It is often in the simplest things that reflect the profoundest of realities. Well, in this case maybe not profound, but reality… yes. Feeding a hundred and fifty people can oddly reflect the reality of the American political bipartisanship and the related economic issues. So, on a particular day with a particular group of 150 people, dinner was provided. The only thing that was determined for the 150 people was the order in which they were allowed to approach the food. The amount of food that could be taken was not regulated, at least in the beginning, and the distribution commenced. Eventually, several regulations were instituted, “Either the meatball or the chicken, not both!”, “One bread per person!” Then once, the food seemed to be disappearing faster than the line itself, ‘welfare’ allocation was instituted. Some food dishes were ‘saved’ for the end of the line so that the least could have at least some of the goods of society, or just.. dinner. Everyone was fed but not equally at equal amounts, some would say this is the beauty of the free market society and some would say it is the injustice of poor regulation. Hungry stomachs say some weird things. The one in charge realized after the fiasco that there was another way to proceed. Perhaps, unfavorable to the ones ahead in society (or line), this communistic method, if used from the beginning, would have guaranteed a better (Is equal always better??) distribution of food. To have regulators distribute a set amount of food for each person would have guaranteed that everyone got enough, or at the least equal amount of goods.
This simple ‘slice’ of life, whether one falls on the republican or democratic side of economic and social issues, is at the least descriptively instructive for us. But two things must be mentioned if we are to learn the fuller picture of this anecdote, that is, scarcity and zero sum. Often in economic discussion, there seems to be a sense that there are limitless supply of goods, there is not, in a physical world contained in time and space, limitation is a reality that we must reckon with, and limitation means scarcity. Second, I have been told that the free market is a zero sum game. Even while acknowledging that I don’t understand that statement one hundred percent, I have to say that it seems incorrect. The free market cannot be a zero sum game because sin is not a zero sum game, and the free market involves sinful desires of people. That’s what supply and demand always incorporates implicitly. Sin is not the same as limitation, though related, to equate those would be a primal error in any discussion, but to the lunch line example, what it does show is that regulation is a helpful necessity but at the same time not a solution. This is so because the problem is not in the quality of distribution but in the desires of people and the blindness of people to the needs of others. “Incurvatus in se” the fourth century Bishop of Hippo used to teach. Our problems lie in our incurable proclivity of turning inward on ourselves, oblivious, if not consciously ignoring, the needs of others. But then, where art thou, solution?