Is economic inequality bad in itself?

[frobert]

Wait . . . you mean, then, the question should be “Is government policy that favors inequality of opportunity bad?” Right?

I think that is a separate question. Many economist believe that the US Fed’s favors inequality. Perhaps I am missing something because I am rushed but I think we agree and its just semantics at this point.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think that is a separate question. Many economist believe that the US Fed’s favors inequality. Perhaps I am missing something because I am rushed but I think we agree and its just semantics at this point.

Perhaps just semantics.

But focusing only on inequality of income leaves open what inequality we are considering: outcome or opportunity? It also leaves open the question of whether one is going to address poverty by a forced and imposed equality of result/outcome by confiscatory governmental redistribution and entitlement schemes on the one hand, or address poverty by ensuring equality of opportunity and by the creation of opportunity presuming individual initiative, responsibility, and accountability. Catholic social teaching, however, is unequivocally on the side of the latter as the path to alleviating poverty.

Further increasing income inequality exists, as I mentioned, between my doctor and Steve Jobs (when he was alive). Again, without specification “inequality” as a term is meaningless.

 

[Origen52]

Perhaps it will help to look at the rest of that section of the Exhortation, which follows the portion that Origen52 quoted

Quote:
Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us some- thing new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.:

Is your point that pope Francis only wants us to become compassionate? Or is it expected that that compassion be channeled into action?

The document ,"Instruction on certain aspects of “liberation theology” " states

It should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain the attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic and pressing problems of human misery and injustice. It is, on the contrary, dictated by the certitude that the serious ideological deviations which it points out tends inevitably to betray the cause of the poor.** More than ever, it is important that numerous Christians, whose faith is clear and who are committed to live the Christian life in its fullness, become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and human dignity because of their love for their disinherited, oppressed, and persecuted brothers and sisters. **More than ever, the Church intends to condemn abuses, injustices, and attacks against freedom, wherever they occur and whoever commits them. She intends to struggle, by her own means, for the defense and advancement of the rights of mankind, especially of the poor.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

I read that as an exhortation, not only to provide charity, but to work to enact laws which ensure that all citizens have the essentials of nutritious food, safe shelter and health care.

The problem seems to stem from the attitude that only the “deserving poor” are entitled to help. The instinctive human reaction is judgemental and sees the poverty of those we deem “lazy” as just punishment for their lack of effort. Let the grasshoppers suffer from the results of their idleness.

But as Christians we are called to overcome our human instincts. Jesus wants us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, to always forgive individuals who wrong us when they ask for forgiveness. It’s a tough road to follow, but it’s the road we claim to have chosen.

Jesus has told us that we shall ultimately be judged by how we treat others. He says I was hungry and you did not feed me, we all know the passage. Notice that Jesus gives no qualifiers. He did not say I was deservedly hungry because of my poor efforts so you were right to ignore me.

The most frightening thing Jesus ever said was “be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”. None of us will ever achieve this, but it is the goal which must guide all our actions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is your point that pope Francis only wants us to become compassionate? Or is it expected that that compassion be channeled into action?

I honestly didn’t have any point at all. I was just posting the rest of that section of Pope Francis’ Exhortation, since JBDugan was puzzled about what the Pope’s point was. I hoped that by reading the whole section he might be able to figure it out for himself. He certainly isn’t going to listen to any analysis by me.

 

[frobert]

Perhaps just semantics.

But focusing only on inequality of income leaves open what inequality we are considering: outcome or opportunity? It also leaves open the question of whether one is going to address poverty by a forced and imposed equality of result/outcome by confiscatory governmental redistribution and entitlement schemes on the one hand, or address poverty by ensuring equality of opportunity and by the creation of opportunity presuming individual initiative, responsibility, and accountability. Catholic social teaching, however, is unequivocally on the side of the latter as the path to alleviating poverty.

Also increasing “inequality” exists, as I mentioned, between the income of my doctor and Steve Jobs (when he was alive). In that respect “inequality” unspecified is a meaningless word.

For a moment let’s take my example of US Fed’s policy. Some economist say that the Fed’s printing is a direct transfer of wealth to the first receivers of the printing. That takes away opportunity from those further down the line. Changing the policy will help overcome inequality without confiscating anyone’s wealth. Another example is the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizen’s United. Many people believe that this gives almost unlimited access to politicians by unions, the rich and corporations that shell out money. Reversing the decision would not confiscate anyone’s wealth. However, if you believe that some people are entitled to interest free money or superior access to politicians then I can understand how you would conclude that changes in some policies and decisions would be unfair to them.

In passing I am not naive in not believing that policies will be changed that lead to a level playing field or that money of the super rich will be confiscated and redistributed which I would be against.

Thank you for your posts, this is the type of discussion that motivates me to keep coming back.

BTW I agree that with your last sentence.

 

[Ender]

The study is a correlational study, correlation does not prove causation it is only suggestive.

The title of the study is The Price of Inequality but that seems a completely arbitrary label … not to mention one that is totally correlational. Actually the best correlation is with teen-age pregnancy, but that apparently isn’t the point the authors are trying to make. Really, one shouldn’t take such “studies” seriously since there is little reason to believe the categories weren’t chosen simply because they produced the desired outcome. This would explain why things like rates of births, suicides, and alcoholism didn’t make the list.

I would also dispute the claim that correlation is suggestive of causation. There appears to be a correlation between roosters crowing and the sun rising but not much reason to suspect a causal link.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I read that as an exhortation, not only to provide charity, but to work to enact laws which ensure that all citizens have the essentials of nutritious food, safe shelter and health care.

The problem seems to stem from the attitude that only the “deserving poor” are entitled to help.

A more charitable understanding of “the problem” is that we don’t know what laws to enact that would achieve those results. Good intentions are surely no guarantor of good outcomes; one only has to look at the effects of LBJ’s Great Society programs to see that.

If there is a criticism one could make of the pope’s comments it is that he didn’t make that point and we can see the political fallout as his statements are being seized on to divide the world into the good - those who want to help - and the bad, the latter understood as those who oppose the political proposals of “the good”.

Ender

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

For a moment let’s take my example of US Fed’s policy. Some economist say that the Fed’s printing is a direct transfer of wealth to the first receivers of the printing. That takes away opportunity from those further down the line. Changing the policy will help overcome inequality without confiscating anyone’s wealth. Another example is the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizen’s United. Many people believe that this gives almost unlimited access to politicians by unions, the rich and corporations that shell out money. Reversing the decision would not confiscate anyone’s wealth.

I’d need some concrete particulars as to who the first receivers are, but as long as proposed changes promote leveling the playing field and creating opportunity, I’m for them. My problem is with forced outcome equality.

However, if you believe that some people are entitled to interest free money or superior access to politicians then I can understand how you would conclude that changes in some policies and decisions would be unfair to them.

Prima facie I’m not for such entitlements.

In passing I am not naive in not believing that policies will be changed that lead to a level playing field or that money of the super rich will be confiscated and redistributed which I would be against.

Sadly, there are more votes to be bought by doling out entitlements than by advancing policies that create opportunity for those who have the initiative to make the most of it.

Thank you for your posts, this is the type of discussion that motivates me to keep coming back.

Definitely a good discussion.

BTW I agree that with your last sentence.

Glad to hear it.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Originally Posted by Origen52 View Post
Is your point that pope Francis only wants us to become compassionate? Or is it expected that that compassion be channeled into action?

I honestly didn’t have any point at all. I was just posting the rest of that section of Pope Francis’ Exhortation, since JBDugan was puzzled about what the Pope’s point was. I hoped that by reading the whole section he might be able to figure it out for himself. He certainly isn’t going to listen to any analysis by me.

Now that’s not true, Leaf.

I am always interested in intelligent analysis…and I thank you for the additional (name removed by moderator)ut. I have not read* EVANGELII GAUDIUM* I am waiting for my official copy (In Latin) so what you provided helped.

But I still don’t see any “call to action”, any direction for Catholics to follow, or, any solutions. So far all I see is that pope Francis only wants us to become compassionate.