Part 1 of a Discussion of Peter Foster’s Why We Bite the Invisible Hand Chapter 15 “Global Salvationism”
In an earlier chapter, Foster refers to the work of economist David Henderson who developed the idea of DIYE, do-it-yourself-economics, which is a compilation of subconscious, erroneous ideas that many people hold about how they think the economy works.
One such idea is that the economy needs to be planned; this is why so many are uncomfortable with the idea of the free market being guided by an Invisible Hand.
This knee-jerk reaction that someone should be in charge is the root of much of the prevalent anti-capitalism thinking.
As natural as central planning feels to so many, F. A. Hayek was arguing against the idea that planning was even possible when he illustrated the knowledge problem: no planner(s) can have all the knowledge they need to successfully implement a plan.
The knowledge is dispersed among all the people in the economy and can only be revealed in the free market price system. It is individuals’ reactions to the signals of the prices that is what makes it look like an Invisible Hand is guiding the economy.
In this chapter, Foster notes Henderson had another valuable insight in his 2004 book, The Role of Business in the Modern World.
Nearly 20 years ago, he saw the problem of “global salvationism,” which we are seeing the consequences of now, just as he predicted.
Global salvationism, he wrote, was a quasi-religious belief based on two articles of faith: environmental alarmism, and the assertion that the Third World poverty was due to the West taking more than its “fair share” of global resources. (p. 340)
Foster discussed the issue around environmental alarms last chapter.
And the idea of the West causing poverty in the Third World shows a lack of historical understanding.
It is not the existence of poverty that needs explaining but its absence. That is, most people have been living at subsistence levels for all of our existence, except for the last 200 years.
This erroneous thinking also reveals another cognitive error people tend to believe if they have not examined the issue, zero sum thinking, long ago demonstrated by Thomas Malthus in his 1798 essay.
Here, the idea would be the West had to take their wealth from somewhere because there is a limited amount. It fails to understand the essential value of capitalism, which is harnessing innovation to increase output from our resources.
That is where the increased standard of living has come from.
Global Salvationism
Continuing on with this idea of Henderson’s about Global Salvationism, both the environmental fears and the concerns with the apparent unfairness of the rich West stealing from the poor undeveloped countries stem from the same kind of zero sum thinking.
Take that error and compound it with the DIYE solution of central planning to fix something that does not need fixing, and you get Global Salvationism.
Both problems were declared to require top-down political solutions of the type that had failed abysmally in the past, only this time those solutions would incorporate the participation of big business. Giant corporations, in this view, should accept more “social responsibility” for what were, ultimately, political objectives. (p. 340)
While he was writing 20 years ago, it has certainly blossomed into the inescapable “solutions” being pushed by politicians and NGOs today. Some of the terms used now are corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and stakeholder capitalism.
Whatever it is called, it is the same old “solution” to a problem that only exists when your are blinded by DIYE errors.
Governments and big business need to work together or else we will be doomed to the consequences of global warming, or species extinction, or resource depletion, or choose-your-apocalyptic-concern. (p. 341)
How Did We Get Here
From here, Foster begins to discuss a person I had never heard of, Maurice Strong, a Canadian who worked in and with government and international institutions to push the idea of sustainable development.
[Maurice Strong] had been critical to all the seminal meetings and organizations [Henderson] had identified: the 1972 and 1992 UN conferences and the formation of UNEP, the WEF, and the WBCSD…More than that, he was virtually a one-man psychological compendium of the links between professed high moral purpose, flawed critiques of capitalism and rationalization of the urge to power. (p. 341)
Strong no doubt has accomplished a lot through his business success and his work in and for governments and international institutions to push the goals of what Henderson calls global salvationism.
However, he is the kind of figure that lends himself to various conspiracy theories. I think examining what he thinks and has done is sufficient without having to don the tinfoil hat. This interview allows you to understand his thinking in his own words.
As he says in that interview and I think other places, he denies he is a communist and hedges on being a socialist.
“Basically I am a socialist in the ideological sense that I believe the principal purpose of economic activity is to meet the social goals of society. I am a capitalist because I believe that the capitalist system is the best way of doing it.” (p. 344)
I think that is an expected stance given his DIYE faulty thinking.
He wrote his autobiography in 2001, Where on Earth Are We Going?, where he wrote a letter in his first chapter as if it was a report to the shareholders of Earth in the year 2031. (p. 344)
There’s a lot there! First, apparently the earth has united globally in some form of shareholder organization? I guess that is stakeholder capitalism taken to its extreme.
Second, he makes a comment about 2/3 of the population being wiped out and called it, “a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.” (p. 345)
The Malthusian thinking is strong in him.
But the worst to me is his conclusion, which seems to always be the conclusion of those following climate alarmism and global salvationism.
According to Strong, to seek proof of his assertions or pursue rational analysis of his vision would be irresponsible. All he needed was the power to act. Now. Before it is too late. (p. 345)
And that gets to the heart of my problem with people with this viewpoint. We cannot have a rational discussion about the issues and come to a compromise. The situation is too dire, too apocalyptic, so we have to give up everything today, and give them the power to do what they see is best. Or else.
Conclusion
I don’t know if they are sincere believers or power-mad. As Foster discussed in his chapter about the development of our political instincts, self-deception often plays a role deluding the power-mad person into thinking they really are noble.
Regardless, it shows the danger of concentrated power.
The more we can keep power decentralized, the safer we are from either the evil or the self-deluded who think they can do better if they can just remove the freedom of choice from all the little people as they design their vision of utopia.
Giving the benefit of the doubt that Strong and those who agree with him really see the future as bleak if we do not act, it does not change the fact that they are blinded by their zero-sum, Malthusian thinking.
Destroying our economy to enact the policies they want in order to fix something that does not need fixing is the actual problem with their solutions.
The giveaway that primitive zero-sum thinking was at the root of all this lay in the assumption that the needs of the future might be better taken care of if the needs of the present were restricted. In fact, capitalist wealth had never been “taken” from the future; it had always been the foundation for continuous betterment. (p. 352)
They are blinded by their fixed-pie-thinking so that any wealth today is evidence of having stolen it from someone else, or from the future, or from the earth’s resources. The possibility that innovation has increased the pie does not compute.
The rest of the chapter focuses on the erroneous thinking behind the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility, which I will take up in the next blog.
Reference: Foster, Peter, 2014. “Global Salvationism” Chapter 15 of Why We Bite the Invisible Hand, Pleasaunce Press.
