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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdpreacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
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
Click to expand...
To late to edit. Should have said

More likely he was NOT commenting on US politiical structures at all 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/
 
ProVobis said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nearly 10-13 times as many that died in the war, due mostly to the Oil for Food Scandal, which was largely ignored because people were too busy bashing Bush.

Sanctions are permitted in Catholic teaching as a substitute for violence.
 
I haven’t had time to read through the entirety of this thread, but in the pages I have read I have not seen the first reference to Distributism, the political philosophy developed by such 20th century Catholic thinkers as Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton and based upon the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

In the first few pages of this thread, the division of opinion seemed to be at extremes: there seemed to be no thought of compromise between laissez faire capitalism and outright socialism. Pope Francis, I think it is safe to assume, being an ardent fan of Chesterton to the extent of even promoting his cause for canonization, more than likely holds distributist ideals himself.

Most of us have it pretty good here in the U.S. But that doesn’t mean that our system is altogether just. How many small business owners lose their livelihood and way of life at the hands of an unfettered corporate system? How many workers are being paid unjust wages simply because the near monopolization of certain industries leaves major employers without concern as to competitors offering better compensation?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
In the first few pages of this thread, the division of opinion seemed to be at extremes: there seemed to be no thought of compromise between laissez faire capitalism and outright socialism.
Click to expand...
My thoughts would be that there already is compromise. I know of no industrialized country that practices laissez faire capitalism.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I haven’t had time to read through the entirety of this thread, but in the pages I have read I have not seen the first reference to Distributism, the political philosophy developed by such 20th century Catholic thinkers as Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton and based upon the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

In the first few pages of this thread, the division of opinion seemed to be at extremes: there seemed to be no thought of compromise between laissez faire capitalism and outright socialism. Pope Francis, I think it is safe to assume, being an ardent fan of Chesterton to the extent of even promoting his cause for canonization, more than likely holds distributist ideals himself.

Most of us have it pretty good here in the U.S. But that doesn’t mean that our system is altogether just. How many small business owners lose their livelihood and way of life at the hands of an unfettered corporate system?
Click to expand...
I agree. The question the Pope is raising isn’t methodological per se: it’s about the results.

That is, I don’t think the Pope disagrees with the fundamental function of capitalism (to regulate resources). He disagrees with the false idolization of the market, and furthermore, with an uncaring attitude towards the poor that often emerges in very capitalists countries.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I haven’t had time to read through the entirety of this thread, but in the pages I have read I have not seen the first reference to Distributism, the political philosophy developed by such 20th century Catholic thinkers as Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton and based upon the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

In the first few pages of this thread, the division of opinion seemed to be at extremes: there seemed to be no thought of compromise between laissez faire capitalism and outright socialism. Pope Francis, I think it is safe to assume, being an ardent fan of Chesterton to the extent of even promoting his cause for canonization, more than likely holds distributist ideals himself.

Most of us have it pretty good here in the U.S. But that doesn’t mean that our system is altogether just. How many small business owners lose their livelihood and way of life at the hands of an unfettered corporate system? How many workers are being paid unjust wages simply because the near monopolization of certain industries leaves major employers without concern as to competitors offering better compensation?
Click to expand...
What you are talking about is crony capitalism and corporate welfare (ie too big to fail), which is practiced by the elite across the political spectrum.

Using government to redistribute wealth is a horrible idea that leads to poverty.
 
Brendan said:
My thoughts would be that there already is compromise. I know of no industrialized country that practices laissez faire capitalism.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things I’m trying to figure out.

Does the pope really believe that unfettered capitalism exists anywhere? Or was that hyperbole meant suggest that whatever the current balance, he thinks more government is the answer. Does he think that Peronism is laissez faire capitalism?

Naturally leftist Catholics are arguing for the later. For them, anything short of communism is laissez faire capitalism.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is one of the things I’m trying to figure out.

Does the pope really believe that unfettered capitalism exists anywhere? Or was that hyperbole meant suggest that whatever the current balance, he thinks more government is the answer. Does he think that Peronism is laissez faire capitalism?

Naturally leftist Catholics are arguing for the later. For them, anything short of communism is laissez faire capitalism.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Again, the argument veers to the extremes. Does anyone here even know what Distributism is? Hint: it is not communism (or socialism).

From the above article: Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,[7][8] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.[9] Thomas Storck argues that “both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life”.[10]
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is one of the things I’m trying to figure out.

Does the pope really believe that unfettered capitalism exists anywhere? Or was that hyperbole meant suggest that whatever the current balance, he thinks more government is the answer. Does he think that Peronism is laissez faire capitalism?

Naturally leftist Catholics are arguing for the later. For them, anything short of communism is laissez faire capitalism.
Click to expand...
That’s unfair, and about as helpful as saying that for conservative Catholics anything short of a Hobbesian state of nature is too socialist. 😛

The fact is, no one thinks we shouldn’t redistribute wealth in some ways. Everyone in the US (at least most everyone) believes we redistribute wealth by building public roads, public schools, public hospitals, creating some kind of social safety net, and generally providing services to individuals where the cost of that service to the individual exceeds their ability to pay.

The question is one of degree: how much redistribution do we want? And how much inequality are we willing to accept?
 
prodigalson2011 said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Again, the argument veers to the extremes. Does anyone here even know what Distributism is? Hint: it is not communism (or socialism).

From the above article: Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,[7][8] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.[9] Thomas Storck argues that “both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life”.[10]
Click to expand...
Distributism is not capitalism. It’s communism minus all the bad stuff. Beyond that it is not even a meaningful concept. I think we’ve spent more than enough time in these forums trying to pin it down but it’s easier to nail jello to the wall.

For anyone interested in learning more: intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/05/whats-wrong-with-distributism/
 
seakelp said:
That’s unfair, and about as helpful as saying that for conservative Catholics anything short of a Hobbesian state of nature is too socialist. 😛

The fact is, no one thinks we shouldn’t redistribute wealth in some ways. Everyone in the US (at least most everyone) believes we redistribute wealth by building public roads, public schools, public hospitals, creating some kind of social safety net, and generally providing services to individuals where the cost of that service to the individual exceeds their ability to pay.

The question is one of degree: how much redistribution do we want? And how much inequality are we willing to accept?
Click to expand...
What most people simply don’t understand is that the welfare state is a modern invention. Throughout most of the history of the Catholic Church the vehicle for aiding the poor was charity. Government construction of public roads, etc, is not redistribution of wealth.

Sadly, somewhere along the way, the Church was coopted by the welfare state.

Now many priests and bishops see their role as cheerleaders for more government “aid” to the poor which somehow manages never really to help them.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
What most people simply don’t understand is that the welfare state is a modern invention. Throughout most of the history of the Catholic Church the vehicle for aiding the poor was charity. Government construction of public roads, etc, is not redistribution of wealth.

Sadly, somewhere along the way, the Church was coopted by the welfare state.

Now many priests and bishops see their role as cheerleaders for more government “aid” to the poor which somehow manages never really to help them.
Click to expand...
I agree that the “welfare state” is a “modern” invention, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. As society becomes more productive and efficient and wealth begins to grow, it’s a natural thing for the government to take a greater interest in the well-being of its citizens.

Yes, too much welfare can cripple an economy and do more harm than good. But having too little redistribution results in too much inequality.

It seems that you’re not against redistributing wealth in principle, just in the manner in which wealth is redistributed. Why do you think the Church would more efficiently redistribute wealth compared to the government? Also, why should we favor private redistribution through charity over public redistribution through government programs (like road-building, education-providing, safety-net-creating measures)?
 
seakelp said:
I agree that the “welfare state” is a “modern” invention, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. As society becomes more productive and efficient and wealth begins to grow, it’s a natural thing for the government to take a greater interest in the well-being of its citizens.
Click to expand...
That is a non sequitor. The welfare state was first introduced by Otto von Bismarc for his own political purposes. And ever since it has served political purposes everywhere it has been introduced. Correspondingly the destruction of civil institutions such at the Church was a necessary political step in the ascendancy of the state over human affairs.
Yes, too much welfare can cripple an economy and do more harm than good. But having too little redistribution results in too much inequality.
Click to expand...
How much is too much? What is the problem of inequality that is being solved by redistribution (other than empowering politicians)?
It seems that you’re not against redistributing wealth in principle, just in the manner in which wealth is redistributed. Why do you think the Church would more efficiently redistribute wealth compared to the government? Also, why should we favor private redistribution through charity over public redistribution through government programs (like road-building, education-providing, safety-net-creating measures)?
Click to expand...
There several problems with welfare state redistribution (I won’t even bother to address communism):
  1. It empowers an uncaring bureaucracy and political class that then pursues it’s own agenda.
  2. It separates material and spiritual provision.
  3. It turns the virtue of charity into the right to live on the dole.
Church (and other nongovernmental) institutions do not suffer these grave defects.

Before you worry about efficiency worry about doing the right thing. It’s not good to do the wrong thing efficiently.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Nearly 10-13 times as many that died in the war, due mostly to the Oil for Food Scandal, which was largely ignored because people were too busy bashing Bush.

Sanctions are permitted in Catholic teaching as a substitute for violence.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing my point. I don’t think the Pope is speaking only to the U.S. here. It’s become a world economy, whether we like it or not. Governments are there to protect their respective interests, so one can cry keep my government out of business all they want but in the end this attempt will fail. Our days of having a hard asset standard among countries is long gone. Let’s not pretend or be arrogant enough to assume the U.S. being the money capital of the world is sustainable or even exists.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Before you worry about efficiency worry about doing the right thing. It’s not good to do the wrong thing efficiently.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of points in your post that I disagree with, but I’ll just stick to your final point.

We should worry about efficiency. You seem to agree that wealth redistribution is a good thing. We both think that the poor should be cared for. I don’t understand why you think it’s a bad idea to care for the poor as efficiently as possible. Carefully husbanding resources seems like a very, VERY good and prudent idea.

Are you and I essentially disagreeing on the most efficient manner of wealth redistribution? Or are we disagreeing with some moral principle? If so, can you identify it for me so we can discuss it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top