September 15, 2011
God’s Natural Economics vs. Contemporary Economics
A reasonable theory appears to be that we have altered what the Bible appears to refer to as the original economic system, to what it is now, possibly for admirable reasons. However, some undesirable side-effects appear to make this revised economic system a much less just economic system.
Revised Economic Access
To clarify, the Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God created resources for the taking. Apparently, each person was generally responsible for retrieving them from the environment, roughly based upon consumption. The economic system appears to have been revised by industrialization and capitalism which appear reported to have increased resource production, but also to have put humanity in charge of other humans’ access to resources. Analysis of Biblical and secular history appears to suggest that the new economic system’s development of the incentive toward selfishness appears reasonably considered to have been compounded by humanity’s apparent “post-fall-of-man” tendency toward injustice.
Apparently, as a result, the basis for human access to resources has gone from free access based upon the needs of the accessor to being controlled by another person and being based on the apparently illogical, unrelated factor of whether accessing those resources represents a sufficient benefit for the controlling person.
An additional undesirable side-effect of the revised economic system appears to be that it appears to connect two apparently unrelated factors: the resources Person A needs for the day and what Person B wants Person A to do that day. Although the two concepts might at times correlate, they also might well not correlate at all.
Another undesirable side-effect of revised economic system appears to be that long-standing economic philosophy and tradition, as a result, appear to consider lack of economic opportunity to be an unfortunate, but acceptable and expectable circumstance and outcome of economics.
Revised Economic Incentives
This economic system revision also appears to replace two apparently important and well-designed incentive systems. The first well-designed incentive appears to be to obtain resources needed for consumption. The second well-designed incentive appears to be to work at what needs to be accomplished.
The revised economic system’s first revised incentive appears to be to obtain surplus consumption resources in order to gain influence. The new second incentive appears to be to work at that which will maximize influence. This new second incentive is not to be confused with working more to provide for appropriate, natural greater consumption needs.
The result of the new system appears to be that neither work nor resource allocation is related to consumption needs but rather, to political influence. In this scenario, desire to work appears to fluctuate with pay rather than what needs to be accomplished, the apparently natural, true basis.
The Possible Long-Term Solution
The Bible appears to suggest that the long-term solution for humanity’s economic problems appears to be to resolve its apparent spiritual problem, a damaged relationship and connection between God and humanity. Restoration of this relationship and connection appears suggested to restore human connection to the wisdom that comes from that relationship. The result appears suggested to include improved interaction between God and humanity and among humanity, allowing for the restoration of the simple economic system, devoid of economic injustice, that appears Biblically suggested to have worked perfectly prior to the “fall of man”.
The Possible Short-Term Solution (Matthew 20:1-16)
In the interim, until this relationship between God and humanity is fully restored, given that we appear to have put human economic systems in charge of resources access distribution, and that those systems appear to have upset the appropriate balance of resource access distribution, there appears to be no reason why an employer, such as the one in Matthew 20:1-16, cognizant of these factors, should be denigrated for giving a day’s resources to a deserving person – more than just a human resource object – whom the revised economic system might reasonably be considered to have robbed of the appropriate opportunity to access those resources. It appears important to mention that Matthew 20:1-16 appears intended to convey a similar spiritual rather than economic moral.
The unemployed in Matthew 20:1-16 apparently described themselves as not working because they hadn’t been hired, not because they didn’t want to work. Although those who considered themselves worthy of superior opportunity (as others might have agreed) might also consider themselves robbed of justice because they didn’t receive superior opportunity in this story, those who began the story robbed of any appropriate opportunity might consider the story to represent a great day for the “little man”.