National Economic Systems Conforming to Catholic Social Teaching

[LuckyJack]

My guess is that there are no national economies operating in the world today that are completely in line with Catholic social teaching. (If there are any, I would like to know which they are.)

But assuming there are none, have any economists or “deep thinkers” proposed a model national economy that would be in accord with the social teachings of the Church? Have any Catholic economists tried to put on paper what a Catholic national economic system would look like? how it would work?

I know there are a number of Papal Encyclicals in recent years which touch on economic issues. But I don’t think any of these encyclicals actually “flesh out” how a “Catholic” economy would/could work in the present world.

If there’s anything like this out there, I would like to study it.

Thanks.

 

[ribozyme]

My guess is that there are no national economies operating in the world today that are completely in line with Catholic social teaching. (If there are any, I would like to know which they are.)

But assuming there are none, have any economists or “deep thinkers” proposed a model national economy that would be in accord with the social teachings of the Church? Have any Catholic economists tried to put on paper what a Catholic national economic system would look like? how it would work?

I know there are a number of Papal Encyclicals in recent years which touch on economic issues. But I don’t think any of these encyclicals actually “flesh out” how a “Catholic” economy would/could work in the present world.

If there’s anything like this out there, I would like to study it.

Thanks.

Here’s what many people believe here:

gut any government safety net and replace it with charity.

Also, deregulate everything and lower taxes…

 

[cynic]

A libertarian economic system - but combined with authoritarian moral laws.

 

[domerjohnCF]

The Catholic Hierarchy has traditionally and consistently taken the position “We Do Theology- We Do Not Do Economic Theory”

I am not sure that this position can be maintained in view of the disturbing Socio-Political trends in Catholic Countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba where the grass roots has defied the exhortations of the Bishops and have through democratic vote elected to adopt Socialism as a National Economic System since their experience with unbridled Capitalism has been disappointing.

The hierarchy of the Church needs to integrate “Theology and Economic Theory” to come up with a Bibclically Informed Catholic Social Teaching based Macro Economic Strategy (if not a Theory) to at least accomplish the following:

• Reduce Poverty
• Narrow the Wealth Gap
• Reduce Social Strife
  At the root of Social Strife in Latin America is the question of "ownership of the Natural Resources (specially hydrocarbon resources of the the country. The Catholic Church must come up with a MacroEconmic strategy for democratizing the ownership of the Natural Resources otherwise all the preachiings and teachings of the Bishops will be ignored.

 

[vern_humphrey]

At the root of Social Strife in Latin America is the question of "ownership of the Natural Resources (specially hydrocarbon resources of the the country. The Catholic Church must come up with a MacroEconmic strategy for democratizing the ownership of the Natural Resources otherwise all the preachiings and teachings of the Bishops will be ignored.

Let me see, Stalin “democratized the ownership of the Natural Resources” in the Ukraine – and in the process created an artificial famine that starved millions of people.

Mao “democratized the ownership of the Natural Resources” in China, and probably killed as many or more people in the process.

The “ownership of the Natural Resources” has been “democratized” in Zimbabwe – and a food-exporting nation has been turned into a food-importing nation, with widespread hunger, as a result.

 

[domerjohnCF]

Vern Humphrey:

In every case of “democratization” cited by you INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS did not have a DIRECT BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.

It was always the STATE claiming to represent the interests of the citizens.

Look at the Alaska Model as another example.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern Humphrey:

In every case of “democratization” cited by you INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS did not have a DIRECT BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.

It was always the STATE claiming to represent the interests of the citizens.

Look at the Alaska Model as another example.

In the case of public land (as in Alaska), the royalty already goes to the government. Alaska chose to dole it out to the citizenry. In other states, citizens often own the mineral rights.

So what do you propose? That the government own land it already owns? Or that the government take what it does not own?

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Personally…I think a capitolistic friendly economy with limited controls in place to protect the worker and the general public is the best economic system. A free market fosters ingenuity and encourages and often times rewards hard work. Unfortunately a completely free market makes it easy to exploit workers and destroy the environment (and affect public safety).

My husband calls this a ‘mixed economy’, which is essentially what we have in the US. The problem is, IMHO, is that the market is becoming excessivly regulated to the point where it drives up the cost of doing business without wages going up to match it. It makes moving businesses to more ‘business friendly’ states or even over seas a much more attractive option.

I think as a Christian, we should want to live in a society that makes it easy to make money. This keeps us from being dependent on the government and also free from its controls. I also think we should shy away from government programs that help the poor (because they don’t really do that), and invest our own time and money in serving the poor in the way Christ commanded. We should live our life like the early believers the book of Acts talks about (Chapter 2, I believe).

I’m not really an expert in this area…so I can’t bombard you with facts or figures. Sorry.

 

[vz71]

I’m not really an expert in this area…so I can’t bombard you with facts or figures. Sorry.

Actually, I find the common sense refreshing.

Too often when people dredge up reams of facts and figures they are simply putting up a smokescreen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Personally…I think a capitolistic friendly economy with limited controls in place to protect the worker and the general public is the best economic system. A free market fosters ingenuity and encourages and often times rewards hard work. Unfortunately a completely free market makes it easy to exploit workers and destroy the environment (and affect public safety).

My husband calls this a ‘mixed economy’, which is essentially what we have in the US. The problem is, IMHO, is that the market is becoming excessivly regulated to the point where it drives up the cost of doing business without wages going up to match it. It makes moving businesses to more ‘business friendly’ states or even over seas a much more attractive option.

I think as a Christian, we should want to live in a society that makes it easy to make money. This keeps us from being dependent on the government and also free from its controls. I also think we should shy away from government programs that help the poor (because they don’t really do that), and invest our own time and money in serving the poor in the way Christ commanded. We should live our life like the early believers the book of Acts talks about (Chapter 2, I believe).

I’m not really an expert in this area…so I can’t bombard you with facts or figures. Sorry.

What you’re saying is not all that far away from what the social encyclicals say, with the exception that the popes have favored government intervention on behalf of those who simply are unable to help themselves. I agree the current social programs fail to do this adequately. Certainly, if private, charitable aid could replace government aid, that would be better. But given our fairly long history of expecting the government to do such things, and giving it the money to do it, I think we are a long way from being able to do that.

I’m with the OP. I would welcome a truly scholarly work on how the principles of the social encyclicals might best be implemented in a modern economy. If someone has written it, I don’t know about it. I have often thought the USCCB would do well to commission such studies instead of plopping itself down slightly to the left of the middle of the road of conventional thinking.
It just amazes me that it doesn’t.

 

[consumedconvert]

I might suggest reading Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton for an overview of their early twentieth-century application of the Social Encyclicals to economic theory. Perhaps start with “The Restoration of Property,” by Belloc, now in reprint from IHS Press. Thoroughly Catholic, although as Belloc admitted, all natural human tendencies shy away from the system he proposes. They called it Distributism, and I believe many Distributist policies would benefit us in today’s economy as well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I might suggest reading Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton for an overview of their early twentieth-century application of the Social Encyclicals to economic theory. Perhaps start with “The Restoration of Property,” by Belloc, now in reprint from IHS Press. Thoroughly Catholic, although as Belloc admitted, all natural human tendencies shy away from the system he proposes. They called it Distributism, and I believe many Distributist policies would benefit us in today’s economy as well.

I have read them. Unfortunately, they’re a bit outdated. In their day, small-scale agriculture in Britain and elsewhere, along with small shops, breweries, etc made more sense than they do now. But, as JPII said, adaptations to modern economies would have to be made. I am just unaware of anyone who has really tried to propose them. I do think the change from “defined benefit” to “defined contribution” retirement plans was a positive step. I think partial privatization of Social Security would also be one. Beyond those things, I don’t know. I don’t have the expertise to say what from there.

I do think, though, that much of the Distributist notion is personal to the individual. After all, if I choose to work for wages and spend all my earnings on consumer goods, I’m not being a very good Distributist, am I? Even if I work for wages, I might at least eschew a good portion of the consumer goods that the average consumer buys but doesn’t really need.

I recall reading that a television set with cable costs a person something like a million dollars in a lifetime. There are the costs of the electronic ware and replacements. The subscriptions to sports or movie channels, and the goods we are induced to buy simply because we see them advertised attractively. I can’t prove that’s a legitimate amount, but I would think the ultimate cost of it would indeed be much more than we imagine it to be. With that money, we could be buying productive assets.

Books, on the other hand, are remarkably inexpensive, particularly on Ebay and in second hand stores. Newspapers, biased though they are, are not the worst source of news and weather. Even with a tv set that will only bring in free channels can be inexpensive. Used sets are practically given away. Even modest new ones are not very expensive. If we limit ourselves to the news and weather, we’re not going to spend very much. Well, and (around here anyway) the tornado watches and warnings.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

What you’re saying is not all that far away from what the social encyclicals say, with the exception that the popes have favored government intervention on behalf of those who simply are unable to help themselves. I agree the current social programs fail to do this adequately. Certainly, if private, charitable aid could replace government aid, that would be better. But given our fairly long history of expecting the government to do such things, and giving it the money to do it, I think we are a long way from being able to do that.

Absolutely. But then again, perhaps the populace cried out to the government because the Church (not just the Catholic, but all Christian communities) were failing in this area.

You are correct, I am afraid we are a long way off from the way things should be. But, we still have the power to affect change in our own small corners of the world…even if we are just helping one family with our time, talents and resources. Now if I would only listen to myself, I wouldn’t quite be so full of hot air.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Absolutely. But then again, perhaps the populace cried out to the government because the Church (not just the Catholic, but all Christian communities) were failing in this area.

You are correct, I am afraid we are a long way off from the way things should be. But, we still have the power to affect change in our own small corners of the world…even if we are just helping one family with our time, talents and resources. Now if I would only listen to myself, I wouldn’t quite be so full of hot air.

Actually, there is a strong anti-charity streak in socialism and communism. Marx thought private charity ought to be forbidden, and charity become a government monopoly.

In our current system, the government soaks up so much money that charities are dependent on the leavings. But I think there is no argument that private charity is both more efficient and more respectful of the dignity of the recipient.

As I have said before, those who feel charity ought to be the government’s business ought to experience some government charity – by going to live in a government “housing project” in an inner city.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Actually, there is a strong anti-charity streak in socialism and communism. Marx thought private charity ought to be forbidden, and charity become a government monopoly.

In our current system, the government soaks up so much money that charities are dependent on the leavings. But I think there is no argument that private charity is both more efficient and more respectful of the dignity of the recipient.

As I have said before, those who feel charity ought to be the government’s business ought to experience some government charity – by going to live in a government “housing project” in an inner city.

Amen my friend!

And if you want to know what socialized medicine is like…join the Army or marry someone in the Army. You’ll find out how great socialized healthcare really is!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Amen my friend!

And if you want to know what socialized medicine is like…join the Army or marry someone in the Army. You’ll find out how great socialized healthcare really is!

Or try to get healthcare through the VA. As an experiment, I applied – it will take me 10 months to see a doctor in a distant town, who will tell me what my local doctor already told me, and then authorize me to go to an even more distant town to a clinic that does what the clinic down the street from my local doctor does.

That’s **if **I’m in the system – I have no way of knowing if my paperwork is lost or not.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

Countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba…Socialism…since their experience with unbridled Capitalism has been disappointing.

It wasn’t “unbridled capitalism” they had experience with, but corruption and theft under the guise of “the free market”.

For the US, it won’t matter what economic flavor of the month we adopt unless and until we return to the gold standard and restore stability and value to the dollar.

Since FDR confiscated gold in 1933, the value of the dollar has fallen over 70%. This is inflation in its worst form, because nobody can see the cause. Everybody goes after the “greedy businessman” or better yet, “greedy oil companies” for the steady rise in prices, but we never look behind the curtain.

The US system is socialistic at its heart, because it relies on the central planning of the FED to steer the economy.

Since when in the course of at least the last 2 centuries has central planning worked?

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Or try to get healthcare through the VA. As an experiment, I applied – it will take me 10 months to see a doctor in a distant town, who will tell me what my local doctor already told me, and then authorize me to go to an even more distant town to a clinic that does what the clinic down the street from my local doctor does.

That’s **if **I’m in the system – I have no way of knowing if my paperwork is lost or not.

What a fine way to treat our veterans, eh? It’s almost as bad as the way the military treats its active duty guys…usually who got screwed up while serving!!! (knees, backs, feet…etc)

The problem with a government run system, or even health insurance systems is that the patient is no longer the consumer…they are at the mercy of their HMO…and further more, since they aren’t seeing the true cost of their healthcare, they are not really taking responsibility…they’ll go to the doctor for every little thing (I know, I am guilty of it…it’s easy when I don’t even have a copayment…and other Army wives are 10x worse…they will take their kids to the doctor for a common cold or a little rash before trying to treat it at home).

I don’t know what the solution is, I have no idea. But I do know it isn’t socializing the system.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

It wasn’t “unbridled capitalism” they had experience with, but corruption and theft under the guise of “the free market”.

For the US, it won’t matter what economic flavor of the month we adopt unless and until we return to the gold standard and restore stability and value to the dollar.

Since FDR confiscated gold in 1933, the value of the dollar has fallen over 70%. This is inflation in its worst form, because nobody can see the cause. Everybody goes after the “greedy businessman” or better yet, “greedy oil companies” for the steady rise in prices, but we never look behind the curtain.

The US system is socialistic at its heart, because it relies on the central planning of the FED to steer the economy.

Since when in the course of at least the last 2 centuries has central planning worked?

I think I agree with you on all these points…but as stated in an earlier post, this isn’t really an area of which I am informed.

My question is…are there any economic systems in existance today or in recent history that have it “right?” Would such a system work on a large scale…like in a country the size of the US? Would it be better to put more emphasis on the state rather than the federal government? Let the federal government do the job I believe it was originally intended for…national security and settling disputes between the states? (the republican in me thinks so, but what do I know!)

 

[vern_humphrey]

What a fine way to treat our veterans, eh? It’s almost as bad as the way the military treats its active duty guys…usually who got screwed up while serving!!! (knees, backs, feet…etc)

The problem with a government run system, or even health insurance systems is that the patient is no longer the consumer…they are at the mercy of their HMO…and further more, since they aren’t seeing the true cost of their healthcare, they are not really taking responsibility…they’ll go to the doctor for every little thing (I know, I am guilty of it…it’s easy when I don’t even have a copayment…and other Army wives are 10x worse…they will take their kids to the doctor for a common cold or a little rash before trying to treat it at home).

I don’t know what the solution is, I have no idea. But I do know it isn’t socializing the system.

The ultimate quality control tool consists of saying five words, “I’ll take my business elsewhere.”

Socialism deprives us of that tool.