Our secret Christmas truce with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has ended, so it is time to respond to his Christmas Day sermon, in which, remarkably, he analogized bankers to rioting arsonists.
The Archbishop serves not only as the Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury and Primate of All England (the first bishop of England), but also as the leader of the Anglican Communion. As the Archbishop’s website notes, the roles “give him significant influence and the responsibility to speak authoritatively for the faith and witness of the Church, the Anglican Church in particular.”
The Sermon
Given the influence of the office, the views of any Archbishop warrant a critical assessment. Consider this from Dr. Williams’ sermon:
The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society. Bonds have been broken, trust abused and lost. Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today’s financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark.
We were pleased to see that we were not alone in finding the sermon obscure. Communications expert Max Atkinson characterized the sermon as “[m]ore gobbledygook.” We will try, nonetheless, to interpret the paragraph quoted above.
Dr. Williams apparently continues to imagine that capitalists are responsible for the U.K.’s economic troubles. We addressed that myth in our November 5th article, “Foggy Thinking Occupies Leaders In London.” The item responded to the Church of England’s indulgence of the “occupier” protesters outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. As we explained, the blame for the poor economy that plagues the U.K. and much of the rest of the world lies not with capitalism, but rather with central banks and governments:
Central banks’ mismanagement of the money supply and governments’ reckless policies caused a bubble in housing. Central banks and governments have prolonged the recession by inhibiting the necessary post-bubble adjustments–including by effecting bailouts—and by creating uncertainty. Governments also have failed to make the necessary cuts in spending, taxes, and regulation.
Dr. Williams analogizes bankers to arsonists because bankers “turn[ed] [their] back[s] on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for [their] acquisitive adventures …” The analogy, even on its face, is unfair, since arson is an intentional act of destruction, while Dr. Williams supposes that bankers were irresponsible. Assuming that Dr. Williams is referring to the bailouts, the blame lies with government. Government entangled itself in banking and funded firms that should have failed. As we wrote:
[C]oncerns over banking would best be addressed by disentangling government from banking. A free market in banking would force banks to live with the threat of failure, encouraging prudence.
As may be evident in our prior article, economic freedom is not a value Dr. Williams supports. He fails to distinguish between crony capitalism and capitalism. He fails to condemn the former, but attacks the latter. He also favors greater government intervention in banking, despite the harm caused by even the existing structure of regulation.
Political Response
The odd comparison between arsonists and speculators caught the attention of others too. The Daily Mail reported:
Coalition trade and investment minister Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, who is also an ordained minister in the Church of England, said bankers had changed their attitudes since the crash of 2008.
Unfortunately, this misses the point. First, Lord Green seems to have conceded that the analogy was apt as of 2008. Second, the Archbishop implied that speculators are inherently evil, so any attitudinal change would seem irrelevant. After all, even arsonists with good attitudes are still arsonists.
Lord Green’s other comments were equally unhelpful:
[He] said the Government would need to remain ‘watchful’ to stop ‘backsliding’ by the City.
But he said it was wrong to single out the financial services industry for criticism.
He said: ‘It is important not to treat banking like some special mysterious art, banking is a business and all businesses face this question – what is your contribution to human welfare and to the common good.’
Lord Green failed to address the problem of government intervention, and implicitly encouraged continued regulation. While making the correct point that banking is just another business, he failed to note that businesses can best determine their contribution to the world in a free market. If they satisfy customers (as opposed to bureaucrats, in regulated markets), they are working towards the common good.
Gary Streeter, a Conservative Member of Parliament and Chairman of the all party Christians in Parliament Group, provided a better response:
The Archbishop of Canterbury is on safer ground when he sticks to moral and spiritual issues. He would be wise to leave the politics to politicians and focus on giving us much needed spiritual leadership.
The Church’s Confusion Towards Capitalism
An article stimulated, like our prior one, by the Church’s response to the London occupiers, appears on the website of the Adam Smith Institute. It too addresses the Church leadership’s confusion towards capitalism. In “The Church of England is barking up the wrong tree,” “Whig” notes, “It would be far more logical for the [Church] to support civil society and free markets.” He points out that this is true from consequentialist, ethical, and theological perspectives. He also observes:
From the point of view of the Church itself, it stands to gain from a reduction of the role of the state. As an institution of civil society the Church is exactly the sort of institution that ought to be filling the gaps in welfare provision, education and social capital that would arise if the state were rolled back.
The Role of Speculators
Dr. Williams used the term “speculator” pejoratively to denote “banker.” His antipathy towards speculators, and gross ignorance of markets and finance, was earlier displayed in his article with the revealing title, “Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism.” In the piece, he decries “paper assets,” applauds bans on short-selling, and suggests that respect for markets (“mythology”) is “idolatry.”
Thus, it may be useful to defend the regularly vilified speculator. Speculators engage in voluntary exchange, and should be respected and left unfettered on that basis alone. While speculators should not have to justify their existence, they in fact benefit us all by making markets more efficient. They create liquidity, provide price discovery, smooth prices, assume risks, and help ensure supply. Whether they are “short” or “long” in positions, they play an important role in the economy.
Conclusion
Dr. Williams’ sermon is entitled, “Don’t build lives on selfishness and fear.” This is wise advice. However, the Church should recognize the common selfishness of politicians and bureaucrats, and government’s use of fear mongering to expand its control over our lives. The Church should also advocate for free markets, in which people’s self-interest requires them to serve their fellow man.
The new year is almost here. May freedom grow in 2012!
