A Quaker Perspective on Economics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- Is our economic system blocking the kingdom of God that Quakers seek to build? How do we even begin to address that? It’s a question Pamela Haines has thought a lot about.
SUBSCRIBE for a new video every week! fdsj.nl/QS-Subscribe
WATCH all our videos: fdsj.nl/qs-all-videos
Filmed and edited by Jon Watts: jonwatts.com
Music from this episode: jonwattsmusic.com
___
Become a Friends Journal subscriber for only $28
fdsj.nl/FJ-Subscribe
___
Transcript:
Quakers have always asked really big picture questions. I think it’s because of that belief of “that of God in every person” and the idea that there is a way of thinking about “what would the kingdom of God look like here on Earth?” That we wrestle with that question and that requires us to think about what’s happening around us and apply our faith values, look for where that of God is present and where it’s being blocked. That’s just part of our work as Quakers, I think. I would definitely say that our current economic system is blocking the kingdom of God in all possible ways.
A Quaker Perspective on Economics
My name is Pamela Haines. I live in Philadelphia, and my meeting is here in Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting.
John Woolman is the person that I go back to again and again when thinking about economics. A Quaker from the late 1700s who just thought hard about his relationship to the world around him. So John Woolman says, “dig deep; that you may carefully cast forth the loose Matter, and get down to the Rock, the sure Foundation, and there hearken to the Divine Voice which gives a clear and certain Sound.”
You know what he said about getting to the root? That seems critical. It seems critical, and as I look at the world around me-I’m called to engage with the world around me as a Quaker-and as I look at the world around me, I keep looking for the roots. You see a lot of things that are wrong, you go looking for the roots, looking for the roots, you get to the economic system. Looking for the roots in the economic system, you get to the money.
If I’m digging deep and casting out all that loose material and trying to get down to the foundation in society, it has to be the economy, and it has to be the money that drives the economy.
The Flaws in Our Economic System
The assumption in the economy is that we make decisions on the basis of self-interest and greed. That’s a problem, and so there’s a really big cultural issue. Assumptions about who we are and what we’re for and what our roles with each other are and what our connections with each other are.
On a different level, there’s a couple of ways that it’s deeply flawed structurally. One is, the idea of ever-increasing growth is running up against the limits of the Earth. I think people know about that pretty well. The other is that the interest-debt dynamic means that those who have more continue to get more by getting interest from the people who have less who are paying off debts to them, so it’s like this inherent pulling apart of the society into the more and more “haves”-fewer “haves” with more and a lot of people with less.
Reconciling Our Faith With Our Economics
Integrity means wholeness, so we have to bring the economy and bring our faith and bring them together and think about all the decision we make and all the things that we’re part of as a faith issue.
So think about the testimonies. We value integrity but there’s no place for conscience in our economic system. We value simplicity but we’re told that our role is to consume more and more. We value equality but our economic system is driven toward increasing inequality. We value community but we’re told to act as individuals, and people on the margins are discarded. We value stewardship, yet we’re running through the Earth’s resources at an alarming rate. We value peace, but the economy is creating more destruction than any war ever has. So it seems very, very compelling that we have to ask those big questions about our economic system if we’re going to be true to our testimonies.
MORE: fdsj.nl/economics
___
The views expressed in this video are of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Friends Journal or its collaborators.
SUBSCRIBE for a new video every week! fdsj.nl/QS-Subscribe
WATCH all our videos: fdsj.nl/qs-all-videos
FILMED & EDITED by Jon Watts: jonwatts.com
This is a message of simple truth which is beautifully articulated. Thank you and bless you.
Im interested to hear more on this topic and from this speaker. Thank you for this.
I think a shift is an evolving group of 9-11 people encircling as a community to each person. And not forgetting the way cells/seeds/pollen/bacteria/viruses bounce and float and catch onto and move around. As a metaphor for how things change truly and to be flowing also. Some, based on family, have a core group of 4 or 5. Some have zero or one. But clearly acknowledged support keeps us growing healthily. With this support we are able to find our way, hold our roots dear, keep our idealistic values at the firefront, hey I like that typo! for forefront, :) discern in difficult times with a soft place to land, and each feel reciprocal connection the way human beings need to be bonded and connected.
Great piece, I don't know why people are talking about socialism or communism in the comments, as if taking any consideration to how your money effects others is capitalist treason. I think that we truly have to strip our lives bare and ask what is necessary and what is desirable, fashionable, and convenient. If you do that, I know that most people will find that they have much more wealth than they supposed. After one has found that wealth, not to plow it back into television, Nikes and Mercedes, but rather, spend more on things that will bring joy and prosperity to people whom they know. Buy that more expensive locally made garment or food stuff or other necessary, in summation, strive to be a patron rather than a consumer.
There has always been a brand of socialism concerned with communal ownership and workplace democracy, that's why. If you define capitalism as "individuals should have the right to own the means of production and do with their money whatever they do", then that would include communal ownership and cooperative businesses and so on, which are, paradoxically that kind of socialism that has always been around, but never mainstream. Not part of marxism or the soviet system, very decentralized and anti-authoritarian.
But if you define capitalism as having this greedy system, as she said, where everyone is harming the people around them for profit, or even worse, just the mere possibility of profit, than that's obviously damaging to society as a whole. The history of the terms capitalism and socialism are pretty confusing unless we're ready to accept that other people may have other definitions which work for them. We should ask "hey, what do you mean by capitalism?" or "hey, what's your ideal economic system and what would you call it?" rather than exploding when someone criticizes capitalism because "poverty bad" or points out that "communism doesn't work because soviet union".
Did you know that Adam Smith was in favor of taxation, under the condition that all of it is justly redirected to all of society? This was back when kings would raise taxes mostly for their own expenses or to pay for wars. Did you know that Karl Marx agreed that capitalism was the best system so far and that he even named David Ricardo and Adam Smith as the best theorists of national economics? Most of what we know has been corrupted by cold war propaganda of both sides, even the way we see the history of the US economy. Lincoln clearly said that the mills should be owned by the people who worked there. Teddy Roosevelt was in favor of ruthless competition, yes, but he also fought back against monopolies and corruption and empowered the trade unions.
We could change so much if we did what Quakers do - calm down, sit back, think before we speak, listen to what others say and show a bare minimum of respect and solidarity. It's absolutely unacceptable that a society which sends people on the moon "just doesn't know how to combat homelessness". Absolutely unacceptable.
What a beautiful and authentic spirit Pamela has
Thankyou Quaker speak
Consider the gift economy.
This is beautiful ❤💜💙💜❤🧡💛
Interesting that a contemporary of John Woolman was Adam Smith ("Wealth of Nations").
My own 'bible' for the best understanding of this new phenomena we call Modern Representative Democracy is A. D. Lindsay's book The Essentials of Democracy (from his series of lectures in 1929). In the 2nd edition preface he states:
"There is a good deal to be said for the view that a modern industrial democratic society, with its oligarchically governed industry and its democratic political structure, is a house divided against itself, and that unless we somehow make our industry more democratic, our politics must become more oligarchic. But it depends on ourselves which of these two things shall happen."
With many global multinational businesses now recording profits larger than the GDP of many sovereign nation states, how prescient is Lindsay's comment!
The three MAJOR reforms I'd like Australia to adopt in order to give the entire system better accountability, transparency, long-term planning, promotion of peaceful ways, mandates and legitimacy for change-when-change-is-needed, as well as EMBEDDING a democratic ethos into our culture:
1. MUCH HIGHER public funding for electioneering. Currently around $2.75, it should be over $30.00 per vote. We don't want to make private donations illegal (it would simply drive them underground) but we want to give each candidate the wherewithal to get their message out there, and not be a captive to corporations, millionaires, unions, special interests, etc. Not to mention giving them the power to jump over media gatekeepers, such as Rupert Murdoch, et. al.
2. Annual General Elections, as advocated by 19th century British Chartists. Australia was the first country to adopt their other 5 reforms, which are now seen as "canons" in the faith of democracy. We've BUILT a fairly good House of democracy in Australia, we just haven't learnt yet how best to MAINTAIN the House. With annual elections we would vote each year on a budget put forth by the various parties, rather than the silliness of pre- and post-election budgets.
3. Senate is selected by sortition - like jury duty. Happy to *possibly* see them selected for TWO years (half-Senate each House election) as a means of helping to bed new Senators in. However, it is SUPPOSED to be a "House of review", so they wouldn't have to worry about raising their own Bills to send to the House of Reps.
Number (2) is particularly important methinks, especially to counter the rise of fascist-like thinking that longs for "strong leadership", which is an abrogation of our responsibilities as a citizen in a free democracy. The cost of freedom? Eternal vigilance.
Some praise: I completely agree that more people should strive for simplicity and community engagement, along with some of our other values. I think Quaker values are perfect for a world with social media, the rat race, and the feeling of individuals having no place in the world.
I do have a problem with the characterization of economics in which people are considered to be making decisions based on self interest and greed. Although yes self interest is a term used to describe agents in an economy, greed isn't a good way of understanding how economists are describing the economic system.
Rational self interest means that we have goals and one will try to achieve those goals in a way that is guided by preference and information.
For example if I wanted bread (the goal) the obvious way to get it would be to buy bread at a supermarket. But I like to make bread and not buy it (preferences), so considering no other factors I would bake my own bread.
Another example, acting in ones rational self interest might mean living a simple life in a community oriented quaker settlement.
Infinite growth is entirely possible on a finite planet. Growth doesn't mean more consumption (growth of GDP just means how much people spent on goods at the point of first purchase). But what can cause economic growth? Efficiency and innovation! I don't think that we are even close to an economy where innovation is no longer feasible because the finite amount of innovations is about to be approached.
The issue as I see it isn't that the system needs to change but the actors within that system who want change should band together to change culture. Friends need to provide a source of light to the world, an example of not just a faith but a way of life.
Greed exists in humanity though. Not in all actors within the system, but clearly among the most powerful ones. And this is a system that benefits those who seek power. It inevitably leads to accumulation of wealth and power among a tiny minority, and growing inequality among the rest.
Also, growth does lead to more exploitation of natural resources. I don't see how technology, whether green or not, will radically change that. As more and more people of this earth become a part of free market consumerism, it will inevitably lead to greater exploitation of our earth and its ecosystems.
@@ximonoa system built on the necessity for immortal groups of people to forever increase profits seems to me to be going against God.
Those groups of people to work ewually together and share their income in terms they all agree to in meetings seems much better.
@@stalfithrildi5366 Absolutely!
"an economy that works for everyone? there is never a one size fits all answer to human needs-- That's what communisim tried to do and it failed-- the only economy that could possibly work is if we lived in an aggrarian society where each person, even if you don't like their politics is respected as having "That of God" in them= and they are free to make their own decisions on what they want to buy, where they want to work and what medical interventions they wish to have done to them-- Freedom to choose for themselsves as and adult and not a victum of the system
"We value equality but our economic system is driven toward increasing inequality".
As a religious group we value spiritual equality. Economic equality is impossible. All the attempts to create economic equality artificially had a sad result - all became much poorer.
While absolute equality may not be possible to achieve, equality can (and should) be something to strive for. Today's system "strives" for inequality.
@@ximono "striving for equality" means hampering the best among us.
@@feralandroid Not necessarily. I didn't mean absolute equality in all matters, but to strive towards more equality where there is great inequality.
I get your point, though, extreme equality would be hampering the most talented.
As always, there's a vast middle ground between extremes.
@@feralandroidnone are greater then another. The only reason some have wealth is 9 times out of 10 because they inherited money. Many poor people are brilliant but they were born poor and unlucky which hinders progress. All have God within them see this and you will see why our economy is flawed
Well, as a friend who spent enough time in Mexico and Central & South America, my conclusions are somewhat different. As a father, I know the importance of prosperity for the family.
Whenever I hear this sort of thinking, the first thing I want to ask is: How many children do you have? What contributions did you make to them? What would your spouse and children say about their experience?
In our faith and practice, and we live in a small community of Quaker and Amish families, we live plainly and simply, but we reject asceticism, and we demand that our men provide well for their families. There MUST be prosperity.
A new economic system does not rule out prosperity. Or rather, it shouldn't for it to succeed. Today's system leads to blatant overconsumption for some and poverty for others. It doesn't have to be that way.
@@ximono what gives you the right to decide what another person's consumption should be? What level of tyranny are you willing to impose on people to get the level of consumption that you think is right? We already know the answer....history showed us in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.......
@@surfboy344 Woah, you must have misread me there. My point was that it's _not_ a choice between capitalism or communism. That's a false dichtomy. I talked about a _new_ economic system, one that we haven't seen yet.
Living for survival, "the struggle is real" is all pain. I hear you.
I believe it is impossible to reconcile our faith with capitalism. John Woolman’s quote seems now more than ever a call for looking at oppressive systems and uprooting them. We need a radical change if we are to create a community that honors that of God in everything.
False, because you cannot compel other people to share or give what is theirs. To force people to share would be setting up a tyranny where individual rights are violated. Capitalism is the most moral and workable economic system -- the problem is that people do not understand what it is and blame everything that banks or governments do on "capitalism." It's especially ignorant since communism has led to 100 million deaths trying to establish utopia.
Welcome to the USSR, Mao Zedong China, Cuba, and Pol Pot Cambodia.
@@michaeldamian5750 Communism is not the only alternative, I don't think anyone here had that in mind? Is capitalism really the best we can do though?
@@ximono pure capitalism without bailouts of failing companies/bansk that lobby govs and artificially pump up the market is the problem. Not capitalism
Don't want to start a long discussion on this topic, so I'll just respectfully disagree :)
She's simply wrong. Economic freedom is inherent to individual freedom. It allows people to be selfish and greedy or to transcend that. You cannot legislate moral or charitable behavior. It's up to each person to use free trade to uplift others while also earning one's own living.
@TheTruthQuest123 Sure real good. Has only led to 100 million of deaths
@TheTruthQuest123 Let's see who's the genius. Capitalism is only an economic system; it is not what the government does. Capitalism has nothing to do with invading Viet Nam or Syria. If A steals from B or invades B, that's not capitalism. Capitalism affirms individual rights and property rights, so force is only justified in self-defense. You cannot define capitalism - that is your problem.
@TheTruthQuest123 I thing people in the USSR, China, Cuba, and Pol Pot Cambodia would not agree with you.
There is an important element in economics, one that was recognized more than two centuries ago by Adam Smith, called "public good." It is a second-order effect of an economic transaction, and quantifies the wider economic benefit or detriment that results for that transaction. Pamela Haines is only saying that we should take those second-order effects into consideration, and look not just at the first-order effects.
How is it freedom if you can't care for others?
She elides 'self-interest' and 'greed' without making any distinction between them, I hope that is not deliberate. She does not understand that growth does not equate to 'more' physically but more output in terms of value. Without the conception of the subjective theory of value of Franz Cuhel, she is hopeless lost to be kind. To say that a peaceful economy produces more destruction than any war is a gross insult, has she not seen what happened to Germany and Japan in WW2. How is her programme not a call for an economic dictator?