Category: Economics

Christianity and Economics, Part 12: How Christians Should Seek to Regulate the Market

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

In this twelfth and final installment of this series on Christianity and Economics, we explore how Christians can work to address problems in the market without resorting to violence or coercion. Building on the previous discussions regarding the benefits of voluntary exchange and a free market, we explore how Christian can influence market outcomes in a way that aligns with Christian ethics as revealed in scripture.

As was previously discussed in this series (Part 4), when people are free to exchange goods voluntarily, market prices function as signals which guide buyers and sellers in allocating scarce resources efficiently. A significance price increase of a good incentivizing buyers to economize their purchases and seek alternative solutions, while encourages producers to increase production. Both actions work together to increase supply and lower the price of the good in question. Allowing market prices to fluctuate freely in response to changes in supply and demand is necessary for individuals to make informed decisions about resource utilization.

Moreover, when individuals are allowed to voluntarily exchange goods, the division of labor deepens, leading to increased productivity and a broader array of economic goods and services, ultimately resulting in economic growth (Part 7).

The free market not only promotes economic growth but it aligns with the teachings of the Bible, as it consistently rejects violence and the confiscation of other people’s property (Part 5).

Problems within the Free Market System

Although it can be demonstrated that a free-market economy leads to economic growth and aligns with the teachings of Scripture, it would be a mistake to conclude that the free market guarantees perfect outcomes. Because the free market is simply the sum of countless voluntary exchanges between individuals, the market will only be as perfect as the people in it. If individuals within a free-market economy demand alcohol, drugs, pornography, profane entertainment, or other sinful vices, then it is likely that there will profits which can be gained in providing these goods. Some people fear that a truly free economy will result in a system dominated by greed, where the wealthy and sinful exploit the poor and needy.

We must not envision free market economics as a solution to the problem of sin. As long as sin exists, people will make harmful choices. Sin will create problems in any society, regardless of the level of economic freedom they enjoy.

How Should Christians Respond?

The question then arises: How should Christians respond when we see the consequences of sin in the marketplace? Some argue that Christian morality demands that Christians should step in and constrain the free market in certain situations. They contend that some degree of state regulation, wisely implemented, could lead to a superior outcome which is more consistent with Christian morality than a completely unregulated market.

A commitment to Jesus Christ and Biblical teachings does require that Christians oppose certain sinful behaviors. Christians should be grieved when profit is gained by promoting sinful activities such as pornography or blasphemous entertainment.

Nevertheless, resorting to state regulation that employs threats of violence and attempts to claim control of other people’s possessions contradicts God’s commandments regarding theft and violence. Although Christians must oppose sin, the existence of sin in the lives of others does not justify aggression against their lives or property. Biblical justice demands that we must use our own resources to combat sin, convincing others to voluntarily choose better behavior.

Lobbying for rulers to intervene in the economy violates the property rights of others, and for this reason, it violates Christian ethics. Christians are instructed to love and do good to their enemies, not to threaten violence to constrain their behavior when we disapprove of their choices.

How Christians Can and Should Regulate the Economy

In a free market, entrepreneurs cannot force anyone to buy their products. To succeed, they must convince people to voluntarily exchange with them. For this reason, the free market is anything but unregulated. It may not be regulated by rulers, armies, or police, but it is strictly regulated by the consciences and preferences of consumers. If people do not want to buy from a company with a bad reputation, they are free to refrain.

This is how Christians can regulate the economy in a way that is consistent with God’s commands. Since the Bible forbids theft and violence, Christians cannot enlist the service of worldly governments to create a better society. However, Christians can spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, making disciples of all nations.

When people become disciples of Christ, their values and behaviors will change. Faithful Christians strive to exhibit greater kindness to their neighbors, demonstrate greater concern for the poor, and treat their employees and customers fairly. Their preferences shift towards more wholesome products and away from unwholesome ones. As priorities change, the demand that drives unwholesome market outcomes diminishes.

If Christians really want a different and better outcome, they should obey the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20), pointing others to Jesus Christ who can transform their heart and renew their mind. As individuals who make up the market change, the market itself changes.

Conclusion

The first commandment that God gave to mankind was to rule over and subdue creation.

And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Genesis 1:28

The only way Christians can fulfill this command, without descending into the barbaric struggle of greed, theft, and violence, is by embracing the importance of voluntary exchange, the division of labor, and wise entrepreneurship. By these means, Christians can contribute to the economic growth of their society. These sources of economic growth will only flourish when people align their actions with Christian ethics, emphasizing peace, and respecting the private property of one another. In so doing, Christians can promote economic prosperity in harmony with the wisdom revealed by the Creator.

Christianity and Economics, Part 11: Progressivism

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

Click here to read other articles in the Christianity and Economics series.

Economics is usually discussed in connection with politics, such as during an election or when discussing the effects of a new policy or regulation. In these discussions, the word “progressive” is often thrown around. The term “progressive” is used because it implies a that a perspective is forward-thinking.

Historically, “progressives” have often argued for an economic system that represents a middle ground between a true free market and socialism. Although they recognize many of the flaws of politically driven economic interventions, they believe that some degree of government involvement in the economy is helpful. They propose an economy regulated by “experts” rather than by politicians or the market itself.

There is, however, nothing “progressive” about empowering “experts” to govern the economy.

Problems With Progressivism

Progressives face many, if not all of the same problems as other economic interventionist. It is important to understand that the free market is far from unregulated (as previously explained in Part 8). Markets continually regulate the economy by coordinating supply and demand. Because of market prices, businessmen and consumers are continually able to calculate the best way to achieve their goals. Progressives make the mistake of believing that a few special “experts” can regulate the economy better than the market itself.

Progressives encounter the same knowledge and economic calculation problems faced by socialists (see Part 9). Even the most educated and experienced experts will be limited in that they can only make decisions using the knowledge made available to them. This knowledge will always be less than the collective, yet dispersed knowledge of an entire society. It is impossible for any man to be an expert in every specialized corner of an economy at the same time. To efficiently make positive economic decisions that affect an entire economy would require nothing short of omnipotence. Moreover, as “experts” intervene in the economy, they distort supply and demand, which results in the distortion of prices. As prices cease to function as signals of true supply and demand, expert planners will fail to accurately recognize unmet needs.

Progressives also face the same moral problems faced by other economic interventionists, in that they cannot intervene in the economy without seizing the ability to control the use of other people’s resources (as discussed in Part 10).

Creating an “expert” class gives rise to a managerial bureaucracy which yields tremendous influence of an economy. However, because they are not required to honor ownership rights of others, they are empowered to make decisions independent from the pressures of market regulation.

In other words, when “experts” enact policies, and those policies lead to disastrous economic consequences, such as financial crises, skyrocketing healthcare and education costs, and economic shutdowns, they do not personally incur the costs of those bad decisions. Since they make decisions about other people’s resources, they avoid the ever important market regulation experienced by those who take personal risks with their own resources.

There is no middle ground in economics. Either individuals are allowed to make their own choices with their own resources, or people are empowered to control other people’s resources.

Do Not Trust In Princes

Psalm 146 warns against trusting in human authority. Even the most educated human beings on earth are still only people, and people are imperfect.

Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Psalm 146:3-4

Human authority cannot save. It cannot save from recessions. It cannot save from shortages. What’s more, the psalmist made this statement in a world where Israel’s neighbors believed their rulers were divinely blessed with god given expertise to rule. But the psalmist knew better. He knew that they were mere men.

The Bible is filled with similar warnings.

Stop regarding man
in whose nostrils is breath,
for of what account is he?

Isaiah 2:22

Thus says the LORD:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh is strength,
whose heart turns away from the LORD.”

Jeremiah 17:5

It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in princes.

Psalm 118:8-9

If we cannot trust in experts to rightly guide our economy, where should we turn? We can trust in the Lord.

Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.

Psalm 146:6-7

The Lord will provide. He can aids the poor and needy. But we must be willing to follow the wisdom we learn from His inspired Scriptures. We must keep working, sharing, and exchanging goods voluntarily. We must refrain from envy and theft.

But as disciples of Jesus, we must remember that “greatness” is not achieved by ruling over people. Greatness is achieved through serving (Mark 10:42-45). If anyone has enough “expertise” to regulate an economy better than the market itself, surely the Son of God had that expertise. And yet, Jesus refused the opportunity to rule over others. Instead, he chose the way of service.

The answer to economic problems is not to trust in man, but to trust in God’s wisdom. It is for this reason that Christians must reject the “progressive” middle ground, which is established on trusting in human wisdom.

Christianity and Economics, Part 10: Were the First Christians Socialists?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Economics

Click here to read other articles in the Christianity and Economics series.

There are numerous economic problems with socialism, as was argued in part 9 of this series. Because of the incentive problem, the knowledge problem, and the economic calculation problem, socialism will always fail to live up to it’s promise to provide a more abundant life.

But some will defend socialism or socialistic economic policies because of Christian ethics. Advocates for socialism are often driven by attitudes of goodness, generosity, a willingness to share, gentleness, and compassion. Since Jesus taught his disciples to act charitably towards the poor and oppressed, it is argued that Christians should advocate for socialist economic policies. Even if an economic case were made to show that socialism fails to increase wealth, Christians must be willing to sacrifice wealth for the sake of others. After all, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Deut. 8:3; Mt. 4:4).

Two passages are often pointed to as a scriptural foundation for socialism, both of which describe the early church in Jerusalem.

And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.

Acts 2:44-45

Two chapters later we read of what appears to be a communal pooling and sharing of resources in the early church.

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 4:32-37

The Ethical Problem with Socialism

The primary ethical problem with socialism is that it violates God’s prohibitions against theft. As was discussed in detail in Part 5, the commandment, “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:11) means that people do not have the right to take other people’s property.

What’s more, the Bible teaches that rulers are not free to establish their own standards of right and wrong. They are bound by the same moral laws as everyone else. Kings are expected to act justly. This means they cannot exact gifts or tributes.

By justice a king builds up the land,
but he who exacts gifts tears it down.

Proverbs 29:4

Jeremiah emphasized the moral obligation of rulers to act justly. Their position of authority in no way permitted them to steal or murder.

Thus says the LORD: “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”

Jeremiah 22:3

Psalm 2 warns kings not to cast off God’s authority over their lives, but rather to submit to God’s anointed King.

Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 2:12

If is for this reason that kings are not permitted to commit murder or theft.

One example that illustrates this truth is the account of King Ahab, the wicked king of Israel. Ahab committed both theft and murder, specifically in the case of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). When Ahab desired Naboth’s vineyard and offered to buy it, Naboth refused. Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, then orchestrated a false accusation against Naboth resulting in his stoning. As soon as Ahab learned of Naboth’s death, he immediately claimed the vineyard as his own. In response, God, through the prophet Elijah, condemned Ahab for his actions.

I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD. Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel.

1 Kings 21:20b-21

This account serves as a clear reminder that rulers are accountable to God for their actions and are expected to abide by the same moral laws as every other human being. It is for this reason that socialism is not an option for the Christian. The prohibition against theft disallows for any sort of state-mandated socialism. Since people are not permitted to take the property of others, the state has not moral right to collectivize other people’s property.

The Voluntary Nature of Christianity

What then should we make of the two passages from Acts previously quoted? Clearly, those early Christians were engaged in the voluntary sharing of their possessions. Their property was not confiscated by either the governing authorities or the church leaders.

The text is clear that Ananias and Sapphira were not punished for owning property which they refused to contribute to the church community. They were struck down for lying about it. Peter even points our that they did not have to lie, because it was their property to start with. It could have remained unsold if they had chosen.

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? After it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it then that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God. – Acts 5:4

Acts 5:4

The ethical problem with socialism does not lie in the distribution of goods, but in the forcible redistribution of goods. The state is not a god, capable of distributing goods it creates out of nothing. It must first seize ownership of land, labor, and/or goods from others. The state cannot give to one person what it does not first take from someone else.

We must not confuse sharing and generosity with socialism or socialistic policies. Sharing is voluntary. Socialism is not. Sharing expresses love. Socialism does not. Sharing is self-sacrificial. Socialism sacrifices others against their will. Sharing is Christ-like. Socialism is not.

Although the early church is a wonderful example of sharing, it offers no justification for socialism or socialistic practices. Regardless of the motives of those who push for socialistic reforms, socialism violates the economic laws which God built into creation, and it is thus doomed to result in waste, poverty, and strife (Part 9). Although socialism can sometimes help some people, it can only do so by taking from others. For this reason, socialism is an ethical evil which should find no support from those who honor God’s law.

Christianity and Economics, Part 9: The Economic Problems of Socialism

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

To read previous articles in the Christianity and Economics series, click here.

Previous articles in this series have examined moral and economic principles of voluntary exchange. The purpose of this article is to begin an investigation of the polar opposite of voluntary exchange, that is, socialism.

The term “socialism” is often connected to many modern political debates. As stated in Part 1, I have no interest in debating socialism from a contemporary left/right political paradigm (both sides embrace socialism to various degrees). My aim is simply to discuss socialism as an economic concept and examine it as it pertains to Christian ethics.

What is Socialism?

The defining characteristic of socialism is that central planners direct the production and exchange of goods, while individuals fill less innovative roles. In a socialist economy, the governing authorities (or a board appointed by the governing authorities) make key decisions about what is produced, in what quantity, who should produce it, how those goods are distributed, and at what costs. Instead of allowing people complete freedom to choose what goods and services they exchange their money for, they are provided with whatever goods and services central planners have chosen for them.

Even in economies where private property is legally recognized, there is no true private property because the government retains ultimate authority to direct the exchange of goods and set prices wherever they see fit. Most modern economies could be described as mixed economies, which include some degree of voluntary exchange, while also including socialist oversight of certain industries, such as healthcare, transportation, and education.  Although mixed economies may enjoy more benefits than a purely socialist economy, the problems with socialism still exist and need to be recognized.

Unlike an economy founded on voluntary exchange, where entrepreneurs take risks in order to earn a profit by serving the needs of their customers, the promise of a socialist economy is that everyone’s needs will be taken care of with a greater degree of equality. But can socialism actually deliver on it’s promise to give life and give it more abundantly?

As an economic system, socialism is open to two important critiques. First, socialism can be examined from an economic perspective, by answering the question of whether or not socialism can successfully solve the complex problems of resource allocation. Secondly (in order, not in importance), Christians must examine socialism in light of biblical ethics in order to determine whether it is morally right. This article will focus on the economic critique, while the next article in this series will focus on the ethical critique.

The Incentive Problem

There are numerous economic problems that socialism cannot overcome. First, there is the incentive problem.

In an environment where property ownership is respected, where people are free to exchange their possessions voluntarily, people bear the full costs of their actions and reap the full benefit. Therefore, they have an incentive to engage in profitable activity, where the benefits outweigh the costs. Producers have an incentive to only produce those goods which earn them a profit, and an incentive to minimize their costs to use their resources as efficiently as possible. This in turn encourages more innovation and responsible risk taking. If you are the first to create a new product, or find a better way to offer a service, and if you are willing to risk your own time and resources to meet an unmet need, you can enjoy personal benefit, or profit.

Under socialism, the situation is very different. Because property rights are not upheld, people do not bear the full risk, or enjoy the full benefit of their decisions. Therefore there is no incentive to innovate, because the ability to enjoy the rewards hinges on the choices of central planners.

Of course, as a Christian, we may feel the urge to object that the ability to earn a profit is not, and should not be the primary incentive to work and serve the needs of others. But we must remember that the word “profit” simply refers to the benefit we hope to enjoy from the actions we take. As noted in part 4, profit may or may not be of monetary value. If I give money away to a charity, it can be “profitable” if it advances the cause I am passionate about.

Even in situations where the profit we seek in monetary, this is not necessarily wrong, since Christians do have the responsibility to provide for their families (cf. 1 Tim. 5:8) and multiply their potential for giving (2 Cor. 9:6). Can the “profit” we seek be driven by unholy attitudes, such as greed or covetousness? Absolutely. But that is a separate issue from the one being raised here.

Regardless of whether the benefit sought is selfish or selfless in nature, people are more inclined to produce when they believe their work will result in the benefit they seek. For this reason, a system which allows for people to enjoy profits will incentivize greater innovation, result in a larger pool of goods, and lead to a greater satisfaction of otherwise unmet needs.

The Knowledge Problem

Another practical problem for socialism is the problem of disbursed knowledge. For socialism to succeed, central planners must have knowledge about what resources are available where, and in what quantities, and what processes should be put in place to combine and deliver those resources in a way that will provide the most benefit for the most people.

The problem is that central planners can only make those decisions by using the knowledge made available to them, which will always be less than the collective, yet dispersed knowledge of an entire society. Knowledge about how to most efficiently create specific products is only known to a relatively small number of people inside a particular industry. Magnify this fact by the vast number of different products in a modern economy, and you can begin to grasp the vastness of the knowledge problem faced by central planners.

One of the most important benefits of the division of labor is that different people have different advantages over others regarding the unique knowledge and skill necessary to make wise decisions within their particular industry. That is so much knowledge can only be learned by on-the-job training, and expertise can only be gained by years of experience. Scientific and academic knowledge helps, but to make such knowledge operational in the most efficient way, it must be continually adapted to the real life and ever-changing circumstances decision makers find themselves in.

In a free society, every participant has the incentive to put their knowledge to good use to benefit both themselves and others. But it is impossible for any socialist central planner to gather and process all the knowledge necessary to efficiently direct an economy.

For central planners to successfully run an economy, it would require nothing short of omniscience, which no man has (cf. Job 38-41). Anyone who believes a select group of people would be capable of understanding all the intricacies of a fully functioning economy should recall the words of the book of Ecclesiastes:

Man cannot find out all the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.

Ecclesiastes 8:17

The Economic Calculation Problem

One vitally important piece of knowledge is how to coordinate prices. Since many resources – such as steel – have a variety of different possible uses, prices serve as signals about whether the use of a specific resource is satisfying the top priorities of a society. For instance, should a factory produce car parts or nails?

One interesting feature of a free economy is that prices are determined by supply and demand. If people want more car parts (and the supply is the same), prices go up. When there is a surplus supply of car parts (and demand stays the same), prices go down. Prices continually fluctuate in response to the ever-changing subjective values of individuals who make up society, and the supply available at any given time.

In a free society, prices signal when there is a greater need for one product over another, that is, for car parts or nails. Since entrepreneurs have the incentive to maximize their resources in the most profitable way possible, they will coordinate their production based off market prices.

But to whatever extent the exchange of property is not voluntary in nature, prices cease to accurately reflect the subjective values of individuals in a society. When central planners determine and fix prices, those prices do not reflect the true state of supply and demand.

When prices cease to serve as signals about what products are most needed, any central planning board’s ability to effectively plan economic activity will be greatly hindered. No matter how honestly and uprightly they strive to meet the needs of the greatest number of people, they will fail. That is because without prices to signal where there are unmet needs, there is no guide, no map, and no compass to guide their decisions.  No matter how well intentioned they may be, central planners simply cannot make their decisions effectively because socialism destroys the ability to rightly identify the present supply and demand of goods.

A centrally planned economy is just a system of groping around in the dark. Jesus’s warning about following blind leaders would fit nicely in a discussion of the dangers of socialism.

Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.

Matthew 15:14

Conclusion

Because of the incentive problem, knowledge problem, and economic calculation problem, the case for socialism is not grounded in economics. But even if we recognize the numerous economic problems with socialism, as Christians we must always remember that material goods are not the end all be all of human existence. We must remember that “man shall not live by bread alone.” Even though socialism is not as productive as a free market, some will argue that socialism is more moral and can provide for greater equality than a purely free economy.

Because economic prosperity does not determine what is true and right, we must examine the morality of socialism in light of biblical ethics. This will be the subject of the next article in this series.

Christianity and Economics, Part 8: Regulation and Doing the Right Thing

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

To read other parts in the Christianity and Economics series, click here.

In a free market economy, scarce resources are continually directed towards the ends most valued by consumers (See Part 4). There are times, however, when people who are not happy with a particular market outcome will turn to governing authorities to enact some sort of regulation of the market. Many seem to think that the free market is generally very good and efficient at allocating resources, but if allowed to operate too freely, it will enable the greedy and dishonest to take advantage of others. It is argued that the government should occasionally use their power to steer the market back toward the public good.

Those who advocate for the government’s regulation of the economy are often well intended, and it’s easy to sympathize with their concerns. Who wants to worry about giving their children unsafe medicine? Who likes the idea of people being asked to work long hours in unsafe working conditions? Who wants to be mislead by a dishonest salesman into buying a poor quality product? What can be done to protect consumers against greedy and dishonest business practices?

Most people think the obvious answer is to have the government pass laws to regulate against harmful business practices. However, as we consider regulatory practices, we must consider both the economic and ethical implications. The truth is that government intervention in the economy is unhelpful in improving market outcomes, and it is an unethical means of doing so.

The Economics of Interventionism

The free-market economy lowers prices and increases the quality of goods and services by means of competition. As was explained in Part 6, voluntary exchange will only occur when both parties believe the transaction is beneficial. If one party views an exchange as harmful, they can simply refuse the transaction to pursue a better alternative.

When government intervenes in the production and exchange of goods, it does so by passing regulations in the name of “protecting” the public. But the problem with economic regulation is that it enables some parties to benefit, but only at the expense of other parties who do not benefit. For this reason, those who wish to benefit in a interventionist economy will have economic incentives to serve the politicians and bureaucrats who pass those regulations, rather than the consumers who buy their products. To explain why this is the case, consider the following example.

Imagine you open a small business as a shoe maker. Your top priority is returning customers. To this end, you choose your materials, your styles, your production methods, your product placement, your prices, and your delivery methods based off of what your consumer wants. If consumers value the shoes you produce, you earn profits. If consumers does not value it, you suffer losses (Part 4). Since there are plenty of other shoe makers in the market, you must continually strive to produce superior value for your consumers, or else they will choose to buy their shoes from somewhere else. The presence of competition, along with the importance of maintaining a good reputation with your customers, ensures that businesses remain committed to serving their customers in the best way possible. Although there is no guarantee that there will be no “bad” shoe makers out there, it does mean that “bad” shoe makers will be forced to either improve their product to satisfy their customer’s desires, or else lose potential profits as customers chose to pursue other options.

Now imagine the government decided to take action to protect consumers from “bad” shoe makers by regulating the shoe industry. Rather than allowing entrepreneurs to decide the full process of shoe production, critical decisions about the quality of the material, the production methods, and even how you can advertise your shoes are now made by bureaucrats. To enforce these regulations, the government now requires licenses and compulsory inspections. As a producer of shoes, you must now spend time and resources, not only in producing the kind of product your customer wants, but also in catering to political regulations.

Although this intervention in the shoe market was motivated by the noble goal of protecting consumers from “bad” shoe makers, the new regulations create compliance costs. These increased costs create barriers to potential shoe makers who may wish to enter the market. This reduces competition, which in turn helps the “big” shoe companies, who have more resources available to absorb these new costs. In this way, regulation restricts competition, reduces the supply of shoes, and increases prices, to the detriment of consumers. It would come as no surprise to learn that the “big” shoe companies actually lobbied for those regulations which help them, hurt their rivals, and reduce competition.

This example illustrates an important point. The free market succeeds precisely because competition holds businesses accountable to consumers. Regulation doesn’t work because it incentivizes political favoritism, reduces competition, and ultimately leaves the consumer with less choices. Less competition means less consumer choices, which means that consumers will have to settle for less quality and higher priced goods.

When people engage in voluntary exchange, they do so because they believe they will be better off as a result of the trade (Part 6). In this way, the free market tends to maximize the satisfaction of everyone. Government intervention in the market hinders this process and invites conflict as one party benefits only at the expense of another.

The Ethics of Intervention

The Bible clearly teaches that greed is a sin. Jesus warned that we should “be on your guard against all covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). Paul wrote that covetousness “is idolatry” (Col. 3:5) and warned that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Tim. 6:10).

The Bible also teaches that fraud is sin. God commands his people to use honest weights and measures in their business dealings (Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:15). Jesus includes “do not defraud” in his answer to the rich man’s question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk. 10:19).

Greed and fraud are serious problems, but the question remains: What should we, as Christians, do about it?

One principle that Christians must remember is that we must not do evil that good may come (Rom. 3:8). It is wrong to forcibly remove a person’s right to manage their own property as they think is best (Part 5). For this reason, economic regulation violates the Biblical commands against theft.

As Christians, we do have a responsibility to overcome evil. But as Paul makes it clear, we must not do this by doing evil. We overcome evil by doing good.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:21

A few verses earlier, Paul commands:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Romans 12:19

God does not charge the church with the responsibility of using governing authorities as their military wing to punish evildoers for their sins. To the contrary, Christians are commanded to maintain an attitude of submission to whatever authorities God appoints. (Rom. 13:1-2).

As mere humans, we cannot always know precisely what is in the heart of another person. Suppose a seller sharply raises the prices of his product. Since we have no way of reading minds, we have no ways of knowing for sure if the seller has raised his prices in an attempt to feed his family, or if he is merely greedy. That’s one reason why it is best to leave judgment to God.

This is not to say that Christians should simply accept that evil business practices will go unchecked. Rather because we are confident that each person will give an account before God (Rom. 14:4, 12), and because we are confident that God will repay wrongdoers (Rom. 12:19), we are freed from the responsibility of punishing them for their sins. Since we are confidence that evil will not go unchecked, we can focus on doing good (Rom. 12:21).

On a more practical point, in a free market, even the greediest of sellers can only earn a profit in the long run by giving his customers what they want.  If they try to sell their product for too high of a price, or if they dishonestly mislead their customers, they will eventually earn themselves a poor reputation, and their customers will stop doing business with them. This doesn’t make their greed acceptable. It simply means that in a free market, long term success can only be found by serving others, because without others benefiting from the exchange, there would be no voluntary exchange.

This is not the case in an interventionist economy, where greed can be put into practice by seizing political power to enforce regulations which allow the greedy person to profit at other’s expense, against their will. This seems to have been a major problem in Israel in Micah’s day.

Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds!
When the morning dawns, they perform it,
because it is in the power of their hand.
They covet fields and seize them,
and houses, and take them away;
they oppress a man and his house,
a man and his inheritance.

Micah 2:2

When Christians worry that a free market will result in unbridled greed, they do so because they have not learned to think economically. In a free market, no one can “covet fields and seize them” or “oppress a man and his house”. This can only happen when men are granted the power to do so. To receive a profit in a free market, where no one is given the power to rule over another person’s property by the force of law, entrepreneurs must offer something of value to their customers.

It is important to remember that the free market is far from unregulated. Although the free market may be unregulated by the state, it is strictly and continually regulated by consumer preferences.

In this way, Christians can regulate the economy. Although Christians are not permitted to use the government sword to overcome evil, they can work to change people’s preferences. They do this by making disciples, instructing others to follow all the commands of Jesus (Mt. 28:19-20). When people follow Jesus, they will be more loving and kind and honest with their neighbors. This will positively impact their business practices far more than any government enforced regulation. If Christians really want better market outcomes, they should remain faithful to the One who has the ability to transform the hearts and minds of his followers.

Christianity and Economics, Part 7: The Benefits of Voluntary Exchange

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

Click here for other parts in the Christianity and Economics series

The possibility of voluntary exchange opens up numerous benefits for mankind. First, it leads to the specialization and division of labor, which in turn leads to increased productivity, wealth, and standard of living for each person. Secondly, voluntary exchange encourages peaceful relationships and moral behavior.

Imagine what life would be like if no one was permitted to exchange goods or services with others. Immediately, every business would cease to operate. Not only could no one go to work (an exchange of services), but no goods could be sold. If you wanted clothes, you would have to raise the sheep, spin the wool, and sew them yourself. If you wanted to eat, you would have to raise your own animals, grow your own garden, and fix every meal from scratch. If you needed to clear your land to begin farming, you would have to do that yourself. If you wanted a tractor to help you, you would have to make your own metal, make you own tools, shape your own parts, refine your own oil, etc. It doesn’t take long to imagine how difficult such a lifestyle would be. Without exchange, it would be nearly impossible to fulfill God’s charge for us to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28).

The possibility of exchange means we can produce for others instead of producing only for ourselves, and we can benefit from the knowledge, resources, and services of others instead of relying solely on our own abilities. This in turn opens up the possibility for the specialization and division of labor.

The Division of Labor

The phrase “division of labor” refers to different people specializing in the production of different goods and services. Some people are farmers, some are teachers, some are artists, some repair cars, some are doctors, some are professional basketball players. People can only specialize in a particular field of labor because of the possibility of exchange.

When God created the world, he filled it with variety. Some places were created with more precious metals than others (cf. Gen. 2:11-12). Some places were created with more timber than others (cf. 1 Kings 5:6). People were also created with variety. When God created a helper for Adam, he did not clone an exact replica of Adam, but rather he created Eve, who’s uniqueness made her a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:20-25). Every person has their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Some are more skilled at keeping sheep, and some are more skilled at gardening (cf. Gen. 4:2-3). Some are skilled at raising livestock, some are skilled at playing musical instruments, and some are skilled at metalworking (cf. Gen. 4:20-22). On multiple occasions Paul refers to the uniqueness of different people’s strengths as an important asset for the work of the church (cf. Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-12).

Because people are created with a variety of skills and interests and with access to different natural resources, some people will be more suited to certain lines of work than others. This variety means people will tend to specialize in those trades where they are more productive than others.

Increased Production

At this point it is critical to make a few important observations. First of all, observe that the existence and development of the division of labor is directly tied to increased productivity. People can produce more when they can develop their skills in those areas that uniquely align with their God-given skills and with the resources that they have access to. Or to state the same truth in the opposite manner, everyone would produce less if they all had to be generalists and were unable to focus their efforts in those areas where they are more naturally skilled.

Secondly, it is important to notice that this increased productivity from the division of labor can only exist when people are free to trade for the things they want, but cannot produce as effectively. For example, it makes sense for a farmer to focus on raising produce, only because he can trade with a manufacturer for the tractor he wants. It makes sense for the manufacturer to focus his labor on making tractors, only because he can trade for the food his family needs to eat. If the opportunity for voluntary exchange were not there, both individuals would have to spend time raising food for their families, and spend time making their own tools.

It is the possibility of exchange that leads to the development of the division of labor. The division of labor enables everyone to be more productive and consume more than they could if they tried to produce everything for themselves.

Peaceful Relationships and Moral Behavior

The freedom to exchange goods does not guarantee that no one will ever steal or threaten another person. It does not guarantee that everyone will act ethically. Nor does it guarantee that everyone will make good and wise decisions. But when people see benefit that results from voluntary trade with others, they have an incentive to maintain those voluntary relationships which are necessary for voluntary exchange to take place.

A shrewd businessman may be tempted to increase his profits by using unethical or unwise means. But unethical behavior seldom pays off in the long run. When people choose to take actions that harm their relationships with others, they limit their opportunities for voluntary exchange. This in turn limits their opportunity enjoy the benefit that results from those exchanges. People are more likely to engage in a trade when they trust that the other person is acting with integrity, because trustworthiness lowers the risk of making an unprofitable trade due to deception.

This truth is continually illustrated in the book of Proverbs, which teaches that those who act ethically, and look out for the needs of others, will tend to enjoy more material blessings. In describing the benefits of wisdom, the book of Proverbs states:

Long life is in her right hand;
in her left hand are riches and honor.
Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace.

Proverbs 3:16-17

Later in the book we read:

Riches and honor are with me [Wisdom]
enduring wealth and righteousness.

Proverbs 8:18

On the other hand, those who act dishonestly will hurt themselves in the long run.

Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit.

Proverbs 10:2a

Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,
but he who hates bribes will live.

Proverbs 15:27

Bread gained my deceit is sweet to a man,
but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel.

Proverbs 20:17

The getting of treasures by a lying tongue
is a fleeting vapor and a snare of death.

Proverbs 21:6

These truths are confirmed as we consider the economic benefit of voluntary exchange, and come to realize the importance of maintaining good relationships and ethical business practices which are necessary to facilitate voluntary interactions.

God’s Law and God’s Blessings

By considering the economics of voluntary exchange, we can draw the following conclusions:

  • God has given us numerous instructions about how to use the earth’s resources. The Bible is full of prohibitions against theft. From these we can conclude that God desires for all exchange of goods to be voluntary in nature (Part 5)
  • Voluntary exchange does not cause one person to “win” at another person’s expense. Voluntary exchange is always expected to be mutually beneficial (Part 6)
  • Voluntary exchange has the ability to create wealth, even with a fixed pool of resources. This is true because people value things differently from one another (part 6)
  • Voluntary exchange opens the door to greater productivity through the division of labor
  • Voluntary exchange allows everyone’s standard of living to increase, because it allows people to specialize in producing those goods and services where they are relatively more productive, and to trade for those goods and services which they are relatively less productive at providing for themselves.
  • The process of wealth creation and the development of a further division of labor will increase as more and more voluntary exchanges take place. On the contrary, wealth will decrease and the division of labor will shrink when goods are not exchanged voluntarily.
  • Voluntary exchange encourages peaceful relationships and ethical behaviors which are necessary to facilitate those exchanges.

Ultimately, through the study of economics we can see God’s wisdom, who has given laws which help us to be more productive, not less. He gave us moral laws which lay the foundations for economic prosperity and the elimination of poverty.

On the other hand, all of this increase in standard of living, development of the division of labor, and encouragement of peaceful relationships and ethical behavior are contingent on exchanges being made voluntarily. These benefits will only be enjoyed if people are free to trade the things they have for things they want more. Although no human institution can guaranty peaceful relationships and ethical behavior, human institutions can certainly discourage peaceful relationships and ethical behavior. They do this when they ignore God’s laws about theft, and seek to control other people’s ability to use and trade their possessions as they choose. When people try to rule over other people’s resources, they turn their back on the economic blessings that would otherwise be enjoyed through submission to God’s wisdom.

A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor,
but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.

Proverbs 28:16

Christianity and Economics, Part 6: Voluntary Exchange

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

For other articles in the Christianity and Economics series, click here.

There are numerous indications in Scripture that God intended for people to work together and help one another. After placing man in the garden, and charging him with the task of working it and keeping it, God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). God did not intend for people to function as isolated individuals cut off from human interaction. Man is benefited by working together with someone who will help him in his work. This truth is later affirmed in Ecclesiastes 4:9, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil.” Much of the New Testament addresses the importance of Christians working together (John 13:33-34; 1 Cor. 1:10-12; 12:12-27; Rom. 12:4-5; Eph. 4:1-6, 11-16; Heb. 10:24-25; 1 John 1:7; 2:9-11).

God designed people to function best through interaction with others. But not all forms of interaction are good. Rather than helping Adam, Eve led him to take the forbidden fruit. One generation later, Cain murdered his brother Able. As mankind failed to work together in mutually beneficial ways, God gave Israel laws to govern their actions.

As the apostle Paul later observed, these laws can be summed up in the commandment to love one another.

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet”, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13:8-10; cf. Mt. 22:37-40

When people interact with one another in love, they do not take what belongs others and they do not threaten violence towards others. Rather than forcing their will on others, they seek to peacefully cooperate with one another.

Two Categories of Exchange

As we consider the economics of the interpersonal exchange of goods from a Christian perspective, we start by recognizing that all exchange of goods can fall into one of two categories: forbidden exchange and voluntary exchange.

Forbidden exchange is taking goods for yourself that God has not permitted you to have, that is, taking something that belongs to someone else. If a store has apples, and I want the apples, I could simply take the apples for myself. This of course would be stealing, which is wrong. I could purchase the apples, using counterfeit money. This would be fraud, which is wrong. If the store owner resists, I could choose to carry a weapon into the store and take the apples by force. This would be a threat of murder, which is wrong. Behind all of these actions are attitudes of covetousness and greed, which are wrong. Forbidden exchange is unloving because it harms others.

The other kind of exchange is voluntary. If I want the apples, I could simply choose to buy them. If I don’t have enough money to buy them, I could offer an alternative form of payment. For instance, I might offer to help bag groceries in exchange for the apples. It might even be that the store owner recognizes that I am hungry, and so he voluntarily chooses to give me the apples for free as an act of grace and kindness. In each of these examples, the exchange of the apples is voluntarily agreed upon by both parties.

In either case, I end up with the apples I desire. But unlike forbidden exchange, voluntary exchange benefits both parties involved, and fosters feelings of goodwill, love, and unity.

Voluntary Trade is Always Mutually Beneficial

Many profound and important economic principles can be logically established by reflecting on very simple illustrations. Suppose two boys packed sandwiches for lunch. Opie has a peanut butter and jelly, but prefers ham and cheese. Leon has a ham and cheese, but prefers peanut butter and jelly.

In this situation, we can easily see that both Opie and Leon would be better off by trading sandwiches. Opie could give Leon the peanut butter and jelly in exchange for the ham and cheese. As a result, both boys would enjoy a sandwich they value more than the one they packed.

From this example, a wise economic thinker can observe an important truth. For voluntary exchange to occur, each party must value the end result of the exchange more highly than their original state. If Opie and Leon both preferred their own sandwich over the other’s, they would have no desire to trade.

Similarly, if Opie and Leon both preferred peanut butter and jelly over ham and cheese, no trade would take place. In this situation, Leon would happily trade his ham and cheese for Opie’s peanut butter and jelly, but Opie would not agree to the trade, since he values his own peanut butter and jelly over Leon’s ham and cheese. For voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must view the exchange as an act that will lead to a more preferable situation.

The important implication of this observation is this: voluntary exchange is always expected to be mutually beneficial. Both parties must believe they will benefit from the exchange or they would not agree to the exchange.

If Opie and Leon agree to trade sandwiches, who is better off? As long as they have both voluntarily agreed to the exchange, they are both better off. If either boy believed he would be worse off from the trade, no sandwich exchange would have occurred.

Voluntary Exchange Creates Wealth

 As long as the trade was voluntary, both boys were able to obtain something they value more. We could call this increased value their “profit” (see part 4). Observe that both boys have profited by increasing the value of their lunch, yet without adding a single item of food to the table. The number of sandwiches are the same. The same ingredients are used. And yet, because of the trade, both boys are better off. One boy does not benefit at the expense of another. How can it be that both benefit without adding food to the table? Because both boys value the sandwiches differently.

This illustrates another important principle. Voluntary exchange has the ability to create wealth even with a fixed number of resources. We must not imagine the distribution of wealth as a zero-sum game, where one person gets a bigger slice of a pie only at the expense of leaving the other person with a smaller slice. This is false because wealth is not a fixed sum, but can be increased by voluntary trade. As long as trade is voluntary, there are no “winners” and “losers”, “exploited” and “exploiter”, or “oppressed” and “oppressor.” This is only true, however, when both parties benefit from the trade. Both parties benefit only when it is a trade they would both voluntarily agree to.

It should be noted that the judgments about the benefit of exchange are made before the trade takes place. One or both parties could certainly be in error. Leon may trade for Opie’s peanut butter and jelly, only to later discover that Opie used crunchy peanut butter, and Leon only likes smooth peanut butter. In this situation, Leon was not unjustly taken advantage of by Opie. He was not bullied into trading sandwiches. Leon simply made an error, and suffered a loss of value as a result of the mistake.

As noted in part 4 of this series, losses are important. As a result of the mistake, Leon will learn that he does not in fact prefer Opie’s peanut butter and jelly. Next time Leon sees a friend with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, before he agrees to a trade he will know to first ask “does your mom use crunchy or smooth peanut butter?” As a result of the loss, Leon will become a wiser entrepreneur.

The Fallacy of “Price Gouging”

Sometimes people have a hard time believing that all voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. For instance, during times of extreme shortages, prices can rapidly increase. It is not uncommon for gas prices to almost double after natural disasters. When gas prices increase, it is common to hear gas stations accused of “price gouging.”

Of course a gas station owner may choose to keep their prices low as an act of kindness. In this case, the gas station owner may willingly choose to suffer financial loss so that they will enjoy the profit of knowing they have helped their customers during a time of need. As long as the decision to keep prices low is voluntary, both parties benefit as a result of the exchange.

But suppose the gas station owner chooses to increase prices. In such a situation, is the owner of the gas station profiting at the expense of those who buy the expensive gas? One might be tempted to think so. But before assuming that the gas station owner is acting unjustly or unloving towards their customers, we must think clearly about the nature of the exchange.

We have observed that for a voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must think that the trade will be mutually beneficial. If gas stations are in fact able to sell their gas at double the price, this must mean that there are buyers who think the gas is more valuable to them than the money they exchange for it. Otherwise, they would simply decide not to purchase the gas. At a minimum we must conclude that the gas station owner is not harming their customers since their customers think they are better off as a result of the exchange. The choice to increase prices may not be as selfless as the gas station owner who decided to keep prices artificially low, but it certainly cannot be described as oppression or exploitation.

On the other hand, if the local government were to force the gas stations to sell their gas at a cheaper price, this could be described as oppression or exploitation, since the exchange of gas would benefit the buyers at the expense of the gas station owners. It can also be noted that reducing the profits of the gas providers would only serve to prolong the shortage by removing the incentive for increased gas production (see part 4).

Oppression and exploitation are only features of forbidden exchange, where dishonestly, theft, and violence enable one party to benefit at another’s expense. As long as exchange is voluntary, no one party will benefit at another’s expense. On the contrary, overall wealth will increase as both parties are able to improve their overall satisfaction.

Christianity and Economics, Part 5: Private Property

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics

For other parts of this series on Christianity and Economics, click here.

Strictly speaking, the study of economics does not include questions of what we should or should not do. Questions of right and wrong are ethical questions. But as Christians, we should be concerned with both. It is not enough to understand whether various economic systems are effective in achieving their goals (economic questions). We must first and foremost consider what is right (an ethical question). Before considering the economic implications of different economic systems, we must first consider ethics of private property and the exchange of goods. From a Christian perspective, how should we feel about the ownership of property?

The Bible is full of warnings against greed (Prov. 15:27; 28:25), covetousness (Lk. 12:15), the love of money (Mt. 6:24; 1 Tim. 6:10; Heb. 13:5), and the desire to be rich (1 Tim. 6:9). What’s more, Scripture continually encourages an open-handed approach towards possessions, where we are always ready and willing to give our possessions to others. Paul encouraged the church in Corinth to be generous in their giving by pointing to the example of Christ, who “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor so that you might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). In Acts 2:45, we are told that the earliest Christians  “were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”

Possessions can certainly become a stumbling block. It should be noted, however, that nowhere in Scripture is the possession of property ever condemned. In fact, the numerous prohibitions against theft imply at least some notion of private property.

God as the Ultimate Owner

The Christian approach towards possessions begins with the recognition of God as the Creator and the ultimate possessor of all things.

For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.

Psalm 50:10

The earth is the LORD’s and the fulness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein.

Psalm 24:1

As the ultimate possessor of all things, God has the right to delegate the use and oversight of his possessions to whomever he desires. For instance, in Genesis 1:29 God said “I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.” God commanded mankind to subdue the earth, teaching them that by their labor the earth would yield produce which they could enjoy (cf. Gen. 1:28; 3:19).

People are not owners, but stewards who are called to temporarily manage those things which ultimately belong to God. This relationship is illustrated in the parable of the talents (Mt. 25:14-30). God has entrusted the authority over possessions to mankind. In his authority and wisdom, he delegates more possessions to some, and less to others. Regardless of how little or how much he entrusts them with, everyone is called to exercise our management of those possessions under the watchful eye of the Creator.

As the ultimate owner of all things, God maintains the ultimate right to establish the principles he wants mankind to follow in regards to his property. God is the one who can determine how we can morally invest it, trade it, and use it. He can forbid certain uses of it. For instance, in Genesis 3:15-17, God gave Adam and Eve the right to eat of every tree of the garden except one, which he forbade them from eating. When God forbids greed, the love of money, or theft, or when he commands us to be generous with our possessions, he has that right. After all, he is the ultimate owner of all things, so he can determine how they should be used. Ultimately, God will hold mankind accountable for whether or not we have managed his property in accordance with the principles he has established (Mt. 25:21-28).

For this reason, when as we consider private property from a Christian perspective, it is important to always recognize that all things are ultimately possessed by God, and we are only stewards. To echo the words of Deuteronomy 8:17-18, when we are tempted to think “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me” (v. 17), we should remember that it was the LORD our God gave us the ability to produce wealth in the first place (v. 18).

Prohibitions Against Theft

Throughout the whole Bible, the possession of property is recognized as something which must not be violated. The Old Testament is filled with prohibitions against theft. “You shall not steal” was one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:11). This commandment included the prohibition of oppression and fraud (Lev. 19:11-13).

The command is reiterated in the New Testament as well. Not stealing is part of what it means to love your neighbor (Rom. 13:8-10). As Paul encouraged the Corinthians to be charitable, he never called for the compelled extraction of funds, but instead emphasizes the importance of voluntary giving (2 Cor. 9:7). Paul encourages Christians not to steal, but to do honest work so that they may give to those in need (Eph. 4:28).  Peter recognized that choosing what to do with possessions is the responsibility of the one who owns the possession (Acts 5:4).

Besides outright theft and fraud, Jesus tells us that the motivation for theft begins in the heart (Mt. 15:18-20). This echoes the ten commandments, which forbid not only stealing, but also covetousness (Ex. 20:17).

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that we are not to take from others what belongs to them. When God entrusts someone with property, it is their responsibility to manage it.

The Principle of Voluntary Exchange

Since the Bible continually teaches that people’s ownership of property should be respected, there can only be one morally proper way for humans to exchange goods with one another, and that is through voluntary exchange. The prohibition of theft prohibits the forced, or involuntary, exchange of goods.

To illustrate this point, consider how Luke describes the time when Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and told Peter that they were giving all the proceeds to the church, all while holding back some of the possessions for themselves (Acts 5:1-2). Peter confronted Ananias by saying:

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.

Acts 5:4

Peter plainly says that their possessions were theirs to do with as they wanted.

Jesus affirmed this principle in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Jesus told about a master who hired different laborers to work for different amounts of time for the same amount of money. In response to the complaints of the laborers, the master responded:

Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose to do with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?

Matthew 20:13-15

Although not the main point of the parable, Jesus’s teaching relies on the accepted principle that the owner of property is the one who has the right to choose what to do with it.

Just because God delegates ownership of property to individuals, this does not indicate that a property owner is free to use his possessions however he may desire. God is the ultimate owner. Everyone will be held accountable for how they use the property that God has entrusted to them. It does, however, imply that it is wrong to forcibly remove the management of property away from another person.

The Moral Implications of Private Property Upon Economic Policy

As we consider the strengths and weaknesses of different economic systems or policies we must continually remember that the only moral way to divide up the earth’s possessions is through voluntary exchange. Even if it could be shown that an economic system could be designed which can promise greater prosperity by forcibly restricting or compelling the exchange of goods, we as Christians must ultimately come back to the question of what is morally right. Because of the numerous biblical restrictions against theft, only voluntary exchange is morally right.

It should be noted that the prohibitions against theft not only forbid individuals from taking the possessions of other individuals. God also forbids governing authorities from doing so. Even rulers are commanded to serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:10-12). The only way for a ruler to do this is to rule with justice (2 Sam. 23:3). God does not command us not to steal unless we work for the government. For example, consider 1 Kings 21, where King Ahab was held accountable for forcibly taking Naboth’s vineyard. His authority as king did not give him the authority to take what did not belong to him. (For a more thorough discussion of the ethics of taxation, click here).

Jesus calls his disciples not to follow the example of gentiles who seek greatness by lording over others. Instead of seeking to exercise authority over the lives of others, Jesus’s followers are expected to be servants (Mk. 10:42-44).

Conclusion

God has delegated to mankind the possession of the earth. In his wisdom, he also gave us moral laws about how to use those possessions. These laws include the prohibition against theft. For this reason, all exchange of goods should be voluntary in nature.

In future parts of this series we will examine how God’s wisdom regarding the possession of property and voluntary exchange has laid a necessary foundation for the division of labor and the creation of wealth. As the study of economics reveals to us, this enables us to be more productive, provide more benefits for one another, and is necessary to alleviate poverty. God created the world with wisdom, and in his wisdom, he gave us his commands. Economics demonstrates that following the wisdom of God’s teachings is the best way for mankind to thrive in God’s world.

Christianity and Economics, Part 4: What Does It Profit?

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics, Uncategorized1 Comment

For other parts of this series on Christianity and Economics, click here.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

Mark 8:36

The answer to Jesus’s question is obviously nothing. Even if a man were to gain the whole world, if he loses his soul in the process, he has made a terrible trade. In the end there is no profit at all. There is only tremendous loss.

What is “Profit”?

It’s not uncommon to hear “profit” treated like a bad thing. Just think about all the movies where the villain is some evil businessman that chooses “profits over people.” But profit is not a bad thing. The word “profit” simply means “benefit.”

Profit can certainly be measured in money if the “benefit” sought is money. If I buy something for $3, and I turn around and sell it for $5, I’ve earned a profit of $2. But in a more general sense, such as the sense in which Jesus used the word, profit simply refers to the reward for making good decisions. Giving away money to a charity can be “profitable” if advances a cause that I’m passionate about.

When discussing economics, however, “profit” often takes on the more precise meaning of monetary profit. When all goods can be traded for money, those goods develop market prices defined in amount of money. For this reason profit and loss can be discussed in terms of money. As long as revenue is greater than expenses, there is a profit. If expenses are greater than revenue, there is a loss.

But we must remember that as soon as we limit “profit” to a monetary value, we are no longer making a statement about an entrepreneur’s overall happiness, spiritual well-being, or subjective satisfaction. We are only talking about profit as it is appraised by other members of society, who ultimately determine monetary value through their demand for certain products in relation to their supply.

It’s easy to see how profit benefits an entrepreneur. But what often goes unrecognized is how profit benefits others. In order to explain how this is so we must first consider the problem of resource allocation.

The Complex Problem of Resource Allocation

God created the world with numerous resources, each of which could be used in any number of ways. For example, iron could be used to make all sorts of things – cars, refrigerators, medical devices, construction buildings, houses, power plants, tools, weapons, spoons, etc. The possibilities are endless. The same could be said for all natural resources.

With endless possibilities, mankind is faced with the complex task of deciding what resources, in what quantities, should be used in what ways. What needs are most important? How can we properly use the earth’s resources to help as many people as possible? Even if we are properly motivated impartial love for everyone, how can we know for certain that we are using the earth’s resources most effectively? How much iron should be used for refrigerators? For medical devices? For houses? For machines?

Even if we correctly prioritize the right needs, we still have a problem.  Perhaps we think housing is most important. Since resources are limited, at what point does our investment in housing begin to take away from the important need for medical devices? Or for tractors, which are used to harvest the food everyone needs? Even if our intentions are pure, it would be impossible to know for sure if we are using resources in the best possible way.

To illustrate the complexity of this problem, imagine a world where this problem is perfectly solved, where we know the optimal use of every resource. To simplify the illustration, imagine there are no changes to anyone’s subjective wants, changes in technology development, changes in the total population, or changes in resource availability. If this were the case, every person would do the same tasks every day. Producers would produce the same products, in the same quantity, every day. The prices of all consumer goods and factors of production would remain constant, as neither supply nor demand ever changed.

Consequently, there would be no uncertainty about the future. There would be no need for someone to risk combining resources in a new way. There would be no reason for a business owner to invest more in one line of production, or less in another, or for anyone to take any risks or seek greater profit. Everything would already be used towards its optimal end.

It’s not difficult to see why this can only be an imaginary scenario. James cautions us against assuming that things will continue in the future as they do today.

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit” – yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring.

James 4:13-14

People’s subjective values change all the time. Technology changes. Population levels change. Resource availability changes. There’s always change going on. Tomorrow will not be like today. The future is uncertain.

For this reason, all entrepreneurs have the task of taking risks. No mater how successful an investment may have been in the past, or may appear today, the future will be different. An entrepreneur has no guarantee of future profitability, because prices are always changing to meet changes in supply and demand.

How Profit and Loss Solves The Problem of Resource Allocation

Since the future is uncertain, entrepreneurs must engage in the task of forecasting future prices for the factors of production and finished products. They must forecast future profitability.

For example, one farmer may forecast that there will be a beef shortage, beef prices will increase, and raising cattle will be profitable. As a result, he may raise more cows, build bigger barns, and dedicate more land towards cattle farming. On the other hand, a competing farmer may forecast that cattle prices will fall, and his time will be better spent growing fresh produce, such as corn, beans, and garden vegetables. Whichever farmer’s forecast proves to be more correct will enjoy a greater profit.

Suppose the first farmer is correct. Due to a beef shortage, prices were high, and he was able to enjoy a good profit. The following year, the other farmer may look to the first farmer’s success as a signal that he should raise cattle as well. Because of the first farmer’s profits, the beef shortage will move quickly towards a solution as more and more farmers move into cattle farming. This will continue until cattle production reaches a level where cattle farming is no longer as profitable as the next best use of the  land. As entrepreneurs seek to invest where there will be the greatest return on their investment, production shifts to meet consumer demand.

Just as important as profit is loss. By suffering a loss, the unsuccessful entrepreneur may be forced to make changes. Suppose the cattle farmer was wrong. Instead of a shortage, there was a surplus of cattle. As a result, he was not able to bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of his investment. If the farmer continues suffer loss, he will eventually have to make a change. Perhaps he will shift away from cattle farming to something more in line with consumer demand. Or perhaps he will sell the farm to another entrepreneur who will use the land more efficiently and more profitably. For instance, if there is a housing shortage, there may be a great demand to develop the land as a new neighborhood.

Profit and loss is a wonderful thing, because it communicates to entrepreneurs the most effective uses of resources allowing them to produce what people want and need. Regardless of whether the farmer is profitable, or suffers a loss, by following profit and loss signals, resources will continually be reallocated to meet consumer demand.

This process plays itself out every day, in every industry, in various ways. All over the world, entrepreneurs continually adapt to changes in people’s preferences, changes in technology, and changes in resource availability. When consumers are free to choose which products, they spend their money on, they are able to influence where entrepreneurs invest, what products are produced, and in what quantities.

Who Benefits from Profit?

Obviously, the entrepreneur who correctly forecasts future economic conditions will enjoy the reward of greater profits. But now we can see how others benefit from profit as well.

Consumers enjoy the benefit of enjoying new and better products. Because of profit, these products will become increasingly available and affordable until the market is saturated to the point where increased production is no longer profitable. As entrepreneurs seek to maximize production of profitable products, they will need to invest in the labors of others.  So not only to consumers benefit, but workers are able to earn a greater living as well. Profit and loss are signals which everyone to a greater standard of living.

A successful entrepreneur is able to earn a profit, not by cheating people, but by meeting the desires of his customers. He does this by anticipating what products they are most willing to spend money on. As they seek to earn a profit, they continually examine whether the resources at their disposal are being used in the most efficient way to meet the needs of the greatest number of people.

Obstacles to Meeting The Needs of Others

This process only works when consumers are free to choose what products they spend money on, and entrepreneurs are free to make whatever changes are necessary to earn a greater profit.

When profits are villainized, so that a portion of profits are taken through taxation, this is bad for everyone. It is bad for entrepreneurs, who receive a decreased return for their investments. As profits decrease, entrepreneurs will decrease investment in production. This hurts workers, who receive less investment for their labors. It is bad for consumers, who get less of the product that they desire.

When people call for the government to bail out industries that aren’t profitable, they prevent those resources from being recombined in more beneficial ways. When politicians protect certain jobs they like, they fail to recognize the more profitable, yet unseen jobs they destroy (see Part 2). Instead of responding to losses by making necessary changes, they will continue to waste scarce resources for products that people don’t want enough to buy.

We have the responsibility to use the limited resources as efficiently as possible to meet the needs of others. Making sure entrepreneurs are free to seek a profit, while also bearing the risk of an uncertain future, is the best way to make sure that the earth’s resources are being used in the best possible way.

Christianity and Economics, Part 3: Honest Money

On By Tyler BoydIn Economics1 Comment

Just Weights and Measures

You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin.

Leviticus 19:35-36

Unequal weights are an abomination to the LORD,
and false scales are not good.

Proverbs 20:23

It is not necessary to explain what unit of measurement the “ephah” or “hin” were. The point is clear: once defined, they could not be changed by individuals in the marketplace. Moses instructed the Israelites not to tamper with this constant measurement so as to defraud another person.

In Old Testament times, when an individual went to buy something, he would bring with him something valuable. At times they would have used barter (maybe trading a sack of wheat for a sheep). At other times they may have brought silver or gold as money. Either way, the use of scales and measurements were important. Their money didn’t have dollar amounts printed on it. They had to weigh out the appropriate amount.

It would have been easy for a dishonest businessman to steal from his neighbor by rigging the scales. For instance, say a man was trading one pound of wheat for a sheep. If he could make his side of the scale heavier, he might put 4/5th of a pound of wheat on the scale, and yet the scale would say that he had enough to buy the sheep. At the end of this fraudulent transaction, the thief would have the sheep plus 1/5th of a pound of wheat which rightfully belonged to his neighbor. But the law of God made it clear that tampering with the scales was wrong.

When people would bring silver or gold to the market, it became even easier for sellers to use dishonest scales. The metal money would normally be measured in weight. The dishonest man could defraud his neighbor by mixing in a less valuable metal with his gold or silver. As long as the impurity of the metal was not noticed, he could then trick his neighbor into thinking he was getting real money, when he was actually getting a watered-down version of the real thing. Meanwhile, it would appear as if the dishonest man had more money left over to buy more stuff. By diluting the silver or gold, a dishonest man could defraud anyone in the marketplace, even if the actual scales were accurate. Diluting the value of money was another form of dishonest measurement, which Isaiah specifically cites as one of the sins of unfaithful Israel when he says “Your silver has become dross” (Is. 1:22).

Why Counterfeiting is Sin

Suppose an individual in Old Testament times figured out a way to duplicate coins for himself. Perhaps he figures out a way to make coins out of cheap metal, and then coat the coin in gold so that it looks and feels like the real thing. Today we call this practice counterfeiting. In addition to breaking God’s instructions for just weights and measures, this individual is stealing. But who is the victim of the kind of theft known as counterfeiting?

The counterfeiter steals money by increasing the money supply when he spends this money in the marketplace. With each fraudulent coin he spends, he slowly dilutes the value of everyone else’s gold coins. With more money being circulated in the marketplace, goods and services cost more. Economist refer to this process as “inflation.” Counterfeiting is destructive because it slowly steals from everyone except for the counterfeiter. The counterfeiter benefits by getting to spend new money he didn’t work for, while everyone else is force to pay higher prices with the same amount of gold coins they had in the first place. For others, the cost of living simply rises and no one can provide an explanation. They are totally unaware of the counterfeiter. Counterfeiting is therefore an invisible form of theft, but it is most certainly theft and therefore breaks God’s law.

This is an important point. Counterfeiting money is not simply wrong because it breaks the laws of a country. Counterfeiting is wrong because counterfeiting breaks God’s law, regardless of the laws of a country. When sin is legalized, it is still a sin. Legal abortion is still sin. Legally recognized homosexual marriage is still sinful. If counterfeiting were legal, it would still be theft.

Thankfully, private counterfeiting has never been much of a problem in society. If anyone is caught printing new money on a private printer, the consequences are very severe. Even when private counterfeiting successfully occurs, it happens on such a small scale that the impact of the counterfeiter on the cost of living is immeasurably small.

However, when creating new money is legal, and even sanctioned by the government, this is still counterfeiting, it is still wrong, and it is detrimental to an economy.

Modern Money

In one sense, modern money has become invisible. It moves electronically from one computer to another, and does not even have a physical form. A vast majority of money used today is simply numbers in a computer on someone’s account balance. But at some point this electronic money is converted back into paper cash and coins.

If you examine a dollar bill from your wallet, you will find the words “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” In other words, this dollar bill is legal money. Yes, we can pay for things using checks or credit cards or Venmo, but ultimately, these can be turned back into paper dollars.

You will also find the words “Federal Reserve Note.” In other words, these paper dollars are created and distributed by the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States. The green piece of paper is very obviously money because it has official and authoritative images in the right places. These images indicate the full faith and strength of the United States Government.

Prior to 1957, dollar bills looked very similar to how they look today, but with a few slight differences (click here for an image). Dollars at this time contained the words “Silver Certificate.” The also included the following words: “This certifies that there is on deposit in the treasury of the United States of America… One Dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand.”

That tiny difference is significant. To be perfectly clear, there is nothing backing modern currency. At one point in time, a United States dollar could be traded for a silver dollar on demand. But this convertibility was gradually removed. Evidence of this can be seen in coins. If you are lucky enough to find a quarter from before the year 1964, you will notice that it is made of 90% pure silver. Now days quarters are made of much cheaper metal.

Although you might find this interesting, you might also be wondering “what’s the big deal? People still accept the dollar. Just as long as people are honest, how is paper money wrong?” To be clear, there is nothing immoral with paper money, just as long as the measurement of value is held constant and just. The problem with unbacked paper money is that it can be created at almost no cost. When paper money is not backed by something of value, this enables individuals (governments, big banks, and their buddies) to enter the marketplace with newly created, counterfeit money, which is in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches about just weights and measures.

What Is the Right Quantity of Money?

Without a fixed measure of value (such as gold or silver) backing the dollar, there is no longer any limit on how much new money can be created. In 1971, Richard Nixon officially removed the dollar from the gold standard, and ever since then the supply of money created by the Federal Reserve has dramatically increased (especially in the year 2020). This new money has been literally created out of thin air. It is dishonest money that contradicts God’s prescription for honesty in trade. If this was done by a shady guy in a basement with a fancy printer, he would be thrown in jail for a very long time.

Someone might object that allowing the Federal Reserve to create money isn’t the same thing as a private individual printing up 100’s in his basement. Not only do they have the proper legal authority, but there are times of economic crisis (such as in the year 2020) when there just isn’t enough money to go around. During such times, wouldn’t there be an economic benefit to having a more elastic money supply? Can we really say that the Biblical standards for “honest money” apply in such a situation?

In other words, if new money is created legally, with only the very best intentions of creating wealth and preventing poverty, is it still wrong?

To answer this objection, imagine you had the ability to create a new can of peas out nothing (or turkeys, or watermelons, or cattle). Would this help the poor? Of course it would! The increased supply of goods per person would mean everyone can consume more, and the standard of living would go up for everyone. But creating new money provides no benefit for society at all (except for the dishonest counterfeiter).

Why not? Because money itself cannot be eaten or consumed. Money is used only as a medium of exchange. Once we have enough money for the use of exchange, no more money is needed. So while increasing the number of cattle or cars or cell phones or houses would be beneficial, increasing the supply of money only dilutes its value because there is more of it floating around.

To put it simply, if the number of cars suddenly doubled, twice as many people could own cars. But if the supply of money were doubled, the only result would be that we would have the same number of goods and services for double the price (at least on average). Now if everyone saw their bank accounts double, they might feel richer, at least in the short term, and go buy houses, vacations, or new cars. But once prices went up to compensate for the increased demand, reality would set in, and people would realize that they are not better off at all. In fact, they might be worse off because they were encouraged to buy things that they really couldn’t afford.

Counterfeiting money does more than just drive-up prices. It causes people to make foolish decisions with their money (“malinvestment” is the economic term). Dishonest money has no societal benefit at all.