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

[seekerz]

Despite your protestations, you continue to show a preference, here and earlier, for big government as some mega-solution for all that ails society. When posters point out to you the greater efficiency and more direct efficacy of local efforts, you either change the subject or introduce off-topic subjects like zoning regulations, which have zero to do with adapting buildings to residential use in currently residential zones. I’m not sure if you just don’t want to deal with the reality that governments leave a lot to be desired as lone distributors to the needy, or whether you are just confused as to the subject under discussion.

The subjects under discussion are:
The moral dangers of runaway capitalism
The possibilities and limitations of government in providing for economic equality (i.e., topic of Pope’s address = inequality)

Shifting responsibility for the needy to the private sector (small organizations and individuals) does not subtract from the role of government in infrastructure, public works, zoning, and public safety. What would enhance such a shift would be the proper assistance of government in coordinating (not centralizing, big difference) and/or in other forms of cooperation between government and the private sector.

I remind you again, that every time members of the public have suggested more private involvement/initiative in works of charity, it is the Left, including the Catholic Left, which has vigorously opposed that and has advocated instead for expanded government as “charity.”

Look Elizabeth, we can have a reasonable discussion or we can not.

Zoning laws, transportation, housing, access to basic services…are not tangential to poverty they are central to the ability of people to find a job, keep a job or to subsist on what passes as wages in some companies

I recently watched a documentary where working families - nursing assistants and recreation park employees among them - were forced to live in a series of cheap, dangerous motels because of sky high rent, and have their children go to mobile school because they move so often. So how does govt responsibility for zoning, housing and education policies constitute a change of topic from the problems of relieving poverty that we were discussing? Or are people in such a situation not considered poor?

I live in the real world and experience the goodness and the selfishness of real people. Government is no better or worse than real people because it is a reflection of who we are. Historically speaking, I would have to go back to before the Roman empire to find societies where civic authorities did not tend to the common good. I would probably have to go back to Eden to find either government or private entities unencumbered by waste, corruption and/or inefficiency. So the question of whether it MUST be ***either government or charity *** only does one thing: it leaves me wondering what exactly lies at the root of this insistence.

 

[seekerz]

I hope it is obvious that JPII is quoting the Koran and showing parallels Christianity, not declarimg what “authentic” Islam is or is not. He is certainly not claiming that “authentic” Islam is nonviolent.

In fact, one can find nonviolent passages in the Koran but, in contrast to the Bible, which graduates toward nonviolence, the Koran graduates toward violence.

He is not just showing parallels he is showing the basic tenets by which these two faiths call us to holiness, the state to which we are all called by God.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t consider 54-56 to be a condemnation of capitalism. I think it says what I said before - we have to be aware of the worship of money; we can’t expect capitalism to solve all the problems of the poor and that the state has a role to play.

The “worship of money” cliche is something that has been mentioned in this thread but not much discussed. I’d sure like to know what constitutes “worship of money.” I think i could spot a worshiper of Baal.

I’d also like to know who is claiming that capitalism can solve all the problems of the poor. What advocates of free markets actually claim is that the poor are better off materially under capitalism than any alternative. Charity can improve upon that.

Finally, capitalism relies upon a foundation of law and justice that is historically provided by the state or king or chieftains or whatever.

As far as the Pope’s statement on Islam, I know some Muslims that say what the Pope said here, but Islam is a huge faith with many different facets. I wonder want a person to say that I am the same type of Christian as David Koresh.

If David Koresh is the worst example of Christianity then your argument fails utterly. See my comment above.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The “worship of money” cliche is something that has been mentioned in this thread but not much discussed. I’d sure like to know what constitutes “worship of money.” I think i could spot a worshiper of Baal.

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that there are many people in our society who put money above everything else. You may not be able to spot them easily, just as you may not spot adulterers easily, but that does not mean that they don’t exist. I used to work with a guy who put earning money above everything else. He was a terrible father, mainly because he was too stupid to know that you cannot buy love and respect from your kids. He makes a lot of money, but it clearly comes at a cost to him.

I’d also like to know who is claiming that capitalism can solve all the problems of the poor. What advocates of free markets actually claim is that the poor are better off materially under capitalism than any alternative. Charity can improve upon that.

I don’t think that there is really anything that the Pope said that any believer in free markets could disagree with.

Finally, capitalism relies upon a foundation of law and justice that is historically provided by the state or king or chieftains or whatever.

It also needs a level of trust.

 

[ProVobis]

The stock market crash in '87 isn’t really the present day either.

But we’re still living under uptick/downtick rules, stoppage of trade after 500 point drops (or whatever it is now), etc. And it seems like many of the rules bias the market upwards. That’s hardly free market.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that there are many people in our society who put money above everything else. You may not be able to spot them easily, just as you may not spot adulterers easily, but that does not mean that they don’t exist. I used to work with a guy who put earning money above everything else. He was a terrible father, mainly because he was too stupid to know that you cannot buy love and respect from your kids. He makes a lot of money, but it clearly comes at a cost to him.

The accusation is leveled very liberally, particularly by those who don’t really seem to understand money. I agree that there is a problem of people having disordered priorities. But singling out money is usually an indication of economic ignorance or rhetoical sloppiness.

Money is a tool. The vast majority of people pursue money as a means to the pursuit of other things such as luxury goods or prestige on the negatie side or family welfare or even charity on the positive side.

I’ll bet the coworker who was placing earning money above all else was not a miser accumulating money for its own sake but simply assuming that his most important contribution to his family is financial.

The “worshp of money” cliche is a gross distraction from real issues of choices in life.

I don’t think that there is really anything that the Pope said that any believer in free markets could disagree with.

This is what’s so odd. The pope has attacked straw men. So technically you are correct. The pope says that everyone who believes that free market capitalism automatially leads to social justice are idiots. Trouble is there are no such persons. He is simply repeating leftist slander. Leftists have gleefully seized on his words as attacks on real people offering real arguments.

It also needs a level of trust.

Indeed. Which is one reason why arbitrary government is so detrimental to capitalism. George Gilder has a great book on this.

 

[Crossbones]

The “worship of money” cliche is something that has been mentioned in this thread but not much discussed. I’d sure like to know what constitutes “worship of money.” I think i could spot a worshiper of Baal.

I’d also like to know who is claiming that capitalism can solve all the problems of the poor. What advocates of free markets actually claim is that the poor are better off materially under capitalism than any alternative. Charity can improve upon that.

Finally, capitalism relies upon a foundation of law and justice that is historically provided by the state or king or chieftains or whatever.

I don’t think we disagree very much here. We both seem to agree that the Pope’s comments are not a direct attack on capitalism, we both seem to agree that the capitalism cannot solve all the problems of the poor; I haven’t said so, but I think that charity will help improve the condition of the poor. The only thing we seem to disagree on is that I believe that the state has a function is assisting the poor and can do so effectively, and it seems that you do not (don’t want to put words in your mouth).

Idolatry of money…well, let me throw this real-life example at you. I once worked for a corporation and there was an employee of mine that suffered from diabetes and it affected his health and his ability to do his job. He was a proud man and tried to continue doing his job without assistance, but I tried to do little things to make things easier (rearrange the room he worked in for less walking around (he lost a big toe) and created a procedure for his work that I could double check in case he did something wrong; I would catch it). Now, through the usual reorgs, he no longer worked for me, but there came a point where the company did layoffs and he was laid off. Now, I protested pretty strongly, as his health affected his job performance and he should have been told that he needed to go on disability. But that was more expensive. I consider what happened immoral.

I didn’t last much longer there.

So you ask what it is - to me, that’s what it is. An ill, suffering man was hurt because the money was more important than the right thing. Worship of money vs watching out for a fellow human being who was suffering.

 

[Trader]

I have yet to see a problem with anything Pope Francis has said, but there have been problems with what he has been reported to say.

If you actually read the last 100+ years of papal social teaching you will find it very balanced, but people with extreme positions on both sides ignore about half of it. For instance, past popes have taught that workers have the right to bargain collectively, but should do so for the common good and avoid excessive political involvement.

I am very supportive of market based economies because markets are the very best way to discover prices, that is, the point where supply meets demand. Market prices give clear signals of consumer demand and which goods should be produced to meet human needs, but markets never saved anyone’s soul. When markets operate in harmony with the moral law revealed to Moses, but also written into our very human nature, very few human needs go unmet.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say I hear 100 claims of some right for every time I hear someone acknowledge a responsibility. That is not the balanced stance in the Church’s social teaching.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say I hear 100 claims of some right for every time I hear someone acknowledge a responsibility. That is not the balanced stance in the Church’s social teaching.

My own opinion is that the Parable of the Talents is the most undervalued of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus did not admonish the servants for “worshiping money” or for the inequality of their relative situations. Rather, he held all of them to a account and made an example of the least of them.

We can only imagine how the parable might be retold today. The master would probably punish the first servant for not sharing with the others and excuse the least servant from any expectations.

 

[Trader]

My own opinion is that the Parable of the Talents is the most undervalued of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus did not admonish the servants for “worshiping money” or for the inequality of their relative situations. Rather, he held all of them to a account and made an example of the least of them.

We can only imagine how the parable might be retold today. The master would probably punish the first servant for not sharing with the others and excuse the least servant from any expectations.

You are probably right. The faithful servant today would be expected to share what belonged to his master with his friends, with no expectation of sharing his own talents with people he did not know personally.

My own nomination for most undervalued teaching would be the story of the woman caught in adultery. Today the story would be 100% “I do not condemn you” and 0% “from now on avoid this sin.”

 

[ishii]

 I am suggesting, that no charity I know of can impact all the environmental, political and social factors which contribute to poverty in the way that government policies can (for example infrastructure, zoning laws, education, housing standards, health care access).

I am with you to a point: the government is in a position to contribute to the public good - at the lowest level in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. The further removed the government is, the less good it does and also less accountable it is, imo. As you might guess, I’m not big of big federal government programs. That does not mean that I don’t recognize a need for government to be involved in dealing with some problems.

The “we have spent so much but still have not eliminated poverty” argument totally eludes me. Why doesn’t this same argument seem to apply to ANY of the other issues we are happy to tackle everyday from generation to generation? Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, we have spent billions (make that trillions) of dollars on research and medicine yet we have not eliminated disease! Maybe health insurance creates dependency among the sick…?

Seekerz. your analogy is false. I never made the argument that the measure of govt. success must be complete 100% success in solving the problem it sets out to solve. But I don’t think its unreasonable to demand that the government not make things worse - which I believe it did with all the war on poverty programs of the 60’s that encouraged illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family, dependance on government, etc. Getting back to your analogy, if we spend billions on research of a medicine to cure cancer the effect was to increase the numbers of people with cancer, then I’d argue it was not money well spent.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

A wise old man once counseled me that much is expected from the one who is given much. Why is it such a wonder that the person who has more should be expected to contribute more?

The people with more money do contribute more. Or are you denying that 40% of a million dollars is the same or less than 40% of $30,000? The problem with increased wealth confiscation is that at some point, people will either find a way to hide their money, or, they will be discouraged from trying to earn or make a lot of money. Perhaps that ultimately is what the left wants - everyone to be forced into equality. Except the elites in government calling the shots, right?

Ishii

 

[StudentMI]

I am with you to a point: the government is in a position to contribute to the public good - at the lowest level in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. The further removed the government is, the less good it does and also less accountable it is, imo. As you might guess, I’m not big of big federal government programs.

I find this passage in the Compendium interesting.

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

Bolded by me. I personally think decentralization is essential to well-functioning government.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU on Dec 5th
Last night, Lauren Green, Chief Religion Correspondent for the Fox News Channel, appeared on the Brit Baier News program to slam Limbaugh [concerning the pope]. It was a disgrace, but not a surprise when it comes to Green.

What was the story about? Is there a video on the Fox news or Fox insider website? Regarding what Rush Limbaugh said about Pope Francis?

I don’t have a Fox News account, so I can’t log in. But if you do, here is what may be the video of her December 4th hit piece on Limbaugh I saw during the Bret Baier Special Report program:
video.foxnews.com/v/2895768237001/rush-misinterpreting-pope-francis-comments-on-money/?playlist_id=929831905001#

See also,
aim.org/aim-column/obama-operative-masquerades-as-catholic-expert/

According to Michael Voris, Green stabbed him in the back some time ago in re an appearance on Fox; she stopped it.

 

[ishii]

Look Elizabeth, we can have a reasonable discussion or we can not.

transportation, housing, access to basic services…are not tangential to poverty they are central to the ability of people to find a job, keep a job or to subsist on what passes as wages in some companies

Are you saying that the government owes everyone a car and a house? A bus pass and a condo? An apartment? A crime-ridden, dumpy, depressing complex of apartments? (government “housing” tends to end up being just that).

I recently watched a documentary where working families - nursing assistants and recreation park employees among them - were forced to live in a series of cheap, dangerous motels because of sky high rent, and have their children go to mobile school because they move so often. So how does govt responsibility for zoning, housing and education policies constitute a change of topic from the problems of relieving poverty that we were discussing? Or are people in such a situation not considered poor?

I live in the real world and experience the goodness and the selfishness of real people. Government is no better or worse than real people because it is a reflection of who we are. Historically speaking, I would have to go back to before the Roman empire to find societies where civic authorities did not tend to the common good. I would probably have to go back to Eden to find either government or private entities unencumbered by waste, corruption and/or inefficiency. So the question of whether it MUST be ***either government or charity *** only does one thing: it leaves me wondering what exactly lies at the root of this insistence.

The problem, Seekerz, is that the overall tone and argument of your posts betray a seeming love for good old government solutions to people’s problems. In fact, government IS the problem in many cases. Did you know that one of the biggest indicators of poverty is being single/unmarried? Did you know, Seekerz, that the federal govt. welfare programs helped facilitate the rise in illegitimacy rates by encouraging unwed mothers to have more children = get more welfare? You tell me who has the better interests of the poor in Portland, Oregon - a bureaucrat working Washington DC, or a private charity operating in Portland, Oregon?

That’s too bad about the park employee with family. Something tells me though, that there is much more going on in their lives, which contribute to their inability to make a good living and get by than the mere absence of the kind of govt. you’re advocating. A welfare check might help for a while, but you create a dependent class, and you also eventually run out of others’ money.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I find this passage in the Compendium interesting.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

Bolded by me. I personally think decentralization is essential to well-functioning government.

Thanks for the quote. I too believe that govt. decentralization is best. Smaller is better, in general - for businesses too.

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

Thank you for making my point for me. Always a pleasure…

I don’t think you understand:

You were using the legitimate (although ideally those functions could be privatized) government function to try and show that as some kind of charity.

That’s not charity, that’s doing a job you’re expected to do.

I think you were just using that to diminish the role of private charity, but you were comparing apples and oranges.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The problem, Seekerz, is that the overall tone and argument of your posts betray a seeming love for good old government solutions to people’s problems. In fact, government IS the problem in many cases. Did you know that one of the biggest indicators of poverty is being single/unmarried? Did you know, Seekerz, that the federal govt. welfare programs helped facilitate the rise in illegitimacy rates by encouraging unwed mothers to have more children = get more welfare? You tell me who has the better interests of the poor in Portland, Oregon - a bureaucrat working Washington DC, or a private charity operating in Portland, Oregon?

Anytime you subsidize something, you’re going to get more of it. If you subsidize single motherhood, you’re going to get more single moms.

When Georgia passed a state law allowing teenage moms to move out and provided them with housing assistance and such, lo and behold, young girls were actually trying to get pregnant just to move out from under Mom and Dad’s roof.

 

[freeRadical]

Anytime you subsidize something, you’re going to get more of it. If you subsidize single motherhood, you’re going to get more single moms.

When Georgia passed a state law allowing teenage moms to move out and provided them with housing assistance and such, lo and behold, young girls were actually trying to get pregnant just to move out from under Mom and Dad’s roof.

Another problem with subsidization is the more you subsidize something the more the price of the thing subsidized seems to rise. Just look at the price of college tuition. College was way more affordable before the government started subsidizing it.

 

[KSU]

Anytime you subsidize something, you’re going to get more of it. If you subsidize single motherhood, you’re going to get more single moms. /QUOTE]

This will tell you how old I am: I once heard a Catholic priest say the very same thing from the pulpit.