Money: The God of This World

This week Pope Francis spoke out against the cult of money. Here is how Catholic News Service's Carol Glatz summarized his remarks:

Pope Francis called for global financial reform that respects human dignity, helps the poor, promotes the common good and allows states to regulate markets.

"Money has to serve, not to rule," he said in his strongest remarks yet as pope concerning the world's economic and financial crises.

A major reason behind the increase in social and economic woes worldwide "is in our relationship with money and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society," he told a group of diplomats May 16.

"We have created new idols" where the "golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal."

His words reminded me of one of the most significant books I've ever read, Protestant French philosopher Jacques Ellul's Money and Power.

First published nearly 60 years ago as L'Homme et l'argent ("Man and Money"), new French-language editions appeared in 1979 and 2007. I translated the English-language edition in 1984 and have been grateful ever since for the opportunity to immerse myself in this paradigm-bending book.

Money, Ellul argued, is not morally neutral. It is "Mammon, a demigod, a demon, an idol, a power from which we need liberation" (I'm quoting from David Neff's review of Money and Power in the February 15, 1985, issue of Christianity Today--and yes, he may have been biased, but damn, his review was good).

The problem isn't money, we say. The problem is that we don't have enough. Or that somebody else has too much.

No, says Ellul. Money is not neutral. "Jesus personifies money and considers it sort of a god. He does not get this idea from his cultural milieu. … This personification of money, this affirmation that we are talking about something that claims divinity . … reveals something exceptional about money, for Jesus did not usually use deifications and personifications" (p. 75).

Ellul explains that in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 Jesus shows that money is a power, a law unto itself that acts in the material world but with a spiritual orientation. In the Bible, power is never neutral. And it is often personal. Just as Scripture often portrays death as a personal force, so it also portrays money.

In the 60 years since Ellul wrote Money and Power (and even more in the 30 years since I translated it), the love of Money has taken root throughout the world in ways even Ellul might never have imagined. We fight wars to keep it, and to gain more of it. We damage the earth, deny social services to the poor, and pay ever smaller wages for ever longer hours, because to do otherwise would be bad for business. We don't enforce safety regulations or we outsource production to places with no regulations, so we can make higher profits on cheaper goods. And we have developed a theology of money in which the "free market" is the giver of every good and perfect gift - never mind the evidence.

Perhaps this is nothing new. It's been 2000 years since Jesus identified money with Mammon. But whether our love of Money is worse than ever before in the history of the world, or whether it is just business as usual, Pope Francis joins Jacques Ellul in reminding us that Money is a powerful false god.

If you like to get your reminders straight from Scripture, read Revelation 18, a gorgeously dark and dreadful poem about the fall of Babylon, surely Mammon's capital city, for she has deceived "all nations." As Babylon falls, so do the political leaders who "committed fornication with her" and the business tycoons who "have grown rich from the power of her luxury" and the multinational merchants whose ships "grew rich by her wealth."

The good news in Scripture is not that our stock portfolio has doubled or that our taxes have been cut or even that our nation's GDP is in recovery. The good news comes through an unmarried pregnant teenager: The Mighty One

has brought down the powerful from their thrones,

and lifted up the lowly;

he has filled the hungry with good things,

and sent the rich away empty.

                                                  Luke 2:52-53

FOR SALE: the American free press

(Where print publishing is headed)

My husband has spent over 30 years editing magazines. His company now publishes fewer than half the number of magazines they did a decade ago, and the number of employees has been significantly reduced. He feels some sympathy for the situation described in a recent New York Times article, "Sponsors Now Pay for Online Articles, Not Just Ads," "if the articles are clearly marked," he said, "and they don't promote the companies' products." Right, I said, and the camel's nose under the tent flap isn't hurting anybody.

I understand why magazines are turning to sponsored articles. Most of us would rather read our magazines online, though we have no intention of paying for the privilege of doing so. Unfortunately, advertisers are not willing to pay as much for online ads as they once did for print ads, possibly because consumers have learned how to block them. (I use Adblock Plus, which is great for now, but they're starting to let "more useful and pleasant" ads past their censors, which may soon render them useless to ad-avoiders like me.) With dropping revenue from consumers and advertisers, magazines have a hard time paying for original research, reporting, writing, and editing. The temptation to use sponsored articles is strong.

It's good for spouses to have common interests, so my husband and I both chose careers in a doomed industry that pays poorly. What could possibly go wrong? My work has been in book publishing, which has its own share of problems. A decade ago my little college town had a Borders and a Barnes & Noble. Now we have to get our books from Amazon or, more often, from the public library. Read another recent New York Times article, Scott Turow's "The Slow Death of the American Author," and weep.

Turow, who is president of The Authors Guild, is not complaining about his remuneration: his books have sold over 25 million copies. He simply notes that authors of e-books earn "roughly half of a traditional hardcover royalty"--unless they are pirated, lent, or re-sold, in which case they earn nothing at all. And since an e-book never wears out, why would anybody pay for a new one?

I didn't put a newspaper in my toilet photo, because I don't have an actual newspaper. We stopped subscribing to the Chicago Tribune about the time a good friend of mine, seeing the handwriting on the wall, took early retirement. She's glad she did: during the last decades, hundred of editors, writers, and reporters have been laid off, and pension benefits have dramatically decreased. Like everyone else, I read my news online now. As my mother once asked under other circumstances, why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?

But what's going to happen now that we all expect to get our news, our magazine articles, and our books free of charge? If newspapers can't afford to hire good reporters and editors, news will deteriorate into shouting matches based on uninformed opinion. If magazines can't afford to pay their writers and editors, they will first try to turn into advertising delivery systems and then, failing that, go out of business. If book publishers lower royalty rates and refuse to take a chance on new or little-known authors (i.e., authors who are not yet "brands"), careful thinking and writing will be replaced by self-published schlock. Oh, right... those aren't predictions. They're descriptions of what has actually happened over the last decade.

Q. So where will our reading material come from? 
A. From businesses with products to sell, of course.

It's an American tradition. The current Supreme Court has decided that businesses have the right to sponsor political candidates. For many years cigarette makers sponsored the research that found no link between smoking and cancer. Nowadays manufacturers of sugary products sponsor dubious nutritional research. Why shouldn't businesses sponsor news, commentary, and entertainment, not only by advertising, but also by providing content? Especially if they're not specifically mentioning their own products in the articles they supply?

Well, one wonders how much of the camel will follow his nose into the tent. And one thinks of the old adage that he who lies down with dogs (or camels) gets up with fleas. For a fascinating first-hand look at how advertising influenced women's magazines before 1990, read Gloria Steinem's (possibly pirated) article "Sex, Lies & Advertising." For a fascinating first-hand look at how advertising is influencing all forms of media today, just stay online.

More on why medical bills are killing us, including an account of my own recent experience

TIME magazine has put its brilliant long cover article, "Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us" (March 4, 2013), behind a paywall, so if you're not a subscriber the link won't help. I understand why they did this: my husband has been in the magazine business for over 30 years, and it's awfully hard to pay staff when readers want everything free.

On the other hand, I wish every American and especially every lawmaker (local, state, and federal) would read this article. It explains better than anything else I've read why our health-care system costs way more than that of any other developed country, and why Obamacare, alas, is so unlikely to bring our costs down. It also gives a few good suggestions about ways to improve our health-care system even if we're not in the mood to give it the total overhaul it so desperately needs.

I supported Obamacare. It's awfully hard to steer a parked car, and the Affordable Care Act got us rolling. But we can't stop reforming health-care now, because our system is still broken. I agree with American economist Tsung-Mei Cheng's tongue-in-cheek Universal Laws of Health Care systems (I'm quoting from T.R. Reid's excellent book, The Healing of America, which I reviewed here, here, and here):

1. No matter how good the health care in a particular country, people will complain about it.
2. No matter how much money is spent on health care, the doctors and hospitals will argue that it is not enough.
3. The last reform always failed.

America's health-care system is not getting the results it should. See the latest report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, whose title sums up our situation: "Americans Have Worse Health Than People in Other High-Income Countries; Health Disadvantage Is Pervasive Across Age and Socio-Economic Groups."

The way America's health care is financed would be hilarious if it didn't hurt so many people (go to the library and read the TIME article to be appalled). A personal example: I recently had an electrophysiology study performed at a highly rated Chicago hospital. From my arrival at 6:15 a.m. to my discharge at 9:30 p.m., the care I received was excellent. I am a big fan of most doctors and practically all nurses.

And then I got the paperwork.

• What the hospital and doctor billed my insurance company: $56,737.28
• What the insurance company agreed to pay: $18,591.77
• What I am probably going to have to pay: $858.80
• What I would be billed if I were unemployed and uninsured:  $56,737.28

Of course the hospital wouldn't be able to collect the full amount if I didn't have it, and I could always negotiate with them - that is, if my English language and negotiating skills were excellent, or if I could afford to hire a negotiator, or if I even knew that negotiation was possible. Or I could declare bankruptcy.

A lot of things still need reforming in our partially reformed health-care system. Could we start by requiring health-care services to have uniform prices for all, and to post their prices so that clients can know the cost of treatment before they sign up? And then could we ask the government not to give health-care services money unless it simultaneously puts limits on how much those health-care services can charge?

Please hire me

[Working till she drops]

A couple of years ago my 40-something cardiologist earnestly told me that the Social Security/Medicare problem was a cinch to fix--all we had to do was increase the retirement age. Right, I thought - I'm in my 60s and facing open-heart surgery, but once I recover I can go pound the pavement. My cardiologist is not an economist, however, and he's a good doctor, so I held my peace.

Yesterday's New York Times ran an article by Economic Scene writer Eduardo Porter, who should know better. In "The Payoff in Delaying Retirement" Porter writes:

What if there were a way for the government to ease the strain that the aging place on the budget while actually increasing their income in retirement, at little or no cost to their benefits? A well-designed reform would even improve the nation’s rate of economic growth. The way to do it is simply to encourage older workers to spend a larger share of their increasing life spans in the work force.

 Sometimes solutions that look good on paper don't work so well in the real world.

First, most boomers are already planning to work until they drop, since they have saved practically nothing for retirement. I'm not sure they need any additional encouragement. What they need is reality therapy.

Second, over the last decade or so, a lot of companies have downsized. Their PR departments speak of this as right-sizing. What it means is that (a) fewer jobs are available; (b) older workers--the ones getting the bigger paychecks because of seniority--are in greatest peril of being laid off; and (c) the remaining jobs require much longer work days. Such policies, good as they may be for a business's bottom line, are not conducive toward extending one's working years.

Third, it's hard for laid-off older folks to get entry-level jobs. Not only are they overqualified (whatever that means), but the jobs just aren't there. Ask any recent grad.

Fourth, while some older people can work at full capacity well into their 70s and 80s, many cannot. However cheerfully chirpy AARP publications may be, 60 is not the new 40. Over 70% of Americans between ages 60 and 79 have some form of cardiovascular disease, for example, compared to fewer than 40% of people between ages 40 and 49 (see data here). For every person between ages 40 and 44 who is diagnosed with cancer, more than eight people between ages 65 and 69 are so diagnosed (see data here). And those who plan to die with their boots on should be aware that nearly 14% of people over 70 have Alzheimer's disease (see data here).

But let's neglect all those potential problems and stipulate that those of us who are capable of working really should be working, at least until--shall we say--age 70. OK, I'll offer myself as a test case. 

I am 64 years old. I have a solid work history with excellent recommendations, though I have not had a regular employer for some 13 years and my industry--book publishing--is in a hard place. With three master's degrees and a background in teaching as well as editing, writing, and management, I'm quite versatile. My health has been pretty good since my open-heart surgery a year and a half ago (I will require excellent medical insurance, however). I have an extended network of other aging publishing professionals.  

So keep me off Social Security and Medicare for another five years. Offer me a full-time job with a respectable salary and benefits.

Or isn't "encourag[ing] older workers to spend a larger share of their increasing life spans in the work force" quite as simple as Mr. Porter believes?

Is the West's reckless lifestyle killing our poorer neighbors?

[Africa, with Tanzania highlighted]

I spent all day Monday in an outpatient clinic (I'm fine; thanks for asking). I met a lot of nurses, and every one of them was excellent.

When Velda came to take away the remains of my lunch, I offered her my untouched can of ginger ale.

"I don't drink soft drinks," she replied. Since I rarely do either, we started chatting.

Velda grew up in Tanzania, moved to Belgium, spent several years in London, and finally came to the United States. She returns to Tanzania regularly, and she is not happy with what she sees.

"I grew up eating lots of vegetables," she told me. "We might have had ice cream once every three years. But now people are eating American-style junk food. They don't know it's not good for them."

Tanzania's cigarette industry is big. In spite of national bans on most forms of advertising, Velda vividly recalls a huge billboard for Sportsman - one of Tanzania's most popular cigarette brands - right across from a school entrance where children can't help seeing it every day. And the children are smoking - she's seen them.

Supposedly regulated drugs are easy to buy without a prescription. Velda's 18-year-old nephew, once an honor student, is now a prescription-drug addict and a drop-out.

"The thing is," Velda said, "there's no way to get treatment for most diseases. It's not like here. If people want to be healthy, they have to take care of themselves. When they get sick because of junk food or smoking or drugs, they just die."

I checked the statistics. Tanzania's per capita income is $1700 in U.S. dollars. There is one physician for every 125,000 people (compare America's ratio of one physician for every 375 people; or Cuba's of one for every 156). Tanzanians live, on average, to age 53. Velda's twin sister died at age 23.

Velda, who is a kind and gentle nurse, gets angry when she thinks about what's happening to her people. "Why?" she kept saying. Why are international companies so aggressively promoting foods and cigarettes and drugs that will shorten people's lives and even kill them? Why is nobody stopping them? Why?

The contraceptive kerfuffle: a common-sense approach

If I were Queen of America, here's what I'd do about contraceptives.

First, I'd apologize for the current kerfuffle over whether faith-based institutions (or any business whose owners disapprove of contraception) have to provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance policies, and I'd rescind the HHS directive and all its amendments. Never mind whether it's a good idea to require contraceptive coverage; it has become politically unfeasible to do so, and we might as well drop it.

Second, I'd disentangle contraception from insurance altogether. Instead, I'd make an assortment of contraceptive medications available free or at a low cost as a direct gift from Uncle Sam to anyone with a valid prescription for them. Let's name the program Common Sense, shall we?

Third, I'd require pharmaceutical companies to provide Common Sense with low-cost equivalents of every category of contraceptive drug they manufacture. At the same time, I'd prevent price gouging by putting a price ceiling on all contraceptives paid for by the Common Sense program.

Fourth, I'd encourage continued research and development by allowing pharmaceutical companies to develop all the fancy, high-priced contraceptives they wish, and by allowing insurance companies to cover these designer drugs (because such meds would not be distributed through Common Sense). I'd even throw in some government funds for research, since improvements in contraception should lead to better health and, eventually, lower prices for all.

As Queen of America I'd fund Common Sense through tax money, which would no doubt offend some of my subjects. So be it: we all are offended by something, and right now I'm mightily offended by how much of my tax money goes to military intervention around the world.

If Common Sense helped Americans reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, we'd likely have fewer abortions, fewer high-school drop-outs, and fewer people on welfare. Common Sense might even save us money in the long run.

I'm not likely to become Queen of America, of course, and that's as well. Democracies - even contentious, inefficient ones - are generally safer than absolute monarchies. But gosh, wouldn't a little common sense be refreshing?

Maybe the fighting is almost over ...

[The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir singing at
President Obama's second inauguration]

"Faith in America's Future" - that's the theme of today's inauguration activities.

Watching the prayers, the songs, the speeches, the crowd massed on the Washington Mall, I felt the faith. We don't have to hate each other. We can work together for a future that will be good for our country and for us as individuals. We can, as the President charged us to do, make the "values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American."

Inaugurations are times for setting aside differences and wildly celebrating.  While Richard Blanco read his inaugural poem, even John Boehner looked teary-eyed.

The political divisions will be back in full force tomorrow, of course. And yet we Americans are in the midst of some really big changes--changes that may make today's partisan squabbles look hopelessly antiquated in just a decade or two. Today's events are highlighting these changes.

This morning a Hispanic woman justice of the Supreme Court administered the oath of office. An African-American civil rights leader and a Cuban-American Episcopal priest, once a refugee, prayed. A gay Cuban-American, the son of exiles, wrote and read the inaugural poem. Music was provided by a white woman, a black woman, a white man, and the magnificent multi-colored Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir.

As a Boomer woman of mostly British descent whose paternal ancestors came to America in 1634, I felt wonderfully, happily, and mercifully irrelevant. Once people like me--well, people like my father--ran America. They did a good job of it in their day, and we honor them as war heroes, institutional founders, philanthropists, and thought leaders. But the day of white Protestant male supremacy is almost over.

It's been a rocky ride as women, people of color, gays, immigrants, and people with unusual religions have moved onto the stage. We've clashed. We've attacked. We've huddled in fear with people of our own kind. But looking at this morning's participants I couldn't help thinking: the changes are almost complete.

Non-Hispanic whites now make up less than 2/3 of the American population; in less than 30 years we will be a minority. WASPs--white Anglo-Saxon Protestants--are already a minority.

When the 113th Congress convened, 101 women took their seats. Three women sit on the Supreme Court. A woman is a serious contender for the 2016 presidential nomination.

People of both parties seriously working on immigration reform and on equal justice for non-heterosexuals. There is rising concern for those marginalized by poverty, race, gender, sexual orientation, and inadequate healthcare and educational resources.

Most of these changes have occurred during the tumultuous administrations of our three Boomer Presidents, Bill Clinton (1993-2001), George W. Bush (2001-2009), and Barack Obama (2009-present). These have been contentious years: change is never easy. It often feels dangerous. It divides people, and nations.

But looking at the people on the inaugural platform this morning, I felt renewed hope. In another decade or two, the changes that are rocking the Boomer years may have produced an America in which people are truly equal--or at least a lot more equal than we are today. "America’s possibilities are limitless," President Obama exhorted the nation, "for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention."

Step up to the plate, youngsters. It's almost your turn.