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

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, but He also talked about the importance of salvation, of compassion towards others, and of being stewards of the earth. These are precisely the points raised in the topic of this thread.

And the type of growth that we are now looking at is no longer pro-life. We are looking at species die-offs at unprecedented rates, environmental damage, the financial elite enriching themselves while unemployment remains high, high food and oil prices, and governments spending incredible amounts of public funds for military costs and even policing local populations.

I have not taken issue, in general, with the concept of stewardship, only with forms of it which seek to preserve nature at the expense of mankind.

We’ve been hearing about environmental armageddon for a long time. But this morning, there as no “silent spring”, the birds were chirping as usual.

But we are already beginning to see the evil consequences of environmentalism. Japan is the worst case but other nations are following in their path to demographic self-destruction.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Physical limitations are not about dimensions but about availability of various material resources, such as phosphorus and other substances, needed not just for food production but for mechanized agriculture (oil is needed for that, and even for shipping goods across thousands of kilometers).

Science has nothing to say about the economic value of these resources because the value is driven by money supply, which is essentially composed of promissory notes. Ingenuity is employed to give value to that credit, and to create even more credit.

The scientific measurement of resource availability is a measurement of dimensions, acerage, mass, etc. These resources are limited in their physical dimensions but not their economic value. Money is simply another measurement, albeint an economic one. The economic value of goods is not an effect of the money supply any more than the size of land is an effect of the meter. We measure land in meters (or acres) and we measure economic value in dollars (or Euros).

Money is the essential tool of economics. That’s why GDP and other measurements are given in terms of money units, not tons of minerals extracted, etc.

As for economic value determining well-being,

“World economic system is ‘madness’, puts money ahead of people, Pope Francis says”

It is hard to imagine anything more sad that Pope Francis’ employment of the marxist phrase, “money ahead of people” or, as is also popular, “profits vs. people”. Such language is designed to dehumanize those who not the object of immediate attention. The Communists did this in order to excuse mass extermination. But Lenin also spoke of useful idiots. Many people, such as Pope Francis, simply repeat the phrase with no real understanding of its meaning.

The problem is that money supply is increasing faster than what is needed, to the point that coupled with the desire to meet the needs of a growing global middle class we have greater inequality, violence, and other problems. In addition,

"‘Not to share wealth with poor is to steal’: Pope slams capitalism as ‘new tyranny’

That’s a long debate, and I certainly share your suspicions here, but inflation of the money supply is not greed. Those who are printing money like it’s going out of fashion claim that they are “saving the economy” and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity even as I doubt their competence.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“Global Wealth Inequality - What you never knew you never knew”

youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

That is, for the last two hundred years, the wealth gap between rich and poor countries increased from three to 35 to 80 times.

These claims are regularly debunked, most recently with the publication of Piketty’s book. As soon as people dug into the details his story fell apart. Moreover, 200 years may seem like a long time but that’s not even the entire history of capitalism, much less human civilization. Finally, it has long been observed that, under capitalism, there is often a positive correlation between rising standards of living of the poor and middle class and wealth inequality which is one reason why communism is so destructive.

One can imagine such a society, but that’s not what generally took place worldwide.
And the idea of private property in terms of land did not appear until much later:

It didn’t happen because greed and inequity long predate private property.

The bad news is that in those high standards of living are dependent on, among other things, the same stock markets. More important are the energy and material resources that are the ultimate drivers of those standards.

The stock markets are part of the entire whole and even in a crash they do not disappear. They do their job by reseting equity values.

Given that, any problem or even any evil act can be justified because it’s part of human nature.

If A preceeds B, then B cannot be the cause of A. It has nothing to do with justification. People miscalculate credit, bad things happen.

 

[GEddie]

"‘Not to share wealth with poor is to steal’: Pope slams capitalism as ‘new tyranny’

If he in fact said that, I will have to consider it.

I don’t like it though.

Capitalism is not tyranny, it is in a sense anti-tyranny, in that by creating wealth, it gives people more choices.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

That is, for the last two hundred years, the wealth gap between rich and poor countries increased from three to 35 to 80 times.

There are a raft of weaknesses in that statement.

Most “poor countries” we know today did not exist as nations 200 years ago.

Nations have also gone from poor to rich over that period, or the reverse. India, for example, was a land of fabled wealth long ago.

The USA was a subsistence culture 200 years ago, while Britain was an ascending industrial power.

One also has to ask how rich and poor country are defined. A nation may possess huge natural resources and yet be a place of mass poverty, if that wealth is clutched in the hands of governing elites.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If he in fact said that, I will have to consider it. I don’t like it though. Capitalism is not tyranny, it is in a sense anti-tyranny, in that by creating wealth, it gives people more choices.

These two positions are not necessarily antogonistic. Before Pope Francis, the position of the Catholic Church had been that most people’s material needs are served through the ordinary workings of commerice, i.e. capitalism, but that there would always be those who were not sufficiently so served and who would require charity (which capitalism generates in abudance). Pope Francis has denied that he is a marxist but he certainly seems enamored with the language of marxism.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Francis has denied that he is a marxist but he certainly seems enamored with the language of marxism.

:ehh:

 

[ralfyman]

I have not taken issue, in general, with the concept of stewardship, only with forms of it which seek to preserve nature at the expense of mankind.

I think what we are seeing now is harmful to humanity, especially water and air pollution, the long-term effects of global warming, etc. It just so happens that they are also harmful to lots of plants and animals.

We’ve been hearing about environmental armageddon for a long time. But this morning, there as no “silent spring”, the birds were chirping as usual.

From 2009,

“Many bird populations in trouble, report says”

edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/19/endangered.birds.report/

But we are already beginning to see the evil consequences of environmentalism. Japan is the worst case but other nations are following in their path to demographic self-destruction.

The likely driver of population aging in Japan and elsewhere is not environmentalism but prosperity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Causes

 

[ralfyman]

The scientific measurement of resource availability is a measurement of dimensions, acerage, mass, etc. These resources are limited in their physical dimensions but not their economic value. Money is simply another measurement, albeint an economic one. The economic value of goods is not an effect of the money supply any more than the size of land is an effect of the meter. We measure land in meters (or acres) and we measure economic value in dollars (or Euros).

Resource availability is measured in terms of content or mass. Some refer to carrying capacity or bio-capacity.

The rest of your points support my argument.

It is hard to imagine anything more sad that Pope Francis’ employment of the marxist phrase, “money ahead of people” or, as is also popular, “profits vs. people”. Such language is designed to dehumanize those who not the object of immediate attention. The Communists did this in order to excuse mass extermination. But Lenin also spoke of useful idiots. Many people, such as Pope Francis, simply repeat the phrase with no real understanding of its meaning.

The phrase is meant to humanize, not dehumanize. That’s why it’s people before profits and not profits before people.

The intent is not to remove profit-making but to make sure that it serves humanity and not the other way round.

Pope Francis illustrates it very clearly in his interview: the financial elite is enriching itself while the youth face unemployment.

That’s a long debate, and I certainly share your suspicions here, but inflation of the money supply is not greed. Those who are printing money like it’s going out of fashion claim that they are “saving the economy” and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity even as I doubt their competence.

Inflation of money supply is greed for painfully obvious reasons, especially given a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars.

 

[ralfyman]

These claims are regularly debunked, most recently with the publication of Piketty’s book. As soon as people dug into the details his story fell apart. Moreover, 200 years may seem like a long time but that’s not even the entire history of capitalism, much less human civilization. Finally, it has long been observed that, under capitalism, there is often a positive correlation between rising standards of living of the poor and middle class and wealth inequality which is one reason why communism is so destructive.

"Thomas Piketty’s numbers aren’t wrong: The Financial Times’ big whiff misstates his central argument "

Paul Krugman and others shoot down an overblown “Capital” critique which misrepresents his data, findings and point

salon.com/2014/05/28/thomas_pikettys_numbers_arent_wrong_the_financial_times_big_whiff_misstates_the_entire_income_inequality_debate/

It didn’t happen because greed and inequity long predate private property.

It did happen. That is, the level of inequality increased significantly only during the last two centuries.

The stock markets are part of the entire whole and even in a crash they do not disappear. They do their job by reseting equity values.

This does not counter my argument as I wasn’t referring solely to the stock market.

If A preceeds B, then B cannot be the cause of A. It has nothing to do with justification. People miscalculate credit, bad things happen.

Again, this doesn’t counter my argument.

 

[ralfyman]

If he in fact said that, I will have to consider it.

I don’t like it though.

Capitalism is not tyranny, it is in a sense anti-tyranny, in that by creating wealth, it gives people more choices.

ICXC NIKA

It can counter tyranny only if more wealth can be created each time, and by that we mean not money (as money can be created easily) but material resources and energy.

The problem is that we now face limitations in terms of both, not to mention significant environmental damage, while a growing global middle class demands more resources.

Meanwhile, the financial elite with government and military partners remain intent in dominating the global economy. Hence, we have the last six decades consisting of military powers preying on weaker nations as well as incredible increases in armaments production, sales, and military costs.

 

[ralfyman]

There are a raft of weaknesses in that statement.

Most “poor countries” we know today did not exist as nations 200 years ago.

My understanding is that the studies look at populations in nations and regions that were colonized.

Nations have also gone from poor to rich over that period, or the reverse. India, for example, was a land of fabled wealth long ago.

Indeed. Decades ago, most people earned only a dollar a day. Now, they earn around three dollars a day. The problem isn’t the fact that income has gone up, but that inequality rose faster.

The USA was a subsistence culture 200 years ago, while Britain was an ascending industrial power.

The point isn’t that countries can’t move from subsistence to industrial economies but the cost of doing so.

For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but must consume up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain middle class standards. For the rest of the world to follow suit, we will need an additional earth. And we can’t argue that we don’t need otherwise because a capitalist system requires continuous economic growth, and that means a growing global middle class.

More important, the financial elite are increasing money supply readily, such that even more resources will be needed to back up increased credit.

One also has to ask how rich and poor country are defined. A nation may possess huge natural resources and yet be a place of mass poverty, if that wealth is clutched in the hands of governing elites.

ICXC NIKA

Indeed, and that’s part of the problem described by Pope Francis.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That is, the level of inequality increased significantly only during the last two centuries.

Not only iks this false for the period given, it is obviously false in the full view of history. Do you really believe, for example, that Roman society was more egalitarian than modern society?

 

[ralfyman]

These two positions are not necessarily antogonistic. Before Pope Francis, the position of the Catholic Church had been that most people’s material needs are served through the ordinary workings of commerice, i.e. capitalism, but that there would always be those who were not sufficiently so served and who would require charity (which capitalism generates in abudance). Pope Francis has denied that he is a marxist but he certainly seems enamored with the language of marxism.

The problem is that capitalist systems that served people in the past are not the same as the present system. We are looking at incredible levels of credit–more than a quadrillion dollars (notional value) in unregulated derivatives–and only a trillion dollars of that was needed to cause the 2008 crash.

What Pope Francis is describing is the lack of compassion by financiers and governments towards those who are suffering because of the crash. When the 2008 crash took place due to incredible financial risks, governments worldwide scrambled and offered bailouts to financiers, sometimes at zero interest and with no obligation to pay. Rather than use the bailouts to help homeowners, employers and employees, etc., the rich instead covered their losses and continued to engage in financial speculation. The result is that they are now richer than ever, and at the public’s expense. Meanwhile, more citizens not just in the U.S. but also in Europe continue to face lack of employment or low-paying, part-time jobs, and high prices for food and fuel. Several governments are now engaged in austerity measures, at the time when the public needs their services the most. And with continued financial speculation, we now face the possibility of a new global financial crisis, even though we have not even recovered from the last one.

 

[ralfyman]

Not only iks this false for the period given, it is obviously false in the full view of history. Do you really believe, for example, that Roman society was more egalitarian than modern society?

The comparison of inequality looks at the last two centuries. The Roman empire flourished more than two centuries ago.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Resource availability is measured in terms of content or mass. Some refer to carrying capacity or bio-capacity.

The rest of your points support my argument.

Physical dimensions cannot measure "carrying capacity’ except given assumptions that are violated with evey improvement in usage.

The phrase is meant to humanize, not dehumanize. That’s why it’s people before profits and not profits before people.

The intent is not to remove profit-making but to make sure that it serves humanity and not the other way round.

It is dehumanizing of shareholders, for example, to pretend that they are not persons whis is exactly what the marxist slogan does. It is sad to see the pope joining in the dehumanization of shareholders, even if that is not his intent.

Pope Francis illustrates it very clearly in his interview: the financial elite is enriching itself while the youth face unemployment.

Sadly, he only demontrates error.

Inflation of money supply is greed for painfully obvious reasons, especially given a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars.

Obvious only to those who seek to explain every economic and social problem by evul intent. In fact, though, the more pedestrian explanation of ignorance and honest error usually suffice.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The comparison of inequality looks at the last two centuries. The Roman empire flourished more than two centuries ago.

I take it you agree that that Roman society was more unequal. We can repeat this throught all of human history, which does not begin two centuries ago.

 

[mlz]

I agree with Francis. I live in Slovenia, European union and unemployment here is growing, most notably among our youth. There is a high chance that you won’t get a job, so you are forced to go working to another country.

That along with the new mentality among our young people is lethal. Younger generations are not so interested in marrying, creating a stable family, but instead they are more interested in having fun, living “free” and working as little as possible. Money is the god of our society, people want more and more, not caring about morals or common good. Individualism is destroying our world.

That being said, i believe that the global economy is on the brink of collapsing and that there is little chance of stopping it.

We must pray and fast…I know I am guilty of not taking this as seriously as I should, but I know our dear Lord will take care of us but through attrition I fear as this is the only way people will start to listen. Stay strong in the Lord and faithful to Him who is so faithful to us!
mlz

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem is that capitalist systems that served people in the past are not the same as the present system. We are looking at incredible levels of credit–more than a quadrillion dollars (notional value) in unregulated derivatives–and only a trillion dollars of that was needed to cause the 2008 crash.

I do agree that there is vast room for improvement and that there is an important place for compassion but a flawed analysis will not lead to an improvement and the propensity to ascribe every shortcoming to evil intent is problematic.

 

[faithsmind]

I have great reasons to mistrust the intentions of the Fed. First of all, the idea of a central bank is very undemocratic. Why is The People’s money being controlled by a private central bank, and not in the public control of the people’s vote?
This idea is very dangerous and deceptive, even communistic in it’s origins. It is not in true capitalistic spirit.
If I’m not mistaken, this private bank, called the Federal Reserve, prints money and then “disperses” it by buying US Treasury bonds. As a result, one of two things happen: inflation, or national debt. Nice. So instead of US Government being kept in check by The People if they, themselves were to print wads of cash for military expenses, the Fed takes the blame but makes a tidy profit off the bondage through interest. And the Fed remains out of reach of The People!
Am I wrong?

Also, why is it that the large majority of US Dollars are outside of the US?
Even if the pope was directly slamming capitalism, which I don’t believe he was, since there was no direct quote, but only interpretations in the cited link by Bubba. I believe the pope is simply referring to the system in control, which at heart, is truly not capitalistic (in the control of the private sector of individuals who should receive the direct benefits of their produce).

To Geddes; are you really for one world-wide government? This would essentially mean everyone would be forced to use one currency, which is terrifying to me. There is no way this would work, and even so, it could be potentially very dangerous if the wrong people obtained control.