I have written previously that nei­ther biblical prooftexts, nor appeals to freedom, nor the spectre of commu­nism is adequate proof to warrant con­sidering Free Enterprise an end in itself. Rather, as I will show this time, in my view, Free Enterprise, warts and all, if adequately restricted by government, is a means to achieve biblical objectives. Moreover, as far as I know, it is a bet­ter means than other economic alterna­tives to attain biblically-given goals.

As an aside, note that this conten­tion is not absolute doctrine, as e.g., salvation by grace. Rather, it is a deri­vation; it can and should continue to be studied and tested against practice — regularly. If it can be shown that in spe­cific situations these biblical goals can be better attained by a certain amount of government intervention, then, in that situation, we must accept inter­ventionism as a preferred means.

However, in general, that is not the case, I think. I will attempt to jus­tify this contention by using, as exam­ples, three biblical ends: good steward­ship, loving our neighbor and promoting a Christian lifestyle.

Stewardship⤒🔗

I contend that the market system generally allows us to use our resources more stewardly, more efficiently, than a group of bureaucrats. Under the mar­ket system, only those goods which are in demand will be produced; businesses producing unwanted goods lose money — no one will buy them. Goods that are produced, by and large, are pro­duced as efficiently as possible. If not, some other company will produce them at a lower cost and put the inefficient producer out of business. As conditions change, the market will adapt to new needs, wants and technologies. Thus, basically, the market system discour­ages waste — while meeting the needs of most of us.

Such is not the case in a socialistic economy. There, central planners with inadequate information decide what is to be produced and where. State em­ployees have no incentive to produce as efficiently as possible. The result is long lines for limited and scarce con­sumer goods of questionable quality and idle machines awaiting vital parts. For example, on May 25, 1987, under the headline, "Easier to get a rocket to Mars than a car that isn't a dud," the Globe and Mail's Moscow corre­spondent, notes the irony of a country which is able to design a rocket capable of flying to Mars and back but has an automobile industry "that cranks out about 100,000 turkeys a day" and that (admitted by the political minister in charge) "for 15 years has been produc­ing cars inferior to those of capitalist countries in design, dynamic qualities, ergonomics, fuel consumption, etc."

The inadequacies of central plan­ning are highlighted by the ongoing movement within communist countries to experiment with the free market. I'll note, as examples, some recent press stories:

The Globe and Mail of Dec. 29, 1987, describes the conversion of "the People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea," to a free market economy after the death in 1984 of Sekou Toure, its president since independence in 1958. The report notes, as examples, that coffee production jumped from 250 tons in 1984 to 9000 in 1986. The num­ber of cars doubled in two years. A state factory employing 1,500 people was reopened as a private company employing 87.

The Globe and Mail on Dec. 30, 1987 described moves made during the past year in Russia itself to establish cooperative enterprises with worker profit sharing and the decentralizing of state industry. In fact, on March 9, 1988 the Globe reported that more than 9,000 cooperatives employing 90,000 people have started operations since last year. They range from cafes and restaurants to craft workshops, medical clinics and beauty salons. The previous week, Pravda published a draft law allowing the co-ops to issue shares and to set any price for their products.

Also on Dec. 30th, the Globe re­ported on Angola's switch from the So­viet model to a free market economy. Twelve years after independence the economy lies in ruins — empty stores, dwindling production, food imports to feed half its population and a largely worthless currency; foreign companies pay employees with consumer goods — largely imported beer — which An­golans use to buy food on the black markets. While some of these problems are obviously attributable to an ongo­ing war situation, the switch to free enterprise indicates obvious concern with the old system.

On Feb. 2, 1988, a report entitled, "India eyes Privatization" mentions 214 state enterprises saddled with too much government control, bureaucracy, project delays, outdated technology and machinery, labor problems and lack of incentives.

Prime Minister Ghandi himself is quoted: can we af­ford a socialism that, instead of generating wealth, is robbing and sucking up the wealth of the poor? Critics report that the public sector has spawned a "briefcase brigade" of bureaucrats who are concerned neither with profit nor with the country's economy but only with keeping their positions.

Such comments probably apply even in a mixed economy. Governments have a built-in bias towards inefficien­cy. Bureaucrats have no "bottom line." They tend to empire building — fre­quently being rewarded with higher titles and promotions for increased spending rather than for efficient use of existing staff.

Moreover, politicians are rewarded at the polls, not for good economic policies, but rather, for choosing poli­cies which create maximum visible short-term benefits. Costs are secondary; they are not immediately visible. They come home to roost only after the elec­tion, e.g. promises to increase spending and cut taxes just before election.

In­creasing taxes is only possible when a government has just been elected with a comfortable majority. Even when the will was apparently there, Finance Min­ister Wilson barely dared to reduce the deficit in a probable election year. There simply is little incentive to choose the most stewardly policies!

As a dramatic example, the city of Chatham, Ontario a year or so ago, re­duced its garbage collection costs from $600,000 to $200,000 a year — due to vastly improved productivity. Munici­pal crews averaged only 160 residential pickups per day; private crews aver­aged 360.

Love Your Neighbor←⤒🔗

In addition to providing better stew­ardship, Free Enterprise also allows us to better attain the biblical command to "love our neighbor" — in the eco­nomic context, to provide jobs, to assist the poor. It appears, if recent evidence is correct, that free market economies are basically better at this than the alternatives. Evidence of this can be found in the Schaeffer and Nash books¹ although it is probably not as overwhelming as some free market pro­ponents suggest.

While per capita wealth is certain­ly not a perfect indicator of the general wellbeing of "our neighbor," it gives some indication. The Globe on Jan. 11, 1988 reported that Canada enjoys three times the per capita wealth of the richest noncapitalist society. While unemployment is still a problem, in job creation the U.S. and Canada are ahead of all others. A half-million new jobs were created in Canada alone in 1987. On the other hand, Western Europe (saddled with more government inter­vention) has spent most of the past de­cade losing jobs. It appears, that Free Enterprise has created much more pros­perity — even for the poor. America's poor are more prosperous than the mid­dle classes in many socialist countries.

On the other hand, socialism or government intervention, while purport­edly more caring for the poor and their needs, has not been terribly successful in this regard. The example of many socialist Third World countries is at least some indication that socialist economies have done little to improve the lot of the poorest. In addition, much of the money spent on "welfare poli­cies" in mixed economies may have been misspent — serving only to main­tain a bloated bureaucracy. For instance, Nash (in Economic Justice and the State, edited by John Bernbaum) quotes a 1979 study that claims the U.S. spent $250 billion a year to "fight poverty." He argues that had this amount simply been given to each family below the poverty line, they would have received $34,000 each. Also, in spite of years of equalization payments and govern­ment incentives for "disadvantaged re­gions," regional disparity remains one of Canada's major economic problems.

In fact, Ecclesiastes 5:8 even suggests that bureaucrats may not be best source of help for the poor — "if you see the poor oppressed in a district ... do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are higher still."

By and large then, in economic is­sues, Free Enterprise is likely to be the most effective general means to com­ply with the biblical command to help the poor, to "love our neighbor!" How­ever, it should be noted that, by itself Free Enterprise is unlikely to be totally adequate to meet the needs of the very poorest.

Christian Lifestyle←⤒🔗

Moreover, government interven­tion, through endless, cumbersome reg­ulations and heavy taxation, is not con­ducive to a Christian lifestyle: e.g. — honesty, integrity, respect for authority. Rather, people are regularly faced with incentives to disobey laws and regula­tions which fosters disrespect of govern­ment. For instance, I am told that many trucking regulations currently are not enforced. If enforced, they would very significantly increase the cost of most consumer goods. In fact, Jean-Francois Revel, based on studies of Spanish, Peruvian and Italian econ­omies, has noted that many "laws and regulations are so heavy-handed that a significant fraction of national pro­duction would be condemned to death if they were applied."

That is government intervention which works only because people do not obey the laws — a very unlikely circumstance to promote respect for the "authorities set over us."

More­over, extensive government leads to high taxes, which leads to tax evasion, which creates a whole underground economy or "black market!" Therefore, Free Enterprise is likely to be more con­ducive to Christian lifestyle — there is less incentive to disobey the law, to flout authority, if there is less govern­ment, less regulation in the first place.

Thus, as a system, Free Enterprise is likely to be more conducive to a Christian lifestyle, allows us to better help the poor and to use our resources in a more stewardly fashion. That is, it is a good means to attain these bib­lical objectives. However, as we will see in a future article, it is not a perfect means.