Hospitality and Economics

Hospitality.  Have you ever looked up the definition?  It is rooted in being hospitable.  The definition includes being readily receptive or open and offering a pleasant or sustaining environment.  It also uses the terms of cordial reception of guests.   You might wonder why I want to link this to economics.  I find that I think about economics in terms of sharing and hospitality is about welcoming someone or something into what I might consider my space, and sharing that space.  It is not about giving up, but about making the most of what is present.  I have often discovered that when I share something with others, then I always seem to have enough.  I believe in the "100 fold" of scripture.  Give away what you have and it will be returned a 100 fold.   I have experienced this in terms of giving half of what I might have to another, and later finding something comes back to me in ways I had not imagined.  I do not think the 100-fold is about equality but equity and quality. 

What does hospitality mean for you?  It is a choice, a challenge, a habit?  Sometimes for me it is all of these. 

Signs of the Times

Today I found myself reading about the "moral ethic of climate change" and the economics of climate change.  And discovered how easy it is to miss all that is happening among people of conscious.  Both topics were papers posted at http://www.theresourceinnovationgroup.org/sustainable-thinking-culture-c/.   In a time when we hear the phrase "job creation"as an essential element to rebuild and strengthen our economy, we need to realize that job creation needs to be linked to changing our way of being in the world.  One article "Jobs vs. Jobs"  provides a new equation of jobs and environment instead of jobs or environment.      A second paper mentioned the moral movement on climate change and here I discovered http://climateethicscampaign.org/.

In recent days here in the Seattle area we had a temperature inversion that keep the cloud layer low, made for foggy, gray days.  Sadly, the gray days got more attention than the increased ground level air pollution that was being trapped.  However, we heard about the dense air pollution in China, that because of the coal fired plants there, forced people to stay indoors and there were many respiratory health concerns expressed.  

I was thankful to hear that there will be further investigation regarding the shipping of coal from west coast ports and the impact of coal dust scattered along the railways.  But it is challenging to find a way to address environmental concerns that do not feel immediate, when people are looking for work.  We need to champion and invest where possible in transition plans which help create jobs that relate to a sustainable future.  This Jobs article really does begin to help me understand how to think about it. 

The Climate ethics website included a statement of ethical responsibility related to climate change.  It is not just about saving our natural world, but about saving all living creation and it does mean that we have responsibility for our neighbors around the globe.  These are all things I knew, but realized that it feels good to know others also see this and have found language to say what I hold in my heart. 

Blessings on all who work for a just and sustainable world!  


 

Syria

I wrote this letter to our President this morning and shared it my congressional members.  This is an important time to make my voice known.  And for you to think about making your voice known.

You might ask what being against a military strike might have to do with  economics of abundance.  And it is connected by the fact that our very threat of a strike is creating an exodus, creating refugees.  This creates instability in the monetary world, and in the world of human economy.  Persons, families, children, who are displaced, whether by war or economic or natural disasters, are not able to participate fully in a life that values each person, values their creativity, and invites opportunity for connections, sharing and forming the exchanges of life that are essential for survival in our world.

Please think a moment about what it would be like for you to have to gather a few essential belongings and leave your dwelling, with no sense of when you might return or whether you will survive a journey to what might seem more safe, but where there are no guarantees of shelter, food, water or even safety.

We must raise our voices in loud cries for peace!

Mr. President, 
I firmly believe that a military strike against Syria is a strike against peace in the Middle East. 

No strategic strike has proven to be so surgical that is does not have unintended consequences for innocent lives and communities. 

In the fragile states of the Middle East, now is the time for the major nations of the world to agree together to dialogue with the major countries of the Middle East.  

I do not believe that our countries integrity will be harmed if we stand down from military strike and condemn chemical warfare.  

With President Assam saying that he did not have knowledge of the recent chemical attack, means that he has factions  which are out of his control. 

This is the time that he has good intentions, and not assume bad intentions. 

Assuming that he has good intentions for his people, for the needs of his country is a vital step in opening dialogue. 

Please consider that even the threat of an attack has increased the number of refugees fleeing the country.  These refugees are placing enormous humanitarian pressures on our allies.  And we are creating refugees, we are responsible for increasing the number of homeless families and children because of our stance. 

I understand that you feel that you need to stand firm on having a response to the use of chemical weapons. But I think your response should not be war, but offer of aid and care of those who are harmed, along with a call for dialogue with how to best keep these weapons out of the hands of those who fail to consider the harm and only see these weapons as a means to winning or losing. 

Sadly, these weapons, which we call weapons of mass destruction, exist because of our instinct to retaliate and seek so called victory instead of realizing that their use ends our worlds as we know it and in the end, those whom we might save are lost. 

Please, find an alternative way of addressing the violation of the ban on chemical weapons.  An attack using weapons will only worsen the tensions in the Middle East.  

For years we have worked to broker a peace in the Middle East, but for our own reasons.  Now is the time to seek peace, because it is essential for the life of the whole region, not for our needs.  

Do We Really Need to Shop To Stimulate the Economy?

As I read the Seattle Times Business section today (Seattle Times, August 4, 2013, D1), the first headline I saw was “Attention, Shoppers: U.S. Needs you to Spend”. I found myself reacting strongly to this headline and realized I needed to read the article not just the headline.  The writer, Jon Talton, provided a good overview of the various moves in our domestic economy from the perspective of the continued slow growth due to a slowdown in consumer spending.  As I read to the end of the article I realized that he was struggling with many of the same issues I have questions about. We currently live in a consumer society where our purchases equal another person’s income. However, because of the huge inequalities that exists within our economy in many areas, not just consumption, growth as we used to understand it no longer makes sense.

Adam Smith set for the theory that demand sets the price, but in our society, we are creating demand through our advertising. New creativity in products that reduce consumption of natural resources or respond in a better way to meet a need that former technologies do not address may be very good for stimulating growth.  However, have I acquired a want because an advertisement looks good? 

In our economy we today we talk about needing spending to stimulate growth.  At the same time, we need to reduce debt. In addition, we know that if we could increase our savings rate, we could ease the stress on getting into further debt.  How can we do these three things at the same time?

Choices are important today. Some spending choices such as the buying food are essential and also require that food be produced.  Are we willing to pay more for our food, lights and housing, the essentials, than we are for things that are not essential?  Am I willing to change my life style in a way where the choices I make support an economy that is healthy for the human family and earth? I do not find this an easy task.  Each day I need to make choices and sometimes it is easier just to “do what is convenient.” 

As a nation, we ask congress to look at a budget that has savings, but also provides some revenue growth in order to reduce debt. We hear about immigration reform being an economic stimulus. At the same time, we want to cut support for services that allow people stay about of the earning, spending and saving society. A responsible budget is not one that makes across the board cuts with no consideration of its relationship to people or economic growth. 

We all need to examine our own spending and ask our congress to make a responsible budget. We need to accept our responsibility to listen, challenge, and support one another to make choices for the common good of all.

What makes for a return of investment?

I have not written for several days because it has been a challenge to sort out topics from the massive amount of economic rhetoric we are hearing at this time of year.  The Stock Market followers are confused about the meaning of the market activity because anticipated ups are downs, and the impact of bonds in relationship to stocks is not responding in any past patterns.  So there are lots of comments about volatility, being patient and being diversified.  All these are terms for be cautious, wait and see, and do not think that you can make your millions overnight in trading.

Yesterday President Obama talked about creating an economy from the middle class out.  Most people don't know what this means from a technical standpoint, but I would like to think that what he is challenging us to consider is that in the long term, we must meet the needs of the masses of people, not the "bosses" or the 1%.

We are an impatient people who have not believed in long-term investment.  We have wanted quick returns of investment.  And this has been able to happen in the past when our economy here in the US was more isolated.  But as we are more and more connected to the global economy, the need to think differently, more broadly, and with eyes on the everyday needs and not fantasies of fairy tale wealth becomes essential.

Earth is a container of resources all of which are essential in some way for life of the planet.  As human beings we have seen ourselves as in charge of these resources. But we have created such imbalance, that we no longer can manage the resources for our own needs, let alone the needs of the planet.  We need to stop, listen and learn about the connections to life systems, global systems and resource systems.  Can we make choices within these systems which create long term positive effect that protects resources for all, that reverses the pollution of water, air, soil?  Are we patient enough to slow down our consumption so that we can reduce the burden on resources while we change our way of caring for these resources?

What changes do I need to make in my daily life as my part in caring for our planet resources?   What changes to each of us need to consider?  I live in the Northwest where people are concerned about recycling, and pollution reduction.  In the Northwest energy  and water conservation are in many conversations and choices.  Yet, in the downturn of the economy, it seems like choices which in the near term cost money are being eliminated or postponed, when we need to consider whether even in a slow economy we can look at long term investment in a larger picture than just return of dollars.  Can we count the improvement in air quality as we reduce particle emissions in terms of increased health of people and reduced health costs?  We need to learn to count our investment returns via the connections and impacts over the long term.  This may be our greatest US economic challenge.

Connections between economics, peace and a changing world

July 6, 2013
Today I went to see "White House Down" and was reminded how fear of change and lose can cloud the mind.  The underlying political theme of this movie is whether peace can come if all countries agree to stop the purchase and sale of arms.  The question of CIA providing arms to opposing sides which sustains conflict is alluded to along with the stated concern that without the defense contractors in place and producing weapons, our world will be in danger.  In the end, ....... I won't give details... but just say, there is movement for a global reality that many dream about and hope for, but certainly not the defense industry.

What has this to do with economics?  Economics uses terms like growth and capital and the necessity of an economy to grow.  And that healthy growth is viable only when what is being manufactured creates and exchange system... that it needs to be replaced periodically.  Many years ago, during the height of the arms race and cold war, the push to create weapons of mass destruction and push towards a point of mutually assured destruction, happened.  We did reach a point where two superpowers could, at any moment, push buttons and begin actions that within hours would assure the destruction of the world.  And we did realize the need to stop the buildup of arms.  SALT I and SALT II did happen and arms reduction began.

But too many people find their jobs and way of life supported by defense manufacturing.  Defense factories do not produce items which in themselves produce growth or support economic growth.  Each missile that is built costs millions of dollars, and it sits and waits in the hopes that it is never used.  But items that can be bought and sold give the illusion that there is growth and so the United States defense industry buys and sells weapons and calls it a business.  The United States is the largest weapons maker in the world. And much of what is produced leaves this country and contributes to violence in other parts of the world.  In these transactions, weapons purchased by others use funds that could be used to feed, shelter and educate and grow economies.  The purchase of weapons by others actually prevents the growth of economies in the developing world.

We cannot eat metal, we cannot heal with bullets, we cannot create new communities by destroying the land and ways of life with weapons.   We cannot address the challenges of lose of clean water, clean soil, untainted produces with tanks and missiles.

Sustainable economics is about sharing of scarce resources for the good of all.  Capitalist economics seems about distribution of resources to protect one's' power and assumes that someone else is going to take it away... and an enemy is born.  Sustainable economics is not about enemies, it is about looking to create a world where all have enough to live and be creative.  It is about realizing that earth is dependent on our caring about its survival.  It is about our survival being dependent on the survival of the planet.

War economics is not sustainable.  Choose Life.  Choose Peace.

A beginning

Some years ago I was struck by the difference between the definition of classic economics and the message of the Gospel and the early Christian community where with sharing all had what was needed.   The definition of economics, the study of the distribution of scarce resources, already defines the vision of some having and others not having.  The Gospel asks us to look at this differently.  It asks us first to consider what we need, and to share what we have.  Over and over again, it seems that when we share from what we have, not just from our abundance, there is always enough.  This is a very different view than scrambling after what is scarce.

In our world today much of the violence is related to "protecting" what we have from others, or "fighting" for the return or access to what we think is owed to us or was previously taken from us.  It is rooted assuming a stance of scarcity and loss.  How might it be different if there was no ownership, but all was held in trust and the use was according to need and not want?  

In the future of this blog I will explore the relationship of violence and economic justice.  I believe that we can create a world where there is enough for all, and where creation is renewed.  In such a world, abundance in the form of each having needs met, people and all of creation being whole and creative for the common good.

Values that I hope will become apparent are sharing, collaboration, justice, peace, love and respect.