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

[edwest2]

Right, but remember, the claim that greed is causing youth unemployment hinges not on the existence of greed, no matter how pervasiave, but on a recent surge in it.

To make a comparison, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that lust is the cause of prostitution. Both are as old as history. But if there were a sudden surge in youth prostitution it would be absurd to blame it on lust. The connection between youth unemployment and greed is even less reasonable since unemployment is not caused by greed.

I doubt there is a period in history where people did not gaze admiringly and enviously on the lives of the rich and famous.

The numbers speak for themselves:

nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/corporate-profits-grow-ever-larger-as-slice-of-economy-as-wages-slide.html?_r=0

The nuns told us greed and envy were bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Midwest88]

I doubt there is a period in history where people did not gaze admiringly and enviously on the lives of the rich and famous.

You mean actors & rock stars and now athletes. The only thing, I bet that is wanted, is the amount of disposable income wired to the bank account in a given year and months of vacation (especially if you’re an actor). I bet more want to be rich than actually famous.

 

[Tsuwano]

The free-market does have its flaws and limitations. But there is no other system in history that has raised the income level and standard of living for people the way the free market has. Socialism basically forces everyone to be equally miserable - except the ruling elite. In socialism there is no reward for initiative or risk taking. Everyone lives under the same misery - according to a brand new government plan. What we need to do is find out how to increase people’s access to opportunity. There is perhaps a small role for government to play in this: for example in the funding of schools, etc. But we need to be careful: historically the government has tended to make things worse. Since you brought up the Great Depression, recall that it was the very policies pursued by those in government - particularly Hoover and then to a greater extent FDR which prolonged the downturn and made life harder for those folks who had to deal with the economic woes. As Amity Schlaes puts it in her excellent book The Forgotten Man - “from Hoover to Roosevelt, government intervention helped to make the depression Great.” Fast forward to today and I have no doubt that the policies and lack of policies by both Bush and Obama have helped extend the stagnant economy we are currently in. Look at Obamacare, e.g.: even though it passed, there were exemptions for some groups. Key parts of it were delayed for political reasons. Its no wonder businesses are wary of investing in the future as they have no idea what kind of laws will be in place which will affect them.

You speak of “unscrupulous business interests.” I have much more faith in a businessman subject to the laws of the market to do things which will increase opportunities for people than in the faceless bureaucrat whose livelihood depends on the continuation of the problem the bureaucracy was created to deal with in the first place. I am all for making people feel uneasy. For starters why not ask those in government why the trilions confiscated from taxpayers and then spent on poverty programs actually increased the poverty rate? In other words I think you’re kind of barking up the wrong tree with your focus on “unscrupulous business interests.” You ought to be looking at the failure of government and want to make the bureaucrats squirm.

Finally I would appreciate it if you’d quit latching on to one point I make - such as:

And attacking me as if I said all those who are unemployed or seek help are lazy. I said no such thing. However, when the safety net becomes a trampoline (which has happened) then you have a problem in which inactivity is rewarded instead of inititiative.

Ishii

Oh, Ishii! Are you just being petulant or do you truly believe I’ve attacked you? I’m terribly disappointed that you think I’m attacking you and can only offer a surprised and shocked apology. It certainly wasn’t my intention and, to be fair, I really don’t understand how you reached your conclusion. Still, I hope you know I respect you as a deep thinker on this forum and always find our interaction stimulating. I agreed with much of what you said in your previous post and I agree with some of the things you said in this post. For example, I agree Socialism is not the best economic system and I also agree that Capitalism, with checks and balances, can indeed decrease the level of poverty in society. Though our Capitalist system doesn’t seem to be doing such a great job at the moment, I have faith in it and believe we can work our way through some of the difficulties we’ve encountered. I think we can do this by focusing on rebuilding the middle class which has suffered so severely under government policies for the last 20 years. Just in case you’re wondering, I am not a Socialist. I have read Ms. Schlaes and, as you must know, her opinions concerning the Great Depression and whether New Deal policies actually prolonged the Great Depression are hotly debated and not fully accepted by most scholars of the subject. I am in opposition to you when you say you have more faith in business men subject to the laws of the market to create more opportunities for workers than faceless bureaucrats. I would say that all depends on who the businessman is. There are many businessmen I wouldn’t trust with my interests, especially since I can’t elect them to their positions and many of them already have amassed more power and money necessary for their survival. Indeed, their wealth and power, in my opinion, places the interests of a free democracy in peril and I truly fear them more than I do the Government. I do believe there are unscrupulous business interests, both historically and in our present time, which have been and are detrimental to the interests of society at large. I do want to look at government’s failures, and when election time comes around I take the opportunity to express my views in the ballot box, but that doesn’t mean I should neglect the failures of the business world, does it? I don’t think we should turn a blind eye to business and its role in hollowing out the American economy, while burning the faceless bureaucrat at the stake. (I’m not attacking you! I know you didn’t say we should burn the bureaucrat at the stake! It’s merely a figure of speech.) I agree we should award initiative, but initiative must have some hope of reward. That hope of reward, of living a decent life and enjoying the comforts of the middle class, is rapidly fading in America today. I think business has as much to do with this failure as the government.

 

[stinkcat_14]

He said that greed causes youth unemployment. He is wrong.

How is he wrong?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have presented my evidence, principally the lack of correlation between greed and youth unemployment (among very many other things). Correlation is not causation but there can be no causation without correlation. As I said, the claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployument fails that most basic test.

Actually, you haven’t presented any correlations, you cannot really claim the lack of correlation. If you want to present some data, please do so, then we can discuss your results.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The numbers speak for themselves:

nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/corporate-profits-grow-ever-larger-as-slice-of-economy-as-wages-slide.html?_r=0

The nuns told us greed and envy were bad.

If profit equals greed then communism is earthly paradise.

I don’t recall the nuns saying that profit is greed or envy. I do recall Karl Marx saying something like that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How is he wrong?

Actually, you haven’t presented any correlations, you cannot really claim the lack of correlation. If you want to present some data, please do so, then we can discuss your results.

I won’t ask you to read the entire thread but I have, in fact, presented “some data” numerous times. To put it simply, greed is a constant in human nature while disproportionate youth unemployment is historically unprecedented.

I could have, but did not bother to, shown that the claim that greed causes youth unemployment is absurd by the workings of the market but that would be more complicated.

 

[hazcompat]

Are general observations permitted. For example:

Are corporations managed differently now than they were in the past? Has something changed in the last 20 or so years? I experienced the transition from “growth before profits” to “stock price” as the metric for success in a large multi-national corporation.
The growth oriented culture required structured programs for creating skilled craftsmen. Salaries were competitive to assure retention of journeymen level human resources.

Or must all data have a source like:

“The average age of a fast food employee in the United States is 29.5 years. This is up dramatically from 2000, when the average fast food worker in the US was 22 years old.” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

Peace

 

[stinkcat_14]

I won’t ask you to read the entire thread but I have, in fact, presented “some data” numerous times. To put it simply, greed is a constant in human nature while disproportionate youth unemployment is historically unprecedented.

Let’s see the data that greed is constant. If it is constant then it is really pointless to preach against it because there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

I could have, but did not bother to, shown that the claim that greed causes youth unemployment is absurd by the workings of the market but that would be more complicated.

In other words, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim. Unfortunately, as an economist, I discount claims and look at what the data says.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s see the data that greed is constant. If it is constant then it is really pointless to preach against it because there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

I stated my observed data. You are welcome to offer contradicting data.

In other words, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim. Unfortunately, as an economist, I discount claims and look at what the data says.

I guess then that like me you have discounted the pope’s claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployment.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I stated my observed data. You are welcome to offer contradicting data.

Which post has your data showing that greed is constant?

I guess then that like me you have discounted the pope’s claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployment.

I have not discounted his claim, nor have I affirmed his claim. If he were on this forum I would ask him questions to get at the exact nature of his claim. You are the one claiming the contrary, yet you have not produced the data showing that greed is constant.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Are general observations permitted. For example:

Are corporations managed differently now than they were in the past? Has something changed in the last 20 or so years? I experienced the transition from “growth before profits” to “stock price” as the metric for success in a large multi-national corporation.
The growth oriented culture required structured programs for creating skilled craftsmen. Salaries were competitive to assure retention of journeymen level human resources.

Or must all data have a source like:

“The average age of a fast food employee in the United States is 29.5 years. This is up dramatically from 2000, when the average fast food worker in the US was 22 years old.” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence but obviously some forms of evidence are better than others.

In the dotcom days we saw growth in eyeballs as the prime business metric without regard for either revenue or profit.

But it is typical for companies to transition from growth to profitability as they age. So if you stay in one company, this is what you will see.

Also, companies in general will focus on profit ahead of growth when they perceive risk is high, as in a depression. Focusing on growth is an act of faith in future profitability.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which post has your data showing that greed is constant?

This one: societal greed, g equals 1 for all time t. If you need me to put it in a spreadsheet for you, let me know.

I have not discounted his claim, nor have I affirmed his claim. If he were on this forum I would ask him questions to get at the exact nature of his claim. You are the one claiming the contrary, yet you have not produced the data showing that greed is constant.

I’ll repeat my claim: the pope’s claim of that greed is the cause of youth unemployment fails the most basic test of causality, correlation. If Pope Francis were here I would ask him for his data showing the two to be correlated. In lieu of that I have challenged those defending the pope’s claim to substantiate their belief. You could do the same but, of course, you will not.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This one: societal greed, g equals 1 for all time t. If you need me to put it in a spreadsheet for you, let me know.

According to whom? What you have is an assertion, and an assertion is not data. If you want to go and get some objective data to back up your claim please do so. Otherwise, I am sure you will agree that we cannot support claims based on data that you make up yourself.

I’ll repeat my claim: the pope’s claim of that greed is the cause of youth unemployment fails the most basic test of causality, correlation.

You actually have not presented any correlations, so there is no reason why we should give your claim any credence. As you can see from your own admission, your data on greed is something you made up yourself.

If Pope Francis were here I would ask him for his data showing the two to be correlated. In lieu of that I have challenged those defending the pope’s claim to substantiate their belief. You could do the same but, of course, you will not.

You are the only one on this board who is making claims, claims which you defend with numbers you make up yourself. How is that credible evidence?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

According to whom? What you have is an assertion, and an assertion is not data. If you want to go and get some objective data to back up your claim please do so. Otherwise, I am sure you will agree that we cannot support claims based on data that you make up yourself.

According to my observations and readings of history.

You actually have not presented any correlations, so there is no reason why we should give your claim any credence. As you can see from your own admission, your data on greed is something you made up yourself.

I have claimed a lack of correlation.

You are the only one on this board who is making claims, claims which you defend with numbers you make up yourself. How is that credible evidence?

Sorry, that is just plain stinky. You, yourself, just made a claim.

 

[Seamus_L]

I agree that youth unemployment is a cause for much concern, but to refer to it as an “atrocity”, or to call it one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century is just plain inaccurate.

 

[ralfyman]

The major flaw of a free market coupled with capitalism is that it requires continuous economic growth, which in turn requires increasing production and consumption of goods plus credit, and in turn leads to more environmental damage and predicaments like global warming.

We are seeing all of these crises today.

 

[stinkcat_14]

According to my observations and readings of history.

Of course, you are no more an expert on economics than the Pope. So why should we give your opinion anymore weight than the Pope’s? In economics, we really don’t like appeals to authority anyway.

I have claimed a lack of correlation.

You haven’t provided any correlations to show a lack thereof. You made a claim without evidence.

Sorry, that is just plain stinky. You, yourself, just made a claim.

You deny that you made up your greed measurement? Is it wrong to call someone on using made up data? I thought we should be concerned about the truth?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree that youth unemployment is a cause for much concern, but to refer to it as an “atrocity”, or to call it one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century is just plain inaccurate.

While I disagree with the Pope’s explanation of the cause (he blames greed), I do agree with the pope that it is very, very, dire and so “atrocity” and “one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century” is not entirely unwarranted.

The reason is that it has such an enormous impact on the future of human society. Young people who do not hold jobs in their youth are less likely to hold jobs as they age and less likely to start familes. They are more likely to become involved in vice.

Moreover, it is not just youth. Yough are simply the most tragic case but unskilled labor in developed countries, in general, is unusually high and unemployment in general is unusually high. There is much pathology here.

Youth unemployment is a very serious indictment. The debate is what does it indict.

And this is why an incorrect analysis of the problem is, itself, a tragedy. If the pope misdiagnoses the cause of youth unemployment he, and the Church in general, will be of little aid in solving it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Of course, you are no more an expert on economics than the Pope. So why should we give your opinion anymore weight than the Pope’s? In economics, we really don’t like appeals to authority anyway.

You haven’t provided any correlations to show a lack thereof. You made a claim without evidence.

You deny that you made up your greed measurement? Is it wrong to call someone on using made up data? I thought we should be concerned about the truth?

Now you are just becomming annoying. I do appreciate a devil’s advocate but at some point it becomes tiresome. If you have something substantial to offer, I will entertain it.