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

[mgoforth]

Two words can be used to describe the current state of material disorder in the USA:
**
BLACK FRIDAY**

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism, unless it is taken to its extreme, which we in the USA have done. Creating/buying goods, and then selling those goods for a profit, is a very good thing for both sides of the deal. It is when we seek insanely high profits, or when we do not care about anything but the bottom line, or when we do not allow human concerns to enter into the equation–that is when the Capitalism train leaves the track.

Capitalism, when used properly, increases personal freedom, increases personal dignity, increases the height of a nation’s economic engine that drives a push for more jobs, etc. Capitalism, when used improperly, leads to a loss of freedom, loss of dignity, and a loss of jobs. This is why companies and corporations (and this very nation) needs to permanently focus on God–only in that can we keep a healthy Capitalism on the tracks safely offering hope and help to all who would avail themselves of its produce.

Black Friday, especially its newest version of starting on Thanksgiving, is a symptom of a greater sickness–a nation devoid of real morals that only come from God/Jesus.

:yup::clapping::yup:

 

[ProVobis]

The Tea Party got plenty vocal enough right from its inception. They got people’s attention in a big way. I don’t remember them as quiet in any way.
They lost credibility not because they were too lax on government spending, but because the left wing did not like their message and labeled them as racist.

All’s I remember is how Hank Paulson, the one who had made billions with Goldmans Sachs after the repeal of Glass Steagall and then became Treasury Secretary, had to grovel in front of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker, asking her to pass the bailout. Judging by the fact that McCain and Palin defended the bailout, it is very probable a Republican Speaker would have accommodated Paulson or whoever his successor would be as well. So the questions are who’s left, who’s racist, who’s right, and where was the Tea Party after 9/11 when Greenspan become so accommodative.

 

[ProVobis]

The corrective to bad banking practices must be for the banks to not be rewarded for unsound lending practices. That is the ultimate safeguard.

Except that in practice, any disclosure of this would cause an avalanche of runs on saving deposits from this and all the remaining banks. This is what even the more successful banks fear. Banking like insurance is a unique industry and its relationship with the government is not so simple, as the Chinese representative commented in “Too Big to Fail.”

 

[seakelp]

I think the Pope is making a bigger point than just the mechanics of capitalism: he’s talking about the spirit of capitalism. Capitalism can be a tool for tremendous good: free trade, for example, is responsible for lifting millions out of poverty.

But the danger of capitalism lies in thinking that it is the only or is always the best solution to the world’s problems. Capitalism and market economics is a kind of science that presents the world in a certain light. It sees human beings as factors in a great calculus, which strips them of their dignity.

The problem is that this view can be taken outside of its proper context (i.e., in the calculations of economists) and be taken as a philosophical truth.

So, the Pope, I think, is reminding us that the free market should work for us, not for itself. And he is right to recognize that the market creates large gaps between rich and poor. We should make sure that market gains are distributed in some fashion to everyone.

 

[Darryl1958]

All’s I remember is how Hank Paulson, the one who had made billions with Goldmans Sachs after the repeal of Glass Steagall and then became Treasury Secretary, had to grovel in front of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker, asking her to pass the bailout. Judging by the fact that McCain and Palin defended the bailout, it is very probable a Republican Speaker would have accommodated Paulson or whoever his successor would be as well. So the questions are who’s left, who’s racist, who’s right, and where was the Tea Party after 9/11 when Greenspan become so accommodative.

The Tea Party was not there at the time of 9/11, so nobody remembers if from back then.
Or at least they shouldn’t. That would be a very creative form of remembering if they did.

It never arose beholden to the Republican party either, but at the time of the financial meltdown at the first Obama election, when the whole world was screaming for governments to do something, when *everybody *was asking for a bailout, the Tea Party said just the opposite.
That was quite a remarkable thing, actually. It is well worth remembering correctly.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Holy Father’s message is simply to think of others and put their good ahead of our own. That’s not so hard to do, but we seem to find ways to complicate it anyway.

I know. It starts with Catholics making excuses to support anti-Catholic platforms for their own selfish gain and then having the gall to think we are fooled by their intentions because we can’t read their minds telepathically.

 

[Darryl1958]

Except that in practice, any disclosure of this would cause an avalanche of runs on saving deposits from this and all the remaining banks. This is what even the more successful banks fear. Banking like insurance is a unique industry and its relationship with the government is not so simple, as the Chinese representative commented in “Too Big to Fail.”

That was the thinking at the time of the Bush bailout. A collapse of the banking system would entail an economic collapse.
It is a compassionate response in that regard, but to say that it represents unfettered capitalism or the working of a free market in any way is contrary to the definition of free enterprise.

 

[ProVobis]

That was the thinking at the time of the Bush bailout. A collapse of the banking system would entail an economic collapse. It is a compassionate response in that regard, but to say that it represents unfettered capitalism or the working of a free market in any way is contrary to the definition of free enterprise.

It wasn’t just thinking. Banks typically hold a small fraction of the total amount depositors hold. That’s why many chose to stuff their mattresses with cash. And as long as they weren’t getting much interest on it, why wouldn’t they want to withdraw (more) cash once they hear a crash is imminent and if they wait, the bank might even ration whatever they have of it? Or would you have preferred the banks withdraw some of their loans to cover this? Good luck there in the middle of a crisis, which btw, started some time before 2007. I’m not by any means condoning the bailouts; merely saying that the crisis could have been prevented, and not necessarily with government intervention. And while we’re talking deregulation, let’s take the Fed and their setting margins and interest rates out of the equation. That’s for the markets to decide, including the governments of Russia, China, Saudi Arabi, et al. Or should we command our government to regulate (or not regulate) investment by socialists, communists, dictators, etc of other countries? I know I’m broadening the definition of free enterprise, but how else can you make it work?

 

[SuperLuigi]

It wasn’t just thinking. Banks typically hold a small fraction of the total amount depositors hold. That’s why many chose to stuff their mattresses with cash. And as long as they weren’t getting much interest on it, why wouldn’t they want to withdraw (more) cash once they hear a crash is imminent and if they wait, the bank might even ration whatever they have of it? Or would you have preferred the banks withdraw some of their loans to cover this? Good luck there in the middle of a crisis, which btw, started some time before 2007. I’m not by any means condoning the bailouts; merely saying that the crisis could have been prevented, and not necessarily with government intervention. And while we’re talking deregulation, let’s take the Fed and their setting margins and interest rates out of the equation. That’s for the markets to decide, including the governments of Russia, China, Saudi Arabi, et al. Or should we command our government to regulate (or not regulate) investment by socialists, communists, dictators, etc of other countries? I know I’m broadening the definition of free enterprise, but how else can you make it work?

We should scale back our foreign aid. Western foreign aid in many cases has met with disastrous results.

Want to know what the SOP response to that is?

“We have a moral obligation to help other people” along with “European nation Z gives more as a % than we do, and that’s kinda embarrassing.”

The same people who want separation of church and state imposing their morality on the rest of us.

How ironic.

 

[ProVobis]

We should scale back our foreign aid. Western foreign aid in many cases has met with disastrous results.

Want to know what the SOP response to that is?

“We have a moral obligation to help other people” along with “European nation Z gives more as a % than we do, and that’s kinda embarrassing.”

The same people who want separation of church and state imposing their morality on the rest of us.

How ironic.

And here I thought “moral obligation” was paying what we owe. I would think that might be a good start.

 

[KSU]

Benedict XVI
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est,December 25, 2005, n. 28)​

These excerpts are from the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Hhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

QUOTE
347. The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]

1. Although the Church and the political community both manifest themselves in visible organizational structures, they are by nature different because of their configuration and because of the ends they pursue. The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867]…
   The duty to respect religious freedom requires that the political community guarantee the Church the space needed to carry out her mission. For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects thelegitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications. END QUOTE

---

Contrast the above style of writing with that of Pope Francis when writing about economics.

The current-day Moloch worshipers predictably wasted no time in using EG’s reference to “trickle-down” economics to attack the Church’s best friend in American politics-- Republican Conservatives. Even though EG is pastoral rather than doctrinal, this style of communications is becoming just as the pope predicted; “irksome”. I pray that is all it becomes as the 2014 elections approach.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict said in a New Year’s day homily

Although the world is sadly marked by “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism,” as well as by various forms of terrorism and crime, I am convinced that “the many different efforts at peacemaking which abound in our world testify to mankind’s innate vocation to peace.

en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/01/01/pope_on_new_years_day:_find_inner_peace_in_god/en1-652006

 

[_Abyssinia]

[Although the world is sadly marked by “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism,” as well as by various forms of terrorism and crime, I am convinced that “the many different efforts at peacemaking which abound in our world testify to mankind’s innate vocation to peace. In every person the desire for peace is an essential aspiration which coincides in a certain way with the desire for a full, happy and successful human life. In other words, the desire for peace corresponds to a fundamental moral principle, namely, the duty and right

url]http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/...years_day:_find_inner_peace_in_god/en1-652006
[/quote]

 

[_Abyssinia]

[Although the world is sadly marked by “hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism,” as well as by various forms of terrorism and crime, I am convinced that “the many different efforts at peacemaking which abound in our world testify to mankind’s innate vocation to peace. In every person the desire for peace is an essential aspiration which coincides in a certain way with the desire for a full, happy and successful human life. In other words, the desire for peace corresponds to a fundamental moral principle, namely, the duty and right

url]http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/...years_day:_find_inner_peace_in_god/en1-652006
[/quote]

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Benedict XVI
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est,December 25, 2005, n. 28)​

These excerpts are from the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Hhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

QUOTE
347. The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]

1. Although the Church and the political community both manifest themselves in visible organizational structures, they are by nature different because of their configuration and because of the ends they pursue. The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867]…
   The duty to respect religious freedom requires that the political community guarantee the Church the space needed to carry out her mission. For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects thelegitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications. END QUOTE

---

Contrast the above style of writing with that of Pope Francis when writing about economics.

The current-day Moloch worshipers predictably wasted no time in using EG’s reference to “trickle-down” economics to attack the Church’s best friend in American politics-- Republican Conservatives. Even though EG is pastoral rather than doctrinal, this style of communications is becoming just as the pope predicted; “irksome”. I pray that is all it becomes as the 2014 elections approach.

Perhaps Francis has no problem with the “political structures” of the American political community, merely with the outcomes of the actions of those structures, and the religious implications stemming therefrom.

 

[ProVobis]

The current-day Moloch worshipers predictably wasted no time in using EG’s reference to “trickle-down” economics to attack the Church’s best friend in American politics-- Republican Conservatives. Even though EG is pastoral rather than doctrinal, this style of communications is becoming just as the pope predicted; “irksome”. I pray that is all it becomes as the 2014 elections approach.

Church’s best friends? Like those proposing sanctions and military strikes against certain countries? (How many starved to death in Iraq?) Not to mention the love of being able to control U.S. currency, margin requirements, and the like?

 

[seekerz]

So wages should be determined by the number of dependents one has?

I believe we’ve been there in a different thread Estebob, wages have to take into account dependents but obviously, they cannot be individually tailored, so a reasonable minimum would be wages sufficient to at least equal, if not surpass, the poverty threshold for an average-sized family.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I believe we’ve been there in a different thread Estebob, wages have to take into account dependents but obviously, they cannot be individually tailored, so a reasonable minimum would be wages sufficient to at least equal, if not surpass, the poverty threshold for an average-sized family.

Based on how many hours a week?

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps Francis has no problem with the “political structures” of the American political community, merely with the outcomes of the actions of those structures, and the religious implications stemming therefrom.

More likely he was commenting on US politiical structures at l The US ranks far down the list of countries who don’t care for the poor In fact our poor would be considered middle class in most third world countries

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s true that Francis has scalding criticisms of dysfunctional capitalism as an end in itself. One has to consider that in the context of his front-row seat for the Argentinian version of it, where crony capitalism creates a huge distortion in the distribution of goods and the winners corrupt government to perpetuate those outcomes. Argentina hardly holds a monopoly on that development, though, and where gaps of inequality and poverty in these economies grow, criticism of those outcomes don’t make one a socialist. Indeed, Francis even includes a disclaimer against “an irresponsible populism,” even while blasting economies that “attempt to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded” in the same sentence.

For those familiar with Catholic teaching on economics, Pope Francis speaks in a consistent voice with his predecessors. The Catechism teaches on the tension between the “universal destination of goods” and the respect due to the right to private property and its disposition (paragraphs 2401-2449, especially). The former refers to the intent of God in granting all of humanity dominion over the entirety of Creation for the promulgation of the common good, and the necessity of respecting the responsible use of private ownership for the flourishing of the family and the community.

These concepts transcend ideology by focusing on outcomes over philosophical positions. The Church’s mission is to deal with the reality of those outcomes, with an emphasis on supporting the poor and the disenfranchised through the positive work of believers.

That’s the point that the media missed. Almost all of the coverage of the document failed to note the actual purpose of the apostolic exhortation, which was to evangelize in the real world. The criticisms of capitalism – and there are more than a few lines devoted to them – frame part of the challenges faced by those who wish to evangelize, especially those who make idols out of political or economic ideologies…

The central point for Catholics is to evangelize the Word of God through proclamation and service, and not “capitalism,” or “socialism,” or “utopianism.” Francis scolds governments for not structuring their economies better to prevent injustices, but the emphasis in Evangelii Gaudium is on individual action.

Finally, one has to consider just what this means for Catholics who see market-based economics as an overall benefit rather than a hindrance to human flourishing. History shows that properly-regulated use of private property in market-oriented systems delivers the fastest and broadest rise in living standards than any other system devised, especially centrally-controlled economies that produced massive disasters throughout the 20th century.

If Pope Francis takes dysfunctional capitalism to task in Evangelii Gaudium almost exclusively, that is a silent testament to the recent recognition of that historical track record and the discrediting of those monstrous command economies that created a lot worse evils than just poverty, although they produced more than their fair share of that as well.

In fact, as Ross Douthat noted in The New York Times this weekend, Catholicism has an answer for that point, too. Near the end of the exhortation, Francis notes that the state has a responsibility to promote the common good through “the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.” The key concept of subsidiarity in Catholic doctrine rejects Marxism and command economies, teaching that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order” (paragraph 1883).

news.yahoo.com/media-got-pope-comments-capitalism-110000187.html