Recently when I posted an item to Facebook that applauded America’s growing economy under President Donald Trump, a friend challenged the notion that economic growth is a good thing. He and I have discussed the subject various times. He thinks that for countries already as wealthy as the United States growth is bad because it entails depleting resources and doesn’t actually enhance human well being or happiness. I have responded to both ideas in my chapter refuting the idea that “Capitalism Is Bad for the Environment” in the book Counting the Cost: Christian Perspectives on Capitalism, edited by Art Lindsley and Anne Bradley of the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics.
My friend argues that while capitalism and economic growth arose together historically and feed each other, they aren’t inseparable. “In fact,” he said, “it seems possible, and indeed necessary, to de-couple them” because, “while capitalism appears to be the best economic system, continuous economic growth is unsustainable and even damaging.” But economic growth need not be damaging. Indeed, historically it has coincided with the improvement rather than the destruction of the natural environment—damage to which is my friend’s focus. As I’ve pointed out many times, a clean, healthful, beautiful environment is a costly good, and wealthier people can afford more costly goods than poorer people can, and there is a clear historical record of people’s concern for and investment in environmental improvement growing as their incomes rise. Further, the higher people go on the economic ladder, the more what they consume comes to consist not of material things taken out of the earth but of ideas and services.
While my friend and I disagreed about that, however, I pointed out that at least we are agreed about the importance of freedom—and that capitalism is more consistent with freedom than any of the economic alternatives. I then asked “how, granted humanity’s acquisitive nature (and without assuming a judgment about whether that’s good or bad either generally or in particular persons and circumstances), one would achieve growthless capitalism without the loss of liberty–that is, the loss of capitalism?”
His response was interesting:
That is a good question, Cal, and there has been inadequate thought given to it. The liberty associated with capitalism involves private ownership of capital and production inputs, production of goods and services for individual profit, voluntary trade under conditions of supply and demand, and competition between producers, but I don’t see that economic growth is necessary for any of these (and the associated liberty). The wrinkle entails that “acquisitive nature” you mention and the pressing desire that people have to maximize their acquisitiveness. But it is not the capitalistic principles that maximize the acquitisitiveness, instead it is economic growth that provides the greatest potential for increase. So the impediment involves the seemingly insatiable acquisitiveness. Are you suggesting that any curbing of acquisitiveness is impinging on liberty?
I replied:
What I’m suggesting—and would be prepared to defend—is that the Bible nowhere suggests that it is the proper role of the state to curb acquisitiveness other than by prohibiting, preventing, prosecuting, and punishing fraud, theft, and violence. I’m also suggesting that because of the state’s nature, as the legal monopoly of force ordained by God to punish evil and applaud good, any attempt by the state other than by recommendation—that is, any attempt by law or regulation violation of which is criminal and punishable—to curb acquisitiveness that doesn’t express itself by fraud, theft, or violence will inevitably result in a curbing not only of acquisitiveness, which can be (but is not always) sinful, but of freedom itself.
So what I’m recommending is that those who, like you, think people already have enough and shouldn’t try to acquire more be satisfied with preaching/teaching that message, by whatever means you like, but not ask government to enforce it. I’d also recommend that you take up the challenge of defining, according to objective criteria the sensibleness of which others can readily recognize, how much is “enough” for any given person in any given circumstance, rather than just talking in broad generalities about whole societies/cultures (abstractions that actually do nothing). And I’m recommending, too, that you consider carefully whether the growth of someone’s net worth is necessarily a sign of acquisitiveness or might in some instances instead simply be a sign of his effective service to others, resulting in his having growing amounts of capital by which to serve still more people.
I’d be curious to know what you think. Please post a comment.
P.S. If you liked this article you might enjoy our Cornwall Alliance Email Newsletter! Sign up here to receive analysis on top issues of the day related to science, economics, and poverty development.
As a thank you for signing up, you will receive a link to watch Dr. Beisner’s 84 minute lecture (with Powerpoint slides) “Climate Change and the Christian: What’s True, What’s False, What’s our Responsibility?” Free!
Leave a Reply