How Much Is Enough? Part 1
I’ve been reading a fascinating book of late by just this title: How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life
While I’m only about a third of the way through the book, one very interesting discovery for me has been to learn that the first proponents of capitalism actually viewed it not as the salvation of humankind but as a necessary evil to be endured until humanity evolved. I found this incredibly interesting, particularly given the political rhetoric in recent decades detailing the triumphs of capitalism and extolling the virtues of living in an “ownership society.”
Why did persons like Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations
Despite these benefits, however, Smith and others imagined that eventually capitalism would run its course, that capitalist industries would grow to maximum efficiency, and that one day capitalist economies would supply all of humanity’s basic needs, bringing relative equality to the masses and the end of a system based on human avarice. Indeed, as recently as the 1930s John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most important economist of the twentieth century, predicted that within a hundred years most basic needs would be met, the workweek would shrink to about 15 hours a week, and most people would be free to pursue cultural rather than merely economic advancement.
So what happened? According to the Skidelskies, these economists underestimated capitalism’s creative ability to manufacture an insatiable desire for commercial goods whether we need them or not. Indeed, capitalism’s ability to substitute “want” for “need” and then create an unending list of “wants” has perpetuated its growth. And, lest we wonder how that is manifested in our own time, consider that the consumer spending portion of the Gross Domestic Product has grown from around 60% of GDP a generation ago to more than 70% today. Given that no one imagines our collective needs have grown that much in a generation, it seems clear that increasingly our economy is fed by consumers satisfying their individual wants.
But that’s just the first achievement of capitalism. The second is to take what was once considered a vice – insatiable greed – and turn it into a virtue. If this sounds at all familiar, you might be remembering Michael Douglas’ performance as Gordon Gekko and his famous “greed is good” speech in the 1987 film Wall Street. I’ve put the clip below for you to watch:
I’ll take up the question of what we can do in a culture that has glorified – at least prior to the recent Wall Street collapse – greed later, but for now I’m curious how this strikes you. Is greed good? Is it a necessary evil? Or is it just evil? And do we believe we have enough? And I don’t just mean intellectually. I can look around my house and recognize that in every possible way I have enough, actually more than enough. But that doesn’t stop me from regular $20-40 Target runs for stuff I don’t necessarily need or from daydreaming about my next laptop or car. So what I’m really interested in is your experience with not just thinking you have enough, but acting as if you do? Finally, if you and I believed that we had enough – that is, really stopped our slightly insane and lifelong spending spree, what might we do with all the money that is left over? What good cause could we support, what greatdeed might we accomplish?
Thanks, as always, for reading, thinking, and responding.
Notes: 1) If you are receiving this post by email, you may need to click here to watch this video. 2) If you want to watch the full 4 minute version of Gekko’s Wall Street speech, you can find it here (complete, fittingly enough, with a banner ad at the bottom 🙂 ).
The full story of capitalism also includes that (ideally) the amassing of wealth was for the purpose to enhance and open the market through investment. So that capitalism itself as a theory cannot really exist UNLESS THERE IS INVESTMENT AND A MARKET. In this life the give-and-take of economies and the security of public life is necessary (evil?) in order for life on this planet to actually work. Instead of the liberal agenda shaming the accumulation of wealth as something that needs to be overturned or overcome. It is important to realize that capitalism and the gathering of wealth is for the purpose of investment in order to increase wealth, yes, but also to circulate and return wealth through investment. There must be markets for this as well as people who will risk involvement in both investment and market.
The Rev. George T. Rahn
Lutheran Parish of Western Kansas
Colby, KS.
george.rahn@gmail.com
Thanks for this helpful comment and information, George.
I’m not so much interested in slamming capitalism or the accumulation of wealth – as I mentioned in the post, nothing to my knowledge has created or distributed more wealth than capitalism – but I am intrigued by the question of whether capitalism as we know it can survive – that is, if unending growth is possible – without creating an insatiable desire for more. More stuff, more wealth for its own sake, more of everything. I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s an important question because I suspect that an insatiable desire for more runs contrary to the trusting heart of faith that sees what God has provided and is content. So it’s not so much wealth or capitalism per se that I’m worried about, but the constant messaging that we don’t have enough and, ultimately, aren’t enough. What do you think?
Again, thanks for the illuminating comment.
“…we don’t have enough and, ultimately, aren’t enough.” Yes. I would agree that this is probably the bottom line in terms of the basic human response. And yes, to a certain extent I would agree that there is a worry about having enough or that one’s having wealth constitutes their own personal worth.
I lived in the city/suburbs most of my life and found that the above cultural philosophy was a source of both guilt for many and celebration for some (ie. some Wall Street types). Jesus shared the sinner’s poverty of not having enough, whether as lack of basic necessity (food, housing, etc.) or lack of righteousness in the case of the Pharisee’s presumptuously just living. All of us as sinners do not have enough on our own. But Jesus is enough for one who knows that not-enoughness is their fate in a life lived alone.
BTW, great blog!
I don’t think the question is really how much we should have, but are we free to pursue what we want? Capitalism is based on freedom. Other economic solutions demand that a government control the purchasing, selling and even manufacturing according to the often ignorent whims of those who are in power. Capitalism can certainly survive left to it’s own means. What will kill it is people that can’t stand to see others succeed while they do not, and this inequity, rather than stirring one to action steers them to protest and legislation that steals the wealth from those who have acquired it and undermines the basic incentive that drives capitalism.
In my mind the evil and the greed is not in the capitalist, but in the one who seeks to take from the capitalist.
It is interesting to see an above comment talk about ‘capitalism is based on freedom’. That to me struck me today as much as hearing the Ten Commandments talked about by a recent friend at a party who interpreted the rules as the very first divine slap on the wrist.
What I mean is this: Capitalism, as explained by DJL’s brief synopsis of the book, Smith, and Keynes, is designed to be a step, albeit a necessarily ‘evil’ one, to a larger expression of freedom. So far, it has not afforded us much of a glimpse of that freedom, because, as Gekko puts it, “Greed is good.” It drives us as individuals to accumulate and accrue at the expense of others.
The Commandments, as explained by my colleague and I and I hope everyone else who talks about it, is designed to be an expression of the will of God for the fostering and protecting of life. But so far, it very rarely gives us the true sense of freedom that God desires for us and the world. While the commandments are in no way, a necessarily ‘evil’ step, we have made a lot of mistakes in our pasts throughout the centuries by enduring the rule-slapping nature of a life-giving and lively God’s hopes for the children of this world.
This may seem funny, but I am reminded of Rita Nakashima Brock’s work, Journeys By Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power. There is desire and there is greed, and the difference is key. To desire, say, knowledge is to yearn for it, seek it, pursue it – but not at all costs. To be greedy for knowledge is to lap it up at one’s own or others’ expense.
See the editorial, “Don’t Indulge. Be Happy,” in July 7, 2012 NY Times. A similar vein. Anything you make over $75K per year, spend not on yourself to be happy, but give it away, to the Lord’s work, to others.
My goodness, David, you seem to have hit a nerve. But that’s what happens when you honk your horn at a sacred cow roaming around unregulated.
To your question, “[…what] is your experience with not just thinking you have enough, but acting as if you do?” For me, taming my pride helps me know, feel and act as if I have enough. It wasn’t greed that lead me to collect 25 Benetton sweaters back in the 80s. Nor does greed drive my occasional bouts of over spending at Target (or the corner Thrift Store) today. It’s pride.
If capitalism “[…is] necessary for life on this planet to actually work.” it’s because of our own broken by sin nature, not God’s desire for us. Capitalism is not bad, but it can reward bad behavior.
As brothers and sisters in Christ may I humbly encourage each of us to ponder what it is “to be in, and not of, the world.”
I have been fortunate to be able to travel to many places around the world which has colored my thinking on ‘what is enough’. Capitalism or the freedom to pursue economic independence is not greedy, but necessary to communal life. Our world is too advanced for me to be able to produce all of the ‘necessities’ of life. Even in the bush of Namibia people want and need cell phones, pick up trucks and electric lights. What has become greedy and sinful is the unnesscary accumulation of stuff. How many pairs of shoes do I need vs how many do I want. Kindles – iphones – ipads are creating a new standard of stuff that does not even need to be dusted, but still involves the transfer of wealth to accumulate. It seems to me the ‘evil’ of captitalism is the abuse of creating stuff that nobody needs, burdens the environment when it no longer works and tempts people to spend their money on dust catchers rather than new learnings, basic needs like preventitive health care or sharing their loaves of bread and fish with those who are hungry.
The real evil in capitalism as we see it practiced is that it is not sustainable. Capitalism, real capitalism, must provide for a distribution of wealth sufficient to enable enough people to purchase the goods and services that capitalism can provide. But lately that practice is not in vogue. The distribution of wealth is askew and soon those who have acquired the non-essential items of the past will no longer afford them. They will scramble for the basics, food, cheap clothing and cheaper shelter. And capitalism will decline and be replaced by other economies – as we have witnessed in the past when the distribution of wealth was concentrated in the very few. This will happen not because true capitalism failed, but because the greedy, and the whores they keep in government, will drive to a baron and serf model that has predictable results.
What we see today is not capitalism, it is pure greed and lust for power by those too stupid, or too reckless to consider the results of their actions on the future of mankind.