Some often like to start at a conclusion, and then look for facts
that support the pre-drawn conclusion. Sometimes they rewrite history to shape
the facts so that they support their premise. It’s often said that the Kennedy
tax cuts triggered the economic boom of the 1960s. A few clicks of a mouse will
tell you that the economy had been booming for years prior to that tax cut. In
analyzing the Great Depression these people pick their pet peeve and declare it
either as a cause of the Great Depression or a contributor to the elongation.
Christianity experiences something similar. The Bible is such a large and complex book that things can be taken out of context and exaggerated and twisted and spun to the extent that the Bible has been used to support selfishness, hatred, and even war. A good preacher will take a passage from the Bible, a proverb or an entire chapter from an epistle, and teach the message that said scripture intends to teach. A bad preacher will start with his own thought, and then search for scripture references that support what the preacher wants to teach that day.
Hack faux economist Jerry Bowyer commits both errors at the same time. He has been writing some blog entries arguing that the free market model of economics is an economic model designed by God to contribute to the prosperity of mankind. He started off arguing that Adam Smith intended that his “invisible hand” was the actual invisible hand of God himself. In his recent column http://tinyurl.com/4xfajob Bowyer leaves no doubt of his belief that his model of free market economics was designed by God so that mankind could enjoy the fruitfulness of creation.
“God created the world with a plan that free individuals pursuing peaceful commerce would be of benefit to all,” writes Bowyer.
I’m going to get right to the point: there is no evidence whether in economic research or in the Bible that God or some supreme being designed the Universe so that free market capitalism would be a perfect economic system. If Jerry wants to argue that Adam Smith believed that free market economics was designed by God, then he’s free to do so. In fact, it makes not one bit of difference whether Adam Smith thought that free market economics was inspired by God or whether he wore women’s underwear.
But let’s take a look at Jerry’s argument. Jerry writes, “God made a world which is fit for us, and He made us fit for the world.” Indeed He did. I agree with that. But a critical problem arises because a key feature in the mix has been corrupted. When man disobeyed God, man changed, and his relationship with God changed. Man obtained a sinful nature. The Apostle Paul writes, “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” A key ingredient in God’s utopian economic plan changed significantly.
God’s original plan was to have Adam in the garden tending to the garden and eating the fruits of the trees (except one). But God’s original economic plan changed abruptly. After man’s rebellion (or as Jerry calls it, a “misunderstanding”), God said “Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground…”
“Painful toil” “all the days of [our] lives” and then we die does not sound how one would describe God’s best economic system God bequeathed upon us to fruitfully enjoy. From a Biblical standpoint, it’s clear that our current economic system is not God’s original plan for us.
With respect to an economic argument, there is no evidence that Adam Smith’s free market economic system was designed by God. There’s no evidence that it wasn’t. But would an economic system designed by God have so many faults and limitations and need so much help from mankind?
Free market economics has unreasonable assumptions like perfect market information, no participant with market power to set prices and no barriers to entry or exit among others. Second, government involvement is necessary for the system to work most efficiently. Institutional infrastructure to enforce contracts, externalities, public goods, police, national defense… Would an all-powerful omnipotent God design an economic system that had so many flaws, unreasonable assumptions and needed so much help from government?
What Jerry is doing here is putting forth a tired argument, and it’s not new. Many politicians purport that God is on their side. The entire Republican Party often tries to claim that God is on their side. It’s a tired argument because it discourages analysis of the actual issues. Jerry declares that free market economics is the economic system designed by God. Who can argue with that? If God is for it, who can be against it? The damage that this argument does is that it discourages careful analysis of free market economics.
Free Market Economics may not be ordained by God, but it’s the best system of economics we’ve got. And careful analysis of the market, its failures, its successes and careful analysis of the effects of government policies are essential in determining the best way to refine the model. Jerry’s argument undermines that.
Christianity experiences something similar. The Bible is such a large and complex book that things can be taken out of context and exaggerated and twisted and spun to the extent that the Bible has been used to support selfishness, hatred, and even war. A good preacher will take a passage from the Bible, a proverb or an entire chapter from an epistle, and teach the message that said scripture intends to teach. A bad preacher will start with his own thought, and then search for scripture references that support what the preacher wants to teach that day.
Hack faux economist Jerry Bowyer commits both errors at the same time. He has been writing some blog entries arguing that the free market model of economics is an economic model designed by God to contribute to the prosperity of mankind. He started off arguing that Adam Smith intended that his “invisible hand” was the actual invisible hand of God himself. In his recent column http://tinyurl.com/4xfajob Bowyer leaves no doubt of his belief that his model of free market economics was designed by God so that mankind could enjoy the fruitfulness of creation.
“God created the world with a plan that free individuals pursuing peaceful commerce would be of benefit to all,” writes Bowyer.
I’m going to get right to the point: there is no evidence whether in economic research or in the Bible that God or some supreme being designed the Universe so that free market capitalism would be a perfect economic system. If Jerry wants to argue that Adam Smith believed that free market economics was designed by God, then he’s free to do so. In fact, it makes not one bit of difference whether Adam Smith thought that free market economics was inspired by God or whether he wore women’s underwear.
But let’s take a look at Jerry’s argument. Jerry writes, “God made a world which is fit for us, and He made us fit for the world.” Indeed He did. I agree with that. But a critical problem arises because a key feature in the mix has been corrupted. When man disobeyed God, man changed, and his relationship with God changed. Man obtained a sinful nature. The Apostle Paul writes, “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” A key ingredient in God’s utopian economic plan changed significantly.
God’s original plan was to have Adam in the garden tending to the garden and eating the fruits of the trees (except one). But God’s original economic plan changed abruptly. After man’s rebellion (or as Jerry calls it, a “misunderstanding”), God said “Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground…”
“Painful toil” “all the days of [our] lives” and then we die does not sound how one would describe God’s best economic system God bequeathed upon us to fruitfully enjoy. From a Biblical standpoint, it’s clear that our current economic system is not God’s original plan for us.
With respect to an economic argument, there is no evidence that Adam Smith’s free market economic system was designed by God. There’s no evidence that it wasn’t. But would an economic system designed by God have so many faults and limitations and need so much help from mankind?
Free market economics has unreasonable assumptions like perfect market information, no participant with market power to set prices and no barriers to entry or exit among others. Second, government involvement is necessary for the system to work most efficiently. Institutional infrastructure to enforce contracts, externalities, public goods, police, national defense… Would an all-powerful omnipotent God design an economic system that had so many flaws, unreasonable assumptions and needed so much help from government?
What Jerry is doing here is putting forth a tired argument, and it’s not new. Many politicians purport that God is on their side. The entire Republican Party often tries to claim that God is on their side. It’s a tired argument because it discourages analysis of the actual issues. Jerry declares that free market economics is the economic system designed by God. Who can argue with that? If God is for it, who can be against it? The damage that this argument does is that it discourages careful analysis of free market economics.
Free Market Economics may not be ordained by God, but it’s the best system of economics we’ve got. And careful analysis of the market, its failures, its successes and careful analysis of the effects of government policies are essential in determining the best way to refine the model. Jerry’s argument undermines that.
