(This is the third in a series of posts analyzing each chapter in Jim Wallis’s new book, Rediscovering Values.)
One of the most critical insights that Jim Wallis has for Christians is to open our eyes to those things that we are ignoring, neglecting, or wrongfully participating in, calling us to a higher calling and a more virtuous ethic. In large part that is what his book is about. When I got to this chapter, “When the Market Became God,” I was a bit upset at the accusation, primarily because Wallis tends to have a naive view of economics. But as I read, I consistently found myself agreeing with Wallis on the general points. It’s some of the ambiguous details that leaves one wanting more (which Wallis may provide later on).
This chapter serves as an introductory chapter to the proceeding three by pointing out the three flawed attitudes in our thinking: greed is good, it’s all about me, and I want it now. While I’ll leave a more detailed commentary when I analyze each of these chapters, for now it is necessary to say that the general complaints about these three things are valid. I’m sure I’ll have trouble with his “greed is good” commentary, but we’ll see.
His first major point was that society has bought into the value that greed is good: society was too eager to let the “invisible hand” become the god of our age because it gave us the illusion of quick wealth and easy earnings. Coupled with the other two attitudes—it’s all about me and I want it now—this is the fatal presumption that we made. “The market,” he writes, “has trumped all else and replaced much of the moral space of society, even questioning the value of having ‘moral space’ where the market does not reach” (pg. 28). Describing the market as “an invasive space,” he says that our identities have been wrapped up in being consumers rather than being citizens.
A serious concern about these accusations is not that they are untrue about society in general, but that “the market” is not well-defined. Is it the stock market? Is it the “free market”? It is unclear because there are so many “markets” of which to speak. If Wallis intends to mean the market in general, there are major ethical implications for vilifying a society where free exchange is permitted amongst consenting adults. If Wallis is speaking of the stock market—i.e. Wall Street and the financial institutions surrounding it—he may indeed have a case, because more often than not Americans have a vague trust and messianic hopefulness toward “the market,” where interest and returns on investment yield untold promises, especially if one is cunning or aggressive enough.
Wallis points out that the market became an idol to Americans like the golden calf became to Israel after Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. The statue was not merely a nice sculpture, but was hailed as the “savior” of Israel. Even Moses brother Aaron was in on the deal! So like Israel, according to Wallis we have in our minds replaced God with the market god, an idolatry of unspeakable ramifications.
Wallis writes that “this did not happen as a result of conscious choices. It happened because we weren’t paying enough attention” (pg. 29). Even the most rabid free marketeer on the planet would admit that blind faith in any immaterial entity—no matter how material it is in reality—can produce the results of our richest fantasies. What’s most unfortunate is that when the market yields in part the results that we want, or for a limited time, we are even more seduced into believing in its snare.
But this is where Wallis fails to go deeper. By using the collective term “we,” he can get away with blaming society as a whole, rather than placing blame squarely where much of the blame can be laid (if not all of it). In a book about examining values, perhaps it isn’t part of the tenor to point out specific entities that are at fault (though he doesn’t have trouble with it elsewhere). Or perhaps Wallis is naive enough to believe that the collective “we” is indeed an entity, and so the blame must rest upon all of us. Wallis is a believer in democracy, so any systemic phenomena is presumed to be indicative of the actions of the collective “we.” Since the market was allowed to act as God in our society, “we” let it happen, so we are all at fault. To some degree, there’s no real issue with this, and Wallis is keen to point out certain faults. But since the almighty “we” is assumed to be represented by the State, Wallis will not very likely lay blame where it ought to be placed: on the federal government and the Federal Reserve System.
The free market doesn’t allow central banking, but competing currencies. The free market is a threat against Big Business, not a support. The free market does not artificially set prices, nor does it expand its monetary supply because money is based on real commodities like gold or other previous metals. But when the market in the United States is manipulated by a federal government, infused with money by an all-powerful central banking system (authorized by the federal government), the invisible hand will indeed “let go of the common good,” as Wallis recently said on The Daily Show. The invisible hand does not exist with such intervention. Indeed, the invisible hand has been cut off, and is twitching on the floor at the feet of the false god of regulation and more central government power.
Wallis’s concern (it seems to me) is that when the market is presumed to reside over our well-being, we put all of our eggs in one basket, hoping for a golden egg if we wait long enough (how many times are we promised prosperity if we just “hold on long enough” to our stock portfolios?). It’s not that we cannot use the market for our benefit; indeed, Wallis agrees that markets are the best way humans have learned how to distribute goods and services. But the problem is when we treat the market in such a way as to provide everything for us, without working or without producing something. As Jon Stewart said to Jim Cramer, “our work is our wealth.” Wallis quoted this in an earlier chapter, and surely agrees.
Wallis wants limits placed on the market, something he believes we have not permitted ourselves as a society to ask. But the unanswered question is to ask who is to place these limits on markets? Is it to be the federal government? Is it the state governments? Are we to preach a more value-based society to the country and expect things to change from within? Whatever his internal musings are regarding how to implement such limits, something that is easily and willingly overlooked is a return to free market principles, where limits are created by the drive to make things better for people rather than take advantage of them. For instance, banks could not and would not have loaned to risky buyers with no credit history, no proof of income, and no down payments, without a central bank backing up such asinine decisions. A free market bank wouldn’t make those loans. A free housing market could not have been distorted by the Federal Reserve’s printing of money via low interest rates, and thus would not have given people the illusion of wealth in equity, permitting such “market as god” attitude throughout the country.
Limits are indeed necessary on the market—however that is defined. But what’s forgotten is that the limits ought to be placed on those who are in control of the strings of power, because those are the truly dangerous. Wallis likes to chide the idea of letting the market “control” all of our public services (as if a non-breathing entity can “control” something). Forgetting that markets, and especially the free market, is the complex action and interactions of millions of human beings freely exchanging, Wallis reduces the definition to fit his theory that “public services” are somehow beyond the scope of what “the market” can provide. He anecdotally says that a private control over an amusement park is fine, but not over Yellowstone National Park, which is not exactly a great example of superior government oversight.
The market is not some magic black box that can provide us untold riches if we just do what it wants us to do. No, markets are here for us to manage, and when we permit things through governmental coercion and mandates that would otherwise not occur on its own, we see the result not of poor management but of the arrogance of presuming we are able to control an economy to suit our selfish ends. What Wallis won’t recognize is that more regulation is simply replacing another driver (or set of drivers) behind the wheel of a destructive vehicle that should be destroyed at first chance.
