Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

[Bubba_Switzler]

Another great article on the subject:

The pope is a very good man, and what very good men have in common with very bad men is that they tend to assume that the world is full of men who are similar to themselves. Thus, his rhetorical reliance upon “states, charged with vigilance for the common good,” an aspirational sentiment rather than a factual statement. States should act in the public good, but there is that problem of selfishness, which everybody sees in the market but overlooks in politics.

Political self-interest is no less selfish than is economic self-interest, and states have something more dangerous than even the most ruthless operator in a free market: coercion.

nationalreview.com/article/365100/problem-selfishness-kevin-d-williamson

 

[TRH1292]

Another great article on the subject:

nationalreview.com/article/365100/problem-selfishness-kevin-d-williamson

What an unbelievably arrogant article.

 

[seekerz]

Either a collection of individual decisions OR impersonal centralized power determines the fate of humanity.

I do not agree that it’s either the individual or centralized power determining humanity’s fate. The concept of a balance between the two strikes me as something quite workable. We need responsible government and we need well-informed responsible individuals both contributing towards the common good.

Perhaps it’s just the pragmatist in me: who does the good is not remotely as important as the fact that the good is done in a morally acceptable way.

Who decides what is fair? See the above. OTOH, how to decide what is fair is exceedingly easy on an individual level: is this something I would accept for those I love? On a governmental level, it has to rest on the best available objective evidence (as in demographics, levels of need, available resources etc)

 

[Crossbones]

This is the passage that refers to trickle-down economics.
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

I think instead of reading what others write about it; we should direct ourselves to the document itself.

 

[markomalley]

1. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

“derrame” means “spillover” (usually used for “trickle down”)

“Por sí mismo” means “by itself” not “inevitably”

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/evangelii-gaudium-54-trickle-down-economics-significant-translation-error-changed-meaning/

So if you translate por sí mismo properly, you end up with:
*In this context, some people continue to defend theories of “spillover” “trickle down economics”] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
*

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think instead of reading what others write about it; we should direct ourselves to the document itself.

While I applaud keeping the original text in view as the ultimate source, you are posing a false delimna. We can both read the original text and read what others are saying about it.

In fact, if you are reading the posts in this forum you are reading what others are saying about it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So if you translate por sí mismo properly, you end up with:
*In this context, some people continue to defend theories of “spillover” “trickle down economics”] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
*

Setting aside the use of the loaded term “trickle down economics”, which has animated so many, this passage can be broken down into two connected claims:

Some people (let’s not name names), believe that:

1. The natural workings of the free market, by itself, provide material abundance for all.
2. The provision of material abundance for all leads to greater justice and inclusivenss in the world.

Much of the discussion has centered on #1 with some supporting and some opposing the claim but it is interesting that there has been little discussion of the second.

The second is, essentially, a materialistic belief. Insofar as the pope is challenging #2 he is challenging one of the most basic assumptions of the welfare state.

My own opinions is that #1 is true and #2 is false and therefore the passage is a correct criticism not of free markets but of the welfare state.

 

[epan]

Setting aside the use of the loaded term “trickle down economics”, which has animated so many, this passage can be broken down into two connected claims:

Some people (let’s not name names), believe that:

1. The natural workings of the free market, by itself, provide material abundance for all.
2. The provision of material abundance for all leads to greater justice and inclusivenss in the world.

Much of the discussion has centered on #1 with some supporting and some opposing the claim but it is interesting that there has been little discussion of the second.

The second is, essentially, a materialistic belief. Insofar as the pope is challenging #2 he is challenging one of the most basic assumptions of the welfare state.

My own opinions is that #1 is true and #2 is false and therefore the passage is a correct criticism not of free markets but of the welfare state.

I guess Enron, Citibank, and AIG pretty much prove your point, right?

The results of economic and social Darwinism (unfettered free markets) can be nothing but catastrophic, in a “natural” state.

Francis is making, essentially, this same point. You might want to read what he is saying more closely.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I guess Enron, Citibank, and AIG pretty much prove your point, right?

The results of economic and social Darwinism (unfettered free markets) can be nothing but catastrophic, in a “natural” state.

Francis is making, essentially, this same point. You might want to read what he is saying more closely.

It’s sad that some choose not to engage in serious discussion of a serious subject.

My point that #1 is true is well proven by history. No amount of dressing up the liberation of billions from abject poverty by free markets in the dress of “social darwinism” will change that.

If you are looking for human tragedy, take a glance back at the history of unfettered governent.

Your assumption that if I only read Francis more closely I will forget the facts and drink the socialist koolaid is sophomoric.

 

[bilop]

I guess Enron, Citibank, and AIG pretty much prove your point, right?

The results of economic and social Darwinism (unfettered free markets) can be nothing but catastrophic, in a “natural” state.

Francis is making, essentially, this same point. You might want to read what he is saying more closely.

What was catastrophic about Enron, Citibank and AIG? Nobody died. Nobody was physically harmed?

A free market requires companies be allowed to go bankrupt. The only tragedy is that the Gov’t bailed out the banks using the taxpayers money to subsidize bondholders, shareholders, and executives.

The financial crisis, was caused by the misdeeds of many individuals: bankers, mortgage lenders, individual borrowers, regulators, politicians. Those individuals should have been made to bear the financial cost of their decisions, and when they acted criminally, they should have been prosecuted.

Not one person has gone to jail yet for the frauds they perpetrated. That’s the tragedy of the financial crisis, and that’s a failure of Gov’t, not the market.

Frankly, if the Gov’t wasn’t subsidizing these mortgage securities through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the crisis never could have happened.

God Bless

 

[Crossbones]

While I applaud keeping the original text in view as the ultimate source, you are posing a false delimna. We can both read the original text and read what others are saying about it.

In fact, if you are reading the posts in this forum you are reading what others are saying about it.

True enough. To rephrase: I would rather discuss what is in the document instead of what the talking heads of the US political (and their own personal slant) say about it. Let’s come to our own conclusions instead of relying on Rush Limbaugh, the National Review and Rachel Maddow to tell us what to think about it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

True enough. To rephrase: I would rather discuss what is in the document instead of what the talking heads of the US political (and their own personal slant) say about it. Let’s come to our own conclusions instead of relying on Rush Limbaugh, the National Review and Rachel Maddow to tell us what to think about it.

Yor rephrasing is still posing a false delimna. We can read/listen to others and draw our own conclusions. I can’t speak for ithers but the several articles I have posted more or less express my own conclusion more eloquently than I can. And in the case of Fr. Sirrico, I saw perspective that hadn’t even occured to me.

Unless you believe these sources are misquotin or misreading the pope, I can’t see why e should not include them in our discussion and in the process of forming our conclusions and our conscience.

 

[bilop]

True enough. To rephrase: I would rather discuss what is in the document instead of what the talking heads of the US political (and their own personal slant) say about it. Let’s come to our own conclusions instead of relying on Rush Limbaugh, the National Review and Rachel Maddow to tell us what to think about it.

I think the issue we really need to discuss is how, practically, we can reorder society to be more just economically.

Increased taxation and a bigger welfare state doesn’t do it. It just reduces people into dependency, and inflicts a huge host of sociological problems (foremost the disintegration of the family) on those people living perpetually on the dole. Furthermore, the really rich, always find ways to avoid taxation through clever lawyer, accountants, and bribing politicians to create tax loopholes.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Frankly, if the Gov’t wasn’t subsidizing these mortgage securities through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the crisis never could have happened.

Foreign governments held considerable control of both these agencies. Had Russia and China been allowed to follow through with their threats of selling off their holdings, it would have caused an unprecedented disaster on the entire world’s economy. One could use the argument that they should have proceeded with their threats, I suppose, but this is something that had taken 30-40 years to make; it didn’t occur overnight. The setting up of Fannie and Freddie should have never happened in the first place IMO but then we shouldn’t have been in $10+ trillion in debt either.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Setting aside the use of the loaded term “trickle down economics”, which has animated so many, this passage can be broken down into two connected claims:

Some people (let’s not name names), believe that:

1. The natural workings of the free market, by itself, provide material abundance for all.
2. The provision of material abundance for all leads to greater justice and inclusivenss in the world.

Much of the discussion has centered on #1 with some supporting and some opposing the claim but it is interesting that there has been little discussion of the second.

The second is, essentially, a materialistic belief. Insofar as the pope is challenging #2 he is challenging one of the most basic assumptions of the welfare state.

My own opinions is that #1 is true and #2 is false and therefore the passage is a correct criticism not of free markets but of the welfare state.

Perhaps your characterization of the way the passage can be “broken down” into the two contrasting perspectives you list is not something to be swallowed uncritically.

Perhaps there is also a large contingent of people who believe that a certain minimum standard of material SUSTENANCE (rather than ABUNDANCE) INCREASES THE ODDS of bringing about greater “justice and inclusiveness” in the world, rather than a priori guaranteeing it.

Perhaps it is possible that Francis recognizes and supports such a view, and that he has done so in this encyclical–that it is not a repudiation of the “welfare state,” but rather a repudiation of unbridled capitalism.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I think the issue we really need to discuss is how, practically, we can reorder society to be more just economically.

Increased taxation and a bigger welfare state doesn’t do it. It just reduces people into dependency, and inflicts a huge host of sociological problems (foremost the disintegration of the family) on those people living perpetually on the dole. Furthermore, the really rich, always find ways to avoid taxation through clever lawyer, accountants, and bribing politicians to create tax loopholes.

God Bless

This. Although I have seen a study that says that if you confiscated all the wealth of the top 1%, you’d only run the government for a matter of months.

I see the Holy Father saying that “soulless” (my word, not his) capitalism is the problem which, of course, it is.

The example that I can use is the health care companies (I’m a pharmacist). I get **x **now for each prescription that I fill. You would think that my reimbursement 10 or 20 years ago would have been 1/4x (say). Nope. It was almost 4x, ie I get reimbursed at 1/4 (if that) of what I used to. This while being saddled with new fees, taxes, etc. It just isn’t right. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change that (pharmacies are barred from collectively negotiating with insurance companies).

Having read a good portion, I can honestly say that I have no disagreement with the document. Perhaps a slightly clearer wording could have been used in spots, but it is a good document.

 

[ProVobis]

There is absolutely nothing I can do to change that (pharmacies are barred from collectively negotiating with insurance companies).

But you can negotiate individually, right?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

But you can negotiate individually, right?

Not reallly. We are presented contracts on a take it or leave it basis. There are a few that I have refused, but with the fluidity in the market, I am forced to take the others, or choose to shut my doors.

 

[Crossbones]

Yor rephrasing is still posing a false delimna. We can read/listen to others and draw our own conclusions. I can’t speak for ithers but the several articles I have posted more or less express my own conclusion more eloquently than I can. And in the case of Fr. Sirrico, I saw perspective that hadn’t even occured to me.

Unless you believe these sources are misquotin or misreading the pope, I can’t see why e should not include them in our discussion and in the process of forming our conclusions and our conscience.

If you want to include those in your discussion and you feel they articulate your view clearly, then they should be welcome. It would be additionally helpful if you explain why they articulate your point of view so well. But too often, it seems posters just throw stuff up there without comment that articulates a party-line point of view without directly commenting on the document itself (RE: the national review article) dragging any discussion to a halt.

 

[Crossbones]

I think the issue we really need to discuss is how, practically, we can reorder society to be more just economically.

Increased taxation and a bigger welfare state doesn’t do it. It just reduces people into dependency, and inflicts a huge host of sociological problems (foremost the disintegration of the family) on those people living perpetually on the dole. Furthermore, the really rich, always find ways to avoid taxation through clever lawyer, accountants, and bribing politicians to create tax loopholes.

God Bless

There are issues that can be addressed through the government. One is child support. Maybe it should be greater to lessen the poverty felt by family raised by a single parent. Maybe there should be stronger legal consequences for failure to fulfill court ordered obligations.

Another is a recognition that some corporate policies are not just amoral, but actually immoral and, furthermore, bad business practices. The Holy Father speaks of lay-offs to raise profits and stock price. That certainly does occur, but has anyone tried to say it is immoral before. Also, companies that have frequent lay-offs seem to underperform the market, so it isn’t even good business practice.

Just a few thoughts…