Is Distributism utopian?

[Abu]

The confusion around profit by St Francis is quite remarkable.

Dr Woods puts it simply:
“Profit informs the firm that it has employed resources in conformity with consumer desires, taking raw materials valued less and transforming them into finished products that consumers value more – and which they value more than the use of those raw materials in alternative production processes.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church and the Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 21).

“Profit signals, then, make for peaceful social cooperation and the most efficient use of resources….to acknowledge a ‘profit motive’ is not to say that people should think only about money, or that money is more important than God, or any other such nonsense.” (p 203).

As we have seen from the Holy Father, it is not the market but their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility that must be called to account. (Post #362)

 

[St_Francis]

*You note from your example in post #397, in your effort to explain how focusing on maximizing profits is detrimental, that after the store owner has paid all his expenses what he pays himself you call a “profit”. *

No, I tried to make it very clear that I included payment to the owner, who would be working at the business, as before profit.*

Without getting into elaborate economics I agree. *Where I am perplexed is your statement. *“DOES PROFiT NEED TO BE MAXIMIZED? NO” * Then you follow with three paragraphs, I assume as examples of why you choose that profits do not need to be maximized; why you answer “NO”.

1. the first example says that one should not sell salacious goods.

I gave this as an example of someone who is focused on maximizing profits. This person is the one who puts maximizing profits first. To me, focusing on something means giving a very high or highest priority, and that’s what I have a problem*with.

*Isn’t that a rule for everyone? *…Can you tell me how one in a Distributist system is less likely to sell salacious goods than one in a free system?

In a large department store, they started putting lingerie alongside one of the main aisles. I do not think that had this been a store owned by someone local that this decision would have ever been made, and it certainly would have been rescinded more quickly if it had been.

Why? First because one person would have been responsible for the decision; second, the person responsible would have been a person who knew a lot of the people coming into the store. He would have felt a certain responsibility for the way he arranged it.

But in the actual case, it was a corporate decision from a central office… which illustrates why I am against the stock-corporate structure.

1. *The next example you give concludes (I assume) one should not sell what others are selling? …This is a big issue for me, why shouldn’t the grocery man be able to sell plants, hardware etc? *

Mr Jones was concerned about that. That could be a reasonable concern. I don’t think it means that there should never be similar items at nearby stores, but just that with those particular otems, that was what Mr Jones decided…

1. *The next example you give seems to conclude, it is OK for this same grocery to sell flowers. *I am inferring that in your example there are no other flower sellsmen in the market?

Yes, you infer correctly; I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.

You summarize the three examples by noting “the business would be BETTER if he concentrates his attention on other things than maximizing profits…” *I can not understand this reasoning, it is probably because of my time in business. * Tell me, what is “BETTER”: *better profits, better stability, better turnover of product, better TO of employees, less hasle from government? *What is BETTER?

As I said before, “If Mr Jones thinks more about how to improve service, or how better to interact with his employees, and things like that,” and “*I believe that people should concentrate on having a “good,” ie, moral, people-centered, business.”

What do you mean by “…and that in and of it self is more likely to increase profits as a side effect” *What is THAT.

THAT is concentrating on “how to improve service, or how better to interact with his employees, and things like that.”

Can you give examples?

For example: in a restaurant the waitresses usually pay the busboys a tip. In one place I worked, the “tip” for the busboys was collected by the restaurant and disbursed as part of the busboys’ pay. This meant the busboys did not get tipped, and caused them to resent the watresses, and meant that the busboys did not do their work well, since they did not benefit by working more quickly.

Because of this system, the service at that restaurant was not as good as it could have been and there was a high turnover of people in the dining area.*

If the restaurant had focused on improving other aspects of the business instead of “maximizing profits,” their restaurant would have been much better.

*And if it increases profits are we not doing something closely related to maximizing profits? *

You seem to not understand intention in an action. Here is an imaginary scenario: I may decide to get up earlier so I can exercise before going in to work, and this has the unexpected side effect of increasing my efficiency in the morning.

I did not make that decision in order to increase my efficiency at work but for health and family reasons. However, as a bonus, I felt the benefit at work.

The restaurant I mentioned above may decide to focus on improving relations among the staff. They may decide that even tho they would end up reducing profit, they will change the payment situation for the busboys.*

And then everyone is so much happier that customers are happier and return more often, and the next thing you know, there are increased profits.

And if one who desires to maximize profits were to be aware of “that in and of it self that increases profits” he would do it, would he not?

Does this help?*The business will actually be better if he concentrates his attention on other things than maximizing profit, and that (concentrating on improving other things), in and of itself, is more likely to increase profits as a side-effect.

*I really need these answers.

I am not being ascerbic. *I truly, need to understand your philosophy? *I appreciate you taking time to answer these questions

Hope this helps

 

[David_Castlen]

**St. Francis,

I must say I am flabergasted. Let me try to summarize your opinion regarding profits:

1. You DO understand profits are a MUST, without them a business will fail and the products and services would not be available. That is your stand? Correct?
2. But the number one objective of an owner should not be to Maximize profits, because;
   
   a. he could hurt his employees, or
   b. he could do something immoral; e.g., sell salacious goods, or
   c. he could put some other business out of business, or
   d. he could sell a defective product causing harm to a client.
   g. others??? are there other reasons not to maximize profits?
3. You believe that a large organization is more apt to do harm and be immoral than a small (local) organization. Is that correct?**

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgeunner!!!
I have to admit that I did not understand quiye a lot of your first post, mostly because I couldn’t figure out what all the terms you used meant. Can you link to something which explains that more basically? I was unable to find a site like that myself.

Thanks very much!

Sorry. I don’t know of a link to anything that would explain it more. But (and relating to the first post only), the concepts are:

1. In any society, one’s income, from whatever source equals his personal consumption plus transfers of resources he makes to others. Those “others” may be family members, charities, friends or investment sources. Or, it can be the government. The more a government takes of one’s transferrable income, the less it leaves for all of the others to whom the individual might voluntarily transfer resources.
2. Governments are not very efficient in making transfers; certainly nowhere as efficient as is an individual. That’s the point of the “Mother’s dilemma”. An ordinary mother is more efficient in distributing resources than any government can be, because she knows the needs of individuals much better than a government can. But it’s not only true of mothers. Individuals are better at meeting their own needs than government is, IF they have the resources to do it with. The more government takes of their resources, the less they have to work with. There is another dimension to the “Mother’s Dilemma” in that no current economic theory can explain how that allocation takes place. It defies formulation.
3. Government transfers of resources to individuals reduces both income from property (capital) and income from labor, in the form of taxes. National income from property is always about 1/3 of the total national income, no matter what this government does. Labor is about 2/3. Most people have some income from both. Unfortunately, when government pays people not to work, that comes from labor’s share AS A SHARE. It reduces the income of both capital and labor in dollars, but the only part it significantly affects as a percentage is the share of “labor from work”.
4. Labor’s percentage share of national income is highest when unemployment is lowest, though it doesn’t vary very much. This is because capital gains less income as a percentage as it adds more labor. A person can think of it this way. If a factory owner has 10 machines, and runs only half of them, but then hires more people to run more of them, the ADDITIONAL product and income he gets from EACH machine goes down the more people he adds to his work force. he still has the same number of machines (capital) but he is paying more people (labor) to operate them. Thus, “income from labor” goes up somewhat, as a percentage of all income.

 

[St_Francis]

*St. Francis,

I must say I am flabergasted. *Let me try to summarize your opinion regarding profits:

1. You DO understand profits are a MUST, without them a business will fail and the products and services would not be available. That is your stand? Correct?
   OK, what you just said here is a little confusing.
2. I am against putting profits above all else.
3. I do not understand why profits are necessary to the point a business will fail without them. A business fails when it cannot meet its financial obigations. Since profits are what comes in above and beyond the obligations, profits are not strictly necessary to keep a business going.

1. But *the number one objective of an owner should not be to Maximize profits, because;

 

[St_Francis]

The confusion around profit by St Francis is quite remarkable.

Dr Woods puts it simply:
“Profit informs the firm that it has employed resources in conformity with consumer desires, taking raw materials valued less and transforming them into finished products that consumers value more – and which they value more than the use of those raw materials in alternative production processes.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church and the Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 21).

“Profit signals, then, make for peaceful social cooperation and the most efficient use of resources….to acknowledge a ‘profit motive’ is not to say that people should think only about money, or that money is more important than God, or any other such nonsense.” (p 203).

As we have seen from the Holy Father, it is not the market but their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility that must be called to account. (Post #362)

And do Dr Woods and his Lew Rockwell friends propose to do call these individuals to account? And most particularly, whom is held to account in a corporation, where responsibility is so diffused?

(As I said several times, I am not against profits, I am against “focusing on maximizing profits.”)

 

[St_Francis]

**The Truth about Caritas in Veritate by Fr. John De Celles **catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102

Oh, I guess people were just confused by Pope Benedict’s writing “*To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, **there is urgent need of a true world political authority, **as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago,” into thinking that he actually was suggesting an international political entity which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.

From paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate.

To: ‘Why aren’t those who are supposed to “want to get rid of government” quoted?’
What we want here is the referenced quotations from recognised scholars or civic leaders who “want to get rid of government”, not comments from Tom, Dick or Harry.

Why should I quote the experts? I am debating the ideas put forth by David and Cho. They can quote experts.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #404
whom is held to account in a corporation, where responsibility is so diffused?

Apparently “corporations” are to be banished, although a democracy has the right and duty to enact laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to prevent monopolies, and we’ve seen many jailed for such as these.

So where is the Catholic social teaching to banish corporations?

But the confusion over the Papal affirmation of free enterprise and what *Caritas in Veritate *teaches on a “world political authority” is far worse and endemic, it seems.

Friday, 11 September 2009
Does the Catholic Church Favor World Government? (with apologies to Aquinas)
By Kevin M. Doak
"There is apparent tension between Benedict’s view of the need for some new world public authority, the legitimate rights of national States, and the illegitimacy of a world authority that is imposed on the States.

"To reconcile this apparent contradiction, we may start with “ubi societas, ibi ius” (Cicero), which can be reversed: “where there is law, there is society.” Hence, we may conclude that Natural Law as universally valid presumes there must be a world community, but the existence of a world community does not require the existence of a World State. Natural Law tradition rejects neo-Kantian positivism and its epistemological skepticism that regards positive laws as the only knowable laws and thus finds law originating in the state. In contrast, Natural Law is independent of and pre-exists the State, originating in human personhood.

"Benedict XVI operates from Natural Law and not Neo-Kantian assumptions; for him, Natural Law and the World Community do not mean there must be a World State. The world authority or “governance” he describes refers mainly to the Natural Law and the need to bring various international organizations more fully into compliance with it. National politics have increasingly grown remote from the Natural Law. Therefore, we do need “a reform of the United Nations Organization . . . so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” (67). But “the family of nations” exists within a global society, which as it moves towards societas perfecta, increasingly approximates the Natural Law. Once it has perfectly reflected the Natural Law, then obedience to the world authority will flow naturally, not by force, from the moral conscience of each member of this global society.

“Thus, a careful reading of Caritas in Veritate demonstrates that Benedict is not calling for a World State to fulfill functions that must come ultimately from the human heart.”
tinyurl.com/64v4a7y
Douglas A. Sylva is Senior Fellow at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

 

[St_Francis]

Abu,
You seem to be arguing with me about something I did not say. I wrote: *And one cannot ignore Pope Benedict’s recent thoughts about an **international political entity *which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.

As far as I can tell, you assumed that I was talking about remarks made very recently which were attributed to “the Vatican,” but I meant recent as opposed to back on the 1800s, since I had before referenced Rerum Novarum.

But the confusion over the Papal affirmation of free enterprise and what *Caritas in Veritate *teaches on a “world political authority” is far worse and endemic, it seems.

I do not usually comment on material quoted from other sources, but since you use quoted material to form the bulk of your comment rather than to elucitate or verify your own comments, I will have to make do with what we’ve got.

Friday, 11 September 2009 *
Does the Catholic Church Favor World Government? (with apologies to Aquinas) *
By Kevin M. Doak
"There is apparent tension between Benedict’s view of the need for some new world public authority, the legitimate rights of national States, and the illegitimacy of a world authority that is imposed on the States.*

"To reconcile this apparent contradiction, we may start with “ubi societas, ibi ius” (Cicero), which can be reversed: “where there is law, there is society.” Hence, we may conclude that Natural Law as universally valid presumes there must be a world community, but the existence of a world community does not require the existence of a World State.

This is an absurd form of logic. Let’s take a phrase, turn it around, and base our thoughts on something Cicero actually did NOT say.

Natural Law tradition rejects neo-Kantian positivism and its epistemological skepticism that regards positive laws as the only knowable laws and thus finds law originating in the state. In contrast, Natural Law is independent of and pre-exists the State, originating in human personhood.*

"Benedict XVI operates from Natural Law and not Neo-Kantian assumptions; for him, Natural Law and the World Community do not mean there must be a World State.

When did Pope Benedict call for a World State? He suggested a “true world political authority.” Why would one leap from this to a World State?

To me, The author has taken a second illogical step by setting up a strawman argument against which to argue. It’s just so much easier to get around words someone didn’t say than to deal with the ones which were actually said.

The world authority or “governance” he describes refers mainly to the Natural Law and the need to bring various international organizations more fully into compliance with it. National politics have increasingly grown remote from the Natural Law. Therefore, we do need “a reform of the United Nations Organization . . . so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” (67). But “the family of nations” exists within a global society, which as it moves towards societas perfecta, increasingly approximates the Natural Law. Once it has perfectly reflected the Natural Law, then obedience to the world authority will flow naturally, not by force, from the moral conscience of each member of this global society.

*

Has The author been re-reading Marx?

“Thus, a careful reading of Caritas in Veritate demonstrates that Benedict is not calling for a World State to fulfill functions that must come ultimately from the human heart.”

Ahhh, so if these functions are supposed to come from the human heart, why have any government at all?

Apparently “corporations” are to be banished, although a democracy has the right and duty to enact laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to prevent monopolies, and we’ve seen many jailed for such as these.*

So where is the Catholic social teaching to banish corporations?

I have repeatedly said that this is my own personal opinion. I do believe I am allowed to have an opinion which is not condemned by the Church nor taught by the Church?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Before “wealth” can be distributed, it first must be created.

Distributism doesn’t create any wealth at all.

Distributism doesn’t actually create ANYTHING useful.

 

[St_Francis]

Before “wealth” can be distributed, it first must be created.

Distributism doesn’t create any wealth at all.

Distributism doesn’t actually create ANYTHING useful.

What do you think distributism is? I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing before debating your statements.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #368
And one cannot ignore Pope Benedict’s recent thoughts about an international political entity which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.
And the calls of two popes for international oversight?

Not only should we not ignore, we should know also what the Holy Father means, which Kevin Doak explores (post #406).

St Francis #407
Ahhh, so if these functions are supposed to come from the human heart, why have any government at all?

Where does social teaching ignore Original Sin, and the legitimate functions of government to mitigate it’s effects?

He suggested a “true world political authority.” Why would one leap from this to a World State?

Precisely because Pope Benedict stipulates that true world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57). Thus, “any form” of the “all-encompassing welfare state” must include a single, global or World State.
[See Kevin M Doak, http://tinyurl.com/64v4a7y]

 

[St_Francis]

Not only should we not ignore, we should know also what the Holy Father means, which Kevin Doak explores (post #406).

Oh, I didn’t realize he was exploring what the Pope wrote. It sounded like he was twisting the meaning of what the Pope very clearly stated. That is the only way I can imagine that he reached the conclusion he did.

Where does social teaching ignore Original Sin, and the legitimate functions of government to mitigate it’s effects?

My remark was a rhetorical comment on what he’d written in the article about not needing a “World State [which the Pope did NOT call for] to *fulfill functions that must come ultimately from the human heart.” * Just pointing out that the author seemed to imply that governance is not needed because it fills a function which is supposed to come from the human heart.

Precisely because Pope Benedict stipulates that true world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57). Thus, “any form” of the “all-encompassing welfare state” must include a single, global or World State.

I have no idea what you are responding to here. My question was how the author could jump from a world political authority to a world state.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #411
It sounded like he was twisting the meaning of what the Pope very clearly stated. That is the only way I can imagine that he reached the conclusion he did.
My question was how the author could jump from a world political authority to a world state.

No such confusion should be attributed to Mr Doak. Fr De Celles also affirms this “world state” interpretation by some others, hence Kevin Doak’s obviously relevant reference, and also that of Douglas Sylva – the principle of subsidiarity and the condemnation of the all-encompassing Welfare State precludes the “world political authority” from becoming a one-world government or world state.

The Truth about Caritas in Veritate by Fr. John De Celles
“The Pope is not calling for some sort of one-world government, as some pundits suggest. If you read the full text you see, first of all he’s calling for: ‘a reform of the United Nations Organization.’ But more importantly any such an authority would: ‘need to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.’ Which is another way of saying it would have to be committed to Catholic moral principles. That would be a great thing—a truly Catholic U.N… But since we can’t get Catholics to commit to Catholic moral principles it doesn’t seem very likely we will get the secular humanists at the U.N. to do so.

“Some have argued that this is one of those areas where the Pope might be being too optimistic, but it seems to me that the Holy Father is doing something else altogether. We should not forget that the call for such a ‘world political authority’ does not originate with Benedict: it has been made and repeated by his predecessors Bd. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, as well as the Second Vatican Council.3 In particular, it is a key aspect of Paul VI’s Populorum Progessio, the 1967 encyclical which Benedict specifically has in mind as he writes this present encyclical, CV, in order ‘to pay tribute and to honour the memory of the great Pope Paul VI, revisiting his teachings.’ ”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102

Yet another Catholic commentator has counteracted this widely held falsehood:

Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?
Aug 20, 2009 Douglas A. Sylva
"Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization."
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/08/is-benedict-in-favor-of-world-government
Douglas A. Sylva is Senior Fellow at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

 

[St_Francis]

No such confusion should be attributed to Mr Doak. Fr De Celles also affirms this “world state” interpretation by some others, hence Kevin Doak’s obviously relevant reference, and also that of Douglas Sylva – the principle of subsidiarity and the condemnation of the all-encompassing Welfare State precludes the “world political authority” from becoming a one-world government or world state.

OH!!! I mention the Pope’s suggestion of a “true world political authority” with slightly different words and you fire back with articles refuting a misinterpretation *by others, *which I emphatically disagreed with. So you continue to post articles refuting a misinterpretation NOT held by me?

So let’s get back to the subject…

 

[David_Castlen]

The reason one should not “focus on maximizing profits” is that it is disordered; it is putting prioroties in the wrong order. The examples I gave at your request are just that: examples.

Yes.

Perhaps I am understanding you: In your opinion, is it OK for one to put profits as the most important function of one’s enterprise as long as this objective does not conflict with (what should be his first goal) following God and the Chruch. So for example, you would not object to Sam the owner getting every nickle he could as profit as long as his efforts do not exceed or rather over-run his oblgations to God and Man. Do you agree with this? If not why?

 

[St_Francis]

**Perhaps I am understanding you: *In your opinion, is it OK for one to put profits as the most important function of one’s enterprise as long as this objective does not conflict with (what should be his first goal) following God and the Chruch. *So for example, you would not object to Sam the owner getting every nickle he could as profit as long as his efforts do not exceed or rather over-run his oblgations to God and Man. Do you agree with this? If not why?

Why would a Christian behave this way? Why would a Christian put profit so much in the forefront, as the “most important function” of his business? Why would a Christian spend time getting “every nickel he could” from the business?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Who exactly is going to enforce “distributism”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

 

[St_Francis]

Who exactly is going to enforce “distributism”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Let’s consider your first comments before going on to other comments. What is it about Distributism which makes you think wealth is not created? Or, what is your definition of wealth that makes it so distributism doesn’t create it?

 

[David_Castlen]

Why would a Christian behave this way? Why would a Christian put profit so much in the forefront,

]What do you mean by “so much”?

as the “most important function” of his business? Why would a Christian spend time getting “every nickel he could” from the business?

Why shouldn’t he, if he was doing more than (just) what God ask; but more? What if by maximizing profits he was giving people who could never work jobs, the poor much more in contributions, the church a greater gift and he was getting closer to his children who work with him day and night?