Tipping Point Marketing Strate.. oops!
I am at Border’s Café in Fairfax, VA, and watching the coffee counter. There teeters a small sign, encased in plastic, resting on a plastic base. Every third customer bumps this sign and knocks it over, causing a small fuss. This is pure accident on the part of the coffee shop management, to have encased their sign in such a precarious display, because it has thereby received vastly more attention than a sign resting behaving itself. A placid sign would receive much less attention, but even a sign with flashing lights or a siren would garner less benevolent attention. If the manager seeks to promote any particular piece of information, placing it in a teetering sign is an excellent strategy.
On Not Being Consumed
William Cavanaugh is a theologian, not an economist, so we don’t expect perfect economic theory from his book Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. Having been recommended by several especially bright friends, all engaged in Neo-Anabaptist Theology and cultural discussion, I was hoping for a strong argument against consumerism and against free markets which would challenge my own beliefs about Capitalism. This is Cavanaugh’s argument, but his is not a strong one. After attacking what he perceives to be the pitfalls of free markets he makes a case for an attitude of involvement in commerce and society based on the peculiar Christian telos which he derives primarily from Augustine, but also Belloc and Chesterton. The latter is a personal favorite of mine, and I must agree that Christians have a unique responsibility and ethic to live out in this world. We ought not to be consumed with desires and lusts. We ought not to be influenced by marketing schemes to generate desire in us. We ought to live simply, well beneath our means, and most charitably. Indeed, I believe Christians must accept full and exclusive responsibility for caring for the least of these. Cavanaugh seems to want to force social institutions to conform to this peculiar ethic, or at least to make them more accommidating to this ethic, while simultaneously restraining the market in a way that reduces the pressure to consume. He theologically fails to keep the world separate from the church, and economically has no idea what he is talking about.
Cavanaugh chooses to identify as his antagonist Milton Friedman, perhaps the 20th century’s most influential, and most well known, economist. This is a good choice, and Cavanaugh would have done well to stick to attacking Friedman directly in order to develop a cogent argument. Instead, he takes aim at Capitalism in general, conflating theories from divers and disagreeing schools of economic thought. In the meantime, however, Cavanaugh does us a favor by re-iterating nearly every economic myth I have ever heard in his attack on free markets. Indeed, I might recommend this book for the professor of economics seeking an interesting way of exposing popular economic myths. He will find nearly three per page in this book, and often with ready-made illustrations.
I do not rejoice over this at all, I grieve. In a book purporting to help Christians understand their role in culture we are led astray, and it is shown conclusively how badly the Church needs good instruction in economics. This last is my life’s passion, and Cavanaugh has done me quite a large favor by articulating many of the specific fallacies which require attention. As theologians and clergy become increasingly involved in politics, both in the literature, and in the pulpit, it becomes essential to include in their development a right understanding of economics, our most valuable set of tools in restraining the influence of political special interest groups and the size of the state.
I hope to write a series carefully identifying economic fallacies and presenting the right way to think about the phenomena surrounding them, perhaps even exploring how the mythologies can to exist from time to time.
Keep posted.
Homoemergency
Call me homoemergicus maximus. I’m white, 32, and male. And chances are, so are you. We are slightly overweight, own way too many CDs, spend entirely too much time on blogs, and we like to think that we are eccentric.
So, why are we all so similar? Why homoemergicus? Two answers might buy most of the solution, and the third is hard to accept. A final dilemma may be discouraging.
First, the fact that we have the time to spend on blogs reveals our privileged position in society. White guys on average earn more than any other demographic, and many of these high-income jobs come equipped with internet-ready computers. So we blog. We are also slightly better educated than most other demographics, so we think we have something to blog about. Finally, we are yet in our youths, so we are willing to be risky about what we write and share, more so as males, and more so as members of groups who will help to catch us if we fall.
Second, we are narcissistic. We like ourselves. A lot. And we like other people who are like us. Self-selecting groups often sort out this way. According to the magic that is statistics it can be shown that self-selection occurs even when preferences are very slight. Suppose you have a 51% preference for spending time with homoemergici and a 49% preference for spending time with other folks. Each time you are presented with the option of spending time with either of these two you will choose the homoemergicus. Though your preference is slight, the result is large.
These two reasons are spontaneously emerging in the non-homoemergicus sense. There is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Where there are injustices which prevent other groups from attaining higher education and incomes, we ought to protest and work for justice, but underprivileged groups are also self-selecting, and there is little we can do (short of becoming annoying goo-dooders) about it.
Thankfully, there is one area where we can make active improvement, though it is costly. We can sign off and sign up. Homoemergicus tends to have chameleon-like qualities, and changing his environment can vastly adjust his appearance. Consider sitting on your hands and letting someone else comment on a post for a change. Consider limiting your screen-time to a certain amount of time per day. Then get involved somewhere less homogeneous. The ideal location is your local college or university. Seek out international students, you’ll soon be able to impress your friends with your knowledge of world geography (where is Slovakia, anyway?), and you will have the opportunity to make room for the gospel in a land it would have cost you 10 times as much to travel to yourself. Volunteer in the inner city, at a tutoring center, or the boys and girls club. You get the idea. Once the blue computer-screen-induced glow fades from homoemergicus’ face he is well on the road to recovery.
Our homoemergency can be dealt with, to a degree. Unfortunately, there are other impediments to diversity. Those who are not among the privileged class will find it much harder to adopt a pacifist ethic. While many recognize the privilege as the crime, fewer hope that the privilege can be removed. Most believe the only path to justice is expansion of franchises. To reject this strategy as inaugurating of empire leaves the outcast dejected. To this dilemma I find no solution, only God’s sovereignty.
Responsibility Redefined
Today we have Arnold Kling with the best sentence I have read in a while…
To argue that you need to “behave more responsibly” is to argue that there is something wrong with prices.
Distrust of the price mechanism arises from realism about man’s fallen nature, but that really is not any of the government’s business. We already have an institution which has assumed responsibility for caring for self-interestedness, I like to call it God.
Obama No More
I had flirted with the idea of voting for Obama off and on for the past several months. After the nomination of Joe Bidden for VP, however, I am officially off the bandwagon and stuck with voting for a 3rd party candidate for the 4th time in a presidential election. As a mater of fact, I am likely to return to my old voting strategy, which is both reflective of my opinion about politics and, if it were to carry, the most likely to produce good results:
1. If a 3rd party candidate is on the ballot, vote for them.
2. If there is no 3rd party candidate, but an incumbant is matched against a challenger, vote for the challenger, no matter the party.
3. Evenly divide the rest of your votes among the remaining offices: half R, half D.
4. Vote all bond issues down. All. Down.
This voting strategy also carries with it the advantage of not requiring much research ahead of time.
Of course, if there is a candidate whose policies you think are especially good, because you have done the research, by all means vote for them.
I am stuck in limbo, however. I just moved from NC, where there are several such candidates whom I already know about, to VA, where I know next to nothing, but must register in order to qualify for in-state-tuition next year.
As if my vote counted, anyway…
On Individualism and Christianity
I have heard some criticisms of the individualistic view of Christianity. While Christ, in establishing the Church, creates a new nation, a holy priesthood, and, in my mind, the only legitimate collective, there is a necessary element of individualism to our faith, unique among the world’s religions.
About 100 years ago a British newspaper posed the question to its readers: “What’s wrong with the world?” an asked for their responses.
G.K. Chesterton famously wrote in response:
Dear Sirs;
I am.
Sincerely,
G.K. Chesterton
It is this acknowledgment which sets Christianity apart. Since each of us has free will we each become responsible for our own behaviors. This is in contrast to the many fatalistic, idolatrous, pagan world religions in which it is someone else’s fault that things are the way they are. The modern equivalent to this is statism, wherein many of the problems with our world are laid at the feet of government.
Chesterton assumes full responsibility for the problems in the world. In this he emulates his Savior. The solution is not collective action, where responsibility can be dissolved or shirked. Rather it is in individual action. Each of us decides every day and every moment whether to do the right thing.
So Christianity is individualistic.
This all flows from the reality of sin, and our separation from God.
Conflating Powers and Markets
I love Jesus Manifesto. Among the Emergent types, Mark Van Steenwyk and his crew are the absolute top-shelf. They are anabaptists and flirt with anarchism. We like this. A lot. In a recent post Mark warns Emergents against becoming a mere fad, comercialized, and thus contributing to empire. A fair warning, especially considering the emergent stereotype has become quite commodified. (Think 30-year-old white male blogging and listening to his ipod while sipping lattes at Starbucks, stroking his goatee, peering through his horn-rimmed glasses, etc.)
But Mark makes the same error many emergents do, conflating markets with power. This comes up again and again, and has been ingrained into America’s understanding of markets since Berle and Means. To so many minds bigness equals badness, and the market is a nefarious presence.
But the market and the powers which manipulate the market are separate, and must be kept separate in order to resolve the Christian perspective of cooperation. Voluntary exchange creates a market. There is nothing remotely bad in voluntary exchange. It is the single greatest creator of new wealth. The powers which exist (and we must clarify that powers often refers to “the powers and principalities of the air,” or Satan) recognize the new wealth and attempt to appropriate as much of this consumer surplus to themselves as they possibly can. In this way markets are manipulated, and can become mechanisms for oppression. But we must recognize that it is the operation of powers on markets which creates the problem and not the markets themselves. Markets are not even actual entities. They are verbs, not nouns.
Anyway, the discussion goes all over the place on this thread, with another economist weighing in to encourage me to read the German Historicists and the Christian Social Thought writers. I’ve also had Being Consumed recommended to me, and is now on order .
Jim Wallis’ Sojourners is no longer accepting direct criticism on their blog, God’s Politics. Well, at least they have rejected several of my recent posts under the handle, “jurisnaturalist”. Maybe the idea of a natural law is obscene to them. I don’t know. But lest another of my responsive platitudes evaporate into rejected-comment-land I have copied and posted it below. The subject matter is the possibility of power sharing in Zimbabwe. No, I’m not kidding.
Power sharing = the wolves debating over how to divide the sheep. Why not get rid of the wolves? Or better yet, help the sheep to escape?
Mugabe has been fleecing that land for so long, the only real explanation is that wealthy Christians don’t care enough to accept responsibility for the plight of the innocents. We should be inviting them to live with us, as we should be doing for the Darfuri, and the innocent Iraqis.
Of course, Sojo’s response will be to have so-called “domesticated wolves” go in and train the feral beasts. Since when does the tame reform the wild?
Then again, we might take the other side’s position and “Pray for Rain,” which will certainly muck the situation up further.
No, the only ethical response is for the church to act unilaterally to bring about justice.
How Pagans Pray for Rain
Sam links us to the following video. Before you watch it, remember that God warned against prayers like the pagans. He said not to chant, or fill prayers with vain repetitions. When people are focussed on winning control of the state’s billy-club rather than abolishing it they start doing silly things.
Presidential Ads
Watching the Olympics and reading up on the Russia-Georgia conflict while also reading Keller’s Reason For God has brought this important announcement to my attention.
Next Page →