Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Well, it’s just three questions this week, but that’s more by choice than necessity as two of these turned into small essays on their own. The question I have for you all is whether that’s because these are excellent questions or because I’m just long-winded? Maybe both. Let’s find out, shall we?

Q: Sam asks: “The popular belief of trickle down economics is that we want the wealthy to be able to spend more money. But is trickle down economics really based on the idea that we want the wealthy to save more money and by saving money have it invested by the banks?”

A: Ehhhhhhh….not really, but let’s explore. First, the phrase “trickle down economics” is kind of a misnomer for the idea behind it. Commonly, the idea goes something like this. We cut taxes for the wealthy/find some way to let them hold onto more of their wealth, and somehow their money will just naturally ‘trickle down’ to common folk. Like many misnomers, it’s based on a kernel of truth, but it gets lost almost immediately when we have the idea of wealth ‘trickling down’ to everyone, as if wealth just kind of seeped into people’s pockets here and there. Realistically, it’s better to just do away with the term ‘trickle down’; it’s too misleading.

Second, the idea that we want wealthy people to ‘spend more money’ is incomplete and actually more a Keynesian idea than anything. Keynes was just a monetary crank at heart, and he would have been all for the wealthy spending their money wherever possible; he thought that was all that was required to juice the economy and keep it running smoothly. He actually suggested digging holes and filling them with bottles of money to be unearthed at a later time would be enough. “Just do something, anything,” says Keynes.

Except, that’s not really what leads to productive, healthy economies. The only way real growth and improvement occur is if investments are made in ventures that create actual, tangible value. Real growth doesn’t occur just because we spend money or ‘do work’; it occurs when we spend money and do work on projects with positive returns. Very well then, what do we need to accomplish that? Well, among other things:

1. Interest rates that accurately inform investors of the risk/return calculation for potential projects. Too high an interest rate, and investors won’t take on projects that would be profitable under normal circumstances. Too low of an interest rate, and investors will take on too many risky projects, and, once the interest rate rises, investors will be stuck with unprofitable projects that have squandered resources.
2. Freedom to innovate. If you raise too many barriers and continue to raise the costs of innovation, people will simply stop innovating, and that’s a surefire way to stall your economy. There’s need to be an incentive to continue innovating.
3. Stable, low inflation rates. Why you may ask? If inflation is running away from us, there is little to no reason for you to save money; it’s just being devalued every day the inflation rate is growing. Inflation is more like a tax on savers, and it encourages consumption over investment (why invest when saving for that investment just means you’re losing net worth?).

Those are just a few of the things you need for a productive, growing economy, but let’s get back to the original question. The objective with tax cuts and deregulation is not just so wealthy individuals can hoard piles of golden coins in their massive vaults and swan dive into them like Scrooge McDuck (which would be exceptionally painful, by the way. Golden coins are solid; you’d literally be diving onto a floor). The objective is to free the wealthy and non-wealthy to find the most productive, valuable outlets for their resources. At times, economic conditions will be good, and people will invest. Other times, economic conditions are a wee bit dour, and it’s time to save. Either way, the point is to free people to use their money in the most productive ways.

This is where that kernel of truth in ‘trickle down’ streams from. Entrepreneurs and investors provide valuable inputs to the economy, and they are rewarded for their efforts, but they don’t collect the entire return. Some of the value they create flows to others in the form of new jobs, services, products, etc. So, to the extent that wealth ‘trickles down’ in the economy, it does so, not by mere monetary reallocation, but by new social value that is created by the efficient, productive use of that wealth. That’s what ideally is meant by ‘trickle down.’ Practically speaking, though, the term just carries too much political baggage to be useful. Feel free to suggest a new nomenclature, maybe something like “Super-Awesome-I’m-Totally-Right-And-You’re-Wrong Economics,” but that might be a little on the head.

Q: Nick asks: “How long do you engage people in the comments’ section?”

A: Oh, it depends. I like to think we have productive discussions in our comments section on this blog, though I generally try to remain a spectator simply to see where the conversation naturally flows. I’ll add my extra two cents every now and then if something gets under my skin or is particularly insightful or simply obliges me to say something. Flattery tends to work pretty well; is that vain of me? I could say that I comment as I’m led by the Spirit, but that would smack of false spirituality. No, realistically I comment as I feel like it, and that depends in no small part on the time of day, the quality of my last meal, whether or not my sports teams are winning, the alignment of the stars, etc.

Take heart, my dear readers, in this much. I do read all your comments, regardless of my agreement with them, and I derive a benefit from each and every one. That’s said in all seriousness; you guys and gals are wonderful. Keep reading, keep commenting, and we’ll keep moving forward as one big, happy, Berean family.

Q: Johanna asks: “You’ve mentioned before that the Biblical authors are primarily engaging in theological messaging with their work. Could you elaborate on that?”

A: Well, I’d be delighted to. Before I give an example of what I mean, let me explain what I don’t mean. For some reason, when people hear the primary focus of the Biblical writers is theological, that automatically conjures the notion that they are being a-historical or pulling the whole story out of their keisters or more generally just making up broad swaths of Scripture to fit their narrative. No, no, no; don’t be a dunce. That’s not what I or others who say that mean at all. Making your primary purpose theological doesn’t disqualify historical or moral elements; it just means they are not the main attraction of the passage. Some events may be mythologized (Job, perhaps?), but they can’t all be. The Resurrection darn well better be an actual, historical event; if it isn’t, we might as well pack it in now and give up on Christianity (that’s Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 15:12-19). Thank God, however, that our hope isn’t built on myth but on a concrete reality (Paul’s very next point in 1 Cor. 15:20-28). So, yes, there are historical and moral parts to Scripture, but the primary focus is theological. Now for the example of what I mean.

If you’re like me, and you’ve read Acts 4:32-35, you’ve probably heard a litany of explanations for what’s going on there: elaborate arguments for a Biblical defense of communism, calls for charity to the poor, an examination of historical events, etc., etc., and etc. What you likely haven’t done before is read that with Deut. 15:7-11 in mind. Why? Because you’re a 21st-century modern, not a first-century Jew who had the Torah floating around in his mind. Read those two passages, and you’ll find some interesting parallels. What is Luke saying there? Yah, exactly. Through the power of the Holy Spirit and the new humanity Jesus has opened up, we finally see people able to truly follow God’s commandments and exhibit the love He has called us to. Christ has fulfilled the law, and Luke is showing how Christ’s followers can now truly fulfill it as well through the power of the Spirit.

Mind = blown.

But look what we have here. It’s certainly reasonable to think that Luke is drawing upon a historical reality here. There’s nothing historically objectionable; it makes good sense. And, perhaps, there are moral elements we can draw from this — caring for the poor is a good thing, and we should look to see how we can aid those around us — but Luke’s ultimate aim goes deeper than the historical and moral elements. He’s taking those elements, adding a dash of Old Testament context, and crafting a richly-packed statement on how God’s plan for restoration has finally been manifested in the person of Christ. Again…

Mind = blown.

That sort of stuff is all over the Scriptures (if anyone wants to ask, I’ll take you to Matthew 2 some time and show you another one of my favorites), but you won’t get that message if you’re just looking at Scripture for moral or historical reasons. I reiterate; those elements are there, but they are ultimately secondary. Moreover, you probably won’t get many of these things on just one read-through or with traditional devotions. Both of those have their place, but they are meant to lead to deeper study and reflection on what the Biblical authors are trying to get across. This is meditation literature after all. The only way to get at that as a modern is by diving in and doing the hard work of rigorous study. Yes, it’s hard. Yes, it takes time, maybe years for some truths to surface. But that’s part of the journey of covenanting with Yahweh. He’s not looking for casual fans; he wants the heart of committed family member. He wants you in His kingdom; that’s why Christ came. We have so much more than a strict taskmaster or a moral bean-counter. We have a victorious, righteous king. We have a faithful, covenant friend. And, perhaps most touchingly of all, we have a Father. If that doesn’t spur us to action, I don’t know what will.

A Final Reflection:

I was riding back from church a few weeks ago with my good friend, DK, and he raised a good point during our drive: we place a certain amount of innate holiness and divine pleasure on certain groups of people. For one reason or another, I think it’s reasonable to say we tend to view people who endure long periods of suffering as more holy and favored by God than others. Now, I don’t know if that’s a pernicious view to hold; certainly, we can see scriptural support for the idea that suffering servants are counted as blessed. But, I do wonder if we’re forgetting some people in this process, namely the faithful, everyday brother or sister in Christ.

I started thinking through this a few months back while listening to N.T. Wright. He was talking about the Resurrection, and he mentioned that it felt a little ironic to him to be talking about the subject since he had lived without a lot of death and suffering in his life. His family had always stayed together, his parents and grandparents all lived to ripe old ages, he had been relatively successful in his ministry and hadn’t suffered a tremendous amount of persecution for his work, and he said he had simply had an all-together blessed life. Now, N.T. Wright is a world-renowned Biblical scholar, so most of us probably wouldn’t bat an eye at that, but what if an everyday layman said that about himself? I rather suspect if we compared our theoretical layman to a more tragic Christian, we’d think of the tragic Christian as more holy and favored by God. Why is that?

I think part of the reason we have this perception is due an exceptionally twisted version of pride where we begin to look at suffering not as an avenue for growth but as a way to gain standing with God and men. Both those who suffer and those who don’t can fall victim to that trap. Those who suffer are called blessed, but Christ never calls us to seek it out. Rather, we are called to bear whatever allotment is sent our way with patience. Yet, I think we often wrap ourselves into these mental pretzels and begin to think that if we could just prove ourselves through suffering, then God and others would see how truly devoted we really are. Certainly, suffering may reveal exceptional devotion, but since when did that turn into a game of one-upmanship? Do we so quickly forget that the good news hinges not on our merits but, rather, on Christ’s?

I don’t mean to say we should stop honoring those who suffer well as faithful followers. By no means; they are wholly deserving of our respect. But, would we give that same respect to someone who’s calling from God was to be a stable, low-maintenance friend acting as a burden-bearer for others? Or, what if someone’s calling was to be a financial resource for the kingdom? Would we respect that brother or sister like we do the one who suffers? Is there not room in the kingdom for faithful mothers, fathers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, engineers, politicians, and stock-brokers? Make no mistake, I am not advocating a type of prosperity gospel here, but far be it from us to homogenize the roles of the body of Christ. These folks, I am convinced, are some of the unsung heroes of the Christian faith — the loyal followers of Christ who bear burdens, employ others, craft culture, stabilize those around them, and underwrite the activities of the kingdom.

To these unsung heroes and many others like them, I tip my hat. May your ministry flourish.