Michael,
Doesn’t this leave out the crucial role of technology? It’s not markets that have created unprecedented wealth but the vast leaps in technological capability since the Industrial Revolution. When “Mrs. Smith” can make 5,000 pies a minute, one can capture much more wealth for each pie ones sell than if each pie takes, say, 10 minutes to get into the oven. Anyway, the Mrs. Smith’s example does support the idea that there is a relationship between labor and wealth–produce more widgets that people want to buy more rapidly–which is, in fact, more efficient use of labor whether it’s a group of humans or one human pushing the button on a machine–and more wealth is created. It’s not markets creating the wealth, its technology.

Michael-
This is a great series.
“What challenges or troubles you about this understanding of wealth?”
It indicates the unhealthy things society (and we) value. How are Christians contributing to placing high value on needless things, and not placing adequate value on the needed things? Can we even change that?
I know “needless” and “adequate” are defined economically by the market; but we, as Christians, should not just consider the economic value.

Michael,
This is very helpful. I especially relate to the thoughts that poverty is much more than a lack of resources. We have learned to be sensitive to an individual?s dignity and self respect when working in the area of poverty alleviation.
I am frustrated in an area that I recognize a being zero-sum thinking but I can?t work around it. There are figures that tell us that 25,000 children die every day from preventable causes. In his book, ?The Hole In Our Gospel?, Richard Stearns makes the case that the Western Church is self-absorbed. Indeed, we are more interested in buildings and budgets than in taking the love of God to our world. What difference could the billions of dollars we spend on ourselves make if it were invested in our neighbors around the world? I know this is zero-sum thinking but?

Tom,
I am not an economist but I don’t think reallocating resources is zero-sum thinking. I think we can–and I am with you 100 percent on what you say above! Blessings to you!–reallocate existing resources and work to create greater wealth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Michael,
So, walk us through Jesus’ exclamation to his disciples that the widow who gave her two mites in the temple treasury put in more money than all the “rich” together who gave out of their excess. It seems that Jesus is reconstructing the socially-created definitions of wealth.
After reading your post, I can’t get this saying out of my mind: Give a person a fish and he eats for a day; teach a person to fish and he eats for a life time. Could it be read: Give a person some redistributed goods and he eats for a day; train and give a person a job and he eats for a life time.

Dianne #1
Excellent point about technology, which I did not include here. Technology has been a major (if not the major) contributor to the rise of wealth. I wasn?t so much trying to give a comprehensive view for the rise of wealth as trying to illustrate the nature of wealth. Still, division of labor (specialization) has also been a big contributor to wealth. Maybe you?ve heard this story about consultants:
A maintenance man retires from a chemical plant. One day the plant managers discover something is jamming up the works but they can?t find the problem. Each minute the plant is idle is costing a lot of money. They call the retired maintenance man and ask if will come back on a consultant basis. He agrees.
The man walks into the plant. He wonders around for fifteen minutes before walking up to a pipe. He hits it three times with a monkey wrench. Immediately, everything kicks into gear and works fine. Management is elated and asks the man to send them a bill.
The man sends them a bill for $10,000. Management is outraged and demands an itemized bill for his fifteen minutes of work. The man sends an itemized bill that says:
$50 = Time and labor in hitting the pipe.
$9,950 = Knowing where to hit the pipe.
The more proficient we become in work where skill or talent is needed, and demand for that work is high, the higher will be the economic value of the labor. In essence, due to our training and/or innate abilities, our work will have different economic value for the same number of hours worked.

I guess I find it confusing when I look to successful respected Churches for leadership, and in the midst of the worst economy (and therefore the highest need) in decades, they are doing things like building $5 million bridges to relieve minor traffic flow problems:
http://www.letsbuildabridge.com/

I just want to add my words of appreciation for your posts on economics, Michael. Any answers to our problems worldwide today has to take into consideration all of this.
It surely has to be and/both, not either/or. We’ll always have those we need to help in getting them out of the straits they’re in, whether homelessness, hunger, etc. But we also need works to help them get on their feet and become a productive contributor to society.
This knowledge somehow has to come with a change in our nation. To a sense of societal moral obligation, don’t you think? If it’s only about capitalism or market free enterprise, then we have the mess that’s in our country today over health care, I would argue (from my admittedly limited understanding of all of this).

Rick #2
Thanks. You are hitting on a key point. Markets are exceptionally good (though far from perfect) at creating a world that reflects the values of the market players. Put good values in, good stuff comes out. Put garbage in, garbage comes out. Thus, when people fault markets for any number of ills I?m generally inclined to suggest that on the contrary, markets are functioning quite well. It?s a bit like blaming the computer and the internet for the pornography we download on our computers.
Tom #3
I didn?t mean to suggest that we should not be giving. I agree with Dianne that reallocating our resources to others is not necessarily related to zero-sum thinking. The question, to me, is our aim. People can not learn and be productive in environments where they are perpetually hungry and disease ridden. Targeted and well-managed aid to address these concerns is vital. But we need to address problems in ways that empowers brothers and sister to address their own hunger and health, not create dependence.
The question is the actual outcome of the aid. Is the aim to merely through money at problems out of a sense of guilt and shame from a zero-sum mentality, or is the aim to do critical discernment that involves partnering with people in need to solve their own problems in ways that may at times seem counter-intuitive to us? Are we willing to sacrifice some of our notions of ?helping others? (often creating dependence) in order to find ways to instill true dignity and partnership?
The latter is not zero-sum game. It is participation and investment in the redemption of humanity as God?s co-creative, dominion exercising, eikons.

Michael, I think the theological problem with this definition of “wealth” is that “utility” by definition is defined to be a morally neutral function. Utility is simply what an individual prefers, regardless of the moral implications of that preference. “Morality” is exogenous to the utility function. Under this sort of utility calculation, there is absolutely no principled reason, for example, to regulate “vices” such as prostitution or drug use. In fact, my favorite utilitarian publication, The Economist, regularly advocates for the legalization of prostitution and drugs on this very ground.
For this reason, I think the pretense that neoclassical economics is morally “neutral” is a farce. The moral stance of neoclassical economics is utilitarian and pragmatist. Otherwise, neoclassical economics could not offer any account of why utility maximization is “good,” and the exercise of calculating utility functions would become pointless.
I do not believe utilitarianism and pragmatism are a sufficient basis for ethics from a Christian perspective. Therefore, I would reject the argument that “wealth” can meaningfully be defined only with reference to utility functions, or that “labor” has no intrinsic value. The utility heuristic can be very helpful in a descriptive sense, but it is useless, IMHO, in a moral sense.
We can only arrive at a satisfactory understanding of “wealth” and “labor” when we connect those concepts to the classical virtues. The classical Christian understanding of “wealth” and “labor,” rooted in the virtues portrayed in scripture, and described in contemporary Christian social teaching documents such as Pope Benedict’s “Caritas in Veritate,” is much richer than the merely pragmatist / utilitarian / libertarian view.

John (5),
Actually, Jesus is employing the same concept of marginal utility, and saying that God values gifts (or better measures one’s generousity) according to the marginal utility of the giver, not the rest of the market. The two mites had a very high marginal utility to the woman who gave them because they were all she had to live on. Someone else could give much more money at less utility cost to themselves and God says they are not as generous as she is.

“Give a person a fish and he eats for a day; teach a person to fish and he eats for a life time.”
My economic development version is:
“Give a person a fish and he eats for a day; teach a person to fish and he eats for a life time; equip a person to own and run a fish hatchery and you create a sustainable food supply for a community with employment for others.”
As to the widow’s mite, I can see a number of angles with this simple story. Can you say more about how you see this connected to the post?

Michael,
I knew that you weren?t suggesting that we should not be giving. While there are times that we need to rescue people from starvation or disease by ?giving them a fish?, I agree that these are not long term solutions and can quickly create dependency.
The hard work is collaborating with people long-term to solve their own problems in creative ways. Often, it is the easiest to simple throw money at problem. I am a strong advocate of microcredit. While not a panacea, it is an effective tool in poverty alleviation.

Here is very apt passage from Pope Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate:

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

Again in this area, the terms are likely more offensive to Christians than the underlying theories. “Wealth” in the sense of this post could be more descriptively named “Perceived Wealth” or “Existential Wealth.” As Michael pointed out in the classroom example, existential wealth in a population can increase merely by allowing trade, even if the amount and quality of goods remains constant (nothing additional produced or physically improved).
[Warning, the following might be offensive to those unaccustomed to economic terms!] Of course, it’s also fair to say that Paul’s existential wealth (as with all Christians) increased dramatically by virtue of what he believed to have received in Christ. At the same time, the marginal utility of all his goods, all status, even his own body and blood, etc. diminished to almost zero because of the “surpassing value” he placed on serving Christ and thereby sharing in him and his blessings. Indeed, after covering basic needs, if we accept Paul’s testimony alone on these matters, nothing would increase the existential wealth of the world more than deepening and widening conversion to Christ, even if nothing additional was produced. Of course, one couldn’t actually convert as Paul describes and be non-productive, but that’s another subject.

T (#11) – actually the parable would about marginal cost, not marginal utility. The marginal cost to the widow was greater, but the marginal utility of the widow’s mite to a human recipient would have been less than the marginal utility of a greater sum from a wealthy patron.
But with God, of course, there is no marginal utility function, because God already possesses everything He needs within His Triune being, and therefore no one ever “adds” anything to God’s utility function. As between God and humans, everything is “gift,” with God as the giver and us as the recipients. Even the widow’s greater measure of devotion “adds” nothing to God’s utility. Rather, God delights in the widow’s mite because the honor she thereby shows to God is “right” and “good” — moral categories not connected to any utility function.
This is an excellent illustration of why utilitarian ethics are inadequate. The ultimate basis for Christian ethics is the self-sufficient being of God and His gifts of creation and grace — not utility maximization.

Michael (#12),
T (#11) had a good thought for me regarding the widow’s two mites. I like your expansion of the “give a person a fish…” saying.
Again, I am very appreciative of this series.

T(#15) — you could reduce Paul’s personal decisions to utility functions, but that would then make the “truth” of Paul’s eschatological hopes exogenous. If the real end of Christian eschatology is the “God will be all in all,” then our participation in God’s Kingdom isn’t really about maximizing our own individual utility. It’s true, of course, that individual rewards and punishments are an important theme in the Bible, but I’d argue that the Bible’s ultimate eschatological vision centers on God, not on how many heavenly “crowns” any one of us can obtain. The Eastern Orthodox notion of theosis is interesting here: there is a sense in which each of our individual utility functions becomes irrelevant in the eschaton, as we find our true union with God in Christ. Paul’s surpassing vision wasn’t so much that he, Paul, would get “paid” for his earthly suffering, but that the all-encompassing beauty of God’s final indwelling of all creation overwhelmed his (Paul’s) utility calculations.

Dopderbeck #10
I?m not making a libertarian case here.
Even if we ban things like drugs, they have value. Every time government to bans a desired product it creates a black market. We have not negated its value or the wealth it creates for the person who holds it. (In fact, by making it scarce relative demand it can drive up value.) The only way we truly eliminate its value is when no one desires the good or service. Thus, the way wealth works is independent of our morality but what values are assigned to which things is not. Utility is the determinate of economic value, but what informs utility is our moral constructs.
I did not say that everything should be left to the market or that labor has no intrinsic value. Any labor that is done out of a response to God?s call and mission, including labor, has intrinsic value. I was very precise in my wording. I said labor has no ?intrinsic economic value.? The economic value of labor is determined not only by the value/utility it brings but by the ability to acquire the next unit of labor toward a particular end. Part of what a low wage can be telling us is that too many people are stacking up in a worthy area of work ? maybe they should redirect their labor to other worthy areas of work where there is more demand. That doesn?t change the intrinsic value of the underlying work that is being done.
?I do not believe utilitarianism and pragmatism are a sufficient basis for ethics from a Christian perspective.?
Nor do I. That is why I?m asking that since economic value of goods and labor is determined by utility, yet as Christians we know there is more than economic value in life, what should be our response.
(BTW, I don?t support legalized prostitution or drugs. In fact, I oppose legalized gambling.)

Michael,
Great series. I am really enjoying it.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on the role of “synergy.”
In his book, How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor, Erik Reinert points out that the real wage of a bus driver in Frankfurt is sixteen times higher than the real wage of a bus driver in Nigeria (who is doing the same job). He argues that one of the reasons for this is because of synergy–that advances in one sector spill over into all sectors. People in Frankfurt have higher paying jobs, more expendable income, and can therefore pay more to ride the bus than someone in Nigeria.
What role does synergy play when we talk about how much something is worth?

dopderbeck,
You and I agree (other than on the usefulness of economic analysis to these kinds of matters, I think). I wasn’t saying that Paul’s eschatological vision centered on how many crowns he was receiving. I am saying that the more he looked at Christ and his plan, the “wealthier” he became (as Michael is using the term, which is more akin to existential or perceived wealth). Similar to your last sentence, I was basically restating Philippians 3 and even Jesus’ twin pearl/field parables whereby one’s (perceived) wealth, again, as that term is used by Michael, is so dramatically increased upon properly seeing and joining Christ and, simultaneously, the marginal utility of “whatever was to my profit” becomes, relatively speaking, valued as much as “garbage.” This dynamic is great, because it facilitates radical generosity of one’s “garbage” (generally what the world prizes) just for the chance to join in more with Christ and his work. I’m just describing how relative value shifts alter behavior.
Using the terms “marginal utility” and “wealth” as they’ve been defined here to evaluate Paul’s shifting value structure doesn’t necessitate concluding that Paul was more focused on “things” or “rewards” or some objectified payment of any kind rather than the person of Christ. We can say in generic terms: “Paul got some insight as to what Christ is and is about. As a result, Paul valued everything differently. Specifically, he felt very fortunate indeed (wealthy) to be included in any capacity in Christ and his work (his value of this skyrocketed), and simultaneously devalued much of what he used to love.” It’s no different from using the economic terms, apart from our association of those terms with selfish, money-driven motives and actions. I think it’s the term “utility” instead of “value” that you take issue with. I don’t think you would object to saying Paul is “value” driven, but shudder (as do I, frankly) to suggesting he was “utility” driven, because utility is associated with selfishness and satisfaction from mere material things. I was using “utility” more synonymously with “value” which I agree has the better connotation.

Accidental things, like where you were born, to whom and when, have a much greater effect on the value of your labor than anything under your control.
I can work feverishly until I die and still not approach the value of my rich cousin’s labor, who had the good fortune to be born to wealthy parents.
The whole “teach a man to fish” parable is a red herring, pardon the pun, for it ignores the fact that some of us inherited boats and docks on waters with lots of fish, while others of us had to try and accumulate the capital from scratch, while still others had no chance at all because they were born in the desert.
I suspect that predestination is more of an economic concept than theological. Upward mobility is directly related to the distance one has to travel. As the poor and the rich grow further apart, opportunity for the poor to become rich becomes less and less.

Michael (#19) — but you said “the intent is to show that critiques of economic behavior based on a zero-sum mindset and on assumptions of inherent economic value in goods and labor are errant.”
I didn’t take from this that you were making merely a semantic point. If theologians and neoclassical economists mean different things when they use the word “economic,” it might be helpful to clarify that, but I think the theologians’ critique would still stand.
The real point is that many (most?) neoclassical economists don’t treat their models as merely descriptive within the confines of a language game in which “economic value” = “utility function”. Many (most?) neoclassical economists view their models also as normative / prescriptve — that is, they very much buy into the utilitarian ethical paradigm that underlies their notion of “utility.” Believe me, if you try to introduce any normative “moral” considerations to most hard core law-and-economics scholars, you’ll be met with blank stares if not open derision. The utilitarian / pragmatist paradigm is held by many with religious zeal.

Matt #20
I have Reinhart but haven?t read it yet. (So many books, so little time.) I have read the basic thesis elsewhere. Elhanan Helpman gets into some of this in ?The Mystery of Economic Growth.?
I think the synergy factor is critical. What that all points to is the sociological nature of wealth as the product of community rather than inherent in the objects or labor themselves. Wealth emerges in an interactive eco-system of natural resources, cultural values (property rights, just government, trust of strangers, rejection of fatalism, generosity, etc.) trade, technology, human capital, and trade.

#23 dopderbeck.
I’m not understanding how what you quoted is problematic.
Economics is not a zero-sum game and wealth is a socially constructed reality. What counts for wealth will factor in both the good and evil that is in society.
Yes. Many neoclassical economists are materialists, believing they have no deity with moral authority to answer to. They believe the rational pursuit of the optimal material outcome is all that matters.
Christians believe otherwise. If we were true to Kingdom values, and the culture were persuaded to these values, then the nature of wealth and the economy would look different. We would value differently (but we would still not see a match up between what is most essential and what is highest priced/paid.)
None of this changes the fact that economy isn’t a zero-sum or that wealth is socially constructed.
By analogy, I’m strongly persuaded that evolution is how life has emerged. Many evolutionist are materialist who reject any deity. I don’t reject evolution because evolutionist have over-stepped their bounds in asserting philosophical materialism. Neither do I reject the truth the wealth is socially constructed because many economists have over-stepped their bounds in insisting on their materialism.

I’ll add that I think T is right that semantics/connotations gets in the way here. Like “scarce” and “self-interested,” “utility” carries baggage that is it necessarily there in the the economic context. But for better or worse, this the language the discipline uses.

@jjoe.
There’s always the Lotto.

This is an excellent discussion, well-framed and explained.
I would like to introduce a distinction that seems to be in play here. Pragmatic approaches can superficially resemble each other, strategically, even when coming from widely different perspectives, philosophically.
As Christians, our interpretive stance toward reality presupposes both metaphysical and moral realisms. Oversimplified, we do believe that one can journey from an is to an ought, a fact to a value, the given to the normative, the descriptive to the prescriptive. While our descriptions of reality are problematical because we are radically finite, while we in no way fully comprehend reality, we do know enough through our partial apprehension of reality to derive from it significant values in terms of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. Still, because of our radical finitude, we must be concerned also with the art of the possible, the political, and this calls for a political realism, which takes into account what can be some rather harsh and seemingly intractable social, economic, political and cultural realities.
In my RC tradition, our social encyclicals pay heed to metaphysical, moral and political realism. When we do take a “pragmatic turn,” we do so strategically and not philosophically. For the Christian, while the pragmatic can serve as a “test” of truth, never is it considered a “theory” of truth; while it can serve as a “strategy,” never does it serve as a “principle.” Theoretically, if the pragmatic is truth-indicative, then, strategically, it can increase our confidence in a proposition probabilistically even if it is not otherwise truth-conducive. Practically, if we encounter difficult socioeconomic and political realities, then, strategically, we can defensibly take recourse in pragmatic solutions as we try to successfully negotiate these realities, partially advancing our Gospel cause, without in any way negotiating our principles.
What I am suggesting is that there can be a superficial resemblance between our Christian responses and otherwise secular approaches as we accommodate ourselves to difficult social, economic, political and cultural realities while, at the same time, trying to permeate and improve the temporal order with our eternal perspective. As many grapple with our somewhat universal human condition and turn to the pragmatic, philosophically, Christians will often seek recourse in the pragmatic, also, but only strategically. Our response can thus be distinguished as one of pastoral sensitivity and not a worldly capitulation. Thus it is, for example, that in matters of war and peace, this pastoral sensitivity can simultaneously affirm both pacifism and just war principles as acceptable responses to Gospel imperatives. Thus it is that, in our families and religious communities, we can affirm an approach that says “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” even as we recognize that, on larger scales, this communal approach rapidly breaks down. This break down requires a pastoral sensitivity via a strategic accommodation, which should not be confused with a philosophical negotiation.
While there may very well be certain “pragmatic” prescriptions that seem to inhere in Michael’s descriptions of certain social and economic realities, from the interpretive stance of our Christian worldview, such pragmatic responses need not be considered philosophical capitulations but, instead, can be viewed as strategic accommodations. Such accommodations are born of our radical human finitude and articulated by a pastoral sensitivity, as situated in metaphysical (critical), moral and political realisms. These realisms operate best under ideal circumstances and, all things being equal, provide our proper bias positions and default responses (like subsidiarity & pacifism). Our circumstances are seldom ideal and, unfortunately, all things are decidedly not equal. What we all do in response may look exactly the same; why we do it may drastically differ. How, then, do we differentiate our Gospel-brand in the marketplace of ideas? For one thing, we should articulate our principles and state why we advocate one approach versus another. For another, at our earliest opportunity, circumstances permitting and resources affording, we should move assertively to change strategies in an effort to conform more and more to our Gospel-ideals as salt for the earth and light for the world.

dopderbeck,
FWIW, I agree with this fully:
“the real point is that many (most?) neoclassical economists don’t treat their models as merely descriptive within the confines of a language game in which “economic value” = “utility function”. Many (most?) neoclassical economists view their models also as normative / prescriptve — that is, they very much buy into the utilitarian ethical paradigm that underlies their notion of “utility.” Believe me, if you try to introduce any normative “moral” considerations to most hard core law-and-economics scholars, you’ll be met with blank stares if not open derision. The utilitarian / pragmatist paradigm is held by many with religious zeal.”
Way too many folks in the field assume that any “value” that is not grounded in materialism is ridiculous and should be disregarded in discussions of economic policy (as with ethical discussions about what is best for the client, for that matter).

JJoe #22
JJoe #22
While the idea that you can be anything you want to be if you set your mind to it is pure nonsense, I think your perspective is overly fatalistic.
There is considerable income mobility in the U. S. According to a Treasury Department study from of people from 1996-2005, more than half of the population moved up or down at least one quintile in income. Only about 40% of top 1% of earners in 1996 were there in 2005. Of those in the bottom quintile, 58% moved up at least one quintile, 25% moved up to the middle second highest quintile, while 5.3% moved all the way to the top. When we look at multigenerational analysis the mobility is even greater. In the U. S., at least, you are not locked into a rigid economic class system.
In emerging nations, basic education (particularly among women) and transfer of basic human skills and technology has enormous impact on improving economic well being. All that has to be supplemented with things like government reform, infrastructure, and health aid. It is difficult ?three steps forward, two steps back? work but it is hardly a red herring.

Thanks for this Scott and co.
While not having much to contribute, I look at Israel’s history and find something similar.
After slavery in Egypt, the children of Jacob took many valuable items from the Egyptians; clothing, silver, gold, etc.
Yet you find that it became a burden as they went into the wilderness. The people were so willing to give items to construct the Tabernacle that the builders had to beg them to stop giving!
Why? Well, I think the people were glad to get rid of the stuff! Having all these precious things meant nothing in the wilderness; just more stuff to carry and secure.
The values of the jewels plummetted as no-one (apart from Tabernacle constructors) wanted them.
Perhaps it was another way to teach the people that the Words of God meant more than jewels. Same lesson for us.

The scriptures have plenty of ideas for shifting resources to the poor.

Michael (#25) — I’m not so sure that the distinction is between economists who are metaphysical materialists and those who aren’t. In fact, I think many people are attracted to economic analysis exactly because they presume metaphysical questions are elided. They’re “pragmatists” — functionally agnostic with respect to normative theories and committed only to the idea that welfare analysis can be quantified and therefore “works.” The problem, of course, is that this is in itself is a metaphysical / normative judgment.
So, when you say, “Economics is not a zero-sum game and wealth is a socially constructed reality,” I’m afraid that naively buys into the normative posture of pragmatism. The fact is that the production of resources is a zero-sum game because the means of production are not infinite. If scarce inputs are used to create wealth some class of people, those inputs are not available to create wealth for some other class of people.
As an example, I heard a commercial on the radio this morning for a clinical trial of a new erectile dysfunction drug. I think a very good argument can be made from a moral perspective that the world has enough erectile dysfunction drugs and that more of the productive and innovative capacity of the academic-industrial pharmaceutical-medical complex should be devoted to curing tropical diseases in the developing world.
However, there is insufficient market demand for tropical disease cures, or at least, the existing demand is so price-elastic that manufacturers cannot sustain supercompetitive patent pricing in those developing markets. The market therefore diverts scarce production resources towards follow-on or “me-too” blockbuster erectile dysfunction drugs for the wealthy world. IMHO, the pragmatist posture of essentially undirected markets in this example leads to results that are morally perverse. It simply isn’t the case that the creation of more wealth in this context leads to the expansion of the sort of production that benefits the poor. The creation of more wealth here leads to even greater efforts to satisfy the price-inelastic demand of the wealthy for what is essentially a luxury good, while the needs of the poor for essential medicines remains unmet.

Michael,
The fifth posting doesn’t show up with the others. If you or Scott add the economics tag, I think it will. Thanks for this series.

Great post! The more I read on the subject, the more convinced I am becoming that a more sophisticated understanding of economics is going to be critical to the Church in the 21st Century.