Now I've had other Christian businessmen laugh in my face and look at me like I'm an idiot - there's no money in how I do things. There's no profit as they see it. I'm only meeting my expenses - what I charge per hour.
And they may feel justified in their condemnation as I live in a run down house in an impoverished area, and I can't even afford to fix my leaking roof. We rarely eat meat - actually my adult children laugh as they've never had a steak in their lives. Nowadays we've all but given up on ground beef as well. I don't say this to earn either pity or admiration. I'm not saying everyone has to live as I do. But these same men who criticize me are tearing down their barns to build bigger ones. They're spending more on kitchen remodels than the entire value of my house. They spend more on a vacation than I have in my non-interest bearing bank account. And yet for all that I think I live well enough.
My point is this - unlike them I read my New Testament and while I don't pretend to have all the answers and honestly can't seem to make it all work in this corrupt society, I am trying to be obedient and to live in a Christ-honouring way. I don't believe 'providing for my own' entails college funds, fancy housing, and trips to Disney World. I'm certainly not going to do that by taking advantage of others. The Scriptures command that not only are we to love our neighbours as ourselves but we're to look out for the interests of others and put them above us - that's what love is. We're told that we're pilgrims and strangers and that the world will hate us and persecute us for the gospel message (and dare I say the life it calls us to lead). They will think it strange that we don't run with them to the same excess of riot. And we're warned over and over again not become entangled in the affairs of this life, to not be choked by the cares of this world. Riches are described as deceitful and if that wasn't clear enough Christ contrasts service to God with service to mammon. His Kingdom is not of this world. Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
As stated, I live well enough. I live better than many people in the world. I'm not in a tin shack (though at times I wish I was). The roof would be easier to fix. I'm not in a refugee camp. We eat and we stay warm. We find ways to stretch our dollars and as my kids have grown older and contribute - we're doing a bit better. We find cheap ways to do things and live a fulfilling life. I may not have investment properties but I have a happy marriage and I was able to give something precious to my children that in retrospect they've come to appreciate more than anything else - I gave them of my time. We were poor but they didn't know it and most of the time didn't care. Sure there were times where we had to say 'no' to things. But later in life when they go to do them, they actually appreciated them all the more. And they learned patience and some self-denial and we see the fruits of that today.
If you haven't made the connection between these two lines of inquiry - here it is. On the one hand you have the farmer who is being exploited by the system - by the banks and by the financial markets. And if he's a Christian, he's also been exploited by church leaders that have led him astray and taught him these systems which chew him up and spit him out are Christian too.
And then we have the affluent Christian Building Contractor who also believes this system is Christian and he's making the most of it, lining his pockets and filling his coffers with golden coins - on his small scale exploiting people like the farmer. And yet because there are bigger 'sharks' out there that behave more unscrupulously and have bigger portfolios, he believes he's humble and moral.
One is being taken advantage of and yet supporting the system that does it. The other is cashing in on the system - the one the other decries. I find it all rather ironic, all the more as the contractor thinks himself a pious separatist even while he's sold out to mammonism.
Then there's me - I'm of the type that one New Calvinist 'pastor' referred to as 'Christian Loserdom' - because I'm exploited by both the system and (what is far more grievous to me) the many Christians who have sold out to it.
But I guess the apostles were all losers too, weren't they? What riches did they acquire? What 'success' or 'status' did they have in the eyes of the world?
While the overwhelming number of Western Catholics have bought into this Enlightenment mammon-worshipping economic system, there are still some in those circles who understand these issues and stand on principle. Very few it must be said.
Magisterial Protestantism (I am sorry to say) has no such testimony. It has given itself over to mammon from day one and the fruits are rotten and abominable even while many Christian leaders celebrate these things and assuage any guilty consciences with a message of 'peace, peace'.
I honestly felt sorry for the farmer being interviewed. He hasn't a clue. Like so many he's trying to live his life but doesn't understand the society he lives in and how it all works. He's anger is to some extent justified - but his anger is misguided. The right object of his anger is not just the Right-wing pundits that lie to him in order to use him and throw him away when he is no longer of value. The real villains are the so-called Christian leaders and teachers who promote this God-dishonouring mammon system as Christian and will rail against anyone who opposes them or raises the kinds of questions they don't want to answer. We are not beholden to the world's paradigms. We are not reduced to the world's choices, let alone the political binaries which dominate. Let us move beyond that and think on a different level. It's easy enough to do if we're not invested in the system - if we have nothing to lose. Do you think I care if the government comes and takes away my run-down house? I couldn't care less. Apart from my loved ones, there's nothing I have that I value or care about - well, maybe some of my books, but they can be replaced easy enough. All I have to do is bid a few jobs, right?