Human Rights Groups Accused of Undermining Capitalism

[MikeWM]

marvin:

With a population of around 9,000,000 and a fairly homogenous culture (87% Luthern).

And a rapidly growing Catholic church

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

shockerfan:

I think the jury is still out in terms of whether or not their economic system can be successful or if it will crumble of under the weight of increasing entitlements.

It has been remarkably stable for about 70 years, which is doing quite well…

I guess it boils down to what you feel the role of govenment is:

Many things do but yes, indeed.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Potential evils” is what will happen if the constructs of the Church are not met, which I think you understand. The guidelines provided show what elements of capitalism are not acceptable to the church.

You exaggerate. Nowhere does the cited paragraph refer to “potential evils.”

koda:

The Church has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor
.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds
regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”

There are several more long paragraphs in the CCC that I will happily cut and paste for you. Now, as you are one to regularly push others for an answer and who dislikes having his questions answered with a question, please treat others with the same respect you want them to show to you.

The issue is not the CCC, but your unfounded interpretation. The cited paragraph strongly denounces communism and socialism, and simply points out that in the exercise of capitalism we must take into account human needs.

 

[koda]

vern humphrey:

You exaggerate. Nowhere does the cited paragraph refer to “potential evils.”

The issue is not the CCC, but your unfounded interpretation. The cited paragraph strongly denounces communism and socialism, and simply points out that in the exercise of capitalism we must take into account human needs.

Which implies that if we don’t take human needs into account there is potential evil. Or do you think that they mean it might be a wonderful boon to society if human needs aren’t considered? If you want to see the evil that it produces just look around.

 

[vern_humphrey]

koda:

Which implies that if we don’t take human needs into account there is potential evil. Or do you think that they mean it might be a wonderful boon to society if human needs aren’t considered? If you want to see the evil that it produces just look around.

Your interpretation is you own, not the Church’s.

When I look around, I see the evils of creeping socialism, which** is** denounced by that particular paragraph of the CCC.

 

[koda]

vern humphrey:

Your interpretation is you own, not the Church’s.

When I look around, I see the evils of creeping socialism, which** is** denounced by that particular paragraph of the CCC.

Really? Do you consider a living wage and benefits socialism? Do you consider jobs being sent overseas because the companies would rather be able to pay $5 a day and ignore environmental laws a good thing? The CCC specifies the right to a living wage and also says that industry has an obligation to maintain the environment. Probably you think the environmental laws a socialists. Do you think business ought to be able to do whatever it wants? The CCC says no to that in a big way, some of which were in my OP. What is your idea of a just society?

 

[vern_humphrey]

koda:

Really? Do you consider a living wage and benefits socialism?

No, I consider a wage that is economically valid to be a necessity. If a company can only gain $5.00 an hour from the labor of it’s employees, it cannot pay them $5.05 – because it will go broke, and no one will get any wages after that.

koda:

Do you consider jobs being sent overseas because the companies would rather be able to pay $5 a day and ignore environmental laws a good thing?

I consider the conditions that militate jobs being sent overseas a consequence of creeping socialism. We have made it impossible for many companies to make a profit from American labor – and that’s what drives jobs overseas.

At the same time, we have failed to upgrade the public schools – so many children from that system lack the education and skills to do the jobs that would be profitable.

koda:

The CCC specifies the right to a living wage and also says that industry has an obligation to maintain the environment. Probably you think the environmental laws a socialists.

When did I say that?

koda:

Do you think business ought to be able to do whatever it wants? The CCC says no to that in a big way, some of which were in my OP. What is your idea of a just society?

One in which every child receives a first-class education, and in which centralized economic planning is recognized for what it is (as the catechism recognizes it.)

 

[koda]

Vern, I apologize. I shouldn’t have assumed your environmental views. And you’re right, no one is going to get rich pumping gas. And I agree with you totally on education. It amazes me how many people don’t see this. I have friends with college age kids who could go to college but they don’t even encourage them. The kids can’t work at Pizza Hut their entire lives.

There are a few thing that get me about companies moving overseas:

1. When workers in poor nations will work for practically nothing how can we compete with that? I’m sure you wouldn’t want to or want your kids too. But remember back say in the 50s when you could get a job at a factory, say, and make a decent enough living to raise your family? You can’t do that now and it doesn’t seem right. And even some white collar jobs are going overseas. Call customer service and talk to someone in India.
2. I really do think that the lenient environmental laws (if they have any at all) are a factor when companies move away and I don’t think this is a good thing. Poorer nations shouldn’t sell out their environment and, thus, the home of their future generations, for jobs. And it would be nice if companies had a more long term view of the environment. After all, their kids have to live here too.
3. I think it encourages the ideal that profit rules all - which the CCC does condemn. There is no consideration for community or society.

I do know that you are an intellegent man - I can tell that from your posts (though I might not always agree with you).

 

[MommaKat]

nucatholic:

I’m not a fan of the free market. It is a system based on selfishness. The rich exploit the lower classes in order to bring in more profit for themselves. Free market suppoters like to use liberty and free market economics as synonyms. They are not, in fact they are opposed to one another. Workers and laborers are enslaved by poor working conditions and wages too low to sustain a living on. For some reason the “Christian” capitalists seem to think Jesus taught us “Blessed are the business savvy and economically ambitious, for they will exploit the working people of God.”

Free market system is not capitalism. Free market system is small businesses and individual control of personal destinity. Free market system is a Catholic economic system. If you would like more information read Malcolm A. Kline’s book “The Chruch and the Market: A Catholic defense for the free economy.”

 

[rlg94086]

koda:

Vern, I apologize. I shouldn’t have assumed your environmental views. And you’re right, no one is going to get rich pumping gas. And I agree with you totally on education. It amazes me how many people don’t see this. I have friends with college age kids who could go to college but they don’t even encourage them. The kids can’t work at Pizza Hut their entire lives.

There are a few thing that get me about companies moving overseas:

1. When workers in poor nations will work for practically nothing how can we compete with that? I’m sure you wouldn’t want to or want your kids too. But remember back say in the 50s when you could get a job at a factory, say, and make a decent enough living to raise your family? You can’t do that now and it doesn’t seem right. And even some white collar jobs are going overseas. Call customer service and talk to someone in India.
2. I really do think that the lenient environmental laws (if they have any at all) are a factor when companies move away and I don’t think this is a good thing. Poorer nations shouldn’t sell out their environment and, thus, the home of their future generations, for jobs. And it would be nice if companies had a more long term view of the environment. After all, their kids have to live here too.
3. I think it encourages the ideal that profit rules all - which the CCC does condemn. There is no consideration for community or society.

I do know that you are an intellegent man - I can tell that from your posts (though I might not always agree with you).

The problem koda, is that while the problems you identify do exist, more regulation and increased wages will exacerbate those problems.

Very few conservative support unabashed capitalism…generally they are Libertarians…, but we do believe that government has over-regulated and needs to be reined in.

We need to compete against those other countries, or more jobs will go overseas. The government doesn’t send them there, and we can’t stop companies from doing it. We need to encourage businesses to choose the US.

 

[shockerfan]

MommaKat:

Free market system is not capitalism. Free market system is small businesses and individual control of personal destinity. Free market system is a Catholic economic system. If you would like more information read Malcolm A. Kline’s book “The Chruch and the Market: A Catholic defense for the free economy.”

then what is your definition of capitalism?

 

[Philip_P]

MommaKat:

Free market system is not capitalism. Free market system is small businesses and individual control of personal destinity. Free market system is a Catholic economic system. If you would like more information read Malcolm A. Kline’s book “The Chruch and the Market: A Catholic defense for the free economy.”

Look around - our current economic system does not favor small business. There are things we could do to make small businesses more competitive. Shift the burden of expensive benefits like health care into the public sector, for instance. Benefits packages are a critical recruiting strategy, and small businesses simply cannot compete currently against a large corporation that can afford to offer strong health-care benefits. Tie health care to the individual rather than the job, and you’ve just made entrepreneurship much more appealing, too. In addition, you get the added bonus of making all American business more competitive with businesses in other advanced economies, who as a rule do not have to shoulder the burden of health-care costs.

 

[rlg94086]

Philip P:

Look around - our current economic system does not favor small business. There are things we could do to make small businesses more competitive. Shift the burden of expensive benefits like health care into the public sector, for instance. Benefits packages are a critical recruiting strategy, and small businesses simply cannot compete currently against a large corporation that can afford to offer strong health-care benefits. Tie health care to the individual rather than the job, and you’ve just made entrepreneurship much more appealing, too. In addition, you get the added bonus of making all American business more competitive with businesses in other advanced economies, who as a rule do not have to shoulder the burden of health-care costs.

I partially agree with you. Shift the burden of health care away from private business…and back to individuals.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

I partially agree with you. Shift the burden of health care away from private business…and back to individuals.

Having the state do it for you is simpler still

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

rlg94086:

I partially agree with you. Shift the burden of health care away from private business…and back to individuals.

That means only the wealthy will be healthy (tried to purchase individual health insurance lately?). I think it is in the national interest to have a healthy population.

Also, this doesn’t address the competitive advantage other countries have over the US right now. A European company, for instance, doesn’t have to shoulder the cost of health benefits, yet has access to a health,well-educated work force. An American company first has to compete against other American companies, spending money it’s international competitors don’t, just to win the domestic competition. And that’s before having to compete internationally, which in our global economy is increasingly necessary.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

That means only the wealthy will be healthy (tried to purchase individual health insurance lately?).

Wow, you have evidence to support that fact? I never imagined that health was directly tied to wealth. How has my family managed to be so healthy and not be wealthy? Amazing!

I think it is in the national interest to have a healthy population.

I think it’s more in the national interest for people to be responsible for their own health, while assisting the physically or mentally disabled, of course.

Also, this doesn’t address the competitive advantage other countries have over the US right now. A European company, for instance, doesn’t have to shoulder the cost of health benefits, yet has access to a health,well-educated work force. An American company first has to compete against other American companies, spending money it’s international competitors don’t, just to win the domestic competition. And that’s before having to compete internationally, which in our global economy is increasingly necessary.

That explains why our economy still is growing and the economies in Europe are stagnant. Some edge they have.

 

[shockerfan]

Philip P:

That means only the wealthy will be healthy (tried to purchase individual health insurance lately?). I think it is in the national interest to have a healthy population.

Also, this doesn’t address the competitive advantage other countries have over the US right now. A European company, for instance, doesn’t have to shoulder the cost of health benefits, yet has access to a health,well-educated work force. An American company first has to compete against other American companies, spending money it’s international competitors don’t, just to win the domestic competition. And that’s before having to compete internationally, which in our global economy is increasingly necessary.

United States GDP Growth rate = 4.4%
European Union GDP Growth rate = 2.4%

United States Unemployment rate = 5.5% (2004 est)
European Union Unemployment rate = 9.5% (2004 est)

Now which competitive advantage were you referring to?

cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

 

[shockerfan]

MikeWM:

Having the state do it for you is simpler still

Mike

Quite simple…you get sick, you wait a long time to see a doctor, you die waiting… very simple.

Everyone I know that lives in Canada or that comes from Canada, have nothing positive to say about government controlled health care.

 

[Philip_P]

shockerfan:

United States GDP Growth rate = 4.4%
European Union GDP Growth rate = 2.4%

United States Unemployment rate = 5.5% (2004 est)
European Union Unemployment rate = 9.5% (2004 est)

Now which competitive advantage were you referring to?

cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

You need to look at more than just GDP. Wage growth and other quality of living measures are also important. What good does it do the average worker if Bill Gates made an extra million dollars this year while everyone else’s hourly wage stayed flat?

I can see this is going to be an involved discussion - I’m not going to get into it right before Thanksgiving break, but since it looks like there’s interest I’ll a few threads on economic issues (referencing the numbers I think we should be looking at, not just GDP), with the next week.

 

[Philip_P]

shockerfan:

Quite simple…you get sick, you wait a long time to see a doctor, you die waiting… very simple.

Everyone I know that lives in Canada or that comes from Canada, have nothing positive to say about government controlled health care.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians are far more satisfied with their health care than most Americans are.

Also, what I’m suggesting is government health insurance, not government run health care. We would still have all the private health care providers we have know, only instead of your employer or you yourself paying for it, the government would. Obviously it’s not “free” but spreading the cost out nationally would greatly reduce the per-person cost of insurance while dramatically increasing the number of people able to take advantage of health care (and seeing that health-care is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy, this has the benefit of further stimulating job creation in the sector).