Radical Economics

I heard the announcement last year that economists had discovered that people value a gift given to them more than they would value the money that the gift cost. Would anybody who has actually lived with their eyes open be at all surprised by this result? Of course the value of a gift is far more complex than a simple dollar amount.

For me, the research amounts to final proof that the field of economics is a fantasy world. I'll save for another post any discussion about the false assumption in the US that taxes are bad for productivity. Right now, I want to propose a change in economics. What if we were to look at money as a proxy for time and skill? That's it. Nothing more. Not a substitute for worth. Not a basis for determining any sort of meaning. Just a portable way for people to trade different forms of work for things other people have made.

Of course, this doesn't provide a rational basis for markets. Maybe that's alright, though. Chances are, given that markets are operated by people, and people are basically irrational, markets are fundamentally irrational and chaotic. That fits a lot better with recent history than the pie-in-the-sky concept of the invisible-hand-of-the-market. Of course, I refer here to the idea that economic forces will naturally push decision-makers toward choices that are more efficient and ultimately beneficial for all concerned. The clearest contradiction is in cases like Enron. I guess the invisible hand of the market finally swatted the decision-makers in that one, but it mostly seems to have led to the irrational decision-makers getting rich, while everybody else ends up destitute.

The hardest part for economists to swallow in all this is that if markets are irrational, and money is just a way for people to flexibly barter, most economists would have to find a new way to make a living. Oh, well, that would just be an unavoidable readjustment of a market segment--painful for the few, beneficial for the many.

This I Believe

At church this month (First Unitarian, Rochester) we are being asked by our ministers to clearly define our beliefs. So, here goes for my second or third try:

I believe that there is no destination in life. Any arrivals on the journey are stop-overs. The important thing on the journey is not how much you carry with you, or what your stop-overs look like, but your companions as you travel. Obviously, the human companions are very important--who they are, what they are like, how they treat you and one-another. Their importance in the living of a good life is why it is crucial to pay attention to them and actively appreciate each companion's unique beauty and intrinsic human value.

It is tempting to overlook the importance of my human companions when considering my non-human companions, but both deserve careful consideration and attention. By non-human companions, I don't mean pets or plants--I guess I include them in the human (or nearly so) category. No, I'm thinking of companions like Joy, Happiness, Fear, Greed, Pain, and Sorrow.

I am convinced that pain is unavoidable in life, but I can choose to pretend that it does not travel with me as I go. I believe shying away from pain is what makes me choose fear, greed, hatred or addiction as life companions: they are willing allies in keeping the pain at bay. All of these, in turn, separate people from the joy and happiness they hope to have accompany them on the journey. If I make peace with pain and sorrow, accepting them as reliable companions on the way, I have little need to fall back on the self-destruction implicit in the other four and their ilk. I also open the door of my heart to receive the joy and happiness I might run across amidst the pain that life does hold.

When I can leave behind fear, greed and hatred, then I have the energy and willingness to be generous with people--to be able to help others without concern over what their return to me might be. When I am caught up in denying the pain that lurks in my past, it takes all my energy just to keep that out of my heart and mind.