Hypothetical Dilemma: The Curse Of Capitalism

[kbachler]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Case in point: the present HHS mandate nonsense.

It can be argued that those flow from natural law. You seem to have a mistaken impression that there is only an Aquinasian Natural Law. That’s a narrow view.

Your “first” is an assertion, not an argument. Your “second” is a silly question; “necessary” means exactly what it sounds like, i.e., “required for.” Your “third” is a patently ridiculous question; your duties are defined for you by your nature and your station in life, not whatever you like.

The first is an assertion based on the fact that you have a misunderstanding of the concept of Natural Law. Though Aquinas did a great deal of work, the concept extends past him to other philosophers. The argument in a nutshell is that Natural Law (if there is such a thing) can be derived from reason alone. Therefore the argument you make based on one narrow view is not applicable to all.

Necessary is not clear. Is Medicare necessary or not, for example? Is Social Security necessary or not?

Bill Gates had a duty to develop worldwide important software and to deliver it to people, followed by a duty to give away wealth. Therefore, none of his wealth was excess by your definition.

As for your “fourth,” if you are suggesting natural law is false, then you are indulging in (literally) damnable heresy. Given the three questions you asked above, I gather you are not terribly well informed about the topic and suggest you do some homework on it before daring to contradict the Church’s magisterium, which alone is protected from error.

I am very well versed on the topic, thank you - apparently better than you. There are situations where Aquinas’ arguments fail.

You are Catholic, and therefore you are required to give full assent of faith to ALL of the Church’s teachings.

Jesus also clarified for us that we are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. We are therefore not to surrender our reason.

Really? From what in human nature does this right arise? I ask because you’re evidently better read than I am on the topic so I’m eager to hear the explanation for this.

The Gates example is already given above.

I’ll give you the boilerplate natural law answer. Our rights arise from our duty: there is no natural right to do ANYTHING which is not included in your duties. You have a duty to preserve your own life, to care for your family, to obey authority, and to worship God; therefore you have the right to the means necessary to do these things, and that includes the wealth necessary to care for yourself and your family, to pay taxes to the state, etc. You have no right to any wealth beyond what is necessary to do these things.

Gates had a duty to move the world ahead with very important software - to make business more efficient so that all could have more wealth, and now to give his well-earned wealth away.

Thus you argument is answered. ALL of his wealth is necessary.

This doesn’t mean you can’t have anything more. It means you have no right to have anything more, and therefore have no basis to complain if the state elects to appropriate some of your excess wealth to feed the hungry or some of the water on your land to fight a nearby forest fire, etc.

Gates as an example has a right.

Funny how many retired Catholic CEOs I know who are giving their money away now, who feel exactly as I describe about taxes and their rights.

If the various revelations are any indication, many people are going to Hell – precisely because they do not mold their will to that of God and His church.

It isn’t to you to judge.

Of course He did. That includes paying your taxes, no matter how high!

Wrong. First, the fact that he did clearly shows that Caesar had a right to taxes in excess of what HE needed. So you fundamental argument is wrong to begin with.

But second, we live in a society where WE choose the leaders and the policies. Hence, we are not obligated to simply acquiesce to poor policies.

You clearly do not have any idea what the Church means when it speaks of natural law. This ignorance is culpable and it is inducing you to the sin of heresy and scandal, namely by attacking the Church’s teachings in the manner that you have.

You are NOT FREE to disagree with the Church on these matters. The content of the Catechism falls under the infallible ordinary magisterium, to which you are required to give full assent of faith or be severed from the precious body and blood of Christ.

PLEASE do your homework before presuming to attack the teachings of wiser and holier men than yourself. It’s the least you owe them.

Given that I have taught Natural Law, I think I have a fairly reasonable understanding of it. By your own words, you do not. Your misinterpretation of the catechism that you quoted with no admission of error on your part is troubling.

Your inability to see society as an anything but an economic order and man as anything but an economic creature is driving you to confess belief in nonsense. The Middle Ages as being even remotely “totalitarian” and “communistic”? Come on.

I never said why you just attributed to me. Straw man.

 

[King_Lazy]

What will you vote for and what is your philosophical reasons for doing so?

Abandon capitalism, of course, provided that the suggested alternative is better.

Unfettered capitalism gave rise to communism as a solution to its abuses. But it turned out that communism was worse.

I’m Catholic. I have no loyalty to either of the two major extremes of economic thought. My only loyalty lies to God’s moral law. While I may acknowledge some of the moderate forms of capitalism as the lesser evil compared to some of the more extreme forms of socialism and vice versa, if something better were to become a realistic alternative and I could vote for it, I would.

 

[Quarles47]

Is this poll a joke:shrug:

 

[ricks1948]

A better way is the co-operative system which has been unjustly neglected…

I’ve heard of other systems, not sure I heard of the “co-operative” system, what is it and how does it work?

 

[kbachler]

Is this poll a joke:shrug:

No, it’s a troll.

 

[Abu]

sw85 #39
That the principles of modern economic systems were not formalized until recently also doesn’t mean they’re the only economic systems in play. The economic order of, for instance, the Middle Ages was not recognizably capitalist OR communist. In fact it was not really recognizable as an “economic order” at all, because economic values were not held to be the socially constitutive values.

There is a need to understand the early reality of free enterprise and the extensive development of economics by the Catholic Late Scholastics.

While the Sacred Scriptures condemn greed and wrong use of wealth, commerce or merchants are not condemned. St Augustine stated that price was not only of the seller’s costs but of the buyer’s desire for the item sold. The first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press1969, I; [The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 58).

The fact is that Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.”[cf. op. cit (Stark) p xii, 55-58].

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

There is no “curse of capitalism”, but the curse of fallen human nature and the evils thereof when virtues and values are discarded.

 

[Sair]

The thing that most fundamentally sets life aside from inanimate matter is freedom to will. Capitalism allows that for the masses, socialism does not, nor does any form of tyranny.

The issue is less the fault of capitalism per se, and more the fault of (individual) people. It is difficult for people to take a long-term time horizon because of our limited lifespan. We do need to accommodate for this short-coming in some governmental way and make certain that we are clear on way we have to make some of the decisions we do.

Without capitalism, the pace of innovation will be slowed, and the necessary solutions to the impending problems we have will not materialize.

Perhaps this is ultimately the problem with capitalism - it relies too much upon the immediate-gratification end of self-interest.

The thing is, there has never been a truly socialist society in existence, and it’s doubtful that such a society could exist without some exertion of force - which, in its turn, would undermine the socialist ideal. Socialism is the practical expression of the Christian ideal of “do unto others as you would have done to you”, but because that operates on a much broader and longer-term scale than most of us, as individuals, appreciate, it’s been virtually impossible to realise throughout human history. Socialism requires a greater degree of extended selflessness than the majority of humans are capable of, so it’s really no wonder that advocates of capitalism condemn it as unrealistic. The trouble is, capitalism carries its own evils, most prominent amongst them being the continual widening of the gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots” - and the accompanying attitude that all it takes to succeed is the will to succeed, therefore the “have-nots” have only themselves to blame. Such an attitude ignores such deeply-entrenched social conceptions and economic structures that the “have-nots” must fight against in order to make it to the base level of potential accorded to the “haves”.

So I would vote for socialism, but with a great deal of scepticism that it could actually come about, given the contemporary expression of human nature…

 

[Qoeleth]

I am staggered and disappointed that, at this time, almost 40% of voters have responded that they would prefer the extinction of the human race than an alternative to capitalism!!

 

[kbachler]

I am staggered and disappointed that, at this time, almost 40% of voters have responded that they would prefer the extinction of the human race than an alternative to capitalism!!

Perhaps that’s because those voters understand that an alternative to capitalism effectively extinguishes the human race.

 

[kbachler]

Perhaps this is ultimately the problem with capitalism - it relies too much upon the immediate-gratification end of self-interest.

I believe this is true. That doesn’t mean that the entire system is bad, however. It DOES mean that we need to find ways to reflect long-term costs that aren’t currently recognized into the price of goods. It seems as though we cannot completely rely upon education to guide people.

A good example is global warming. The fundamental logic of global warming is strong. The empirical data is strong. Like the link between cancer and tobacco, it is difficult to prove. In this case its even harder because there isn’t a clear control group. (We don’t have for examination another Earth with people with exactly the same weather until 1850 with all other conditions the same and no industrial revolution!) But that doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t strong - it is very strong. Yet there are a number of people who don’t believe (or don’t understand) this evidence. Thus we argue on the existence of a topic that we should have actually started to address 40 years ago.

The thing to recognize is that ALL economic systems have the failing you mention, becaue its the failing of MANKIND, not of the system. All economic systems rely upon someone’s (immediate) gratification and self-interest. And in no cases does that necessarily lead to correct long-term decisions.

 

[Abu]

Sair #67
Socialism is the practical expression of the Christian ideal of “do unto others as you would have done to you”,

Such a fairytale view of socialism ignores the deadening effect of its essentials.

Communism and Socialism have been condemned outright because they are political systems that deny basic human rights.

Centesimus Annus, John Paul; II, 1991, #12:
“By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.
“…the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."

The trouble is, capitalism carries its own evils, most prominent amongst them being the continual widening of the gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots”

Such an assumption fails to appreciate the fact that it is only with the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”.

Wealth can be distributed only after it is produced. It is only with free enterprise that living standards for the great majority have been increased.

 

[kbachler]

The trouble is, capitalism carries its own evils, most prominent amongst them being the continual widening of the gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots” -

First, I would argue that this is a misrepresentation. More like the have a lots and the have somes.

Second, why is this an issue?

Third, its not an issue of capitalism. It’s basic math, and the power of compound interest applied to assets of different sizes.

My lower middle class family couldn’t afford to send me to college. I worked my way through over 12 years. For many years I made much money. I was a have. The financial crunch has changed that. I don’t blame anyone - I didn’t plan sufficiently for such a long period of financial stress. Right now I have nothing. I’m not mad at capitalism of “the system” - its how things work. I understand that. And its fair.

 

[someperson555]

abandon capitalism.
it is a self contradiction and is based on individualism. it does not work for the common good. its practices are unethical because it promotes usury, greed, manipulation, etc. it also pollutes the environment and destroys wildlife.
capitalism is based on unethical principles because of the notion that you " privatize" certain resources which rightly belong to the people in the first place.
its time to embrace a new system, one that willl guaruntee prosperity and safeguard the overall health and well being of the national community.

 

[Abu]

someperson555 #73
abandon capitalism.
capitalism is based on unethical principles because of the notion that you " privatize" certain resources which rightly belong to the people in the first place.
its time to embrace a new system, one that willl guaruntee prosperity and safeguard the overall health and well being of the national community.

This is typical of the man who rode madly off in all directions (Stephen Leacock).

As though anyone or any “system” could “guarantee prosperity”. How inane. Obviously not a clue about human nature nor about the great Scholastics who developed free enterprise based on the principles of cause and effect and the great advances in living standards which occurred. See post #66.

None other than Bl John Paul II clearly affirmed free enterprise in Centesimus Annus, and Pope Benedict XVI affirmed also that men, not the market, are to blamed for economic problems.

 

[Sair]

First, I would argue that this is a misrepresentation. More like the have a lots and the have somes.

Second, why is this an issue?

Third, its not an issue of capitalism. It’s basic math, and the power of compound interest applied to assets of different sizes.

My lower middle class family couldn’t afford to send me to college. I worked my way through over 12 years. For many years I made much money. I was a have. The financial crunch has changed that. I don’t blame anyone - I didn’t plan sufficiently for such a long period of financial stress. Right now I have nothing. I’m not mad at capitalism of “the system” - its how things work. I understand that. And its fair.

Sure, it’s how things work when people consult* nothing but* their own self-interest.

A few people make obscene amounts of money largely by exploiting the labour and investment of those who seek to make a much more modest living. That is how capitalism works. It isn’t an equitable system, can never be so and was never intended to be so.

What capitalism has going for it is that it recognises the selfishness that lies at the core of unreflective human nature. It plays to selfishness, even makes a virtue of the same. It is, it has to be said, fundamentally opposed to Christian principles.

Yes, humans are motivated by self-interest. Where capitalism fails is in its insistence that this self-interest is primarily (even solely) served by shoring up one’s store of material resources. It utterly fails at recognising how much our self-interest is served by building mutually rewarding relationships with our fellows.

It also fails, particularly, in its absolute ignorance, even active denigration, of the non-economic factors that affect people’s opportunities to pursue an honest living in modern society. Strangely enough, even in our more enlightened age, a white heterosexual man’s opportunities for economic success far outnumber those of women, non-white people, and even gender-queer people. And that’s not even beginning to scratch the surface of the experience of people who grow up within the socio-cultural framework of economic disadvantage.

In short, capitalism would be a perfect system if we all had the same goals and were prepared to undertake any possible role in bringing about those goals, no matter how exploitative or demeaning; and if unfettered economic growth were the most desirable outcome for our species - even supposing such an outcome was possible in the world we inhabit.

 

[Sair]

First, I would argue that this is a misrepresentation. More like the have a lots and the have somes.

Second, why is this an issue?

Have “somes”? Sure, where ‘some’ is often the most minute fraction possible of the wealth of the “haves”.

It’s an issue because humans have an innate sense of justice - that is, reciprocity.

If enough people feel that they are being exploited, being unfairly treated, being insufficiently rewarded for their efforts while the fat cats cream off the fruits of their labour, then you have a recipe for widespread conflict, animosity and social fracturing.

Of course, this is only a problem for the fat cats if the government of the day doesn’t milk the ordinary working taxpayer to bail them out of their difficulties when they overreach themselves…

 

[kbachler]

Have “somes”? Sure, where ‘some’ is often the most minute fraction possible of the wealth of the “haves”.

Why does this matter? If you have what you earn, then what is the issue?

It’s an issue because humans have an innate sense of justice - that is, reciprocity.

Which is why taking from the wealthy under the assumption that they haven’t earned it is a fallacious argument.

If enough people feel that they are being exploited, being unfairly treated, being insufficiently rewarded for their efforts while the fat cats cream off the fruits of their labour, then you have a recipe for widespread conflict, animosity and social fracturing.

True. Then the issue is people FEELING that they are exploited, not whether they actually ARE exploited. If people FEEL like someone committed murder, should we lynch that person because the mob feels that way, or should we actually consider factual information and PROVE a murder?

If a student performs above a class graded on a curve, should we FEEL like that student must be cheating and therefore give their points to other students in the class - or should we actually look to see if cheating occurred?

Are there some bad CEO’s, some bad rich people? Yes. There are also some bad auto mechanics, plumbers, and used care salesmen.

Let’s not over-react and define things in terms of “fairness” (when in fact it is no such thing.

Is it fair that 50% (actually its 49.xx% just under 50, and I don’t know the .xx) of the U.S. population with an income pay $0 in income tax? Don’t they all enjoy the benefits of a U.S. Constitution, of the U.S. military, of U.S. social programs etc. Is it unreasonable - unfair - to ask that every income earner in the U.S. have some skin in the game?

If the standard of living in the U.S. is high, typically higher than in the past, then does it matter if someone else has more than I if I have the opportunity to earn more?

Of course, this is only a problem for the fat cats if the government of the day doesn’t milk the ordinary working taxpayer to bail them out of their difficulties when they overreach themselves…

Sad thing is, the facts don’t bear this out. GET THIS: 50% of the U.S. income earners pay $0. That’s hardly “milking the ordinary working taxpayer.” Get this:

Top 1% pay 36.73% of FIT (Federal Income Taxes)
Top 5% pay 58.66% of FIT
Top 10% pay 70.47% of FIT
Top 25% pay 87.30%

If the top 25% pay 87% of the Federal income tax - meaning that the bottom 75% - the “ordinary working taxpayer” pays 13% of FIT - how is that “milking the ordinary working taxpayer”?

From these numbers its obvious to see that if the “ordinary working taxpayer” feels “milked” because taxes are too high - its not the fault of what taxpayers are paying. It’s the fault of what is being spent, so that taxpayers cannot keep up.

Bush handled the economy poorly. In 8 years he added $5 trillion in debt. Under Obama we’ve added $5 Trillion in 3 years.

Rather than ranting and blaming the other guy, I suggest you look at the actual facts and base your arguments on that.

 

[kbachler]

Sure, it’s how things work when people consult* nothing but* their own self-interest.

A few people make obscene amounts of money largely by exploiting the labour and investment of those who seek to make a much more modest living. That is how capitalism works. It isn’t an equitable system, can never be so and was never intended to be so.

What capitalism has going for it is that it recognises the selfishness that lies at the core of unreflective human nature. It plays to selfishness, even makes a virtue of the same. It is, it has to be said, fundamentally opposed to Christian principles.

Yes, humans are motivated by self-interest. Where capitalism fails is in its insistence that this self-interest is primarily (even solely) served by shoring up one’s store of material resources. It utterly fails at recognising how much our self-interest is served by building mutually rewarding relationships with our fellows.

It also fails, particularly, in its absolute ignorance, even active denigration, of the non-economic factors that affect people’s opportunities to pursue an honest living in modern society. Strangely enough, even in our more enlightened age, a white heterosexual man’s opportunities for economic success far outnumber those of women, non-white people, and even gender-queer people. And that’s not even beginning to scratch the surface of the experience of people who grow up within the socio-cultural framework of economic disadvantage.

In short, capitalism would be a perfect system if we all had the same goals and were prepared to undertake any possible role in bringing about those goals, no matter how exploitative or demeaning; and if unfettered economic growth were the most desirable outcome for our species - even supposing such an outcome was possible in the world we inhabit.

Actually, your argument is fundamentally incorrect. Capitalism would FAIL and be unnecessary if we had the same goals and if we were ruthless in pursuing those goals. Capitalism allows for diversity and competition of ideas - that’s why it works.

 

[King_Lazy]

Have “somes”? Sure, where ‘some’ is often the most minute fraction possible of the wealth of the “haves”.

It’s an issue because humans have an innate sense of justice - that is, reciprocity.

I’m mostly reiterating sw85’s ideas on this thread because they are most closely in line with Church teaching. And so, if someone has less but it suffices for his legitimate needs, he has no right to more. But neither does the one who has a lot have a right to what is above his needs. There is no reason why the State could not through taxation appropriate unnecessary wealth for the sake of the common good, be it for health care or for the benefit of the poor. It doesn’t mean it has to if there are better means of achieving the same result, so the question is pragmatic. But disparity in wealth is not in and of itself unjust because people have differing needs and there is no right to equal wealth.

If enough people feel that they are being exploited, being unfairly treated, being insufficiently rewarded for their efforts while the fat cats cream off the fruits of their labour, then you have a recipe for widespread conflict, animosity and social fracturing.

Yes, some low-wage earners work 40 or more hours a week just for food and shelter and nothing else. They are in effect not being rewarded for their labour. Whether they “feel” they are being exploited is irrelevant. They are being exploited. The cost of labour must include both the needs of the worker as well as just reward for his work. This does not preclude the employer from profiting from his work, however. But it certainly doesn’t mean that the worker should be forced to accept unjust working conditions to meet his basic needs in the name of freedom of contract or free enterprise. That would be idolatrous worship of an economic system. The State is entirely right in intervening in this case.

.
Of course, this is only a problem for the fat cats if the government of the day doesn’t milk the ordinary working taxpayer to bail them out of their difficulties when they overreach themselves…

In the late 80s and early 90s, we saw idolatrous and ideological socialism discredited as an economic system. Now, we are seeing the excessive deregulation of idolatrous and ideological capitalism discredited. And much like the communists buried their heads in the sand, saying “That wasn’t really socialism that was discredited because those countries practised state capitalism/actually weren’t socialist enough/whatever” so too do we see capitalists bury their heads in the sand, saying, “That wasn’t really capitalism that was discredited because any economy that isn’t 100% deregulated is actually socialist/there wasn’t enough deregulation and free enterprise/whatever.”

Socialism aims to do away with private property. Where we have capitalists screaming and shouting that such things as public healthcare are “socialism,” many people who support public provision in this aspect begin to identify themselves as socialists, which they really are not. Everything that is not capitalism isn’t necessarily socialism, but this idolatry of capitalism where capitalists argue against the common good and the rights of working man on clearly ideological grounds plays into the hands of socialists, who may support some aspects of the common good but espouse other serious errors. The problem is that we have a false dichotomy, and various pragmatic ideas that are neither capitalist or socialist are identified with one of the ideological camps for lack of a better word.

 

[Abu]

King Lazy #79
if someone has less but it suffices for his legitimate needs, he has no right to more. But neither does the one who has a lot have a right to what is above his needs.
There is no reason why the State could not through taxation appropriate unnecessary wealth for the sake of the common good, be it for health care or for the benefit of the poor.

It is astounding how some “Catholics” can be so naïve and misinformed as to as to pontificate that the State must decide what is “unnecessary” for anyone and so misappropriate and misallocate.

The principles of subsidiarity and solidarity mandated by the Church through several Popes are thus ignored and Christ’s Church demeaned by the malformed, and the Popes mocked.

Such communist/socialist ideas are precisely why both have been condemned.

The continued finagling by governments, going back 80 years, which has so distorted the essence of free enterprise, is apparently blissfully unknown so that some posters are totally unaware of the distortions.

It is PEOPLE who have to be prudent, just, have fortitude and temperance. The Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man. The duty of governments is to make wise laws; that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to ensure competition. It is people who commit crimes.