Catholic views on Economics

[Socrates92]

Like what this guy said

No, they are all bad for economic growth. It is true that if the government funnels money into some project economic activity will result. But what can’t be ignored is the economic activity that would have happened had that money been invested in something else. Projects like the Erie Canal helped business in those areas of the country at the expense of business elsewhere. The same is true for the highway system. It hurt local, established business and the railroads.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We are not talking about ancient times. There is no excuse for exploiting child labor in a society that is not on the brink of starvation. To see what the Church says about it, see #296 inthis document. Also this. But unbridled capitalism can very well produce this immoral outcome, which is why it is condemned by the Church.

What is exploiting child labor? I had a job when I was young. I had chores too. We weren’t close to starving. Were my employer and parents exploiting me?

Read the Church documents I cited if you don’t understand. Or ask your priest. It is not my invention.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Many children in the US grow up working on farms. There’s nothing inherently evil with children working.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I agree. Kids who shouldn’t be in school are learning things or not learning things they will never use.

But, what do they do if they don’t have school and the parents are away?

Wait, you can get out and get a job as a drug tester (considering hardly anyone fails those). Or, maybe working at a background check company (those are such a boon to the wellbeing of society). Wait, how about a security job at a big box store (those guys are always a hoot to hang out with).

 

[Bon_Croix]

Not at all. Not many work on farms anymore.

You can’t produce eggs in your backyard for less than what they cost at Wal Mart. But, you can get a job over at the Mart, if you can pass the drug test!!!

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I grew up working on a farm, most of my friends did too. Guess it depends on where you live.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

stinkcat_14:

Actually, some government projects contributed to economic growth. Our education system, even with its problems is vital to economic growth. Infrastructure projects such as the erie canal or the interstate highway system contributed to economic growth. Not all government programs are bad for growth, some are but some aren’t.

I disagree emphatically. The government system of education as it stands at the moment at best is an inefficient mechanism with perverse incentives to achieve the same ends a private system could obtain…

Since there has never in the history of the world been a system of private education that has succeeded in educating such a large proportion of the population as the public school system, it is quite an outlandish claim that you make with no support.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Congrats. I’ve worked on about 5 of them.

 

[Socrates92]

Usury (meaning, interest bearing loans that people are personally on the hook for, per Vix Pervenit) is a scam to take advantage of needy and/or financially illiterate people.

At best this is an argument for transparency, and making sure the lendee is fully understanding of what he is entering into by his own free choice. If the only way someone can get by is to borrow money at interest, would you actually advocate outlawing such a thing, with the possible consequence that no one will choose to lend to him? Or are you arguing that such a person is entitled to the other person’s money, with no obligation to share any of the risks? If I’m not mistaken, the Church’s teaching on usury has a principle on being “made whole”. Basically the loanee is obligated to return the value of the loan to the lender. In the present economic environment, there is such a thing as a “time-value” of money. If I lend you $1000 for a year interest free, I am missing out on all the returns I could have made on that in a year. (For arguments sake, I’ll even assume that all my alternative investments for that $1000 were capital business investments instead of loan contracts.) Presumably, if a rational and fully informed individual wants to borrow that $1000 at interest, he prefers having the loan to not having it. Therefore I don’t see how, in normal circumstances, you can argue one takes advantage of another in lending with interest.

 

[Socrates92]

It’s all good and well telling poor people to work hard and get to the top, but the conditions to do such are not always in place. It is up to the government to ensure these conditions are there.

I think you need to nuance that a bit more. Of at least more clearly define what you mean by ensuring conditions are in place. Why specifically the government? Why not his fellow men who are in close proximity to him? Ex. Family members, friends, neighbors? Ever hear of the principle of subsidiarity?

 

[exnihilo]

Since there has never in the history of the world been a system of private education that has succeeded in educating such a large proportion of the population as the public school system, it is quite an outlandish claim that you make with no support.

Government is always inefficient. That is a law of economics.

The issue isn’t can the government provide a deficient education for a lot of people. The issue is what is the best way to procide the most useful education to the most people. The answer is definitely not government schools.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Since there has never in the history of the world been a system of private education that has succeeded in educating such a large proportion of the population as the public school system, it is quite an outlandish claim that you make with no support.

The issue isn’t can the government provide a deficient education for a lot of people. The issue is what is the best way to procide the most useful education to the most people. The answer is definitely not government schools.

I don’t even think a private school system has ever educated most of the people - only a tiny fraction. Please produce some evidence of a private school system that has done more than educate a small minority of the population before you continue to sing the praises of a private school system.

 

[Socrates92]

Again, I might agree with you. But at this point, I’m not really sure what you mean by “ensure the conditions are there”. If you mean that the government should protect private property, enforce contracts, remove artificial obstacles to gaining employment and experience (min wage laws, crippling “hiring penalty” taxes, excessive redtape, etc.), then I’d agree with you. If you are referring to redistribution of assets according to some arbitrary idea of fairness of opportunity, then I do not. There is nothing inherently evil about some people having more opportunities than others. It’s incumbent on their personal consciences to use those advantages for good (which can certainly include helping the poor), but it’s not really the gov’t place to determine how this should be done.

The government should stop at protecting basic rights, not deciding which results are acceptable within the confines of people freely acting within those rights.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t even think a private school system has ever educated most of the people - only a tiny fraction. Please produce some evidence of a private school system that has done more than educate a small minority of the population before you continue to sing the praises of a private school system.

The modern idea of educating every single child came about precisely when the government started running schools. Since the government can give a ‘free’ education to students there is no way a large scale private system could develop. Who wants to pay for his kids and the neighbor’s kids government schooling and private school for his own kids.

But parochial schools and colleges have been very successful at educating a good number of people in the history of this country and others.

 

[Socrates92]

I dont think that reasonable interest falls within ursury… as someone else said, there is a big difference between 3% and 20% interest

In general I agree with you. However, even this is circumstantial. If there is a serious risk of non-collection, I think you could justify even 20% or more. In general I do agree that credit card companies are a bunch of crooks. Do I think they should be outlawed? Nope.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t even think a private school system has ever educated most of the people - only a tiny fraction. Please produce some evidence of a private school system that has done more than educate a small minority of the population before you continue to sing the praises of a private school system.

The modern idea of educating every single child came about precisely when the government started running schools. Since the government can give a ‘free’ education to students there is no way a large scale private system could develop.

Then why hadn’t such a private system developed prior to that, huh? It is easy now to say they would have done it if the public system was not established, but the fact that such a system has not emerged anywhere else in the world is conclusive. It would never have happened. Ever.

But parochial schools and colleges have been very successful at educating a good number of people in the history of this country and others.

Yes, they have sometimes been successful on a small scale. They have never and would never have done the whole job.

 

[GLam1761]

Reading the overview of Distributism, I agree that the Church’s model
of the distribution of property will DRAW in the poor and EMPOWER
them to make wealth on their own and not leech off the Church(it is
NOT a good thing, according to the Teachings of the Church).

Here is an excerpt from the overview:
“Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism’s concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism.[11][12] In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life”

I should remind you that G.K. Chesterton was a strong proponent of Distributionism.

 

[Socrates92]

exnihilo:

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t even think a private school system has ever educated most of the people - only a tiny fraction. Please produce some evidence of a private school system that has done more than educate a small minority of the population before you continue to sing the praises of a private school system.

The modern idea of educating every single child came about precisely when the government started running schools. Since the government can give a ‘free’ education to students there is no way a large scale private system could develop.

Then why hadn’t such a private system developed prior to that, huh? It is easy now to say they would have done it if the public system was not established, but the fact that such a system has not emerged anywhere else in the world is conclusive. It would never have happened. Ever.

But parochial schools and colleges have been very successful at educating a good number of people in the history of this country and others.

Yes, they have sometimes been successful on a small scale. They have never and would never have done the whole job.

Even granting the implied assumption that education is the same as schooling, why are you assuming that educating most/all people in a similar way to today (mandatory full-time Gr.1-12, plus postsecondary for most people) is a desirable goal. If fewer people were schooled before, perhaps that was a more desirable balance. Going to school has an opportunity cost, after all.

Just to illustrate, if 12 years of mandatory government-provided schooling is such a good idea, what is there even political support for min wage laws? You’d think after 12 years of “education” you’d be able to command a wage much higher than some arbitrarily set minimum. And yet, there is widespread support for these things like in the “Fight for 15” movement. This seems to imply the educational system has failed as many, or more, than it has helped.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

In case anyone cares, talked to the priest today and he said usury only applies to excessive interest.

 

[Socrates92]

At the risk of sounding like a nitpicker, I’d argue fairness is irrelevant. Justice is what we should be concerned with.