Making It Work in The Real World

March 1, 2022 | 1,455 words | Economics, Philosophy, Politics

The intellectual tradition to which I subscribe believes in an economics based on virtues such as justice and charity, instead of ‘laws’ like supply and demand.  The earliest guidelines for this preferred system can be found in the Acts of the Apostles, when the first band of followers were said to have shared all they had with one another, according to need.  This is what Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) identified back in the 13th century as “distributive justice.”

Though he did his best work before capitalism kicked in and really took off, Aquinas had his finger on the pulse from its very beginning.  He was around just as the fabric merchants of Florence were inventing double-entry bookkeeping, which as we know was the single most important development in facilitating the international trade of their goods.

Right from the start Tommy A. could see that economics – especially big-time economics – is a branch of ethics.  Because all human action that proceeds from intellect and will must fall within its province.  (As opposed to “unthinking” actions like combing one’s hair, or scratching one’s beard). Since economic actions can’t help but proceed from intellect and will, they will naturally be subject to the requirements of moral philosophy, aka morality.

When we hear that onerous word ‘morality’ we automatically think of private action, specifically of the sexual variety.  Thou shall not commit adultery, and all that.  But Aquinas understands economic behavior is simply morality as expressed in the public arena.  It’s how a community and an entire country lives out a life of virtue together.  Or not.

This points up a key difference between the grand theoretical economics of justice and charity, with what we have now.  Our current economic system (i.e., capitalism) does not address the issue of living an ethical and virtuous life, which it deems outside its purview.  It focuses instead on maximizing productivity.

Now, productivity is surely a good thing.  But it should not be pursued to the exclusion of justice, or while violating justice.  That’s how social inequities are created.  In this vein Aquinas identifies three (3) types of justice:  legal, commutative, and distributive.

Legal Justice

This is preeminent among the moral virtues, serving as an analogue to supernatural charity.  That is to say, just as charity orders all man’s private actions toward God, legal justice orders all man’s public actions to the common good.

The idea of a ‘common good’ is a recurring theme in the intellectual tradition to which I subscribe.  Contrary to popular belief, it does not automatically result when individuals single-mindedly pursue their own private ‘good’, as the principle of enlightened self-interest asserts.  

Any civilized society should have the common good as its pre-eminent goal.  This can only be achieved when all citizens – the high and mighty, and the meek and lowly – order their actions to the overall good of the entire community.  That includes the ‘good’ of people we vehemently disagree with, as well as those with whom we get along famously.

Commutative Justice

Commutative justice requires ‘equivalency’ in exchange transactions, since neither party in an exchange wishes to suffer a loss.  This implies it is usually possible to determine an objective ‘just price’ of an object with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Here it may occur to you ‘just price’ is diametrically opposed to our current yardstick of ‘what the market will bear.’  Aquinas is aware of the many variables that can play a role in determining what the just price might be in a given situation: the qualities of the item itself, current supply, current demand, etc.  And he cautions against trying for a greater degree of precision in this area than may be possible.    

That said, there is an objective basis to all exchange transactions that must be obeyed for justice to be served.  A seller may not charge whatever he or she likes, just because the buyer agrees to it.  

Usury

Traditional prohibitions against usury are simply an application of the principle of equivalency.  But this also means that, in certain clearly defined circumstances, a lender may be entitled to a greater return than the amount lent.  If a lender suffers a clearly identifiable loss in making a loan, he may legitimately request a greater amount in return to cover the loss incurred.  But again, the exchange should be governed by objective circumstance, not by the highest rate of interest to which a lender can persuade the borrower to agree.

Distributive Justice

Commutative justice by itself does not take into consideration the various needs, merits, and circumstances of people involved in economic transactions.  But this seeming deficiency is addressed by distributive justice.

Distributive justice is the virtue that directs goods be distributed by those who exercise authority over those goods, employing a proportional equality.  Now there’s as sentence that could stand to be unpacked in much greater detail.  But it boils down to this: Goods ought to be distributed according to the needs, merits, and other circumstances of the people receiving those goods.

The action of distributive justice is more fundamental than that of commutative justice.  Commutative justice requires only mathematical equality.  It carries out the distribution pattern of goods already established.  If this pattern is unjust, commutative justice will simply perpetuate the injustice.

This short overview is meant as only the briefest introduction to what Thomas Aquinas has to say on the subject of economics and morality, which he sees as not just linked, but inexorably intertwined.  Such an introduction is necessary because, sadly, his ground-breaking early work in this area has been relegated to the dustbin of history.  Today’s cutting-edge economic theorists don’t give him a first thought, let alone a second one.  Which is our loss, since the fundamental things still apply, even if quite a bit of time has gone by.

There are, however, a handful of relatively obscure academics who recognize Aquinas’s insight when it comes to exchange transactions, and are busy riffing on his favorite themes.  But what good does that do members of the general public, caught up as we are in the daily grind?  

Who pays any attention to an off-the-beaten-path academic, except maybe a few other obscure academics?  Okay, maybe their students listen.  If only for a semester or two, until those students move on to other subjects.  As for breaking out and reaching a wider audience, the writing of these earnest scholars, though admirably detailed, is often a little dry, and difficult for the lay reader to decipher.  Not that the average lay reader is inclined to even try.

While everyone could benefit from familiarizing themselves with some of Aquinas’ thought, the real trick is not so much in getting us commoners to pay attention – it’s the movers and shakers we want tuned in.  For it is they who must turn this idle chatter about justice and charity into action, and make it work in the real world.

In recent decades there have been a few encouraging signs on the path to ‘economic justice.’  Such as the boutique concept known as the triple bottom line, with the three Ps of sustainability.  And the Business Roundtable redefining the purpose of a corporation away from Milton Freidman’s famous proclamation of ‘profitability alone,’ to a broader understanding of how a robust economy must do more than reward stockholders.  It must also strive to meet the intrinsic needs of employees, customers, and the community-at-large.  All these extenuating categories of individuals deserve to be factored into the successful-business equation.

Then there is the flamboyant CEO of asset manager Blackrock throwing his considerable weight around at high-profile international conferences, expounding on how investors and businesses should work alongside government.  According to this wacky crackpot, such counter-cultural cooperation could reduce the need for political leaders to engage in onerous deficit spending to remedy persistent social inequities.

But let’s face it, such do-gooder stuff remains an uphill battle.  Because humanity’s default inclination has always been toward greed, avarice, and sloth.  Alas, this is often true even among those fortunate few blessed with an extraordinary degree of ambition and drive.  As a general rule, we humans tend to be rather nonchalant, shall we say, in our consideration of anyone outside our immediate circle of acquaintances.  Contributing to the problem is the way the self-actualized among us have been given a green light to power their way to the top, in an enlightened self-interested sort of way.  

Some not-so-pleasant things about human nature have never changed, down through history.  Then again, with a little prodding in the right direction, sometimes some of them do.  This sort of incremental transformation is known in the trade as turning over a new leaf.  If Ebenezer Scrooge can do it, so can you.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr

March 1, 2022

Mayor Pete and the Whole Ball of Wax

January 10, 2022 |  1,302 words |  Politics, Philosophy, Economics

The primary race for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential election is old news by now, but I only just watched a documentary about the quixotic run made by the youngest member of the field, Mayor Pete.

Mr. Buttigieg is certainly an interesting character.  One of the first things that register about him are his relative youth and his sexual orientation.  (He is married to another man, and the couple is raising two adopted children together.)  He is very articulate and well-spoken, as are many other politicians.  That’s sort of a pre-requisite at this level, a recent bellicose occupant of the White House notwithstanding.

He strikes me as unusually composed for someone who has not run the gauntlet of high public office.  {Sorry, Pete, but holding down the mayor’s job in South Bend, Indiana for eight years [2012 – 2020] doesn’t qualify in this context.)  Could his unflappable nature be a kind of beginner’s luck?

What impresses me most is how introspective he seems to be.  Sure, he does a good job of marshalling his talking points and delivering a stump speech, as does any politician worth their salt.  Based on what we’ve seen so far, though, he is more than just a polished reader.  He comes across as someone who has actually thought about and shifted through all these policy issues in depth.  We could use a little more of that in our elected officials.  

One might even go so far as to say this young man is a benevolent philosopher king in the making.  Which is all we can hope for from anyone with the outsized ego it takes to run for President.  If Mr. Buttigieg manages to maintain a measure of humility as he continues his ascent, he might just do some good.

*

About midway through Mayor Pete, there is a little vignette featuring a casual encounter on the campaign trail between Buttigieg and Joe Biden, off to the side at an outdoor event.  It occurred just as candidate Biden was regaining his sea legs in South Carolina, after a disappointing showing in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Mr. Biden appears positively effervescent in this clip.  Such a contrast with the tired old man we are now watching and listening to, only a short time into his term as President.  It makes me realize we need some fresh blood in our presidential politics.  Older hands should not be kicked to the curb.  Their experience and perspective should be tapped whenever possible.  But often, they no longer have the energy to drive the train.

Another take-away from this entertaining documentary is a reminder of just how bizarre the primary process is.  The endless town halls and meet-and-greets the candidates subject themselves to are exhausting.  Their non-stop pitching, and trying to appeal to every possible demographic, every segment of our diverse population, makes my head spin.  After a while it seems like pandering, even on the part of the most principled pol.

And witness how painstakingly “we the people” evaluate each candidate while making up our minds, as if picking out a new car.  We carefully parse each one’s tone of voice, demeanor, attire and body language.  Every conceivable detail is scrutinized, as we embark on the reoccurring search for the next political messiah who might fill in every valley, and make every mountain low.  How can a flawed human being live up to such expectations?

*

Mr. Buttigieg is not the sort of candidate conservatives are ever likely to seriously consider though, due primarily to his professed homosexuality and support of LGBTQ+ issues.  They see these things as running counter to the complementary nature of creation – yin and yang, male and female.  Starting with anatomy and reproductive organs, and extending to things like temperament, modes of thought and all the rest.

But don’t we all have a combination of male and female traits in our characters and personalities?  And aren’t devoted same-sex couples capable of a comparable level of complementarity that similarly devoted heterosexual couples occasionally manage to achieve over the course of a lifetime?

Perhaps most important in this regard is how same-sex attraction itself has been with us throughout history.  It is not some new, unprecedented deviation from tradition.  And though it may be experiencing a surge in public acceptance these days, nervous conservatives need not worry it involves anything more than the same small percentage of the population that has always registered such an attraction.  So why do they find it so difficult to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward this minority?

Most everyone has a friend or family member who has found deep commitment and lasting love in a same-sex relationship.  Such a bond is what we humans long for.  That the majority population will typically find it in a heterosexual relationship should not prompt them to denigrate those who happen to find it with someone of their own gender.

*

It is common knowledge conservatives don’t much care for the promotion of gay rights, or for any activism that falls under the broad heading of “identity politics.”  But where they tend to view such activity as an unjustified demand for special treatment, the minority population doing the agitating sees itself engaged in a primal struggle for respect and fair treatment.

We in the majority population – in this case the white, straight population – should accept there are legitimate aspects to the complaints of any oppressed minority.  And practically every minority is oppressed to one degree or another, almost by definition.  Not every grievance is a figment of their imagination, as those in the majority population with a conservative bent are inclined to believe.

*

Some conservatives are a little too quick to cross swords on this subject, and become energized when doing battle with a perceived cultural enemy.  They genuinely feel they are defending truth with a capital “T” whenever they take a stand against homosexuality and denounce homosexuals.  A familiar tactic in their arsenal is to unequivocally state anyone who acts on a same-sex attraction is committing a sin.  

Such castigation is on display in Mayor Pete, when a man attending a random parking lot rally is shown shouting at Buttigieg through a bullhorn, saying over and over again “God loves you, but not your sin.”  

This speaking on God’s behalf is a tricky business, since determining who is and who is not a sinner is generally thought to be above the pay grade of mere mortals.  Denouncing others for their alleged moral transgressions is not only presumptuous, but it also too easily descends into disdain and sometimes even a degree of hate for the accused.  Which in turn violates justice by denying the basic dignity we are each endowed with at birth. 

For me it all boils down to this:  Our sexual preferences do not define us.  We should not be evaluated one way or the other – either praised or condemned – by whom we seek out to embrace at the dimming of the day.  Rather it is our commitment to an intimate partner, along with our daily interactions with friends and family and co-workers, that mark us as either a person of integrity, or someone who can’t be trusted.  We all must earn our bona fides in this world, regardless of our station in life or sexual orientation, and should be judged by the content of our character.

Following this logic, Pete Buttigieg’s professed homosexuality does not make him any more or less qualified to serve in public office.

*

The Democrat’s ticket for 2024 is shaping up as Kamala Harris for President, and Pete Buttigieg for Vice-President.  And they just might win, if Republicans continue to focus on their knuckle-head platform of economic freedom at the expense of social solidarity.  As expressed by their stubborn free-market approach to governance.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr

January 10, 2022