Pope Francis claims global economy is close to collapse and describes youth unemployment rates as an ‘atrocity’ in damning message

[Bubba_Switzler]

From what I gathered, it is not in the nature of human beings to do so. I think one of the key factor for the development of modern capitalism, which is enclosures, became dominant only from the late Middle Ages onward.

It is man’s nature to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”

If by “enclosures” you mean property boundary, that is much older than the middle ages.

Capitalism does not only “channel” that drive productively, but also at the expense of the worker. That’s the only way to keep profits high for owners of modes of production, especially given competition.

Suffice it to say that workers do much better under capitalism than they do under communism which supposedly was created for their benefit.

Ironically, the reason why capitalism revealed more benefits than communism is because of one of those flaws, which is increasing credit. That allowed for the rise of a consumer spending economy, which was needed in any case as there had to be more buyers of what was produced.

Credit is not a flaw, it is a tool prone to misuse. Credit is what allows those without to have and produce. If a man with land has nothing with which to buy seed he can get seed on credit, sow his land, reap a harvest, repay the debt with interest, and feed his family. That is very good.

If I buy food for my family at the grocery store, that is consumer spending and it is good.

Consumer credit allows a poor man to buy a home for his family and pay for it out of future income. That is good.

But of course good things can be abused, misused, or matters can simply spiral out of control (e.g. illness prevents working).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We can argue that technology will help us, but it is also what may have caused more problems for us. That is, the use of oil during the Green Revolution and for manufacturing and delivery systems led to incredible increases in food supply, medicine, etc. These in turn caused infant mortality rates to drop and life expectancy rates to rise, in turn leading to a population boom.

Growing population is a very good thing for precisely the reason of technology. Provided people are productively engaged, each additional person is a net benefit to human society.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I believe the pope… when using the word “greed” in the context of youth unemployment, was referring to the instatiable thirst for money which has caused debt, inflation, and crushing taxes.

It’s strange that people have such a hard time pinning down and agreeing on what greed is. Generally speaking, people usually mean, vaguely, an excessive pursuit of money but left unsaid is exactly what is being exceeded.

Consider this, though: is it a bad thing that throughout history, at least on a moving average basis, humans have experiened a rising standard of living? Is it a bad thing that this should continue forever? That’s an “insatiable thirst” for more.

I change my opinion: greed may drive an economy, but it is not healthy for the economy, because greed quickly turns immoral. And immorality is baseless.

I think we can all agree that there are immoral ways of pursuing money but beyond that things get very confusing and there is much disagreement. Currently, for example, central banks are proping up the banking industry and borrowers generally (sovereign especially) with cheap credit. Among the effects of this policy is that stock prices are skyrocketing and those holding stocks are benefiting disproportionately (i.e. “the rich”). Is that good? Is that greed?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you want to understand the clerical view of economics, imagine a lifeboat filled with survivors of a shipwreck. The question they face, as they wait for rescue or look for land, is how to divide up the emergency supplies. Greed, in this context, is very easy to define: if one person takes so much that another dies of thirst or starvation, that is greed. You must satisfy yourself with a limited amount for the good of all.

If that sounds too harsh, let’s translate: replace the lifeboat with the world and replace the emergency supplies with natural and manmade resources but otherwise, change nothing. Same analysis applies.

Fortunately, this is not universally true. Popes John Paul and Benedict, for example, were much deeper thinkers on the subject of economics and we can see in Pope Benedict’s writings an evolution of economic understanding. Sadly, they were exceptions to the rule.

 

[hazcompat]

The globalized economy must be analyzed in the light of the principles of social justice, respecting the preferential option for the poor who must be allowed to take their place in such an economy, and the requirements of the international common good. For "the Church’s social doctrine is a moral vision which aims to encourage governments, institutions and private organizations to shape a future consonant with the dignity of every person. Within this perspective it is possible to examine questions of external debt, internal political corruption and discrimination both within and between nations.

Pope John Paul II - Ecclesia In America

 

[hazcompat]

According to Pope John Paul II, the Catholic tradition calls for a “society of work, enterprise and participation” which “is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state to assure that the basic needs of the whole society are satisfied.” (Centesimus Annus, 35). All of economic life should recognize the fact that we all are God’s children and members of one human family, called to exercise a clear priority for “the least among us.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/catholic-framework-for-economic-life.cfm

Peace

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The globalized economy must be analyzed in the light of the principles of social justice, respecting the preferential option for the poor who must be allowed to take their place in such an economy, and the requirements of the international common good. For "the Church’s social doctrine is a moral vision which aims to encourage governments, institutions and private organizations to shape a future consonant with the dignity of every person. Within this perspective it is possible to examine questions of external debt, internal political corruption and discrimination both within and between nations.

Pope John Paul II - Ecclesia In America

According to Pope John Paul II, the Catholic tradition calls for a “society of work, enterprise and participation” which “is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state to assure that the basic needs of the whole society are satisfied.” (Centesimus Annus, 35). All of economic life should recognize the fact that we all are God’s children and members of one human family, called to exercise a clear priority for “the least among us.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/catholic-framework-for-economic-life.cfm

John Paul arguably had the most sophisticated understanding of economics of any pope.

But even John Paul fell prey to the conceit that the unrestrained state could be a corrective instrument of the market even as he understood, as no other pope before or since, how malignant government could be.

 

[ProVobis]

One of the flaws of capitalism is the growth of credit. Credit is good because it allows people without to have in order to produce and have. But credit can be abused and after it has been abused sufficiently there is a crash and a reset.

Yes, this has become the biggest problem as I see it. When credit itself, and all its derivatives, become commodities exchanged all over the world, some bad things can and do happen.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, this has become the biggest problem as I see it. When credit itself, and all its derivatives, become commodities exchanged all over the world, some bad things can and do happen.

So far, all of the fixes have been worse than the problem. Drawing from that experience, there is no systemic solution to this, only moral solutions: don’t abuse credit, don’t be surprised when your neighbor does and things go badly for everyone.

 

[frobert]

Yes, this has become the biggest problem as I see it. When credit itself, and all its derivatives, become commodities exchanged all over the world, some bad things can and do happen.

Exactly, and with the FED and most of the world’s central banks printing “free money*” what can go wrong?

*Free money as used above refers to the FED’s near interest rate perhaps forever.

 

[hazcompat]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER

CARITAS IN VERITATE

OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
THE LAY FAITHFUL AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHARITY AND TRUTH

1. Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

The Church has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society. In and of itself, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak. 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. Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.

The Church’s social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or “after” it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.

The great challenge before us, accentuated by the problems of development in this global era and made even more urgent by the economic and financial crisis, is to demonstrate, in thinking and behaviour, not only that traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated, but also that in commercial relationships the principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift as an expression of fraternity can and must find their place within normal economic activity. This is a human demand at the present time, but it is also demanded by economic logic. It is a demand both of charity and of truth.

Peace

 

[ralfyman]

Moderator Robert, I did acknowledge your warning to all of us, but

cbsnews.com/news/how-to-tell-if-you-smell/
…but I’m trying to be helpful to ralfy, really.
Bubba Zen, I’m starting to hear you, man.
It’s just that I’m pretty sure that I only read and speak at a sixth grade level, so it is difficult.
Mix that in with the fact that I don’t have a badge in Econ, and the fact that I’ve made some sloppy and disorganized comments along with a couple of annoying on here.
The overall feeling is one of frustration. Because the pope’s statement is absolutely intriguing and complex. And obscure. And I’d like to stay somewhat plugged in to this thread. Again, the pope needs to clarify for the critics. Lol.

Let me speak for the pope, if I may.


I believe the pope… when using the word “greed” in the context of youth unemployment, was referring to the instatiable thirst for money which has caused debt, inflation, and crushing taxes.

I change my opinion: greed may drive an economy, but it is not healthy for the economy, because greed quickly turns immoral. And immorality is baseless.

When we talk about the economy, we are actually talking about money. And with that, we refer to the way in which money leads to greed, etc.

But there’s a deeper problem, and it involves the reality that when it comes to the economy, money is actually the icing. There are two more things that drive it, and they may be even more important than money.

Pope Francis talks about one of them in other speeches, and that’s the environment, which includes global warming.

I

 

[ralfyman]

This is both true and false.

It is true that in any static analysis that the world has physical limitations. There is limited land, for example.

However, land can be put to new uses that effectively overcomes its limited nature. For example, more productive farming or high rise office towers.

Man’s ingenuity can overcome the physical limitations of the world.

Even if land can be put to new uses, it is still driven by physical limitations. The biocapacity of the earth and even biomass remains fairly constant. That is a scientific reality.

Even as it is claimed that ingenuity is continuous, there will come a point when one will need more than one earth. That is why visions of the same include extracting resources from outside the earth. Again, the reason is the fact of physical limitations.

The more important question to consider is whether or not ingenuity, especially in a global capitalist system where the same leads to more consumption (not less), can lead to more resources available. This was achieved more than sixty years ago with the Green Revolution and the use of oil for mass manufacturing of consumer goods. Unfortunately, the costs have also been high: population ballooned, more environmental damage has taken place, and–as pointed out in the topic thread–greed has overwhelmed various societies.

Can these costs be dealt with, especially given a twentyfold increase in armaments production and sales coupled with more destructive weapons, a financial elite that wants even more wealth, significant environmental damage and the threat of global warming, and more social unrest brought about high food and oil prices, unemployment, and austerity measures?

 

[ralfyman]

It is man’s nature to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”

If by “enclosures” you mean property boundary, that is much older than the middle ages.

I am referring to this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

My understanding is that it started during the late Middle Ages in England and led to the notion of private property, that is, legally owned land.

Suffice it to say that workers do much better under capitalism than they do under communism which supposedly was created for their benefit.

Because what we have are essentially state capitalist systems with fascist regimes. In other cases, we have what are supposed to be democracies but are actually fascist regimes controlled by a financial elite, with voters believing that they are free thanks to consumer spending.

Credit is not a flaw, it is a tool prone to misuse. Credit is what allows those without to have and produce. If a man with land has nothing with which to buy seed he can get seed on credit, sow his land, reap a harvest, repay the debt with interest, and feed his family. That is very good.

That assumes that we remain in an agricultural system, which is what you describe. That’s not what we have today.

If I buy food for my family at the grocery store, that is consumer spending and it is good.

It should be, as money earned to buy things at the grocery ultimately come form the same consumer spending. But in capitalist system, that also means more consumption each time.

Consumer credit allows a poor man to buy a home for his family and pay for it out of future income. That is good.

This can only take place when money supply is increased readily, and that creates more problems.

But of course good things can be abused, misused, or matters can simply spiral out of control (e.g. illness prevents working).

That is why increased credit leading to more houses bought and heavy reliance on consumer spending is causing problems for the U.S., and in turn creating related problems in Europe.

 

[ralfyman]

Growing population is a very good thing for precisely the reason of technology. Provided people are productively engaged, each additional person is a net benefit to human society.

That’s a given for capitalist system, which requires an expanding market. The problem is that credit increases faster given an expanding market coupled with financial speculation, and the result is the point of the thread topic.

There are two other problems resulting from that, and the first involves environmental damage coupled with global warming. Pope Francis discusses that in other speeches.

 

[ralfyman]

John Paul arguably had the most sophisticated understanding of economics of any pope.

But even John Paul fell prey to the conceit that the unrestrained state could be a corrective instrument of the market even as he understood, as no other pope before or since, how malignant government could be.

It’s not so much government as governments working for the financial elite. That is why we have a global economy controlled essentially the latter, leading to the problems raised in this thread.

 

[ralfyman]

Yes, this has become the biggest problem as I see it. When credit itself, and all its derivatives, become commodities exchanged all over the world, some bad things can and do happen.

Indeed. Global unregulated derivatives alone have a notional value of between $600 trillion to over a quadrillion dollars. Only a trillion dollars’ worth of that was enough to cause the global economy to crash in 2008, leading to continued recession.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s not so much government as governments working for the financial elite. That is why we have a global economy controlled essentially the latter, leading to the problems raised in this thread.

I thought this deserved a new thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12101922

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s a given for capitalist system, which requires an expanding market. The problem is that credit increases faster given an expanding market coupled with financial speculation, and the result is the point of the thread topic.

There are two other problems resulting from that, and the first involves environmental damage coupled with global warming. Pope Francis discusses that in other speeches.

“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

And capitalism does better than any other “system” devised.

That there are still problems is not to be denied. But most often the systemic cures that anticapitalist offer are worse than the disease. It was no fluke that communism had a far worse track record on the environment than did capitlaism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Even if land can be put to new uses, it is still driven by physical limitations. The biocapacity of the earth and even biomass remains fairly constant. That is a scientific reality.

It is an irrelevant scientific reality. If the same land, put to new or better uses, can yield an ever increasing bounty then the acerage limitation is not a limitation on the economic value of the land.

Even as it is claimed that ingenuity is continuous, there will come a point when one will need more than one earth. That is why visions of the same include extracting resources from outside the earth. Again, the reason is the fact of physical limitations.

I’m all for space colonization, but there is no such point as noted above.

The more important question to consider is whether or not ingenuity, especially in a global capitalist system where the same leads to more consumption (not less), can lead to more resources available. This was achieved more than sixty years ago with the Green Revolution and the use of oil for mass manufacturing of consumer goods. Unfortunately, the costs have also been high: population ballooned, more environmental damage has taken place, and–as pointed out in the topic thread–greed has overwhelmed various societies.

It depends entirely on how you measure available resources. If you measure them by static physical metrics you will get one answer. If you measure them by economic value then another. I am arguing for the later measure.

Balooning population is a great and wonderful thing but there will always exist a tension between resources as currently understood and the demand for them. This tension can only be relieved by human ingenuity. The population control alternative is going to wrec havoc.

Can these costs be dealt with, especially given a twentyfold increase in armaments production and sales coupled with more destructive weapons, a financial elite that wants even more wealth, significant environmental damage and the threat of global warming, and more social unrest brought about high food and oil prices, unemployment, and austerity measures?

Human war is nothing new and scholars have actually found that deaths by war have decreased over the ages. War is still a problem but it is not a growing problem in spire of improvements in the technology of warfare.