The Role and the Rule: Black Friday

One of the insights I gained from studying Stoic philosophy, is that the different roles we play call for different virtues or rules to guide our behavior.  The virtues required of a student are different from those of a banker or a teacher. As a grandmother I know well how different my responsibilities are toward my grandchildren than their parents’ obligations.

Each of us plays multiple roles in the course of each day.  I may be called to act in my capacity as economist, writer, neighbor, friend, matriarch (mother/grandmother), social activist, or member of an organization.  This idea may devolve into a long series of blogs, but I thought I would begin wit one of the four roles that we identify in economics: a consumer, a worker, an owner, and a citizen. With Black Friday, the peak consumption holiday of the year, about to descend on us on Friday, consumer is where I will start.

You might not think of connecting virtue to buying goods and services, but in fact there are several virtues that come into play.  Among the classic Aristotelian virtues, virtuous consumption calls for prudence (practical wisdom) and temperance, or moderation.

But consumption is not just about “me.” Our purchases and use of goods and services has an impact on other people. The waste we produce fills our landfills and requires scarce and valuable resources. The buildings we build reduce the number of trees and their important functions of shade and carbon absorption. The cars we buy and drive affect air quality. The pesticides we use on our lawns and gardens reduce the population of insects and birds.

And it isn’t just about what we buy, it is also whom we buy it from.  Does this seller treat its suppliers and workers well and respect the environment? Will shopping online over time reduce access to local businesses that help communities thrive? Can we convert some of our gift giving to experiences rather than material objects (theater tickets are one of my favorites).

All the effects of our spending on other people and on communities and even the earth are what economists call externalities. .  An externality is a negative or positive consequence, usually unintended, on other people and places.created by how you spend your money. Prudence, or practical wisdom, calls us to be mindful of how our “votes” in the marketplace doing our holiday shopping impact of friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Temperance calls us to control our appetites for material goods, not only because it is good for the soul but also because it keeps prices down for other buyers and enables them to stretch their dollars farther.

Another virtue that comes into play in spending our money is gratitude and its expression in action as generosity. There are a lot of calls for generosity this time of year—making sure that poor children get holiday cheer, that no one goes hungry or lacks heat or other necessities. The Salvation Army bell ringer is there to remind us. Our shopping is often motivated by a desire to be generous toward our loves ones, but it can also incorporate a wider circle of caring.

Virtue ethics. Try it, you’ll like it.  You will come home from the mall with a warm sense of making loved ones happy while also conferring benefits on other anonymous, often invisible winners that are blessed by your practice of prudence, temperance and generosity in your holiday spending.

Efficiency: First Among Equals

Brace yourself, dear readers.  My economist self wants you to hear my confession.

For many years I taught introductory economics, as well as more advanced classes. I taught the introductory classes because a colleague and I had a multi-edition principles text, and it was important to road test it regularly. In one of the earlier chapters it was customary to introduce the claim, which was in most mainstream textbooks, that economics was value-free. Economics was just a set of tools for making choices about how to use resources wisely that was useful for all of us as workers, owners, consumers and citizens. A few pages later, we introduced them to goals, which we insisted were not values.  Microeconomic goals (WHICH WERE ASSUREDLY NOT VALUES!! were efficiency, equity, and freedom. The next semester, students were introduced to the macroeconomic goals (WHICH WERE ASSUREDLY NOT VALUES!!) of full employment, price stability (as opposed to inflation) and economic growth.

Having defined the goals, it was easy to discover and implement decisions processes, anticipate the effects of changes in the marketplace or in government policy, and prepare our students for life in a capitalist society.

If economics were a religion (which it might be), my heretical self might be seeking penance for the sin of inflicting this mindset on innocent adolescents, but I was just expounding on doing what my colleagues and I routinely taught.  If I were to start over, I would hope that some of those students would question who set these goals.  At least for macroeconomics I had an answer. The Employment Act oi of 1946 created a Council of Economic Advisors to serve the president and guide him in pursuing these “self-evident” goals.  Actually, I feel less penitent about the macroeconomic goals, although the powers that be seem to worry more about price stability than full employment and never question the conflict between growth and sustainability. But it is the microeconomic goals that I feel called to challenge, and especially the presumed incompatibility of efficiency and equity.  (Freedom we will save for another day.).

Not all goals are created equal.  Efficiency is the primary goal, equity gets a greeting card on some holidays, and freedom is loosely defined and somewhat hard to pin down.  Efficiency is defined in economics in either of two ways getting the most (most WHAT?) out of our available resources or satisfying our wants/needs/desires at the lowest possible expenditure of time and effort. Want to insult an economist? Just tell him (more hims than hers) that his proposal or idea pr practice is INEFFFICNENT.  You will not get nearly the same reaction if you claim it is inequitable.  In fact, Economist Arthur Oken argued that these two goals are constantly in conflict. Equity means a leveling of incomes and assets, but it threatens efficiency because it reduces work incentives.  Some of those who pay more taxes to provide benefits and those who receive more government benefits will just drop out of the labor force. A  nation of idlers! Parasites on those who continue to work and pay taxes! Reducing work incentives Is clearly inefficient.

Efficiency versus equity is another false binary.  We need both.  As a result of this false idolatry of efficiency we have an income distribution that is more like that of a third world oligarchy than a prosperous democracy.  The very rich can use their wealth to redirect government policies to their benefit rather than the needs and desires of the confused and misled majority.  We have outrageously expensive health care costs and a severe shortage of affordable housing, a minimum wage that has not been increased since the Clinton administration, falling life expectancy and a growing environmental crisis.  Other nations that choose to strike a healthy balance between these two goals are more prosperous and more democratic.

When we name these “goals” as the values that they are, values that are the driving forces in our political economy, the choices are much clearer.  The values of efficiency and equality that both support a healthy economy and a democratic polity are not enemies, but partners.

Read my 2023 book, Passionately Moderate: Civic Virtues and Democracy, available from amazon in paperback and Kindle formats.