Tag: Common Good

Playing the Game

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Commentary1 Comment

How much money do you make? Do your possessions measure up to your neighbor’s? What does your car or truck (I live in Texas) say about your social status? The level of importance we lend to the answers of these questions determines the extent to which we are playing the game.

The confluence of commerce, materialism, and consumerism is the game – and in my book, Just a Little Bit More, I call this game the dominant force in American society. It has its good side: playing the game puts food on our tables, clothes on our backs, roofs over our heads, and money in our bank accounts. Not only that, it gives us purposeful activity and work (most of the time) that benefit fellow members of the human family. The playing of the game, however, can go too far. Americans work more hours than we used to, and the heightened pursuit of possessions and goods drives us into greater debt. Instead of the promised joy and fulfillment these possessions seem to promise, we can find ourselves stuck in a cycle of depressing and anxiety-producing consumption. This game will rule those who devote themselves to it.

The Gilded Age (1870 – 1900) was a previous era of societal fixation on material consumption. American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” in 1899 to describe the spending by the richest Americans to build up their own prestige and image. Whether the Gilded Age or today: Isn’t it interesting that we almost always “compare up”? It can serve as positive motivation to see that your over-achieving neighbor has bettered her standing and that of her family by a combination of hard work and fortuitousness. But, comparing up – evaluating  your status in contrast to your neighbor who has more – can also erode a sense of shared community and eliminate a feeling of gratitude for what one does have.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Since the 2007-08 economic swoon, to be a part of the richest 1 percent – unless your name is Donald Trump or Tom Perkins – has not been something about which to toot your horn. If you live in a household that has a yearly income of more than $383,000 in the United States, you are a 1 percenter. Most of us (but not all) reading this blog are not 1 percenters. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a 1 percenter. If it gives you a certain sense of relief to not be included in that exclusive grouping, momentarily repossess your unease. US households that take in $140,000 a year are included in top 1 percent of earners globally. Perspective is important; the United States has more 1 percenters than we might think . . .

The United States, because of advanced development and sheer strength of population, has half of the world’s richest 1%. Seventy million people make up 1 percent of overall world population (7 billion), and the United States has some 35 million people (about 11 % of US population) that are part of households that take in more than $140,000 a year. The remainder of the global richest 1 percent primarily come from Britain, Germany, France, and Japan. Conversely, 2.5 billion people (35% of world population) live on less than $2 a day, the majority of these being women and children. An incredible reality – and let’s not bicker about the definition of poverty – that one in every three humans lives with significant material deficiencies.

Thankfully, we don’t have to worry about those who live in poverty. This attitude – screw the poor – is also part of playing the game. All we (who don’t live in poverty) need to do is work and consume and the gate-keeper of the game, the Market, will take care of the rest! We just buy stuff and consume to our hearts’ content and we don’t have to worry about those “below” us. If they want some of what we got, let them get in the game and work for it. True enough for some, but not universally true for all. Adults, whether living on $2 a day or $383,000 a year, are responsible for their own actions and suffer the consequences of bad choices. Yet, it’s a fallacy (and if you identify as religious, it’s idolatrous) to believe that an ever-expanding market system will provide all that we and everyone else will need.

A regular reader of this blog, in agreement with the principles brought forth in Just a Little Bit More, asked me: So, what are we to do? Answer: Inform yourself and stay up to speed on the topic of inequality, be part of the conversation (especially with the younger generation currently being initiated into the lures of materialism), and, take positive action. Perhaps the most important part of taking positive action is to make sure you’re not playing the game. If you’ve got enough to eat, if you own a house that is in good shape, if you are shepherding a vehicle or two (or three) . . .  and you’re still playing the game – then it might be time to reconsider your values and your goals. The game is good up to a point. But beware: the continual striving for more and more, as with an addiction, eventually satisfies less and less. Compare down for a change. You might see a new reality and be inspired to play the game in a different way.

 

Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good is available at the Blue Ocotillo Publishing website.

 Thanks to Pastor David Moore of Austin, Texas for the suggestion, via conversation, of this topic. David, in talking on this topic, prefers to use a basis of individual earners as opposed to households. Using individual earners lowers the threshold considerably for top 1 percent earners globally – down to about $50,ooo a year – as non-workers (children, mostly) in households are disregarded. Pastor David’s Moore’s website: http://www.twocities.org.

 

Inclusive and Exclusive Capitalism

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn CommentaryLeave a comment

Even though you weren’t invited, how could you have missed it? The Inclusive Capitalism Conference in London, on May 27, gathered some of the wealthiest folks on the planet. The 250 who were present reportedly hold one-third of controlled assets worldwide – over $30 trillion – almost on par with the richest eighty-five folks in the world who hold the equivalent wealth and capital of the poorest half of the world’s population, some 3.5 billion people. At the London conference, the keynote speaker list included Britain’s Prince Charles, Bill Clinton, Mark Carney (the Canadian-born governor of the Bank of England), and IMF chief Christine Lagarde. The conference was convened in part by financier Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the American-born wife of British subject Evelyn de Rothschild. London’s historic Guildhall served as the venue; porcini risotto graced the plates of the invitees for dinner. “Inclusive Capitalism”? The description “Exclusive Capitalism” might have been just as apropos.

Even so, the conference did propagate some nuggets of wisdom usually not parroted by the ultra-rich whose wealth tends to skew their viewpoints toward realms unrealistic. (Mitt “my wife drives two Cadillacs” Romney, for example, was not on the invite list.) Rising economic inequality was recognized as a destructive reality; Karl Marx’s injunction that capitalism “carries the seeds of its own destruction” was acknowledged as possibly truthful; and, Pope Francis was revered as prophetic in his economic prognostications and not pooh-poohed as an agent of socialism. (Rush Limbaugh, the bard of inequality and a frequent name-caller of Francis, was neither on the invite or extensive speaker list.)

As I document in my book Just a Little Bit More, the current era of excess (beginning in 1980) has brought forth increasing wealth inequality and negative social consequences. This same type of episodic excess was showcased during the Gilded Age and the 1920s. The outcomes weren’t good then and they’re not good today. Is there anyone left today who doesn’t understand that the current era of excess has made the rich richer while keeping the rest of us treading water; and, that too much economic inequality is not good for society? Is this the way things simply are – and there’s nothing we can do about it – in our modern and advanced civilization?

How interesting that the plutocrats – the ruling wealthy, a number of them present at Guildhall – now admit that grand inequalities are destroying a good thing and that certain outcomes of capitalism are dysfunctional. The consensus opinion – that capitalism is at risk – was on full display at the London conference. Wow – it’s been a long time coming, but it looks like a little change is taking hold. For years the one-two punch from the monied interests was 1) blatant denial that the rich were getting richer, and (when challenged on the denial’s claim) 2) the economic system rewards “winners” justly. The status quo is always defended by those who benefit most from it . . . but look, a change is gonna come.

Capitalism’s tendency to siphon wealth upward to an exclusive elite is not a new phenomenon; it’s been a reality since the Gilded Age. When it is kept in check (progressive tax rates, as an example), freedom is maintained for humble and ordinary citizens. Henry Demarest Lloyd was a rich man (by marriage), but progressive in his outlook. More than 100 years ago he proclaimed “liberty produces wealth and wealth destroys liberty.” It’s a statement that still packs a punch today, and it helps keep capitalism inclusive for the majority.

 

 

These and similar views are representative of what you’ll find in my book. Go to the Blue Ocotillo Publishing website to purchase a copy of Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good.

No Billionaire in Spanish – Part 2

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Commentary3 Comments

This post is a continuation of a previous one – click here to see No Billionaire in Spanish – Part 1.

One of the Hebrews prophets told a story about a rich farmer who, after a bumper crop harvest, considered all his gain to be for himself. This forerunner of the “self-made man” met up with an unforeseen fate: Fool, this very night your life shall end. And all your things – whose shall they be? 

American English produced the word billionaire more than 100 years ago. Other languages, including Spanish, have yet to adopt the word. Spanish simply uses multi-millonario; the compound word fails, however, to grasp the expansiveness intended by the newer word. The first billionaire in the world, John Rockefeller, and his wealthy contemporary, Andrew Carnegie, inherently knew that their accumulations of cash and capital exceeded any previous markers; they chose to share from their voluminous excesses as a matter of necessity. Somehow, it would have been wrong for them to keep all they had for themselves and their families. As a matter of fact, Carnegie implored Rockefeller to do as he planned: disinherit family members. Whereas Carnegie and his wife Louise had only one daughter, Rockefeller and his wife Cettie were the parents of four children surviving into adulthood, and were not prepared to join Carnegie on the mission to keep their progeny from frivolously wasting their inheritances.

Do you know the history of taxation in the US? There have been tariff fees, excise (sales) and property taxes since the colonial era. It’s only been since 1913 – when Rockefeller’s and other affluent types’ incomes were cresting – that there has been a federal income tax. Very progressive (if you make more, you pay more) upon the highest incomes, only a small percentage of Americans originally paid federal income taxes. The phrase “ability to pay” was often used by President Woodrow Wilson to describe the tax’s purpose; those who make more have the responsibility to pay more. President Franklin Roosevelt used the same rationale decades after Wilson to guide the nation through the Depression and World War II. Since that time the majority of Americans have paid federal income taxes.

The implementation of the 16th amendment, 101 years ago, allowed for federal taxation and provided the government with a revenue stream that significantly outdistanced tariff duties. In this current day of individualism, the expectation that some contribute more than others because of their “ability to pay” is hotly contested. While that debate could fill multi-numerous blog posts, this post will simply close with the words of the Hebrew prophet – Jesus – who hinted at the dead end of considering personal wants above all others. “So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves,” and are not, I will add, rich towards divine things, like the common good.

 

These and similar subjects are covered in my book Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, available at the Blue Ocotillo Publishing website and Amazon.

 

 

Just a Little Bit More book – Foreword

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Excerpts1 Comment

Peter L. Steinke, author of Healthy Congregations: A Systems Approach has written the foreword for Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good.

 

Writing on behalf of the common good, the author asks how the American economy can benefit all, not a few. As currently structured, it can’t. T. Carlos Anderson argues for an egalitarian approach to fiscal matters.

Deftly, he sets the historical scene of how the economy took the form of religion. Money is the new god, actually, the old god in new design. For a god is that in which you put your trust. By tracing the development of the economy from the land of opportunity to the summum bonum, the reader gets a perspective as to why we are in the present quagmire.

The new religion comes with priests and bishops known as bankers and investors. The free market evangelists boast of the invisible hand that guides the system. There are even rogue angels like Bernie Madoff and other Ponzi schemers. With money as god, financial worth determines worthiness. Money is no longer “the root of all evil” but the essence of the good life. Excess is the sign of cosmic blessing.

Years ago, psychologist Erich Fromm noted that “greed is a bottomless pit,” an apt image for hell. Greed “exhausts the person in an endless attempt to satisfy need,” but Fromm contends that the need is insatiable, leading to addictive behavior and the selling of one’s soul.

Anderson knows that money talks, but it is a one way conversant. He wants economic democracy to be the new standard to define a system that has lost a sense of proportion.

The reader will benefit immensely in seeing how we have shaped the system we are part of and what can lead to a new way of doing economics that embraces the common good.

 

From the foreword of Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, Blue Ocotillo Publishing (2014). All rights reserved. Paperback edition available May 1 from this website.

The Violence of the Rich

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Commentary, Excerpts1 Comment

Second article in a series . . .

The great religious systems of the world – and many indigenous regional strains – weave a harmonious montage against greed and materialism. This blog post is the second in a series highlighting religious unity against the type of values seen in the dominant religion of the land: the confluence of commerce, materialism, and consumerism. The following is excerpted from the book, Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, available in May 2014.

Judaism prohibited lending money for interest, called usury. The Hebrew Bible book of Deuteronomy disallowed lending for interest within the Israelite community; outside the community – with foreigners – it was permissible. Usury was prohibited within the community mostly so that the poor would not be exploited by those with money to lend. The financially well-to-do lending to poorer members within the community was seen as a form of philanthropy, ultimately supporting the communal common good. An interesting historical note: most all the competing religious systems and secular codes from the ancient Near East, from which Judaism emerged, did not forbid usury. Israel, a smallish community dwarfed by Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, forbade usury most likely to protect and unify a poor community that needed to do all it could to stay together and survive. Demanding interest on a loan to a neighbor was understood to be an act of hostility. The Hebrew word anawim, a plural noun translated “the poor” or “the marginalized,” can be understood to have an unexpected antonym: brutality, untamed anger, the violence of the rich. The expected antonym – the rich – is not specific enough; the actions of one group directly affect the state of another within the community. Their fates are united, for better and for worse.

(Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, Blue Ocotillo Publishing, May 2014. All rights reserved.)

Addendum: “The violence of the rich” is obviously a provocative statement and blog post title. Let’s be clear: it’s not an indictment to be rich nor is it a sin to enjoy earthly blessings. Expensive items accessible only to a few of us – Mercedes-Benz automobiles, Beaufort Alpage cheese, Thos. Moser furniture – merit higher prices (mostly) due to superior quality and workmanship. High-caliber quality and exceptional workmanship make the world a better place and do not contribute to its demise. What does contribute to the world’s demise is the sense of disconnection that can exist between those who are rich and those who are poor.

The religio-cultural system emanating from a small ancient Near East community accentuates the close connection between its richest and poorest members. The Hebrew prophet Micah excoriated the rich of Jerusalem for taking economic advantage of the city’s working class, calling their actions “violent” (Micah 6:12). This religious system still speaks an important word of caution to the well-to-do: be aware and active to temper the injustices suffered by the poor. To not do so is an act of indifference that can stray toward violence.

Remembering Ambrose of Milan

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Commentary2 Comments

The great religious systems of the world – and many regional indigenous strains – weave a harmonious montage in their admonitions against greed and materialism. This blog post is the first in a series highlighting religious unity against the type of values seen in the dominant religion of the land: the confluence of commerce, materialism, and consumerism. These posts are adapted from the book, Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, available in May 2014.

Ambrose served the populace in good manner as the governor of Milan, by appointment of the Roman emperor. When the bishop of Milan died in 373 CE, popular acclaim demanded Ambrose take the seat of bishop . . . except Ambrose had no interest in the ecclesial appointment. He even tried – unsuccessfully – to escape Milan to avoid the appointment. He quickly acceded however, and was baptized, ordained, and consecrated as bishop in a whirlwind eight-day process. A rare moment in church history: quick movement.

Ambrose wasn’t perfect (like Martin Luther later, he was involved with indiscretions against Jews) but he was adept at speaking truth to power. A riot in Thessalonica (modern day Greece) led to the death of the appointed Roman governor in that city. Emperor Theodosius, incensed at this outburst of disorder, ordered swift retaliation – even though Ambrose counseled the emperor toward patience and investigation. The bishop’s advice went ignored; retaliation came with the massacre of 7,000 Thessalonians. Later on, when Theodosius travelled to Milan, he attempted to enter church to celebrate mass. Ambrose stopped the emperor at the door and confronted him: no communion for the emperor until he repented of his sin. Remember, these were the days before widespread understanding of democratic sharing of power; Ambrose’s position was most vulnerable. Ambrose stood his ground, communion was withheld, and the emperor eventually repented. Theodosius later decreed a thirty-day wait period before executions were carried out in sentences of death.

Ambrose had an innate sense that clergy were called not only to confront abusive power, but to seek justice in support of the weak against the strong. From his Duties of the Clergy: “God has ordered all things to be produced, so that there should be food in common for all, and that the earth should be a common possession for all. Nature, therefore, has produced a common right for all, but greed has made it a right for a few” (italics mine). Rush Limbaugh, modern-day free market fundamentalist and bard of inequality, recently described the teachings of Pope Francis as “pure Marxism.” Sorry, Rush – Ambrose pre-dates Marx significantly and Pope Francis is simply propounding the historic social doctrine of the church. Ambrose helped to formulate it more than 1600 years ago: the church feeds the hungry and seeks to influence those whose decisions affect the greater common good.

Remembering Ambrose of Milan – who died Easter Sunday, April 4, 397 – teacher, preacher, composer of hymns, who stood for social justice in the face of inequality.

Common Good – Present yet Elusive

On By T. Carlos "Tim" AndersonIn Commentary5 Comments

The following is adapted from the book, Just a Little Bit More: The Culture of Excess and the Fate of the Common Good, to be published in May 2014.

Ever think about how things could be worse? Without going into extensive details – yes, things could be much, much worse . . .

Consider Russia’s twenty-five year run with capitalism. Author Chrystia Freeland tells us (in her book Plutocrats) that contemporary Russia has more economic disparity than it did during the time of the czars.* Crony capitalism, created by the fire sale of state-owned entities in the early 1990s and dominated by Russia’s oligarch class, is described by the word prykhvatizatsiya – translated as “grabification.” Moscow has more billionaires than millionaires, with its ratio of billionaires to GDP (gross domestic product) the most unbalanced in the world – by far. Russia lacks not only a millionaire class, but also a sufficiently sized middle class. Capitalism’s uneven debut in Russia, characterized by excessive wealth garnered not by industry but by political connection, can largely be blamed on its lack of social capital.

Social capital, the potential or actual resources related to social networks and structures leading to cooperation and mutual benefits between actors, is essential for the existence of a well-ordered capitalism. Common good is always a communal or shared actuality – whether defined sociologically, politically, religiously, or ethically. Common good owes its very existence to social capital. The United States has a long history of egalitarianism (although mitigated by slavery, racism, sexism, and other deficiencies), which has fueled and enabled its healthy social capital. Russia’s history is decidedly different. Russia is not principally made up of bad actors; as a society it has few egalitarian traditions and a fragile concept of the common good.

Civil society, as we know it, would not exist if people always engaged in opportunistic behavior. The egalitarian values of American society are some of the strongest in the history of the world, yet the current competition with the market values-infused religion of self-interest increasingly hastens the depletion of America’s precious social capital. Common good has been and is a present reality in American society, but we run the risk of making it an elusive reality.

Economists have told us for a long time that there is no free lunch; getting something for nothing is a pipe dream. Common good does not magically result from individuals simply seeking our their own best interests. The maintenance and creation of common good requires purposeful attention and effort. Are we still willing to make modest sacrifices for common good or have we arrived (as has Russia) to a place where individuals and small groups selfishly protect their own benefits?

*Chrystia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and The Fall of Everyone Else, Penguin (2013).