Economics of the Interior Part 6: You Can't Manipulate God

Many people throughout history have whole-heartedly accepted the invitation to take from their possessions and share with those who have needs. They discovered that when they obeyed the admonition to give to others, they themselves somehow ended up better off.

For the man who uses well what he is given shall be given more, and he shall have abundance. (Matt. 25:29)

Of course, human nature has a way of putting a spin on a particular truth, and people end up dealing with half-truths. The problem with dealing with half-truths is that we almost always end up with the wrong half. The tendency is to conclude that since God’s principles are predictable, the circumstances and applied motives relating to the principles are open for manipulation. For situations such as that we need to be reminded of this truth:

Principle #4: God Always Repays When You Give . . . But You Don’t Give to Get

Several years ago we heard a lot about the gospel of prosperity and the theory of give to get. The deal was that if you wanted to become rich then all you had to do was to give a little to God and he would be obligated to make you wealthy and give to you the items on your wish list.

I listened to a fellow whose religious endeavor was in financial trouble. He quoted some of the references like, give and it shall be given to you, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. His proposition was for his listeners to quickly send him one hundred dollars in cash, check, or credit card and by the end of the year God would guarantee to give them back at least one thousand dollars, in cash, check or money order. It was a half-truth and his greed had promoted him to get hold of the wrong half.

Recently, I had to chuckle at the story dealing with even another religion. There was a nicely dressed man standing at a very busy intersection of our city. But he was not begging with a forlorn countenance. His hand-printed sign on a piece of cardboard box said that he was the intersection angel. He was there to collect your money. In exchange for your money he would guarantee to upgrade your Karma report. And people were handing him money like crazy! Charlatans need not to be much more removed from the truth than a few degrees. But they are removed, none-the-less.

In my reading assignment I ran across an interesting statement, “And who could ever offer to the Lord enough to induce him to act?” (Romans 11:35)

The simple answer to that question is no one. If God created everything and owns everything already, he cannot be bribed, manipulated, or blackmailed! We can count on the fact that God always repays when we give; that is a characteristic of his economic system. But the selfish motive of giving to get is not part of the deal. Like any other aspect of greed, the product received through selfishness will always be different from that which we had anticipated.

The true joy of giving begins when we can give to others in need and see them become better off, but expecting nothing in return.

Next Week: Subtracting Your Rights

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Economics of the Interior Part 5: An Invitation to Give

Earlier we discussed the fact that everything we possess today was either given to us as a direct gift from God or is in our personal portfolio as the result of a gift exchange. We have traded from the inventory we were first allotted for the acquired possessions we now have. But the basic commodities that we used as trading materials for everything else were given to us.

We did not purchase our time allotment which we now hold as a possession; it was given to us. We did not negotiate for our physical characteristics; we inherited them. We did not bargain on the open market for the basic intellectual capacities; we received them as a gift. We did not ardently go to battle and finally win the power to choose; indeed, that power was given to us. Even the environment in which we move and perform our trading activities came to us as part of our inheritance.

Ultimately, there is only one source of all possessions, one sole proprietor of all that exists whether ordinary or yet to be discovered. That makes for a very interesting economic model. But isn’t it amazing how quickly and how completely we presume that we are totally entitled to all that is in our portfolio? Our daily behavior reveals that we totally own it all without encumbrance.

Then comes the interior economic admonition for us to take that which is in our portfolios and give it to someone who is in need so that he can become better off.

Everything we have has come from you, and we only give you what is yours already! (1Chron. 29:14)
Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them. (1 Timothy 6:18)
Your care for others is the measure of your greatness. (Luke 9:48)
You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion. (2 Corinth. 9:11)

In my research I discovered that the practice of selfless giving to the needs of others was not just a suggestion, but an integral characteristic of the economics of the interior model. The expectation to give generously, however, was accompanied by a residual benefit:that which you gave away would be replaced with even more, in the form of a heavenly compensating deposit from God’s economy, so that you could duplicate the experience again and again.

For God, who gives seed to the farmer to plant, and later on good crops to harvest and eat, will give you more and more seed to plant, and will make it grow so that you can give away more and more fruit from your harvest. (2 Corinth. 9:10)
Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. (1 Corinth. 4:2)
For the man who uses well what he is given shall be given more, and he shall have abundance. (Matt. 25:29)
Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. (Luke 6:38)

During my reading assignment of the Holy Scriptures I became abruptly aware of why it is necessary to label it God’s economy. There would be no other way in all the earth to keep track of how all this was to work out. For example, if we were to respond in obedience and give away out of our earthly portfolios to some situation of need, how would we, or anyone else, ever know what would be needed to be deposited back into our account as a compensation? I learned that the things that are deposited back into our portfolios are exactly the things needed for our next episode of giving out. The compensation is determined by the next situations of need. God determines the amount, kind, and timing of the compensating deposits. We are responsible only for the current inventory in our portfolio.

In the early 1970s, when Anna Marie and I decided to give our wealth away and start over on the economic model of the interior, we gave away what would in today’s values be worth approximately one hundred million dollars. Did God deposit back into our portfolio prime real estate, financial instruments, and cash? No, he was much wiser and more creative. He did, however, deposit into our portfolio the concept and inspiration for an entity of goodness called Project C.U.R.E. that has saved thousands and thousands of lives around the world, and has donated in excess of one billion dollars’ worth of medical goods to needy hospitals and clinics in nearly 150 countries.

If you are really eager to give, then it isn’t important how much you have to give. God wants you to give what you have, not what you haven’t. (2 Corinth 8:12)
Day by day the Lord observes the good deeds done by godly men, and gives them eternal rewards. He cares for them when times are hard; even in famine, they will have enough . . . I have been young and now I am old. And in all my years I have never seen the children of the godly go hungry. Instead, the godly are able to be generous with their gifts and loans to others, and their children are a blessing. (Psalm 37:18-19, 25-26)
It is possible to give away and become richer! It is also possible to hold on too tightly and lose everything. Yes, the generous man shall be rich! By watering others, he waters himself. (Proverbs 11:24-25)

Is it possible, in this model of the economics of the interior, that all the stuff I possess has been given to me and I simply have the power of attorney, along with a fiduciary responsibility, to see to it that I do not hoard that inventory, but utilize it to see that other people in this world end up being better off?

The Lord will give you an abundance of good things in the land, just as he promised: many children, many cattle, and abundant crops. He will open to you his wonderful treasury of rain in the heavens, to give you fine crops every season. He will bless everything you do: and you shall lend to many nations . . . (Deut. 28:11-13)
Those who love and follow me are indeed wealthy. I fill their treasuries. (Proverbs 8:21)
Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so that there will be food enough in my Temple: if you do, I will open up the windows of heaven for you and pour out a blessing so great you won’t have room enough to take it in!
“Try it! Let me prove it to you! Your crops will be large, for I will guard them from insects and plagues. Your grapes won’t shrivel away before they ripen,” says the Lord of Hosts, “and all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land sparkling with happiness. These are the promises of the Lord of Hosts.” (Malachi 3:10-12)
Tell those who are rich not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which will soon be gone, but their pride and trust should be in the living God who always richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment. Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them. (1 Timothy 6: 17-18)

We have been given a marvelous invitation. The one who has given first and is the sole proprietor of everything that exists has asked us to join him in a life-changing adventure of giving. It is the basis of the economics of the interior model.

In the earlier chapters we agreed that people succeed in a free enterprise system only to the extent that they make other people better off. So it is likewise true when it comes to success regarding the economic system of the interior. You, personally, as well as the entire model, will be successful to the same degree that other people become better off. And we have the opportunity through our management of living and giving to see other people become better off.

Goodness is the created wealth of God’s economy, and we get to be a part of that! 

Next Week: You Can’t Manipulate God

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Economics of the Interior Part 4: What about Greed?

In considering the subject of God’s economy, we have already looked at the fact that God has given . . . and has given first . . .; and we also discussed that he is looking for a people who will live out their lives in accordance with his economic principles. But additionally, we need to recognize that

Principle #3: God’s Economy is Not Based on Greed

The word greed is a slippery word and needs to be tacked down at the beginning of our discussion. Traditionally, greed is defined as an excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions. That kind of greed, however, is not to be confused with, or allowed to splash over negatively onto, the rational concept of the pursuing of one’s own personal interests.

The desire for humans to pursue their own personal interests could be, but is not necessarily, greedy or selfish. To possess the desire to make good decisions and have the experience of you and your family ending up better off in this life may actually display the admirable quality of accountability. Good stewardship of life regarding those things we possess reveals our willingness to accept and practice personal responsibility.

Greed or selfishness, however, is the attitude and spirit where an individual insists on his or her own arbitrary demands on other people and their surroundings, regardless of cost or consequence. It is the whole idea of me first . . . it’s all about me. That spirit of greed or selfishness is counterproductive to goodness because everyone does not end up better off in greedy situations.

The negative spirit of greedy selfishness is in direct opposition to the spirit of God’s economy. Sometimes it is difficult to discern greed in the beginning. But you can be assured that harbored selfishness will sooner or later surface into observable and destructive behavior.

The kingdom of Christ and God will never belong to anyone who is impure or greedy, for a greedy person is really an idol worshiper – he loves and worships the good things of this life more than God. (Eph. 5:5)

In my reading assignment I ran across some extremely interesting examples of how, in the end, greed actually delivers a far different result than the person had anticipated in the beginning. Some of the examples are very dramatic and well worth the reading. I will give you the references and know that you will enjoy the research:

Eve . . . in desiring the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6)
Lot . . . in choosing to live in the lush, green valley (Genesis 13:10
Jacob . . . in defrauding Esau (Genesis 27:6)
Saul . . . in sparing King Agag and the livestock (1Samuel 15:8)
David and Bathsheba . . . in cheating on Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2)
Achan . . . in stealing and hiding the loot taken from battle (Joshua 7:21)
Gehazi . . . in falsely taking the gifts from Naaman the General (2 Kings 5:20)

The last story I listed, regarding the fellow Gehazi, is just too on point to let go without telling. Not only is it on point, but I personally relate to the story, because I have spent time in Samaria, located in Israel, and also worked in Amman, Jordan, and traveled all by myself in spooky Syria, and stayed alone in dangerous Damascus. In my mind I know right where this incident took place so many years before.

Naaman was the commander-in-chief of the Syrian army, and a dear friend of the King of Syria. He had won many battles and was a great hero, but had tragically contracted leprosy and his skin and body parts were beginning to rot off. On one of his military raids against Israel, he had taken captive a young Israeli girl whom Naaman had given to his wife as a servant. One day the young girl told her mistress, “I wish the master would go back to Israel and find the prophet Elisha. He could heal him of his leprosy.”

The King sent Naaman back to Samaria with a letter of introduction and sacks of gold and silver and suits of clothing. When he arrived at Elisha’s house, Elisha didn’t even go out to greet the great commander. Instead, he sent his servant Gehazi out with a message for Naaman to go wash himself seven times in the Jordan River and the leprosy would go away. Naaman was insulted and became very angry. “Aren’t the Abana and Pharpar Rivers of Damascus better than all the rivers in Israel? If I need to wash, I’ll go to a nice river to wash.” So, he left in a huff.

But some of his faithful men talked him into doing what Elisha had told him to do . . . since they just happened to be in the neighborhood. When he came up out of the river water the seventh time his skin was like a baby’s skin, and his lost body parts were all restored . . . an astounding miracle! Naaman and his entourage returned to Elisha’s house and declared that there was no other God except Israel’s God and said, “Please accept all my gifts.” Elisha answered, “I swear by Jehovah that I will not accept them.” Naaman turned and headed back for home.

Gehazi the servant had been observing all that was going on. After Naaman had traveled a distance, Gehazi caught up with him. Naaman came down out of his chariot, “is everything ok?”

“Yes,” Gehazi said, “but my master made a mistake and remembered that he was in need of the sacks of silver and several suits of fine clothes.”

“Not a problem,” Naaman told him, and gave him twice as much silver as he had requested, plus the fine clothes. Gehazi went back and hid the silver and clothes in his house. The next time Gehazi met up with the prophet, Elisha asked him where he had been. “I haven’t been anywhere.” Thereupon, Elisha informed him that he had seen everything and that now Gehazi not only had the bags of silver and the fine suits of clothes, “but you and your children and your children’s children also will have Naaman’s leprosy. And Gehazi walked from the room a leper, his skin as white as snow.

When you go after something with the motive of greed that which you receive is different from that which you thought you would get! It is always twisted on you . . . thus, the life of disillusionment and regret.

Sometimes, however, judgment and penalty in dealing with greed is not immediate, and that is confusing to those of us who are observing. Sometimes greed is allowed to run its course and the sad results are only viewed at a later point. But, we can be assured that God’s economy of the interior is not based on greed, because selfishness is not consistent with the characteristics of goodness:

Purity is best demonstrated by generosity. (Luke 11: 41)

God, who has already generously given, is looking for a people who will be characterized by their giving and not their grabbing. 

Next Week: You Can’t Manipulate God 

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics) 

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

More Economic Possibilities

If God is the source and all else is resource, why is so much time and effort expended on scrambling for and dividing up the meager familiar when there is so much abundance yet to be utilized? Why isn’t more emphasis placed on discovery and development of things yet unseen and underutilized, instead of on redistribution of the meager familiar? My research indicated that God’s offer was quite clear:

. . . my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches . . . (Phil. 4:19 KJV)

Principle # 2: God Is Looking for a People

Another economic offer that seems quite clear is that God’s economy is not a closed economy. It is not a Zero Sum System. In economic terms, some say that there is only so much pie in a pie. If one person gets more of the pie it simply means that another person must get less of the pie. They compare it to a poker game or a game of Monopoly, in which one person gains only at the expense of another person losing.

In my assigned reading, I discovered scores of examples where needed appropriations were actually created at the time they were needed. Elements of the economy literally expanded, rather than contracted. On one occasion, 5,000 men, plus women and children, were fed to satisfaction with the multiplying of five small loaves of bread and two fish . . . and afterward, there were twelve baskets full of food left over. On another occasion, water came right out of a rock to take care of thousands of thirsty people, and food actually came from the sky every morning for years just to feed them.

Instead of being a closed economy, the research indicates that the threshold has been lowered, and open enrollment has been declared for as many people as would like to join the economy. They are now welcome to become involved. In fact, it appears that the economic model actually works better the larger the number of people there are who get involved.

It appears that throughout history God has always had a collection of people who were convinced enough of his integrity that they would risk their possessions and even their lives on his economic principles. It seems that he is eagerly on the watch to locate people, even today, who would become part of the economic model.

For the eyes of the Lord search back and forth across the whole earth, looking for people whose hearts are perfect toward him, so that he can show his great power in helping them. (2 Chron. 16:9 TLB)

Evidence is recorded that when God can find even a handful of people who seriously pursue the economics of the interior model, the course of history is usually altered.

A fellow named Haggai presented the economic characteristics to a group of people of his generation and challenged the way they were managing their personal lives:

You plant much but harvest little. You have scarcely enough to eat or drink, and not enough clothes to keep you warm. Your income disappears, as though you were putting it into pockets filled with holes! 
You hope for much but get so little. And when you bring it home, I blow it away – it doesn’t last at all. Why? Because my Temple lies in ruins and you don’t care. Your only concern is your own fine homes. That is why I am holding back the rains from heaven and giving you such scant crops. (Haggai 1:6, 9—10)

An exciting thing happened. A handful of people responded positively to the challenge. They realized that Haggai wasn’t against fine houses. They realized what he was really saying was It’s not so much what you have . . . but what has you . . . that makes all the difference in the world! That small handful of people began earnestly following the economic model of the interior and exciting things began to happen, and the Lord told them,

Take courage and work, for I am with you . . . “The future splendor of this Temple will be greater than the splendor of the first one! For I have plenty of silver and gold to do it! And here I will give peace,” says the Lord. (Haggai 2:4, 9)

God seemed eager to show his desire to validate the handful of obedient participants. He promised to alter their outcomes even before their project was completed:

“Before, when you expected a twenty-bushel crop, there were only ten. When you came to draw fifty gallons from the olive press, there were only twenty. I rewarded all your labor with rust and mildew and hail. Yet, even so, you refused to return to me,” says the Lord.
“But now note this: from today, this 24th day of the month, as the foundation of the Lord’s Temple is finished, and from this day onward, I will bless you. Notice, I am giving you this promise now before you have even begun to rebuild the Temple structure, and before you have harvested your grain, and before the grapes and figs and pomegranates and olives have produced their next crops; from this day I will bless you.(Haggai 2: 16-19 TLB)

We are assured that those same principles are equally transferable today to participants of the economic model of the interior.

Next Week: What about Greed?

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Economics of the Interior Part 2: Some Characteristics of God's Economy

Throughout my reading assignment regarding God’s economy I noticed the reappearing of some interesting economic characteristics. Consistently, the model of the economic system in the ancient Scriptures elevated the individual above the collective, and it revered the law and goodness above raw power. Moral standards trumped oppression; integrity and perseverance proved to be stronger than brute force or skullduggery in the end.

Other characteristics that seemed to continually recur were a call for personal responsibility and accountability, a promotion of fairness, frugality, production, and a conscionable work ethic.

At all times the power of individual choice was emphasized and discrimination was frowned upon. Respect was one of the underlying characteristics, whether it was the respect required for all of God’s creations or the presumed respect for the phenomenon of time, and the relative shortness of a person’s life.

There was, in addition, an expectation that the participants in the economic model would strive to make things better while they were involved in the system, and that they would hold in high esteem the elements of wisdom and knowledge. I was impressed that there was an emphasis on society and even governments punishing wrong and encouraging good.

Especially in the Gospels, economics of the interior appeared to be almost counter-intuitive at times and mostly up-side-down in logic. This is particularly true in theSermon on the Mount. Instead of a person being concerned with activities of getting,it placed a premium on the behavior of giving. Instead of an emphasis on accumulation, it was concerned with relinquishment. Instead of consumption, it emphasized stewardship. That is counter-intuitive and up-side-down logic!

I think it is fair to say that, usually, economic models of a society are largely designed with group behavior in mind. The economic system of the interior deals more with the innate value system and behavior of the individual who, coincidentally, finds herself or himself actively involved in a society.

In addition to the above listed characteristics of an economic system of the interior, I would like to pull out and discuss six additional characteristics that we will refer to asprinciples of God’s economy. This list is in no way an exclusive list.

Principle # 1: God Has Given

If God has an economy, this characteristic would certainly be the most unique. All other economic models are based on the economic trilogy known as Scarcity, Choice, and Cost. It is assumed that all things are in limited supply, because all those supplies have alternative uses. Humans are presumed to have unlimited needs and desires. There is no way that all those desires can be met by the limited supply. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that choices be made as to which needs and desires will be satisfied by the limited supply.

The real cost of making a decision as to which limited item will be used to satisfy the chosen need or desire has nothing to do with money or wealth. The real cost comes in the foregoing of the next highest need or desire that is forfeited. You decided to use the item or commodity on procuring the one good or service at the expense of not being able to procure your next highest desire. You, therefore, lost the opportunity to use that supply to meet another need or desire. That is known as opportunity cost.That is the reason that some people through the years have referred to economics as the science or study of making good choices. How can you make better decisions in determining which limited resource should be used for which need?

So, from whence did all those resources come . . . in the first place? My research found that there was no hesitation in the Holy Scriptures when it came to answering that question: 

. . . Everything in the heavens and earth is yours, O Lord, and this is your kingdom. We adore you as being in control of everything . . . Everything we have has come from you, and we only give you what is yours already! For we are here for but a moment, strangers in the land as our fathers were before us; our days on earth are like a shadow, gone so soon, without a trace. O Lord our God, all of this material that we have gathered to build a temple for your holy name comes from you! It all belongs to you! (1 Chronicles 29: 11-16 TLB)

Everything that exists came from the hand of God. Everything that I have has come to me as a direct gift from God or is a by-product of a gift exchange. Nothing exists that did not come from God.

The earth belongs to God! Everything in all the world is his! (Psalm 24:1TLB)

The balance of the entire economic system of the interior rests upon that factor. He never requires anything of his participants that He has not already given to them. In God’s economy there is no such thing as successfully cheating or robbing, because when the participants finally get through playing their greed-games with earth’s possessions, God ultimately reassumes and repossesses all the stuff.

O Lord, what a variety you have made! And in wisdom you have made them all! The earth is full of your riches. There before me lies the mighty ocean, teeming with life of every kind, both great and small. And look! See the ships! And over there, the whale you made to play in the sea. Every one of these depends on you to give them daily food. You supply it, and they gather it. You open wide your hand to feed them and they are satisfied with your bountiful provision. (Psalm 104:24-28 TLB)

God is the source; everything else is a resource in the economics of the interior. That is what prompted me to consider that the whole model is counter-intuitive and a bit up-side-down.

Since everything has always belonged to God, it is impossible for you to try to influence or bribe God by giving something to him first. But by giving first, God has set into motion the expectation for the participants in the model to join him in his giving and, likewise, give from their inventories to the needs of others whenever he so prompts or requests. That is called obedience.

If God is the source, then the whole paradigm of scarcity, choice, and cost must be revisited. Is that whole concept a ploy of political manipulation? How should we respond if there is truly no such thing as scarcity? Should not our real concentration then focus on abundance and allocation rather than accumulation and hoarding?

Next Week: More Economic Possibilities

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Economics of the Interior Part 1: Does God Have an Economy

In 1982, I ventured out in my economics book entitled What’cha Gonna Do with What’cha Got?, and asked the questions, is it possible that God has an economy? If He does, what would it look like? I wanted to stay away from my own platitudes and hyperbole, and I also desired to not engender any knee-jerk reactions on the part of my readers. I didn’t want the folks to race to judgment and say “see there, God is a Socialist, and believes what Karl Marx, Engles and even John Maynard Keynes were writing about.” I, likewise, didn’t want them to simply say “See there, God is a Capitalist, just like Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, and Michael Novak might have written about.”

So, I took the Holy Scriptures that I had available to me, and read all sixty-six books of the Bible (several books more than once). I tried reading them just with the mindset of an economist (whatever that means), attempting to discover if God had an economic system.

I hadn’t systematically read very far until I caught myself saying, “Oh, my goodness! This is a virtual economic text book . . . Just look at the Egyptian’s economic model of production, consumption and distribution and the Israeli’s division of labor model.” And by the time I got farther, into the Book of Proverbs, I was stunned at the 21st century wisdom of Solomon telling everyone how dangerous it was to even think about co-signing and guaranteeing a note for someone else. I didn’t know all that was in the Holy Scriptures! I was amazed.

Economists talk a lot about the differences between positive economics . . . the way things are, and normative economics . . . the way things ought to be. One of the first things I noticed in my reading was an interesting blend of positive and normative economics. Another thing I observed right away was that tribal and national politics kept getting the normative and the positive aspects of economics all jumbled up.

By the time I had finished my reading assignment, I had concluded that indeed God had an economy, and without doubt, He was the greatest economist imaginable. His economic principles were clear and consistent, and the principles fell more into the category of the normative economics. But the thing that continued to impress me was that even though the principles were couched in settings of society and cultures, yet they were particularly designed and aimed at the attitudes and behaviors of the singular individual.

The emphasis seemed to be on the interpretation and response of the individualwithin the society to a certain economic principle. Then would come the question,What’cha gonna do with what’cha got? The economic model was not one of politics or culture. It was more of a personal economic model that influenced and guided the individual. It was not an economic model of the outside, but rather an economic model that influenced the personal life of the individual. It was an economic system of the interior.

Once the economic system of the interior was embraced and implemented within the individual, then he or she could successfully impact the family. Eventually the family would influence and develop traditions. Then institutions would be established that were intended to carry on those accepted traditions into the future. The stories of Abraham and Joseph were great examples of the process.

As has been repeated here so often, where the components of traditions, institutions, families and the individuals intersect with the components of land, labor, capital, and the entrepreneur, global transformation takes place.

I began to perceive that the nucleus of God’s economy, regarding people and societies, starts with the economics of the interior in the hearts and minds of individual people and then spreads out to influence and affect societies and cultures. It also seemed to me while reading that those individuals who were grounded securely in their own economic systems of the interior had the ability to operate with ease and security when they were expected to function according to outside models and systems of politically controlled economies. Frequently, those outside economic systems were not even compatible with their own interior systems. They seemed to successfully survive, and many times they excelled in those foreign or imposed systems.

Throughout my investigation I found many examples, like Daniel, who for one reason or another, were forced to live under the expectations of a contrary economic model. But they successfully survived, none-the-less, and functioned by staying true to their own individual system of interior economics.

Next Week: Other characteristics of God’s economy 

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Economics of the Interior: Introduction

Since the summer of 2010, Winston Crown Publishing House has consistently posted my weekly articles on their site. I enjoy telling the riveting stories about Project C.U.R.E. and the unique and compassionate work being accomplished around the world. Those postings tally up to over 225 weekly articles.

I have also thoroughly enjoyed sharing articles about the economic systems and the different cultures I have personally experienced in the over 150 countries in which I have worked around the world. Those writings have eventually ended up in the gold medallion-winning books that Winston Crown Publishing House has produced and distributed.

In 2013, I began focusing my attention on finishing a book on Cultural Economics. Economics and business matters have always intrigued me. We feel that even not-for-profit organizations of charity should be run with the same care and efficiency as any Fortune 500 company. That is why it pleases me so much when Forbes Magazine lists Project C.U.R.E. in the top twenty most efficiently run not-for-profit charities in America. That’s just good stewardship.

Many of my weekly articles over the past year have been full of observations and insights regarding the economic systems and cultures of which I am familiar. I hope to include those ideas in the up-coming book. I find pleasure in bouncing ideas off of my reading friends and receiving back from them their candid responses. That process always gives me a clearer idea of what should be included in the book and what should be left on the floor of the editing room.

In the past articles we have used as an overall definition of the idea of economics as being; the discipline of study that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The root is from the ancient Greek wordoikovouia, or the combination of oikos (the house) and nous (nomos, custom or rule), simply put, the rules of the house for good management.

In my studies over the years, I have pursued the subject of economics to a further interdisciplinary bias to express my interests and observations. Cultural Economics is a branch of economics that concerns itself with the relationship of culture to economic outcomes. It studies how various aspects of human cultures interact with economic events, behaviors, and conditions. A given culture will even influence the political system with its traditions, religious beliefs, the formation of institutions, and the value ascribed to individuals.

Cultural Economics certainly leans more toward the behavioral aspects of the study of economics rather than the pure analytical number crunching of the econometrics laboratory. It is aimed at how people affect economic systems and how cultures are affected by economic choices. In the study of Cultural Economics we have the thrill of taking some basic principles of economics and combining them with the unpredictable thoughts, choices, and actions of over seven billion people on earth today. That makes for an interesting adventure that can open our eyes to a better understanding of motives, methods, behaviors, successes, and failures regarding our world’s resources and human lifestyles.

The past fifty weekly articles have generously investigated the possibilities of Cultural Economics and the thesis that Global Transformation Takes Place at the Intersection of Culture and Economics. There is one more area of economics that I would like to pursue to finish out the Cultural Economics book. It deals specifically with the cultural component labeled Individual on the Cultural Economics matrix we have frequently shown in the articles.

We will call this division of economics the Economics of the Interior. What am I supposed to do with all the personal resources, liabilities, and opportunities inside my own individual and sovereign being (my own nation-state) in relationship to the arbitrary and compulsory expectations of the economic systems in which I find myself? We will investigate that subject beginning next week.

Next Week: Economics of the Interior, Part 1

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Unintended Consequences of 1776

It was an improbable experiment that took place in 1776 starting in Philadelphia with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Seldom, if ever, had there been a nation-building endeavor organized on such uncommon denominators. The steadfast incorporators had declared liberty, and were determined to experience the fullness of freedom. But in reality they could scarcely even comprehend the world-altering power they were holding in their hands.

They had dreamed that they would know enough freedom to be able to experience the new and enticing system of free enterprise. But they discovered that it was in the dedicated pursuit of free enterprise that they found the fullness of freedom. It was an unintended consequence to find that the most precious thing provided by a free enterprise economy was not just the abundance of material wealth, but freedom itself.

The incorporators were bent on preserving their newly acquired liberty, improving the well- being of the new nation, and guaranteeing the wise use of their resources. They knew that their only hope was through the understanding and preservation of not only their coveted culture, but also through their development of a stable economy.

The historical serendipity of the 1776 experiment was in the fact that not only was it the year of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, but 1776 was also the year of the publishing of the Scottish economist Adam Smith’s book An Inquiry Into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The book was a compilation of Adam Smith’s observations as he traveled and sought the answer to what causes one nation to be rich, and another nation to be poor.

Adam Smith equated wealth with income and the ability to generate income. His findings showed that a nation that can generate high levels of income is wealthy and one that is capable only of low levels of income is poor. What is it that allows a nation to create a high level of income? What is it that makes a nation wealthy? In his book he simply recorded his observations. He commented then on such unique observations as division of labor, specialization, incentives, levels of taxation, freedom of cultural and economic choice, and the opportunity to pursue the objectives and directions that are of most interest to each individual.

The incorporators of the 1776 American experiment had been greatly influenced by the observations of Adam Smith. His insights fit snugly with their ideals of independence, self- reliance, and limited government that was responsible to the people rather than the people being enslaved by the government. But what neither Adam Smith nor the young American leaders comprehended was what would be the history-making results, when for the first time those ideals could be worked out in real life, in a situation where it was possible for free enterprise to not just be haltingly tolerated, but encouraged to flourish. Since a national economic system of free enterprise had never really been tried in such laissez-faire settings, no one could fully predict the potency of the economic outcome.

The leaders of the new nation had a deep respect for the rule of law, and realized the unique necessity for a limited government to fully enforce the powers of the law. One of the basic concepts of free enterprise is that the individual citizen has the right to hold and own private property. With that goes the right to exclusively make use of the property or to transfer it to another individual of choice. People are free to make voluntary agreements with each other regarding their private property or personal labor. Contracts, therefore, are vital to the enterprise system.

Contracts and agreements, however, are meaningless unless they are enforced. Free enterprise could not exist without a legal entity to hold contract makers to their agreements. So, without a viable government to enforce agreements there could be no contracts, and without contracts there could be no free enterprise.

In addition, property rights, including intellectual property through copyrights, patents, or trademarks, work to facilitate those transfers and exchanges within the system. Because of the long- term protection of the rights, people are encouraged to write more books and music. The title to a piece of farm equipment or an indentured deed to a plot of ground assures the buyer that the seller is the legitimate owner. The right of property owners to designate who will receive their property when they die helps sustain the confidence in those property rights. Those are all subtle benefits of the free enterprise system. Those benefits were not necessarily designed and plugged into the free enterprise system before it was formalized. Those benefits came as unintended consequences of the pursuit of freedom of choice.

On the consumer side of the equation, free enterprise ensures purchasers they can buy the goods and services that best satisfy their wants and agree with their budgets. And workers are free to try to enter any line of work for which they are qualified.

Adam Smith is a hero to me because I see him as the first cultural economist. He was the first to note the curious connection between private interests and cultural interests. Individuals and businesses seeking to advance their own self-interests and operating within the structure of a highly competitive market system would miraculously promote the cultural best interest as well as the economic best interest at the same time. It began to prove out that as the individuals and businesses were allowed the freedom to choose their own options as to what they felt would be best for them, lo and behold, all the people of the culture began ending up better off. That was definitely an unintended consequence, but a welcomed and marvelous happening.

Adam Smith explained this simultaneous phenomenon as being guided by aninvisible hand. We even see it in action today as a business seeks to build a new and improved product to increase its profits. Those enhanced products like computer applications, smart phones, and industrial robots increase the culture’s well-being. Those businesses use the least costly combination of natural and human resources because in doing so it is in their own best interests. To do otherwise would put their business in jeopardy. But the company’s using scarce resources in the least costly way benefits the culture as a whole and frees up precious resources to produce something else that the culture wants.

Self- interest is different than greed. The freedom to pursue self- interest becomes the greatest method known to mankind to manage the billions and billions of individual small decisions of people seeking to better employ their resources and labor in ways other people find helpful. The socialist’s government model of centralized decision making could never come even close to determining the most correct and efficient answer to the billions of everyday decisions open to individuals and cultures. Adam Smith and the leaders of the fresh, new American experiment of 1776 seemed to get an intuitive glance into the possibilities of liberty and free enterprise. And a lot of the results were admittedly unintended and only realized as the experiment unfolded over time.

But over time their intuitions and dreams began to materialize. As they were free to pursue the free enterprise model, they began to experience true freedom for themselves:

  • Built- in Efficiency The new economic system encouraged the efficient use of resources and guided the new Americans into production of goods and services most wanted and needed by the citizens. They were encouraged to develop and adopt the most efficient techniques in utilizing their resources for production and consumption in the new country.
  • Built- in Incentives The free enterprise economic system promoted the acquisition of new skills and trades, gave people reason to work hard and be frugal in their lifestyles, and made it profitable for them to be innovative in solving their cultural and economic challenges. By assuming calculated risks and being innovative, they began to realize higher incomes and the creation of new opportunities of employment for fellow citizens. Many times the reward for those advances translated into higher standards of living.
  • Built- in Freedom The major reward for the pursuit of the free enterprise system flowing from the experiment of 1776 was the realization of personal freedom. The alternative economic systems of centralized government lacked in efficiency, incentives, and most of all freedom. The new system emboldened economic activity without coercion or undue interference, subject to the penalties and rewards built into the economic system itself.  

The unintended consequences set into motion as a result of the determined pursuit of freedom of economic and cultural choice were nothing less than astounding. Nothing else compares historically with the results of the America experiment of 1776. The system thrives on freedom and liberty. The multitudes of quiet and persistent cultural and economic entrepreneurs flowing out from that experiment have absolutely altered the history of this world.

The chances of the experiment ever happening again are very slim, indeed. It will never happen again the same way, for certain. But even were the restart button ever to be pushed again in the future, there is verifiable evidence recorded in history thatonce upon a time there lived upon the face of the planet earth a people whose hearts burned within them to experience a cultural and economic phenomenon where the people were willing to pay the price of personal responsibility to cultivate with kindness, justice, and righteousness an economic and cultural system that honored liberty and freedom and personal integrity.

In the meantime, I choose to pledge my allegiance to the grand and glorious experiment of 1776, and to honor those who stood for what they believed and lived to experience the extravagant results and even the goodness of the unintended consequences. 

Research ideas from Dr. Jackson's new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

Uncommon Denominators of 1776

In all probability, had you just finished conquering your revolutionary foe, you would have hastened to set up a stabilizing organization of governance. For the sake of convenience and familiarity, that government would have looked a lot like the one with which you had been so familiar before all the revolutionary ruckus had begun. You, no doubt, would have lined up several essential common denominators in a row and filled the familiar governmental slots of polity and policy with trustworthy men of the revolution. As soon as the smoke and dust of the final battles had settled, everyone could have taken a deep breath and enjoyed the fresh fruits of the long rebellious conquest. You could then have comfortably taken on the activities of your new nation and set about on a serious development plan for the future.

Had that been the scenario of the rag-tag militia men of the American colonies, a stalwart fellow by the name of Washington would have been crowned as King George. Noble names would have been pinned on the faithful military men, and the valuable property would have been whittled up into pieces of dignified dirt and royal real estate.

All the players of the 1776 victory were former inhabitants of either the isle of England or someplace in Europe. Just why wouldn't they simply rely on the traditions, institutions, and government models of their parents and homelands? Wasn’t this whole idea of colonies, after all, a business model of new trade routes, new markets, new products, and additional revenues? Why wouldn’t the motivation simply be to establish domestic security as quickly as possible and get on with the activities of building the new business model in that part of the world?

The reason for those uncommon denominators was because the revolutionary war had not been fought over stealing away a business model and securing the opportunities to procure new revenues. The revolutionary war had been a slug fest over economic and philosophical ideals. Some of those ideals had been brewing in the hearts and minds of the revolutionary dreamers for a long time. Some of those ideals included vociferous beliefs in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government.

The majority of the victors had earlier exposure to the underpinnings of the English Common Law. That was not necessarily a common denominator across Europe. But the revolutionaries were determined to stake their lives in order to see that the rule of law would not be based on some willy-nilly government- of- the- day getting to set the rules. Their respect for the law was center stage and designed for perpetuity. The concept of the rule of law was based on a higher plane with a constitution determined by a body of independent magistrates and a stalwart balance of governing power. The law was not an instrument of state control or manipulation, but a mechanism open to any individual seeking redress. That was a new and uncommon denominator for that part of the world.

I have come to the conclusion that the successful likelihood of the 1776 experiment would have been very slim to none at any other time or in any other venue of the contemporary world. Colonialism did not prove to be successful because it was a business model not open to the equal participation of all the residents.

In 336 B.C., twenty-one- year- old Alexander of Macedonia, who had been trained at the feet of Aristotle, had been placed on the Greek throne. With cunning intuition he conquered the known world by the time he was thirty-three years old. He had brought to the world security, protection, fairness, a common currency, low taxes, and unlimited opportunities of international trade. But Alexander the Great’s brilliant experiment only lasted until his early death at age thirty-three.

When Alexander was no longer there to be the entrepreneur and protector, his generals greedily torpedoed the good work and sent the experiment to the bottom until Julius Caesar resurrected the concept two hundred seventy-one years later. Caesar’s Pax Romana, with the mild taxation and alluring opportunities for commerce, was dependent on a model of military boots on the groundOccupationism. But occupying conquered lands, whether by the British, the Romans, or the Israelis only lasts until it becomes more bother than it’s worth.

But the 1776 economic and cultural experiment seemed to find a perfect niche in history even though the denominators were mostly uncommon. Let’s look at some of those denominators:

  • No entrenched economic or cultural system had to be kicked out or purged from the country. When the British were defeated they simply went home
  • New citizens were open to system change
  • Many residents had already been reading and studying writings of freedom thinkers like John Locke, and economic thinkers like Adam Smith
  • Agreed that new government should answer to the people and not the people to the established government
  • Geographically private; no aggressive neighboring countries ready to attack and steal choice land parcels or ports
  • No state church to fight or demand tax payments
  • Positive inheritance and experience with Runny Meade and King John’s Magna Carta as model for a new Bill of Rights
  • Background and understanding of British Common Law
  • Agreement on idea of elected term leaders and civil transfer of power
  • No monarchical, social caste system of inherited titles and properties
  •  Healthy work ethic in order to exist on shores of north Atlantic
  • Existing citizens already possessed qualities of morality, honesty, industriousness, and God- fearing religious faith
  • Unity of language
  • Plenty of space for growth and new immigrants
  • Rough land; tough people
  • Huge blue water buffer between England and America
  • Citizens were forced to become independent from the outside, but dependent on those inside the experiment
  • Citizens never entertained demand for equality of outcomes . . . just equality of opportunity and dignity

The common denominators one might have anticipated seeing implemented in the new nation of 1776 could have been strong personalities grabbing positions of power and leadership and injecting rules that would have been massaged and twisted for their own and their personal family’s favor and advantage in the future. That is generally the rule of the day I observe in the developing countries where I have traveled and worked.

Military power, hereditary status, and the systematic looting of natural and human resources by the newly installed ruling caste are the characteristics and denominators that I see as the universal norms even today.

The dreams and ideals of the 1776 incorporators were like a breath of fresh air into the world of political and cultural governance. How refreshing to think that the executive would be controlled by a board of legislators and the lawmakers would be directly accountable through the ballot box. Taxes should neither be levied nor laws passed without the consent of the populace. Issues that required decisions should be taken as closely as possible to those people that were most directly affected. The individual citizen should be free from knee-jerk and capricious punishment and protected from having his goods and property confiscated on a whim. Power should be spread out, and no one including the leader or his family would be considered above the rule of law. Property rights should be absolutely secure, and disagreements should be heard and arbitrated by ad hoc magistrates. There would be freedom of assembly as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion guaranteed by the very governance.

The more I research and study the improbable experiment of 1776, and the uncommon denominators upon which the experiment was established, the more I marvel that the incorporators were able to even articulate the ideals, to say nothing about getting the experiment off the ground and into the air to fly. And fly it did. And it has achieved the most singularly significant political and cultural environment for enabling human achievement, creativity, and productivity that the world has yet to provide.

The question was asked in a prior article, “but is this what we have in America today?” The simple and unflinching answer to that question is “no.” There has never been a time in the history of the United States when there has not somewhere been a pocket of problem-makers who were determined to dash the experiment and reassemble the American value system into a model of European Leftism where the created welfare state is the alternative.

But in spite of all the intrusions and modifications of the original thrust of the 1776 experiment, I choose to throw my lot with President Abraham Lincoln, who declared in his message to Congress in 1862 that America is “the best last hope of earth.” I am so terribly grateful that even though the dreamer’s experiment proved improbable based on all the uncommon denominators upon which it was built, yet it still stands today as the best last hope of earth.

Next Week: Unintended Consequences of 1776

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House

The Improbable Experiment of 1776

I was asked recently why, as a cultural economist, an entrepreneur, and humanitarian, I would be so interested in researching and writing on the brief history of the free enterprise system in America. My answer was pretty close to the surface. Over the past nearly forty years I have been privileged to travel around the world a lot of times. I have returned numerous times to many of the over 150 countries where I have worked.

As I observed and studied the cultures and economies, I became curious as to why some of those countries were wealthy, and why some were devastated by poverty. I began to perceive a pattern. The poverty had placed many of the residents in positions of sickness and helplessness. Poverty always develops dependence. It seemed logical that a country cannot build a strong economy on sick people, so helping the people get well should be a great starting point for a healthy economy in the future. That was when we began shipping donated medical goods into those countries. In the past nearly thirty years Project C.U.R.E. has carefully donated over one billion dollars’ worth of medical goods into more than 130 countries. The results have been spectacular.

I have observed, however, that even with the improvement in the health care delivery systems of those countries it is almost impossible for them to alter the reasons why they had gotten bogged down in the poverty in the beginning. It is extremely difficult to change the traditions, institutions, family structures, and the individual thinking of a citizenry when it comes to the basic economic components of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurs.

I then began to do a little comparative research on the differences between the ways their countries’ economies worked and the basis of our U.S. economic system. After a lot of years of observation and research, I must admit that I still don’t have the mystery totally solved or the success formula perfected. But I have come to some conclusions of which I am rock-solid confident. If we were just dealing with a sterile set of graphs, charts, and matrices, we could pretty easily come up with what ought to be. But when we are dealing with human nature, traditions, ancient institutions, greed, the desires to control and manipulate one another, things get muddied quite quickly.

I learned early on that the economic and cultural difference between countries does not pivot on the tattered and benign phrase democracy. We have somehow allowed that word to be mercilessly mugged and relegated to the list of descriptors to cover nearly anything. As an example, “we will stay here in your country and support you until you are able to establish a democracy as evidenced by your first one-over-fifty-percent vote.” That is not the old criterion of a democracy.

My eight trips into North Korea (DPRK) resulted in friendships that allowed for robust discussions regarding economics and the free market. The North Korean government officials would inquire as to ways to get their people incentivized to work harder and produce more. They would joke with me and remind me that they were far more democratic than the United States: “We have more elections in our country than you do, and even our name declares that we are a democracy . . . DPRK is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” I have discovered that many countries include the wordDemocratic in their name, but remain far from agreeing to anything that would resemble a Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, where the leadership agreed to be limited by the powers of a constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Most of the developing countries in which I have worked were state-run, centralized, and with economies controlled by redistribution politics. Ambitious leaders will form followings or factions. Throughout the pages of history insecure people have cried out for a king or a dictator to protect them and take care of them from cradle to grave. That power is then given over to a leader and his government. From that point on, the leader and appointed government have legitimate power to compel obedience. Sometimes we forget the fact that every law and regulation enacted ultimately has a gun behind it to enforce it. Punishment becomes the final incentivizing method to bring work habits up to envisioned expectations.

Also, throughout history we can observe that the power held by a leader and his appointed government has so much potential force and authority for advancing that leader’s own interests and ambitions that he will do practically anything to achieve and retain that power. It dawned on me while working in Cambodia and trying to learn about the history of Pol Pot that people living their own private lives have a propensity to be industrious, gentle, and civil. But people bent on factions and politics have a propensity to be equally industrious, but agitated, uncivil and dangerous. History is the recordation of all those individual events and personalities and stories of leaders and governments throughout the ages.

So, what happened in the case of North America and, specifically, that which became the United States of America? What made its economic and cultural history start out differently? What happened? I think I have faithfully done my due diligence in research, and admit that I have found no other setting in history that would have spawned such an economic and cultural experiment. The experiment was improbable and has no guarantee of perpetuity. There is no insurance policy protecting against the same historic demise brought on by dealing with tainted human nature, traditions, ancient institutions, greed, the desires to control and manipulate one another, and the feeling of being entitled to live comfortably off the efforts and labors of others.

But historical research also bears out that the improbable experiment was able to produce and achieve the most outstanding environment for enabling human achievement, creativity and productivity that the world has yet provided.

That is my answer to those who inquire why it is I would be so interested in researching and writing on the brief history of the free enterprise system in America. I was born before the U.S. began to fight in World War II. All of my life has been positively influenced by the improbable experiment of 1776. As I traveled to so many other countries, I became more conscious of the importance of freedom of economic and cultural choice. As I now research and write, I discover and more fully understand what a grand and anomalous experiment it was. I don’t want it to slip either by default or skullduggery into the cracks of time and be forgotten, swept over by tainted human nature, traditions, ancient institutions, greed, the desires to control and manipulate one another, or the feeling of being entitled to live comfortably off the efforts and labors of others.

Next Week: Uncommon Denominators of 1776

(Research ideas from Dr. Jackson’s new writing project on Cultural Economics)

© Dr. James W. Jackson   

Permissions granted by Winston-Crown Publishing House