In watching the leadership debate I was struck and almost regardless of the question or issue being discussed Prime Minister Harper would talk about the economy and Michael Ingnateif would talk about the moral obligation to respect parliament. Unfortunately ethics and the economy are presented as two distinct issues. I think there are few more basic messages of the Torah than that of morality and the economy being two sides of the same coin. There are more mitzvoth—approximately 130 out of 613—on the topic of money than on any other subject. And this pertains both on the level of private business and national economic polices. True faith in G-d is demonstrated by our monetary dealings—one who believes in G-d does not cut moral corners in trying to accumulate wealth. It s not by chance our Rabbis actually equated faith with farming, the economic engine of the ancient world. The entire enterprise of farming is dependant on faith. Without faith the nature will cooperate and reward one’s efforts one would be silly to work so hard with so little guaranteed return. This faith in nature must be matched by faith that honesty and integrity will produce the greatest of yields. “Man does not live by bread alone”. Similarly our national economic policies reflect the moral strength of a nation. It seems from what the pollsters tell us that Canadians have yet to fully grasp the link between economics and morality. Polls show that by a ratio of approximately two to one Canadians are more concerned with economic issues than ethical issues relating to the running of parliament. This is quite understandable as we struggle to recover from a severe economic downturn. Yet at the same time such results should raise serious concerns. Not just because it would seem—and I do hope I am incorrect in this inference—that too many are show a greater concern for money over morality, but because too few see the link between the two. I would like to believe that many, though not all of the policy disagreements are rooted in tactics and not goals. I would think all our leaders want strong corporate growth, tax relief for families, and for Canada to take a leadership role in the world. But unfortunately in the real world not all can be done at the same time. But in addition to setting priorities often there are fundamental disagreements about what is the best method to get to the same goal. By the time you read this, the election will be history but with almost three weeks left until election day I can write about some of the issues few are discussing.
The rising of the Canadian dollar has brought into sharp focus the disparity in the pricing of similar objects in Canada vis a vis the united states. A recent study has shown that weCanadians are in many cases paying more than 20% above prices that our southern neighbours pay. Tax structures economies of sales transportation routes and a host of other factors can lead to very different prices even if the actual extra cost is limited. Those who operate here must abide by Canadian rules and regulations even if that means higher prices for consumers. To allow otherwise is to move awy form having a level playing field. This is true even if it the same chain selling the object in both countries. While this is very frustrating this mainly represents a market rather than a moral phenomenon. Jewish law is reluctant to intervene in pricing policies unless they are predatory, exhoribitant or discriminatory. Price regulation is only considered when dealing with necesseties such as basic foods and rent. The prices paid for luxury cars, cruises, or works of art do not come under the pruview of Jewish courts. And while having different price structures might seem discrimanitory such discriamination is only actionable if it takes place in the same market. While in todays global economy its difficult to exactly ascertain market segments it is clear that different countires or even cities would represten differing markets. Thus a store could not charge one customer one price for locals and a second price for the Jewish law insisted on finding a balance between the benfits of innovation and the economic pain such changes inevrgly cause. Social needs may result in a need to protect certain industries so they can have limited time or adjust or if need be people can find other lines of employment. Markets can nto be open overnight. Nor however can they be spuppresewd forever. With agolbal econmy one can argue that almost all markets are local but implementing such can coause much pain to oaticail r industries. Givernments htuoften subsidize industries os they can compete and prosper. However such measures should really be temporary measures and not designed to help in ares with structural deficincies. Puting resources towards areas of hig efficiency will not only lead ultiamtley to high standards of living for all- truing an economic goal not a moral one. Interestingly enough he Talmud quotes the opipon of Rav Yehuda that even having a sle is prohibited as it unfairly harms the comeotiutiors. There is a fundamental divide in Jewish law as to the limits of pricing policies.
