Capitalism and Catholic morals

[o_mlly]

conservative unregulated laissez-faire capitalism

He also recommended a book by a Catholic economist/philosopher on the matter, next time I see him I’ll ask him who wrote it

I can recommend a writing by a Catholic theologian: “Caritas in Veritate.” I would point your friend directly to paragraph 36.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[WillieWonka]

(1) Distributism is good not because it is associated with Catholicism, but because it is based on good social and economic principles. It is not the guild model. On what basis do you argue that proponents of distributism (Belloc, Chesterton, Day, Schumacher, Pearce) are uneducated and uninformed about economics?

(2) Capitalism has created prosperity, but not happiness. The outcome of the recent presidential election suggests that many Americans are not happy with the capitalist economy.

(3) Ownership is only theoretical unless the owner has the power to make decisions. I doubt that Mr. Walton consults his employees.

(4) Greed and Voluntary Simplicity are not of equal value. My voluntary simplicity does not impact your life, but your greed does impact my life. I would be foolish to remain silent.

1. Anyhting can be shown to be good in theory. That’s why academics get paid. It’s why so many folks flocked to Marxism. The test is whether it can deliver on its promises. That’s why we built housing projects, bused kids 20 miles to school, and put new math in the curriculum… Great and good theory. Big deal.
2. I say the Distributionists were poorly informed about economics because their foundational principle turned out to be dead wrong. They said ownership would concentrate in the few, and prosperity of the many would decline. In fact, just the opposite happened. Ownership exploded to the many, and prosperity for the many increased dramatically. They also ignored economies of scale in production while there were examples all around them. Many things can’t be made in the small village workshop. They did use the guild model, looking at its operation in towns and ignoring its effect on the 99% of the population locked out of the guilds at sword point.
3. Obama did not campaign against capitalism, so I don’t see your election point.
4. Market capitalism deals with the allocation of scarce resources. Happiness is an individual concern. The notion that one can stand back and rule on everyone else’s happiness is silly.
5. Mr. Walton’s employees don’t own the company. The stockholders do.
6. Ownership means a great deal when that’s where your pension check comes from. I doubt many discount that very personal benefit. It might even bring a sliver of happiness into their otherwise dreary and miserable lives.
7. I am greedy. How does that effect you? (Everyone is greedy, but I admit it.)

 

[New_Covenant]

The question of whether “unregulated laissez-faire” has been implemented or not is irrelevant to the point I wanted to make, namely that free-market models without a social conscience is opposed by the Church. What is relevant is that “unregulated laissez faire”, or rather variants thereof, is advocated by various political fractions.

I agree with DeannaMarie that WillieWonka does not connect his economic preferences with Church teachings. The name of the thread, and the question initially posed, was “capitalism and catholic morals”. The answer to that question does not rely solely on expertise in the field of economics, but also in a sound survey of what the Church says on the subject. A starting point, as already mentioned, is the CCC, as well as “Caritas in Veritate” and “Rerum Novarum”.

The whole notion that we have “separated economics from faith” is the very root of the problem. In the eyes of the Church this is a prime fallacy. The Church does not present an economic doctrine of its own, but the impact and consequences of any economic or political system is an issue for the Church. In Catholic teaching faith and economics is very much in connection. A Catholic way of life has consequences for the way we act in any economic system.

In real life the Church has favored capitalism to the alternatives, but the concern of the Church is primarily the negative side-effects of the capitalist system. As a result the actions proposed by the Church are often communal, namely political or voluntary regulations of the capitalist system to avoid the pitfalls.

 

[WillieWonka]

The question of whether “unregulated laissez-faire” has been implemented or not is irrelevant to the point I wanted to make, namely that free-market models without a social conscience is opposed by the Church. What is relevant is that “unregulated laissez faire”, or rather variants thereof, is advocated by various political fractions.

I agree with DeannaMarie that WillieWonka does not connect his economic preferences with Church teachings. The name of the thread, and the question initially posed, was “capitalism and catholic morals”. The answer to that question does not rely solely on expertise in the field of economics, but also in a sound survey of what the Church says on the subject. A starting point, as already mentioned, is the CCC, as well as “Caritas in Veritate” and “Rerum Novarum”.

The whole notion that we have “separated economics from faith” is the very root of the problem. In the eyes of the Church this is a prime fallacy. The Church does not present an economic doctrine of its own, but the impact and consequences of any economic or political system is an issue for the Church. In Catholic teaching faith and economics is very much in connection. A Catholic way of life has consequences for the way we act in any economic system.

In real life the Church has favored capitalism to the alternatives, but the concern of the Church is primarily the negative side-effects of the capitalist system. As a result the actions proposed by the Church are often communal, namely political or voluntary regulations of the capitalist system to avoid the pitfalls.

1. OK. Just tell us what political factions are advocating “unregulated laissez faire.”
2. You can’t say the Church opposes something if you don’t know what it opposes or what you describe doesn’t exist.

3.The Chuch says so little about real economics, you can say it’s principles can be implemented in many systems. I agree I don’t connect economic preferences with Church teachings.

1. Separating faith from economic is hardly the problem. The problem was religious restrictions on economics. Remember, Church teachings had 1800 years to bring prosperity and they didn’t. Did it bring any more happiness than we have today? How did the prohibition on interest advance morality, happiness, or faith? That was the Catholic way of life. (Note the papal and scriptural moral teaching on interest has been quietly dumped.)

 

[DeannaMarie]

1. Anyhting can be shown to be good in theory. … I am greedy. How does that effect you? (Everyone is greedy, but I admit it.)

(1) Stocks, bonds, pensions, etc. create the illusion of ownership. Unless the owner has real power to make real decisions, the ownership is only theoretical. Under capialism, few people have real power to make real decisions. I do not call this wide distribution of the means of production.

(2) I think that the election of Pres. Obama indicates a move towards socialism.

(2) Your greed effects me because greed is NEVER satisfied. I may be happy with one coat, but you will not be happy even with two. Therefore, you must have mine as well. Greed stops at nothing to get everything it wants. Again, I would be foolish to remain silent.

 

[New_Covenant]

1. OK. Just tell us what political factions are advocating “unregulated laissez faire.”
2. You can’t say the Church opposes something if you don’t know what it opposes or what you describe doesn’t exist.

3.The Chuch says so little about real economics, you can say it’s principles can be implemented in many systems. I agree I don’t connect economic preferences with Church teachings.

1. Separating faith from economic is hardly the problem. The problem was religious restrictions on economics. Remember, Church teachings had 1800 years to bring prosperity and they didn’t. Did it bring any more happiness than we have today? How did the prohibition on interest advance morality, happiness, or faith? That was the Catholic way of life. (Note the papal and scriptural moral teaching on interest has been quietly dumped.)

1. Libertarians, randists, and other invisible-hand mysticisms’ are abundant. You seem to have a terrible hang-up on the word “laissez-faire”. I did not bring the term into the thread but continued to use it as a symbol or signal word, since in the common conscience it is the stem of the tree of non-interventionist free market models.
2. Who have said anything else? You are a bit quick to see the straw men in other peoples eyes, but somewhat lax to the harvest stuck in your own. If I may say so. What I describe exists as an ideal economic model, acceptable to some, unacceptable to the Church. It was used to describe the other end of the spectrum from planned economies, since both ideals face criticism from Catholic Social teachings. All said in response to a question of Capitalism and Catholic morals.
3. Yes, the Church principles can be implemented in many systems, that is exactly my point. Church morals, unlike economic theories, are timeless. True to all men, in all times, in all places. The Church says enough to disavow some of the consequences of our current condition.

*You do indeed not connect economic preferences to Church teachings. In many respects that is the bottom line of this discussion.
*
4) Please indulge use, what are your definition of happiness? Please tell use how interest rates increase morality, happiness and faith. Do you see a world filled with happiness, morality and faith?

I’m afraid this radio station plays the same tunes far to many times for my liking, so I thank you for the discussion and humbly announce my withdrawal from it.

Peace to you all.

 

[WillieWonka]

(1) Stocks, bonds, pensions, etc. create the illusion of ownership. Unless the owner has real power to make real decisions, the ownership is only theoretical. Under capialism, few people have real power to make real decisions. I do not call this wide distribution of the means of production.

(2) I think that the election of Pres. Obama indicates a move towards socialism.

(2) Your greed effects me because greed is NEVER satisfied. I may be happy with one coat, but you will not be happy even with two. Therefore, you must have mine as well. Greed stops at nothing to get everything it wants. Again, I would be foolish to remain silent.

1. Earning a share of the profits is not an illusion. Getting a monthly check from a pension plan that invests in a comany is not an illusion. The California Pubic Pension Plan is one of the most powerful stockholder in the country.
2. I acknowledge you think Obama’s election is a move towards socialism. Note all the people who are pushing back very hard. The 2010 elections will be a good test of your opinion.
3. Wrong. I don’t care what you have. I create wealth where it didn’t exist. You can have whatever you want…I don’t want or need what you have. If you want to create wealth, go ahead. I don’t care. If you want to whine about other people being industrious and imaginative, go ahead. I don’t care. What I will not do is become like you. (When is the last time some guy took your coat? Shoes? Car?)

 

[WillieWonka]

1. Libertarians, randists, and other invisible-hand mysticisms’ are abundant. You seem to have a terrible hang-up on the word “laissez-faire”. I did not bring the term into the thread but continued to use it as a symbol or signal word, since in the common conscience it is the stem of the tree of non-interventionist free market models.
2. Who have said anything else? You are a bit quick to see the straw men in other peoples eyes, but somewhat lax to the harvest stuck in your own. If I may say so. What I describe exists as an ideal economic model, acceptable to some, unacceptable to the Church. It was used to describe the other end of the spectrum from planned economies, since both ideals face criticism from Catholic Social teachings. All said in response to a question of Capitalism and Catholic morals.
3. Yes, the Church principles can be implemented in many systems, that is exactly my point. Church morals, unlike economic theories, are timeless. True to all men, in all times, in all places. The Church says enough to disavow some of the consequences of our current condition.

*You do indeed not connect economic preferences to Church teachings. In many respects that is the bottom line of this discussion.
*
4) Please indulge use, what are your definition of happiness? Please tell use how interest rates increase morality, happiness and faith. Do you see a world filled with happiness, morality and faith?

I’m afraid this radio station plays the same tunes far to many times for my liking, so I thank you for the discussion and humbly announce my withdrawal from it.

Peace to you all.

1a. Sorry, nobody advocates “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism.” And that’s the term I am questioning because it doesn’t exist in reality, and nobody is advocating it. Nor do Randists or Libertarians advocate it. They, above all, advocate for legally enforced property rights and contract law. Take a look at economic history. Capitalism couldn’t exist until property and contracting rights were established and enforced.

1b. Can you show one group that advocates doing away with legally enforced property or contracting rights? That’s what you need in order to make the claim that anyone advocates “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism.”

1. What you describe is indeed a theoretical model. But it’s one nobody advocates bacause nobody advocates eliminating property and contracting rights. So, you are left with a strawman. Try the real thing. It takes lots of work to learn and become informed about it, but it’s well worth it. In fact, there are lots of real areas where you can wield the teachings of the Churh against reality, not strawmen. But you don’t even know they exist unless you do some work.
2. So, Church principles can even be implemented in market capitalism? Good. We agree. I would venturev they have had more success in implementation under actual market capitalism than under any other actual system in history. But since they are so universally applicable, they tell us nothing about what system should be implemented.

4a. I don’t know what happiness is. I just ask people if they are happy. It’s up to them, not me. I have no idea how interest increases morlaity, happiness, and faith. How?

4b. I’d say I am very happy because I enjoy every minute of life and look forward to the next. How about you. Try it. It’s easy.

4a. Sure the world is filled with happiness. Look around. Talk to people. Ask about their lives. Ask if they are happy. The world is a wonderful place to be, and this is a great time to be here.

4b. Morality. Sure it’s full of morality. There are various standards, but the world overflows with adherence to them.

4c. Faith? Absolutely. Humans have faith in god, family, friends, tomorrow, and Jack Bauer.

Sorry about your radio. But, like in anything, if you don’t like it, just spin the dial.

We are all mostly ignorant of everything, but for anyone interested in learning a bit about economics, and looking for a place to start, try this book. He’s certainly a conservative, but his straight forward writing style makes concepts easy to understand. The concepts are neither liberal nor conservative. Only the applications are. It’s a good foundation for understanding much of what is happening, and also for further study.

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_2_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=thomas+sowell+basic+economics&sprefix=thomas+sowell

 

[New_Covenant]

1a. Sorry, nobody advocates “conservative unregulated lasseiz-faire capitalism.” And that’s the term I am questioning because it doesn’t exist in reality, and nobody is advocating it. Nor do Randists or Libertarians advocate it. They, above all, advocate for legally enforced property rights and contract law. Take a look at economic history.

I’m sorry, but you supplied a definition of “unregulated” that suited your fight against straw men. Nobody argued that the term unregulated would mean no state, unregulated would rather translate to non-interventionist. The term usually favored is “nightwatch state”, downsizing collective action to passive rights. The very source of how the term “unregulated” has been applied in this discussion is no other than Ayn Rand.

Wikipedia Scribis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism

Objectivism is often associated with 19th-century capitalism. Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was a proponent to revert to the 19th-century capitalist system. She defended patent and copyright laws as legitimate interventions. She promoted an aggressive foreign policy of free trade and supported going to war only in the interests of protecting individual rights.
Objectivist politics begins with ethics: The question of if, and if so why, a rational agent needs a set of principles in his life. In the objectivist view, proper ethics tells an individual how to preserve his individual rights while interacting with, benefiting from cooperation with, and trading with, other individuals in society. That is, it determines the principles that constitute a moral social system. According to Ayn Rand, the only social system that fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism :
***When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated *** laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

 

[WillieWonka]

I’m sorry, but you supplied a definition of “unregulated” that suited your fight against straw men. Nobody argued that the term unregulated would mean no state, unregulated would rather translate to non-interventionist. The term usually favored is “nightwatch state”, downsizing collective action to passive rights. The very source of how the term “unregulated” has been applied in this discussion is no other than Ayn Rand.

Wikipedia Scribis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism

Objectivism is often associated with 19th-century capitalism. Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was a proponent to revert to the 19th-century capitalist system. She defended patent and copyright laws as legitimate interventions. She promoted an aggressive foreign policy of free trade and supported going to war only in the interests of protecting individual rights.
Objectivist politics begins with ethics: The question of if, and if so why, a rational agent needs a set of principles in his life. In the objectivist view, proper ethics tells an individual how to preserve his individual rights while interacting with, benefiting from cooperation with, and trading with, other individuals in society. That is, it determines the principles that constitute a moral social system. According to Ayn Rand, the only social system that fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism :
***When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated *** laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Well, if you are describing an economic system then do it accurately. If you do not think legal property rights and contract rights are regulation, they don’t call it unregulated because most would consider law as regulation… Let’s have a bit of precision and accuracy here. Otherwise we descend into a bunch of bumper sticker morality.

What’s the point of your cite about Objectivism? Read more Rand and you will see she considers both property and contracting rights to be individual rights, hence within the economic system. Their enforcement is guaranteed by sanctions in the economic system… Don’t get the idea all regulation flows from the state.

 

[New_Covenant]

Well, if you are describing an economic system then do it accurately. If you do not think legal property rights and contract rights are regulation, they don’t call it unregulated. Let’s have a bit of precision and accuracy here. Otherwise we descend into a bunch of bumper sticker morality.

What’s the point of your cite about Objectivism?

Accuracy is of the essence, but on the same time one want to avoid writing essays. The point of the quote was simply to show Ayn Rand using the phrase “unregulated laissez-faire”. I think we agree she does not exclude property rights and other minimum state necessities when she uses the word unregulated. The word unregulated is simply used by Ayn Rand, as by me, to emphasize a situation where every obstacle is removed (save the bare minimum) for the agents of the market.

Such an economy would not be approved by the Church. It does not come as a surprise that Rand was an atheist. It does not come as a surprise, as Dawkins points out, that a proponent with libertarian economic views is more likely to be atheist than proponents of other economic models.

The reason is philosophical: Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, emphasize responsibility towards our fellow brothers and sisters as a communal responsibility. In theory this does not have to conflict with “unregulated laissez-faire”, given that we all on an individual basis act responsibly and generous towards our less fortunate brothers and sisters. In practice however such a system – from the perspective of the Church (which is what we discuss, remember) – would seem to promote self-interest and hedonism.

 

[WillieWonka]

Accuracy is of the essence, but on the same time one want to avoid writing essays. The point of the quote was simply to show Ayn Rand using the phrase “unregulated laissez-faire”. I think we agree she does not exclude property rights and other minimum state necessities when she uses the word unregulated. The word unregulated is simply used by Ayn Rand, as by me, to emphasize a situation where every obstacle is removed (save the bare minimum) for the agents of the market.

Such an economy would not be approved by the Church. It does not come as a surprise that Rand was an atheist. It does not come as a surprise, as Dawkins points out, that a proponent with libertarian economic views is more likely to be atheist than proponents of other economic models.

The reason is philosophical: Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, emphasize responsibility towards our fellow brothers and sisters as a communal responsibility. In theory this does not have to conflict with “unregulated laissez-faire”, given that we all on an individual basis act responsibly and generous towards our less fortunate brothers and sisters. In practice however such a system – from the perspective of the Church (which is what we discuss, remember) – would seem to promote self-interest and hedonism.

I won’t ask you to speak for Rand, but I will ask you speak for yourself. When you say, “every obstacle is removed (save the bare minimum) for the agents of the market,” what does that mean? What are the removed obstacles beyond the bare minimum?

And who are the agents of the market? What does that mean? I bought books at Barnes and Noble yesterday. I was a market participant. Was I an agent?

We can’t say what the Church would approve until we know what obstacles are removed. I doubt the Church approves anything based on a list of obstacles. I’d suggest it’s approval is a function of outcomes.

What does it matter if a proponent of a market model is a theist or atheist? Ideas should be able to stand themselves, regardless of who develops or agrees with them. If the Church puts out an idea, that idea has to stand on its own merits. If Marx puts out an idea, it also has to stand on its own merits.

Note that in our system 58% of the federal budget goes to social security, medicare, medicaid, chips, veterans benefits, and safety net programs. Does the Church have a recommended percentage of budget?

 

[New_Covenant]

We are not making any progress. You have proposed literature, I recommend you that you read the latest social encyclical.

 

[WillieWonka]

We are not making any progress. You have proposed literature, I recommend you that you read the latest social encyclical.

I did read Caritas in Veritate. What about it?

 

[Bluegoat]

We can’t say what the Church would approve until we know what obstacles are removed. I doubt the Church approves anything based on a list of obstacles. I’d suggest it’s approval is a function of outcomes.

No, not at all.

 

[WillieWonka]

No, not at all.

Well, if one is describing an economic system and doesn’t know its characteristics, then neither does the Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, if one is describing an economic system and doesn’t know its characteristics, then neither does the Church.

I mean, it’s approval is not based on outcomes. In Catholicism, one cannot do something immoral even if it produces a desirable outcome.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Distributionism was specifically dsigned to be a Catholic contribution to economics. Belloc, Day, and Chesterton rightly noticed that Cathicism wasn’t even a bit player in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. So, they came up with their Third Way.

However, the fact that an economic idea is associated with Catholicism doesn’t mean it is any good. The motivation and objectives may be fine, but that in no way tells us anything about the value of the recommended ways of implementing such objectives. That’s the problem with people who know the moral principles, but don’t know anything about economics. They screw things up.

One of the primary principles of Belloc was that ownership would continue to centralize over time as industry grew. He was totally wrong. When smart people tell each other something wrong over and over, it’s still wrong. It doesn’t matter who they are or what their religion is.

While ownership did centralize under socialism, socialism then failed.

At the same time, ownership became widely distributed under capitalism. Besides federal workers, everyone who receives a pension today gets it through ownership/lending to public companies or government bonds. Ownership of the corporations is distributed among individuals, pension funds, IRAs, mutual funds, etc. The notion that a few own these companies is a silly example of economic ignorance.

Even the model the distributionists used was one of gross inequity and exploitation. The guilds of the middle ages were very restricted, allowing entrance through heredity and using the armed force of the state to maintain their existence. Very, very few were allowed in the guilds. The rest scratched out a meager living as indentured serfs on the lands of the nobles and Church. It’s hard to find a worse model for a modern economic system.

I agree greed will be with us forever. So, the Distributionist idea that happy guildsmen will be content with less is silly. The genius of capitalism is that it has figured out how to harness individual greed to the greater good.

Market capitalism has created more prosperity for more people than any system in history. More than any religion, ideology, or government.

And Walmart? It has extremely wide distribution of ownership and it is the customer who chooses who will succeed and who will fail. Not the government. Everytime a parent buys at Walmart rather than a higher priced alternative, they increase their own prosperity.

We have separated economics from faith, and it has led to more prosperity than we have ever known. The shackles religion put on economics delivered neither prosperity nor happiness. Anyone who wants is free to live a life of happy spiritual poverty. They’re just not free to drag the rest of us down with them.

I applaud the effort to implement moral principles in economics. But those who want to do that have a responsibility to become educated and informed about economics. Too few accept that responsibility.

Your argument against Distributism sounds like a defense of “creeping Distributism”. Times change and, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the applications of the doctrines of the Social Encyclicals change as well. So, for example, we don’t all go out and grub out an existence on 40 acres of land, we have 401K plans, or our own computer shops. Time change. Conditions change. Resolutions change.

I am not persuaded Belloc was wrong in his time in suspecting that wealth would tend to concentrate in few hands. One has to remember that he was not talking about America, particularly. Nor was Chesterton in decrying the situation in England in his time when untold acres lay untilled in England while Britain imported most of her food from her colonies, and the working class in cities lived pretty badly from paycheck to paycheck (or dole to dole) and owned nothing. Chesterton, in particular, was highly favorable to small business, and who provides 80% of all new jobs? Small business. You favor wealth creation? So do I. Read “The Millionaire Next Door”. Most millionaires are, in fact, small businessmen who live prudently and provide goods and services that people want. Very few inherited it. (Granted, many of the ultra-millionaires did.) And most are religious, by the way. So much for religion stifling enterprise.

I’m not at all sure that Belloc, Pope Leo XIII, Chesterton and Lewis shared the same vision as did Dorothy Day. In my mind, those who follow her thinking have highjacked the term “Distributism”. I’m not persuaded that Pope Leo XIII had “communes” in mind. Indeed, they are not really consistent with “subsidiarity”, are they, when the economic system allows for family acquisition of productive assets and some degree of independence at that more proximate level?

Finally, let me say that, in my mind at least, Distributism is at least as important as an aspect of one’s own thinking as it is of societal structure. How many Americans, for example, would have been a lot better off in the last decade or two had they invested the money they squandered on consumer goods, on productive, inheritable assets instead? We could have all done a lot better than we did in that regard. We even borrowed money to buy the junk, and to take that “free” trip to Vegas. How many of us have adopted corporate or government ways of thinking because of our dependency on those institutions, when we could have been more independent (and Catholic) in our thinking had we not listened to their siren songs?

 

[DeannaMarie]

Your argument against Distributism sounds like a defense of “creeping Distributism”. Times change and, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the applications of the doctrines of the Social Encyclicals change as well. So, for example, we don’t all go out and grub out an existence on 40 acres of land, we have 401K plans, or our own computer shops. Time change. Conditions change. Resolutions change.

I am not persuaded Belloc was wrong in his time in suspecting that wealth would tend to concentrate in few hands. One has to remember that he was not talking about America, particularly. Nor was Chesterton in decrying the situation in England in his time when untold acres lay untilled in England while Britain imported most of her food from her colonies, and the working class in cities lived pretty badly from paycheck to paycheck (or dole to dole) and owned nothing. Chesterton, in particular, was highly favorable to small business, and who provides 80% of all new jobs? Small business. You favor wealth creation? So do I. Read “The Millionaire Next Door”. Most millionaires are, in fact, small businessmen who live prudently and provide goods and services that people want. Very few inherited it. (Granted, many of the ultra-millionaires did.) And most are religious, by the way. So much for religion stifling enterprise.

I’m not at all sure that Belloc, Pope Leo XIII, Chesterton and Lewis shared the same vision as did Dorothy Day. In my mind, those who follow her thinking have highjacked the term “Distributism”. I’m not persuaded that Pope Leo XIII had “communes” in mind. Indeed, they are not really consistent with “subsidiarity”, are they, when the economic system allows for family acquisition of productive assets and some degree of independence at that more proximate level?

Finally, let me say that, in my mind at least, Distributism is at least as important as an aspect of one’s own thinking as it is of societal structure. How many Americans, for example, would have been a lot better off in the last decade or two had they invested the money they squandered on consumer goods, on productive, inheritable assets instead? We could have all done a lot better than we did in that regard. We even borrowed money to buy the junk, and to take that “free” trip to Vegas. How many of us have adopted corporate or government ways of thinking because of our dependency on those institutions, when we could have been more independent (and Catholic) in our thinking had we not listened to their siren songs?

I agree!

 

[WillieWonka]

Your argument against Distributism sounds like a defense of “creeping Distributism”. Times change and, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the applications of the doctrines of the Social Encyclicals change as well. So, for example, we don’t all go out and grub out an existence on 40 acres of land, we have 401K plans, or our own computer shops. Time change. Conditions change. Resolutions change.

I am not persuaded Belloc was wrong in his time in suspecting that wealth would tend to concentrate in few hands. One has to remember that he was not talking about America, particularly. Nor was Chesterton in decrying the situation in England in his time when untold acres lay untilled in England while Britain imported most of her food from her colonies, and the working class in cities lived pretty badly from paycheck to paycheck (or dole to dole) and owned nothing. Chesterton, in particular, was highly favorable to small business, and who provides 80% of all new jobs? Small business. You favor wealth creation? So do I. Read “The Millionaire Next Door”. Most millionaires are, in fact, small businessmen who live prudently and provide goods and services that people want. Very few inherited it. (Granted, many of the ultra-millionaires did.) And most are religious, by the way. So much for religion stifling enterprise.

I’m not at all sure that Belloc, Pope Leo XIII, Chesterton and Lewis shared the same vision as did Dorothy Day. In my mind, those who follow her thinking have highjacked the term “Distributism”. I’m not persuaded that Pope Leo XIII had “communes” in mind. Indeed, they are not really consistent with “subsidiarity”, are they, when the economic system allows for family acquisition of productive assets and some degree of independence at that more proximate level?

Finally, let me say that, in my mind at least, Distributism is at least as important as an aspect of one’s own thinking as it is of societal structure. How many Americans, for example, would have been a lot better off in the last decade or two had they invested the money they squandered on consumer goods, on productive, inheritable assets instead? We could have all done a lot better than we did in that regard. We even borrowed money to buy the junk, and to take that “free” trip to Vegas. How many of us have adopted corporate or government ways of thinking because of our dependency on those institutions, when we could have been more independent (and Catholic) in our thinking had we not listened to their siren songs?

Creeping distributionism? I suppose so. One can say the benefits envisioned by the Distributionists came about from market capitalism. We didn’t need distributionism to get the benefits.

Distributionism recommended small enterprises. We always had small enterprises, and still do. So, that was really not a contribution by Distributionism. They said the small enterprises would disappear bacause they would be crowded out by big enterprises. We can see they were wrong.

Distributionism said the ownership in capitalism would be tightly concentrated. We can see it is not tightly concentrated. So, a pivotal reason for distributionism was wrong.

Distributionism said poverty would increase under capitalism. We can see prosperity increased and poverty declined. So, Distributionism was wrong.

The benefits the Distributionists claimed their system would deliver are not unique to their ideas. Those benefits are widely recognized, and have been achieved without Distributionism. Their system did not simply advocate for those benefits; it provided a systematic approach to realize them. And it provided reasons why btheir system shuld be adopted. But the reasons were shown to be wrong, and the benefits were delivered by capitalism - something they said couldn’t happen.

So, why is Distributionism anything but a curious footnote in economic history? History is full of utipian ideas that had nothing to them. I’d suggest it’s because the Distributionists stressd that theirs was a uniquely Catholic system. As far as I am aware, it is the only system ever proposed as a uniquely Catholic system. They claimed it was universally applicable, but also claimed the core basis was Catholic.

So, left leaning Catholic social activists look to Distributionism as something to take another look at. Nobody else does.

I’m not sure what you mean by an individual investing in productive,inheritable assets. But, if they produce, what do they produce, and who buys it? The guy who doesn’tt invest in those inheritable productive assets?

We run into the fallacy of composition all the time in economics. What is good for one individual is often a disaster if everyone jumps on board. I would never dispute that a man who invsted in a small factory is making a wise decision. But, if he produces consumer goods, and everyone shuns consumer goods, what happens? This isn’t easy, and there are no set answers. However, it seems the system that allows the geratest amunt of personal latitude in making such decisions delivers the most prosperity for the geratest numbers.

A final principle. Nobody is smart enough to design modern economies. Note nobody designed our current system. Anybody who does think they are smart enough is probably too blinded by their own brilliance to have much to offer. This goes for Distributionists, communists, capitalists, churches, popes, professors, presidents, congressmen, social workers, and Bill Gates.

The dilemma for many is that a syetm which is not designed by their brilliance is so much more successful than the ones that are. No system in history has been more successful than market capitalism. And, most distressing for the moralists, no system in history has implemented more of those moral principles than market capitalism.