Pope criticizes the ‘cruelty’ of capitalism

[catholicbuckeye]

Clearly capitalism places some difficult demands on the Christian. As Christians we are enjoined to not to love money greedily as is warned in 1 Timothy: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” And it is not for nothing many saints and masters of the spiritual life have condemned lust for wealth as one of the capital vices.

I think though, it is a mistake to see money in itself as an evil. It is better to see money as a ‘good’, a good like health, private property, or natural resources. The Church teaches in fact that private property (the fruit of work and the money it earns) is a legitimate good to be sought and protected by law. The Church also teaches in its social justice policy that it is not wrong for a business to operate for a profit (in fact in the business world, without a profit no other goods can flow to people like shareholders and employees).

The cornerstone of the Christian life, outside the priesthood or consecrated religious life, is either the single life or marriage. The Church’s priests and religious need material resources and money in order to function properly, from funding of seminaries and universities to the repair, construction, maintenance and upkeep of churches, cathedrals, and monastaries. People in the single life and marriage also need money and material goods in order to properly care for themselves and their needs, to help fund goods in society such as law enforcement, the courts, education, and public works (electrical power, water supply, roads, transport, etc) and those in families need a decent living to properly feed, educate and nurture their children and raise them in a healthy environment.

In the Bible, Jesus himself worked as a carpenter, some of the Apostles as fishermen, and St Paul made tents for a living, as well as being a doctor in Jewish Law. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that either work or earning a living are evils to be avoided, and even in the consecrated religious life, religious are expected to work as well as pray and contemplate God, so each community is self sufficient (as can be seen in the Rule of St Benedict for example).

The problem is when we make money an idol. When money or acquiring it become our main or sole end in life, and that becomes the most important thing, it becomes an idol. So it is as other things in life can become idols, such as sex, consumer goods, and so on, which take the place of God. If the main aim of our life is simply to acquire more and more, merely to please ourselves or to gratify our physical desires, or for reasons of envy, then that obscures the virtue of charity which tends to self-empty and share.

A lot of capitalism brings good in the sense that it creates employment and more wealth in society, and this can help improve the life of individuals and communities, destroy poverty, and make it easier to raise and maintain stable families. But a lot of capitalism can be pernicious in the sense it makes us greedy, insecure, selfish, and hard-hearted to the poor, and it becomes our idol in the place of God, which was always a temptation in Israel when wealth and good times came. It is in this light capitalism and its advocacy should be judged, but Catholics should also read some of what the Church’s rich thinking on the issue suggests, particularly the excellent works by Pope John Paul II (who was a professor of social ethics before becoming a Pope).

Very good points. The pursuit of money, or sex, or anything worldly certainly leave people unfulfilled at best and depressed or without hope at worst. This is a tricky thing. I must say I am against the attempts by governments to redistribute wealth or to oppose luxury taxes out of spite however. There is the famous example of how enormous luxury taxes in the U.S. led to a large drop in the yacht industry. This was hailed as a great success, a triumph of government (the people) over the evil wealthy class. Then as the working class people who built the yachts began to face lay-offs, the true fruits of class envy and Socialist tactics were seen. Remember what Adam Smith said in “Wealth of Nations” - “it is not out of generosity through which the butcher feeds the masses, but through a serving of his own self interests.” What a wonderful world this would be if the market were free and Capitalist and all the participants in that market had a self-less perspective, as we Catholics are supposed to.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Clearly capitalism places some difficult demands on the Christian. As Christians we are enjoined to not to love money greedily as is warned in 1 Timothy: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” And it is not for nothing many saints and masters of the spiritual life have condemned lust for wealth as one of the capital vices.

Exactly so, Greg, it is the LOVE OF MONEY, not money per se.

I think though, it is a mistake to see money in itself as an evil. It is better to see money as a ‘good’, a good like health, private property, or natural resources. The Church teaches in fact that private property (the fruit of work and the money it earns) is a legitimate good to be sought and protected by law. The Church also teaches in its social justice policy that it is not wrong for a business to operate for a profit (in fact in the business world, without a profit no other goods can flow to people like shareholders and employees).

Indeed, the worker is/be worthy of his reward.
Our Lord said this.
It is uncertain though whether the verb was indicative or subjunctive, or possibly both.
That is, the worker should be paid honestly, (indicative), or
The worker should strive honestly for his pay, (subjunctive).
However, none of this has anything to do with capitalism. The above statements are both applicable to a socialist ecconomy.

The cornerstone of the Christian life, … educate and nurture their children and raise them in a healthy environment.

None of the above is in any way affected by whether a socialist or capitalist ecconomy is being driven by the ruling state.

In the Bible, Jesus himself worked as a carpenter, … so each community is self sufficient (as can be seen in the Rule of St Benedict for example).

This is flogging a very dead horse. This point has been accepted two paragraphs ago…

The problem is when we make money an idol. When money or acquiring it become our main or sole end in life, and that becomes the most important thing, it becomes an idol. So it is as other things in life can become idols, such as sex, consumer goods, and so on, which take the place of God. If the main aim of our life is simply to acquire more and more, merely to please ourselves or to gratify our physical desires, or for reasons of envy, then that obscures the virtue of charity which tends to self-empty and share.

This is a relevant paragraph, and this is the point.
Making an idol of money, that is, creating Mammon, is that which Our Lord condemned as anti G_d.
There are two primary ways of doing this.
The first is illustrated by the farmer who built new barns, seeking to maximise his profits from his blessed harvest.
The second is a more subtle thing. It is not the act of an individual, but rather it is the policy of a state, which to maximise its profit, sets ecconomic policies which magnify the wealth of that state ate the expense of other states, not by fair trade, but by unfair ecconomic manoeuvering. This is capitalism, at least, as it is practiced today.

A lot of capitalism brings good in the sense that it creates employment and more wealth in society, and this can help improve the life of individuals and communities, destroy poverty, and make it easier to raise and maintain stable families. But a lot of capitalism can be pernicious in the sense it makes us greedy, insecure, selfish, and hard-hearted to the poor, and it becomes our idol in the place of God, which was always a temptation in Israel when wealth and good times came. It is in this light capitalism and its advocacy should be judged, but Catholics should also read some of what the Church’s rich thinking on the issue suggests, particularly the excellent works by Pope John Paul II (who was a professor of social ethics before becoming a Pope).

Capitalism, at least, that is tiger ecconomy capitalism, is red in tooth and claw. It is the law of the jungle. It is thus un-G_dly.
Not inherrently evil, for G_d also created the jungle, and its law.
However, G_d seperated us from the beasts, and set us above them. For us to emulate the beasts is to turn our backs on G_d.
Thus to turn to Mammon is to turn away from G_d: whether it be the individual, practicing selfish ecconomics, or whether it be the state. Both are evil.

 

[GreenJeans]

Capitalism has created a situation in this country where one of he major problems of the poor is eating too much.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Capitalism has created a situation in this country where one of he major problems of the poor is eating too much.

Perhaps, if the poor ate less, the problem would go away, after they have all died of starvation.

Please show a little charity in this place.

 

[jman507]

I guess you can call capitalism via Adam Smith evil. I suppose I could pick up a self help book, giving advice on dating or courtship, and say it is evil, becuase it is encouraging people to have sex. Ahh you can set up any type of system, it will error. Find me the one economic ideal, that is not apt to go in error one way or another! As a Catholic, I’ll say the one common demoninator is Original Sin. I guess we will find utopia in heaven.

Any good thing we humans have helped to make, we always have to be ready to reform. So I find it correct that a Pope finds critisism. For that matter, the Church on Earth is always need reform. I’ll just have to pray to the Lord, he gives me the grace to know to change what I can if I can do so for the better, and leave the rest be.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I guess you can call capitalism via Adam Smith evil. I suppose I could pick up a self help book, giving advice on dating or courtship, and say it is evil, becuase it is encouraging people to have sex. Ahh you can set up any type of system, it will error. Find me the one economic ideal, that is not apt to go in error one way or another! As a Catholic, I’ll say the one common demoninator is Original Sin. I guess we will find utopia in heaven.

Any good thing we humans have helped to make, we always have to be ready to reform. So I find it correct that a Pope finds critisism. For that matter, the Church on Earth is always need reform. I’ll just have to pray to the Lord, he gives me the grace to know to change what I can if I can do so for the better, and leave the rest be.

Dear Jman,
I believe the prayer goes something like this:
LORD,
Give me the strength to change that which can be changed,
and the fortitude to accept that which cannot be changed,
and also the wisdom to tell the difference.
AMEN.
The phraseology suggests that it comes from Latin, its use of tha ablative absolute is the indicator.

 

[Spirithound]

Perhaps, if the poor ate less, the problem would go away, after they have all died of starvation.

Please show a little charity in this place.

The problem is that they have too much processed food, instead of the fresh fruit that they actually grow, which we eat.

 

[jman507]

Dear Jman,
I believe the prayer goes something like this:
LORD,
Give me the strength to change that which can be changed,
and the fortitude to accept that which cannot be changed,
and also the wisdom to tell the difference.
AMEN.
The phraseology suggests that it comes from Latin, its use of tha ablative absolute is the indicator.

Wow, I never realized that prayer neglects to add the idea for those changes to be for the better.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Wow, I never realized that prayer neglects to add the idea for those changes to be for the better.

Latin tends to be sussinct to the point of ambiguity.
Would one pray to the LORD for the ability to make things worse?

 

[DL82]

The problem with capitalism is the separation between those who work for money and those who benefit from it.

For example, even if I get a very highly paid job working in a major banking corporation, for every $1 I earn, I am probably making $20 for the bank.

Now let’s say the bank is making money by charging interest to poor countries in Africa. Even if I give 50% of my salary to help people in Africa, the bank is taking back 40 times this amount. It’s not so much giving with the left hand and taking with the right as giving with one hand and taking with a bulldozer!

Of course, it’s not as simple as Marx imagined, with some people working for a subsistence and others growing fat off the profits. Most of us benefit from capitalism through high salaries, low costs and shareholding. Nonetheless, it’s not the work we do that directly benefits us, as is the case for someone who makes pots with his hands or grows crops, but we work through an intermediary, i.e. we produce, our producing feeds the machine of capitalism, and the machine of capitalism gives us a portion of the benefits. The problem is, we put in way more than we get out.

Therefore, as a system, capitalism is massively inefficient. Consumer capitalism produces the most ‘stuff’ overall, because it drives people to work harder and harder, but it doesn’t produce the best results for the individual compared to the hours of work put in.

 

[DL82]

Therefore, as a system, capitalism is massively inefficient. Consumer capitalism produces the most ‘stuff’ overall, because it drives people to work harder and harder, but it doesn’t produce the best results for the individual compared to the hours of work put in.

To illustrate this, I once heard a story about an American on holiday in Mexico. He went to eat at a small fish restaurant by the sea. The restaurant is very popular with the locals, and the owner does a fast trade. The owner told him “I only work Monday to Wednesday, I make enough from my customers to support us, so I can take the rest of the week off, play with my kids, go fishing in the sea…”

The American says to him, “This place is so good, you should take out a bank loan, open a chain of these places across the country, serve your food in all these different places, get more customers, make more money. You could start a class to train the chefs you hire, then after a while you could even hire somebody to look after the finances and manage the operation for you, then you’d be able to take some time off, play with your kids, go fishing in the sea…”

 

[seekerz]

The problem is that they have too much processed food, instead of the fresh fruit that they actually grow, which we eat.

Many times obesity among the poor is seen as a sign that they eat too much. It’s probably more of a sign that the cheapest food is usually the most unhealthy and that many cannot afford to eat fresh, wholesome food or simply have not learned how to eat healthy on a tight budget.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The problem with capitalism is the separation between those who work for money and those who benefit from it.

For example, even if I get a very highly paid job working in a major banking corporation, for every $1 I earn, I am probably making $20 for the bank.

Now let’s say the bank is making money by charging interest to poor countries in Africa. Even if I give 50% of my salary to help people in Africa, the bank is taking back 40 times this amount. It’s not so much giving with the left hand and taking with the right as giving with one hand and taking with a bulldozer!

Of course, it’s not as simple as Marx imagined, with some people working for a subsistence and others growing fat off the profits. Most of us benefit from capitalism through high salaries, low costs and shareholding. Nonetheless, it’s not the work we do that directly benefits us, as is the case for someone who makes pots with his hands or grows crops, but we work through an intermediary, i.e. we produce, our producing feeds the machine of capitalism, and the machine of capitalism gives us a portion of the benefits. The problem is, we put in way more than we get out.

Therefore, as a system, capitalism is massively inefficient. Consumer capitalism produces the most ‘stuff’ overall, because it drives people to work harder and harder, but it doesn’t produce the best results for the individual compared to the hours of work put in.

Before I address my main point, let’s address your bank analogy. Let’s look at the numbers. Last year, Citibank made profits of $21 Billion and have 327,000 employees which is $61,000 per employee. Unless the average wage is $3,000 an employee, your numbers ($20 of profit for each $1 of wages) above are a lie and an intentional attempt to besmirch bankers. In fact, their total payroll is over $30 billion. In other words, the company payroll is more than their profits and not less. Proof that your statement is a lie or so grossly uninformed as to be wreckless.

Now, I’m sure you will say that $21 billion is too much money, you need to ask yourself how much equity do they have which represents the savings/retirement plans of people who have bought their stock. Citibank has a market cap of $250 billion (amount individuals have invested in Citi). This profit translates into an 8% return on investment. While not bad, it isn’t that much above a risk free government security.

A rational person might be able to make a claim that this so-called bank isn’t making enough profits. In fact, if they continue w/ this level of low profits, their investors will find other investments, the company will fail, and all 327,000 people will be out of a job.

Now to the main point regarding what I bolded above are nonsensical contradictions. And what I underlined, who are you to judge that decisions another makes to work hard to provide for their family isn’t the best results. There is nobody I personally fear more than someone who is so arrogant as to state that my efforts do not produce what I believe are the best results for my family.

With regard to your value judgment of the Mexican vs. American restaurant owner, maybe if that guy with a good idea was more industrious and not so selfish, he and others like him would provide more quality jobs and opportunities for his fellow Mexicans and so many of his neighbors would not be forced to flee to the US to support their family.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Before I address my main point, let’s address your bank analogy. Let’s look at the numbers. Last year, Citibank made profits of $21 Billion and have 327,000 employees which is $61,000 per employee. Unless the average wage is $3,000 an employee, your numbers ($20 of profit for each $1 of wages) above are a lie and an intentional attempt to besmirch bankers. In fact, their total payroll is over $30 billion. In other words, the company payroll is more than their profits and not less. Proof that your statement is a lie or so grossly uninformed as to be wreckless.

Before you start accusing of lies, look at your own data.
Clearly, any company which has a greater payroll than its profit will be non-viable.
Either it has hidden profits, or its payroll is subsidised, or is going through a brief, and unrepresentative bad spell.

Now, I’m sure you will say that $21 billion is too much money, you need to ask yourself how much equity do they have which represents the savings/retirement plans of people who have bought their stock. Citibank has a market cap of $250 billion (amount individuals have invested in Citi). This profit translates into an 8% return on investment. While not bad, it isn’t that much above a risk free government security.

A rational person might be able to make a claim that this so-called bank isn’t making enough profits. In fact, if they continue w/ this level of low profits, their investors will find other investments, the company will fail, and all 327,000 people will be out of a job.

Now to the main point regarding what I bolded above are nonsensical contradictions. And what I underlined, who are you to judge that decisions another makes to work hard to provide for their family isn’t the best results. There is nobody I personally fear more than someone who is so arrogant as to state that my efforts do not produce what I believe are the best results for my family.

With regard to your value judgment of the Mexican vs. American restaurant owner, maybe if that guy with a good idea was more industrious and not so selfish, he and others like him would provide more quality jobs and opportunities for his fellow Mexicans and so many of his neighbors would not be forced to flee to the US to support their family.

The Mexican is indeed subsidising his fellows by abstaining from work from Thursday to Sunday, thus leaving an open niche for another worker.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Before you start accusing of lies, look at your own data.
Clearly, any company which has a greater payroll than its profit will be non-viable.
Either it has hidden profits, or its payroll is subsidised, or is going through a brief, and unrepresentative bad spell.
The Mexican is indeed subsidising his fellows by abstaining from work from Thursday to Sunday, thus leaving an open niche for another worker.

Please don’t tell me this is your level of understanding of business operations. Profits are what is left after paying all its expenses. Payrolll is one component of expenses. I got my information right off Citi’s report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Read closer the example of the Mexican. He is closing his restaurant denying his employees the opportunity to work. Finally, your contention that not working gives another the opportunity to work is false economics. The economy is not a zero sum game.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Perhaps, if the poor ate less, the problem would go away, after they have all died of starvation.

Please show a little charity in this place.

I don’t believe he was attempting to be uncharitable. It is a fact that one of the biggest problems among the poor is childhood obesity. It is a fact that most who are considered poor in this country own a color tv, a car, a home. We have a very wealthy society. Is there disparity between rich and poor? Sure. But I do not see poverty as it exists in a 3rd world country where people may go a day or two without a meal. I did see a comment about obesity being due to the cheapest food being the least healthy. This is silly. One could shop strictly in the produce section of any store and come out with very healthy food at a very affordable price…I think people simply don’t choose to do so.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Please don’t tell me this is your level of understanding of business operations. Profits are what is left after paying all its expenses. Payrolll is one component of expenses. I got my information right off Citi’s report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are two criteria for profit, one is gross, the other is net.
The context seemed to imply gross, and that is how I read it.

Read closer the example of the Mexican. He is closing his restaurant denying his employees the opportunity to work. Finally, your contention that not working gives another the opportunity to work is false economics. The economy is not a zero sum game.

You also need to look closer at the Mexican. On what grounds do you assume that the staff are not in agreement with the manager, that in three days, they make sufficient profit, to use the rest of the week for quality time.
Actually you need to read Malthus. The ecconomy is a closed system, and thus indeed does have a zero sum of (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

 

[jman507]

Latin tends to be sussinct to the point of ambiguity.
Would one pray to the LORD for the ability to make things worse?

Well because formal prayers like that tend to be something for one to reflect on a point. Time and reprinting should hone the prayer to a good precise extract of a few ideas. One important point is that one needs to realize change for the sake of change is not always good. It does not matter so much if was good in Latin, but the translation into English leaves important ideas on the table. That just means it’s truer in Latin than English.

Systematic problems in life from institiutions, tend not to be that way cause their aim is evil, the problems happen because they take a few good points, and emphasis them so much and attempt to exclude others, there ends up being an excess in one and a huge lack in another. Which loops us right back smack into the original question. Economics is a good thing, but if one forgets who the master is, it’s not going to be so good.

I think I might make my object to the prayer in English along the lines of the objections raised in this thread. To me that prayer seems to make change an idol.

 

[GreenJeans]

Perhaps, if the poor ate less, the problem would go away, after they have all died of starvation.

Please show a little charity in this place.

Charity has nothing to do with the issue. The poor in the US have higher rates of obesity than the rest of he population. I’d say this demonstrates that at least starvation isn’t a problem. Fat poor people are a new phenomenon.

 

[GreenJeans]

Many times obesity among the poor is seen as a sign that they eat too much. It’s probably more of a sign that the cheapest food is usually the most unhealthy and that many cannot afford to eat fresh, wholesome food or simply have not learned how to eat healthy on a tight budget.

I once heard an advocate for the poor advance this argument. She said they had to eat potato chips because they couldn’t afford anything else. The other person pointed out that one can buy five pounds of real potatos for the same price as the bag of chips.

Eighty percent of my diet is fresh fruit and vegetables. The rest is rice, beans, and nuts which I buy in bulk since that’s how to get the best quality. Add two raw eggs per day, 128 ounces of water, and I’m set. I have lots of money, but determined this is the healthiest diet for me. And it is cheap. Far less expensive than eating processd food.