development – Houghton STAR

While I agree with Joe Gilligan’s point that free market capitalism has benefitted society through encouraging innovation and thereby increasing the wealth and living standards for societies as a whole, it is not immediately apparent whether these accomplishments classify capitalism as good and just. The statistic that Americans have a higher median income and standard of living than Swedes merely demonstrates that free market capitalism, as compared to socialism, may be a more effective route to materialist ends. In order to take the next step and assert that capitalism is then good, one would need to assume that maximal wealth is the good to be pursued by an economic system. However, this would be to assume what capitalism already asserts: that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit. In order to avoid circular reasoning, the goodness of capitalism cannot be analyzed on the basis of resulting wealth. Fulfillment of materialist objectives, such as the effective production of goods and the increase of societal wealth, is a significant merit for an economic system, but does not provide adequate basis for qualifying capitalism as good and just. The standards of what is good and just for an economic system should be defined in ethical rather than purely economic terms.

The traditional ethical defense of capitalism is on the basis of freedom. According to Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, while efficiency and the ability to improve living standards are important reasons to maintain free markets, “the more immediate case for the freedom of market transaction lies in the basic importance of that freedom itself.” Though we might dispute how freedom should be defined or realized, most of us probably agree that freedom is intrinsically valuable, and the promotion of freedom is an acceptable basis for asserting that free market capitalism is “good.”

The issue to be explored, then, is to what extent the theoretical good of free market capitalism—freedom—is actually realized in capitalist societies. In this context, the attainment of individual freedom will also be my criteria for measuring whether the system is just.

Perhaps the issue of greatest concern for individual freedom in capitalist societies is immense (and growing) wealth and income disparity. The Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality within a particular group, has risen enormously within countries with capitalist systems over the past quarter-century. Since China began capitalist market reforms in 1979, its baseline standard of living has increased considerably, but its Gini coefficient has increased from about 28 points (marking relatively equal economic distribution) in 1991 to over 47 points (marking gross inequality) in 2012.

While economic inequality is not necessarily inherently unjust, it may still pose a significant barrier to individual freedom, thereby perpetuating injustice. Individuals with less money have less freedom to act in various areas of life, for instance to access education or healthcare. Individuals with less money also have less power to influence what happens in society. This is particularly true in circumstances where wealth may literally buy political influence, a common occurrence in countries such as China. To the extent that the gross economic inequality associated with capitalism limits freedom, it is unjust.

Defenders of capitalism might respond by suggesting that the underlying structure of capitalism is just, however, because it rewards individual effort and achievement with economic success. But basing economic justice solely on individual effort mistakenly assumes that individuals begin on level playing fields with equal capabilities to succeed. A recent World Bank study showed that 80% of variability in a person’s income is accounted for by country of birth and parental income level. The remaining 20% is primarily affected by sex, race, and other variables over which persons have no control; individual effort has a very small impact on economic success. Even in capitalist societies where there might be a stronger relationship between effort and success than exists globally, there is no question that factors over which an individual has no control significantly influence his or her life success or lack thereof, economic and otherwise. Although capitalism is structured individualistically, in reality, the “individuals” who take part in capitalism are shaped by communities.

So am I suggesting that free market capitalism is not good and just? Perhaps this is not the most relevant question. When evaluating capitalism, we must consider it in relation to alternate economic systems. Other systems might come closer to the ideal of the good and the just in some regards, but there are always tradeoffs. While free market capitalism cannot be unqualifiedly characterized as good and just, it may still be the best alternative. However, we must be careful to recognize the limitations of capitalism so that we can be open to pursuit of the good and just through whatever measures may be most effective rather than limiting ourselves to a single framework.

The U.S. government has troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world. We are actively engaged throughout the Middle East, North and Central Africa and some South American nations. In the 20th century alone, we witnessed two world wars and a handful of genocides including that of the Armenians, the Jews, the Tutsis and many more. Since the 21st century we’ve seen some of the worst terrorist attacks in history as well as the rise of the Arab Spring. Last but not least we can’t overlook the increase of mass shootings with Aurora, the Sikh temple and most recently, Sandy Hook.

Courtesy of http://www.theatlanticcities.com/

How many times have you thought something along the lines of, “What is wrong with humanity?” or said the classic: “Jesus is going to come back and judge this world.” But is the world actually getting worse? Is it even as bad as it always has been? Or could it possibly be that the world is actually becoming a better, more beautiful and peaceful place? Statistics are suggesting that the world is actually on the mend.

In a recent editorial about gun control I suggested that violent crime rates in the U.S. have dropped nearly 50 percent over the last 20 years. The U.S. is not alone in this positive trend. Crime rates have been steadily decreasing worldwide. According to Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist, statistics have revealed a dramatic reduction in war deaths, family violence, racism, rape, and murder.

Pinker states in one of his three books on the history of violence, “The decline of violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species.” According to Pinker—whose findings are based on peer-reviewed studies—the number of people killed in battle per hundred thousand has dropped over a thousand fold since before the common era. In pre-industrial societies there was an average of 500 killed per hundred thousand. In 19th century Europe the death toll dropped to less than 70 per hundred thousand. In the 20th century, even with two world wars and numerous genocides, the rate dropped to less than 60. Currently there are less than three-tenths of a person per hundred thousand killed in combat.

Sixty years ago there were less than 20 democracies; now there are over a hundred. Authoritarian nations have dropped from 90 in the late 70’s to less than 25 today. Murder rates have dropped over all and especially within families; the rate of husbands murdering their wives has gone down from 1.4 to 0.8 per hundred thousand, and wives murdering their husbands have gone down from 1.2 to 0.2. Rape has dropped 80 percent over the last 40 years and lynching has gone from a rate of 150 per year to zero. Blacks, women, and gays are steadily gaining rights.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the amount of undernourished people in the world is steadily decreasing. Life expectancy is higher than ever. Modern medicine never ceases to surpass expectations, finding cures for diseases and new ways for operating on the human body.

As a Christian, this seems to be a problem. Isn’t the world supposed to be on a steady decline toward another “Sodom and Gomorrah” situation? According to St. John’s Book of Revelation there will be wars and rumors of wars in the end times. In the streets, the blood of the martyrs will be running up to the necks of the horses. Then Christ returns and saves us all. This sort of talk is common in a Christian milieu. But what do we say when faced with the evidence of a world that is becoming increasingly better?

God vowed to destroy Nineveh, but when he saw them change he then changed his mind. At the time that St. John was writing the book of Revelation, Caesar was lighting his parties with human torches. Humanity was in a pretty bad place. Now we live in a society with unlimited food, education, and commodities. The trends are suggesting that the rest of the world is quickly “stepping out of history” as Fukuyama wrote. The world is becoming a better and more beautiful and peaceful place.

As Christians are we going to continue, as Jonah did, to beg God to rain down fire and brimstone? Or are we going to accept that the world is getting better? This is not to say that we live in a utopia; there is still a lot of work to be done. But it is nowhere near being beyond redemption.