Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

[guanophore]

Please go back to the beginning, and read Christ’s teachings against material obsession. Then acknowledge the world we live in. Do you feel that Christian morals and ethics predominate, that the asceticism of our Lord is what guides us? No, we have rampant consumerism and economic growth as our overarching priorities. You do, in any event.

Quite simply, the world is being destroyed UNDER CAPITALISM.

I think I have to go with Abu on this point. It is not capitalism itself that is destroying the world, but greed and the lust for power.

You make a right point that any economic system will work, but can also be abused by selfishiness of mankind.

 

[magnet]

The market is essentially a trading operation. Trading has to be both ways. Exchange of goods and services is trade. You offer a product or a service and I offer to give something in return that you agree to accept as a trade. There is no control.

If two people want to trade with you the same good or service and you want to trade to receive that good or service, how do you choose? It is your choice. Whether it is price or quality it is still your choice. That is the market.

How is it that people’s needs are not being met? If they have nothing to trade with, how is it they are entitled to receive the good or service anyway?

 

[freeRadical]

You make a right point that any economic system will work

I would disagree with this as, I’m sure, would the Church.

 

[Abu]

ThomasJMullally #186
unadulterated, triumphant capitalism simply exalts and rewards, greed and chicanery.
#187
Quite simply, the world is being destroyed UNDER CAPITALISM.

Such anti-Catholic posturing exposes the fact that none other than the iconoclast William James, no friend of Catholicism, could expose such idiocy by the truism that “those who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

The fact that Catholics – the Catholic monks, followed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, developed the free enterprise system based on Catholic theology and philosophy, the system which has transformed the world and enabled countless millions to escape from poverty, encouraged by St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – cannot be evaded or truthfully denied any longer in the face of the overwhelming evidence of these facts.

Those anchors of the Catholic case are recognised by:

1. St John Paul II in Centesimus Annus 42:
   ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’
   [The Saint’s disregard for the derogatory Marxist term “capitalism” is noteworthy, but quite lost on those who are unable to see the wood for the trees].

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative,” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(*On Human Concerns), *Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

1. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI then so precisely reveals the value of free enterprise and the market economy as the value of human dignity against the human frailty in Caritas et Veritate, 2009, #36:
   “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”

From Post #83 we have the considered appraisal of* Centesimus Annus *from none other than the revered Fr James V Schall, S.J. who eloquently summarises:
“If the first unique aspect of this Encyclical is its analysis of the real problem with totalitarianism, the second unique aspect is its willingness to accept the general principles of the market economy. The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system. No one needs to deny his point to recognise that he also calls attention to what have become commonplace among those who have sought to understand how modern societies develop their material bases.” Does The Catholic Church Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, p 185-186].

Thus are the anti-Catholic ravings exposed by the eminent Popes and real Catholic scholars.

 

[magnet]

I think I have to go with Abu on this point. It is not capitalism itself that is destroying the world, but greed and the lust for power.

You make a right point that any economic system will work, but can also be abused by selfishiness of mankind.

To look after your own self-interest in a conservative way is not greed. If you want to survive, you must be selfish.
Some people have accused some people in organized religion of having a lust for power. Certainly when Cardinal Richelieu was a member of the French government, he was often known by the title of the King’s “Chief Minister” or “First Minister”. He was the world’s first Prime Minister, in the modern sense of the term.[not verified in body] He sought to consolidate royal power and crush domestic factions. By restraining the power of the nobility, he transformed France into a strong, centralized state. His chief foreign policy objective was to check the power of the Austro-Spanish Habsburg dynasty, and to ensure French dominance in the Thirty Years’ War that engulfed Europe. Although he was a cardinal, he did not hesitate to make alliances with Protestant rulers in attempting to achieve his goals.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

If the world population with its desire to live the American Dream would decrease its rapaciousness, we could exist quite nicely under capitalism. Capitalism is the most natural of all economic systems because there are no governmental rules other than fairness. However, when the carrying capacity of Earth is exceeded and we forget about sustainability, we have people “overgrazing their grass”. Have you looked at what happens to a pasture when too many cattle are put in it? That is what we are doing to the world’s resources.

But when the urge to breed like rabbits produces more rapaciousness, the world suffers. This was the chief problem with Japan in the 1920’s and 30’s, and is the justification for militarists’ proposal for conquest to try to better the lives of the Japanese. The Chinese have realized that they are “overgrazing their grass”. Hence, the family size limitation policies.

If the people of Central America would not breed like rabbits, we could avoid having the swarms of children spilling over into Mexico and the U.S. If the people of Gaza would not breed like rabbits, their economic pressures would not be so severe. It’s easy to blame the Israelis. They don’t breed like rabbits. They know better.

While I too would bemoan that we have exported consumerism across the globe, I have to complain that your diatribe is replete with ignorant stereotypes. **Birth control is not part of our creed in any event, so I really don’t follow. Again, I would like you to consider the concept that people are not held back from riches, by having children. It is part of life… simple peoples have time to raise children because they are not pursuing wealth, not the other way around. Meanwhile we kick up a lot of dust spinning our wheels, and sacrifice basic living for minimal gain…
**
Do you realize that we **Americans use approximately five times more earth resources per capita than an average Latin American country, **with negative or negligible gain in life happiness and well-being? At that rate they could have three times as many children and still impact the planet 40% less! source: www.happyplanetfoundation.org .

 

[magnet]

**Birth control is not part of our creed in any event, so I really don’t follow. Again, I would like you to consider the concept that people are not held back from riches, by having children. It is part of life… simple peoples have time to raise children because they are not pursuing wealth, not the other way around. Meanwhile we kick up a lot of dust spinning our wheels, and sacrifice basic living for minimal gain…
**
Do you realize that we **Americans use approximately five times more earth resources per capita than an average Latin American country, **with negative or negligible gain in life happiness and well-being? At that rate they could have three times as many children and still impact the planet 40% less! source: www.happyplanetfoundation.org .

So you are saying that pursuing the “American Dream” is evil? Why does any family want to have ten kids? My mother was one of the youngest in a fatherless family of eleven kids, and life was hell. Being fruitful and multiplying means less to eat for each child. A family with limited income that opts for more children instead of better use of its income is ignoring the consequences of the increased burden of all these mouths to feed as well as attending to the psychological needs of each and every child. Spiritually it makes sense because the Bible says so, but economically and ethically it is the wrong thing to do. China has certainly realized that. It does not want to start conquering adjacent countries similar to what Japan did in the 1930s.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

1. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI then so precisely reveals the value of free enterprise and the market economy as the value of human dignity against the human frailty in Caritas et Veritate, 2009, #36:
   “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”

All right! We heard you the first three times… Guanophore already made me admit that this statement is a fine elucidation of our faith!.. . Capitalism would work wonderfully if men were leading morally conscious lives informed by our Church, any custom or system would. However in our world, reason has so thoroughly subjugated faith that capitalism as carried forward, is only “throwing fuel on the fire”. Quite simply, business and the drive for “productive increase”, is the primary force that is crowding out faith.

 

[guanophore]

I would disagree with this as, I’m sure, would the Church.

Yes, it is too simple. Work for what? Greed, lust and taking advantage of others can take place even if there is no money involved in an economic system. Humankind still took advantage of others when we bartered instead of using valuables/money.

But in the end, it is not a system that is oppressive, but persons. Even in the feudal systems, some landowners were generous (but most were not). I just got done reading Luther’s diatribe against the peasants.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

So you are saying that pursuing the “American Dream” is evil? Why does any family want to have ten kids? My mother was one of the youngest in a fatherless family of eleven kids, and life was hell. Being fruitful and multiplying means less to eat for each child. A family with limited income that opts for more children instead of better use of its income is ignoring the consequences of the increased burden of all these mouths to feed as well as attending to the psychological needs of each and every child. Spiritually it makes sense because the Bible says so, but economically and ethically it is the wrong thing to do. China has certainly realized that. It does not want to start conquering adjacent countries similar to what Japan did in the 1930s.

Clearly it is going to take every kind of restraint, to conserve the resources… but the more you travel the world the more you realize that people can be happy and ethical and spiritual without so much economic activity. We are a disposable society-- we go through a lot of junk. We consume a load of gasoline. So sadly yes, the more we promote our systems for saving time and saving labor, the more we are ruining the earth.

 

[Seraphim73]

Sure the poor can own stock if they have any disposable income left after trying to merely survive with food, shelter, medical needs and other essentials. For your average poor person I’d safely say stock is probably not on top of such a list. Jesus didn’t say hey poor person go buy some stock and all of your troubles shall cease. And not many stockholders actually sit in the board rooms where corporate decisions are made. A thread where it is said the poor can just go out and buy stocks is not a serious thread to me. So I shall leave it at that.

And a person who truly believes that the average poor person in America doesn’t have the opportunity to work hard, maybe get an education and wind up contributing to a 401K or mutual fund or some other kind of private retirement account doesn’t have even an elementary understanding of reality in a free market economy.

I was born in a poor family. When both of my parents died I received not a single penny or piece of property or anything in inheritance. I dropped out of high school to go to work when I got my girlfriend pregnant at 17. My only education is a GED. Guess what? I own stock through an employer 401K. My income now puts me in the lower middle or maybe middle class. And I’m not exceptional. This story is repeated over and over again in free market economies. Who knows I may even go on to own my own business someday.

So before you laugh off the idea of poor people owning stock you should look at the real numbers. The poor rarely stay poor and the hated 1% rarely stay there either. There is a remarkable amount of upward and downward mobility for those who make poor decisions. And the only system yet devised by man that has pulled that many people out of poverty (like myself) is free market capitalism. On this the record of history is crystal clear.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes, but I think the point being made is that many capitalists do not “legitimately” create the wealth.

Tell me, how is wealth created?

 

[freeRadical]

Clearly it is going to take every kind of restraint, to conserve the resources… but the more you travel the world the more you realize that people can be happy and ethical and spiritual without so much economic activity. We are a disposable society-- we go through a lot of junk. We consume a load of gasoline. So sadly yes, the more we promote our systems for saving time and saving labor, the more we are ruining the earth.

How does increasing productivity ruin the earth?

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Tell me, how is wealth created?

Here is my answer:

Wealth is created when you walk a mile to the store on a breezy day instead of driving. Wealth is created when you forget to look at your email. Wealth is created when you gaze at the stars. Wealth is created when you take the time to thank God, for the best things that you have.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes, it is too simple. Work for what? Greed, lust and taking advantage of others can take place even if there is no money involved in an economic system. Humankind still took advantage of others when we bartered instead of using valuables/money.

But in the end, it is not a system that is oppressive, but persons. Even in the feudal systems, some landowners were generous (but most were not). I just got done reading Luther’s diatribe against the peasants.

I agree with what you wrote. I was just saying that I disagree that any economic system would work, as would the Church. Some are clearly better then others, and some the Church specifically condemns.

I think Milton Friedman said it best:

“So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”

 

[freeRadical]

Here is my answer:

Wealth is created when you walk a mile to the store on a breezy day instead of driving. Wealth is created when you forget to look at your email. Wealth is created when you gaze at the stars. Wealth is created when you take the time to thank God, for the best things that you have.

Clearly we are talking about economic systems here. So, in an economic system, how is wealth created? And how does one “legitimately” create wealth?

 

[ThomasJMullally]

How does increasing productivity ruin the earth?

Consume more, use more, trade more, burn more, dig more, etc… that might be productivity to you. Here is productivity to me:

Productivity is when you walk a mile to the store on a breezy day instead of driving. Productivity is when you forget to look at your email. Productivity is when you gaze at the stars. Productivity is when you take the time to thank God, for the best things that you have.

 

[freeRadical]

Consume more, use more, trade more, burn more, dig more, etc… that might be productivity to you. Here is productivity to me:

Well, that is not the definition of productivity, at least not the economic definition. That is the definition of consumption. There is a difference between consumption and productivity.

Productivity is when you walk a mile to the store on a breezy day instead of driving. Productivity is when you forget to look at your email. Productivity is when you gaze at the stars. Productivity is when you take the time to thank God, for the best things that you have.

Oh, please. This is the same thing that you posted above. You just substituted productivity for wealth.

We are talking about economic systems in this thread and when we use words such as consumption, productivity, and wealth, we are using the economic definition of them.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Clearly we are talking about economic systems here. So, in an economic system, how is wealth created? And how does one “legitimately” create wealth?

Good point here… OK, legitimate as I believe he meant, would refer to the opposite of the con games such as sub-prime mortgages. An arms-length, good-faith, conscientious transaction.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Well, that is not the definition of productivity, at least not the economic definition. That is the definition of consumption. There is a difference between consumption and productivity.

I am sorry, I just do not like the empiricism inherent in terms such as productivity, employment, income, GDP. These are old economics, they only consider the way to pile up more widgets… pls consider the research at: www.happyplanetfoundation.org