I’ve just finished reading a great book, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, by Jay Richards. For me, it helps to out the “struggle” between capitalism and the Bible.

In the book, Richards debunks many of the arguments against capitalism and he demonstrates, time and time again, why an economic system built on capitalism is both moral and, in fact, the best builder of economic wealth for all of the citizens of a country.

I’m going to paraphrase what Richards says are the four questions we must ask about any social policy, particularly and social policy that someone wants to change by fiat (e.g. cash for clunkers, health care reform, etc.)

Here are the questions:

1. Is what we perceive to be true actually true? If they say 46 million people are uninsured we must ask where are they getting this number from; what does it represent; who counted? If someone says the earth is getting warmer, we ask “how do you know–what are you measuring.” Critical thinkers always challenge the assumptions to at least accurately define the problem before trying to “solve” it.

2. If what we perceive to be true is actually true, is it something “bad” that we need to fix? If it were accurate that 46 million people are uninsured but this didn’t mean that they were lacking in health care, the 46 million is no longer “bad.” We can swing back to the policy debates before the economy tanked on a pyramid of bad loans….was it necessarily a “bad” thing that so many people did not own their own homes?

3. If we find that what we perceive to be true is actually true AND bad, then is it our current policy that is the CAUSE of the true and bad situation? As Richards puts it, if the earth is getting warmer and we decide that this is a bad thing is it man who is causing the trend. (Who caused the warming or cooling the last time when man was not around???)

4. If we find that what we perceive to be bad is actually true AND bad and CAUSED by policy then IS the CHANGE to policy being recommended (forced down our throats, sometimes) going to cure the ill and not create its own batch of unintended consequences? (i.e. did “cash for clunkers” which stole money from my pocket to pay for my neighbor’s new car; forced car dealers to loan money to buyers interest free for who knows how long; destroyed many perfectly driveable cars thus cutting the supply of good used car for the poor, driving prices up; and cause who knows how much environmental harm by forcing the destruction of the perfectly good cars to benefit a limited number of industries really make any sense at all?

It is only when all four questions can be answered in the affirmative that a critical thinker would say “go for it.”

We need more critical thinkers.