Over the last few weeks a seismic shock has occurred in the UK economy. It seems that the age of profligate expenditure is over for most of us. The price of bread, milk, petrol, gas have risen dramatically and people are beginning to notice the effect. There will have to be cuts in other areas of expenditure also. The economic forecasters say that most of us are going to be poorer.

One response has been to blame the Prime Minister, as reflected in our local elections. Just as Thatcher and Blair were popular in bonanza time, so Gordon Brown is unpopular when the cost of living depresses people. Yet the real causes lie beyond the scope of national budgets. Any head of British government has little impact on the world oil situation, the shortage of rice or the depletion of North Sea gas.

Yet there are changes we must make and the challenge is to all political parties. For decades, much political- economic theory has been based on the economics of ‘maximization’ and very rarely on the economics of thrift or contraction. This is because politicians have usually seen contraction as a bad thing- as recession- to be avoided at all costs. Indeed, the phrase, “the growth of the economy”, has become a mantra with parties making competing claims about who can make the economy grow faster. But with growing global problems, this approach sounds hollow, and public policy now struggles with incompatible demands. On the one hand we say we are committed to growth, but on the other hand to reduction: – especially of energy use, food consumption and carbon emissions. The inconsistency is obvious and increasingly visible. A brand new Terminal Five at Heathrow Airport sits alongside the insistence that fewer people should be flying. The expansion of our motorways fights with the need for people to take fewer car journeys.

The evidence is that we are not prepared to face the issues of real economy and thrift. Waste and indulgence are now engrained in our culture on an enormous scale and it is not yet changing. About 100 million tones of waste was generated from UK households last year and a third of all food grown for human consumption is thrown away. The reality is that we must waste less, eat less, travel less, and drink less, as well as make substantial cuts in most areas of life. Thirty years ago some Christian economists talked about the ‘economics of enough’. It could almost have been taken from a phrase in the First letter to Timothy, where the Apostle warns against chasing after what we do not need, suggesting ‘If we have food and clothing we will be content with that.’ Being content with enough is a vital attitude now for rich countries like the UK. For the world has limited resources, and many of them are currently needed in China, India, Brazil and Burma as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa.

I have always been intrigued by an incident in the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Jesus feeds this vast crowd with a few loaves and fishes in one of the most profligate miracles ever. But then, we read in the Gospel of John that he says to his disciples: “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted’. By our standards it seems an absurd response. With such marvelous abundance, why not throw away what is not wanted? But Jesus insists on careful thrift for later use; twelve baskets of leftovers mean a further provision of food for the needy. Good economics and thrift belong together.

The ‘economics of enough is with us.’ Living thriftily saves money and lives. As Jesus said, another time, the meek will inherit the earth. Contraction pays. But to see how this can work requires nothing less than the reconstruction of our whole view of economics.

---