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

[KSU]

In this debate you’ve not countered any arguments, only created straw men, and misunderstood a great number of things. Your strange link to a dictionary is a story in itself, as stated earlier.

Again you miss the point entirely (even though it’s made abundantly clear in my post) by claiming that I’m refering to Krugman, when the entire point had nothing to do with whether his article was accurate or not. Rather I noted that the article used the same translation for the same term as the Vatican did six years later. Though to you it’s probably part of some giant conspiracy.

In other words, the only one not debating in good faith seems to be you.

I know I’ll be sorry for responding to you, but I’ll try this again. First, if you want to debate by swapping links, your links must work. This doesn’t, viz: [http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391](http://http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391)

Second, my link dictionary.reverso.net/spanis…ame%20cerebral does work (give it a few seconds), and it utterly destroys your argument, which is that, according to you, the Spanish word “derrame” in the pope’s Exhortation means “trickle-down.” Use my link for the English meaning of the Spanish word derrame.

The closest English equivalent, “spillover”, makes sense and does not require a transgression of the Compendium; e.g., 424…QUOTE For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate 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

More, importantly, Randomname, “spillover” is the choice of experts in Spanish as spoken in Argentina, not some article by a U. S. Socialist.

And speaking of Krugman, I thought this was amusing:

CP: MSNBC host Chris Matthews compared Pope Francis to a conservative Democrat in American politics, meaning he will be conservative on abortion and marriage and liberal on economic issues. Is that a helpful way to think about the new pope?

Weigel: No. It’s a stupid way to think about this pope or any pope, but it’s the way that people who can’t think in anything other than political categories try to seem clever in discussing the Catholic Church. If Chris Matthews thinks that Pope Francis is going to be Paul Krugman in a white cassock, he is likely to be sorely disappointed. And, while we’re at it, there’s nothing “conservative” about the Catholic Church’s settled teaching on the right to life (a deeply feminist position) or marriage (a true “liberal” position, in the sense that classic liberalism understood the limits of what states can do – and states can’t decide that Adam can “marry” Steve any more than they can repeal the law of gravity). christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-is-an-evangelical-catholic-catholic-theologian-says-92247/

 

[Randomname]

I know I’ll be sorry for responding to you, but I’ll try this again. First, if you want to debate by swapping links, your links must work. This doesn’t, viz: [http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391](http://http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391)

Second, my link dictionary.reverso.net/spanis…ame%20cerebral does work (give it a few seconds), and it utterly destroys your argument, which is that, according to you, the Spanish word “derrame” in the pope’s Exhortation means “trickle-down.” Use my link for the English meaning of the Spanish word derrame.

The closest English equivalent, “spillover”, makes sense and does not require a transgression of the Compendium; e.g., 424…QUOTE For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate 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

More, importantly, Randomname, “spillover” is the choice of experts in Spanish as spoken in Argentina, not some article by a U. S. Socialist.

And speaking of Krugman, I thought this was amusing:

CP: MSNBC host Chris Matthews compared Pope Francis to a conservative Democrat in American politics, meaning he will be conservative on abortion and marriage and liberal on economic issues. Is that a helpful way to think about the new pope?

Weigel: No. It’s a stupid way to think about this pope or any pope, but it’s the way that people who can’t think in anything other than political categories try to seem clever in discussing the Catholic Church. If Chris Matthews thinks that Pope Francis is going to be Paul Krugman in a white cassock, he is likely to be sorely disappointed. And, while we’re at it, there’s nothing “conservative” about the Catholic Church’s settled teaching on the right to life (a deeply feminist position) or marriage (a true “liberal” position, in the sense that classic liberalism understood the limits of what states can do – and states can’t decide that Adam can “marry” Steve any more than they can repeal the law of gravity). christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-is-an-evangelical-catholic-catholic-theologian-says-92247/

Not as sorry as I am for having to reply to yet another round of non-sequiturs.

(Your only marginally valid point is that I got the link wrong. I decided not to fix it, as I thought the real name would be obvious. Though as you twice totally misunderstood/distorted the meaning of the link, it doesn’t really matter. But here goes: [s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391](http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391)

As for the *spillover *part, the two concepts are obviously related. While your opinion seems firmly set, I will provide a few more pieces of evidence. From an Argentinian university:Teoría del derrame. (en inglés: Trickle-down effect
mdp.edu.ar/index.php?key=4993

From a strongly economically right-wing page: The English-edition term “trickle-down theories” is translated from the Spanish, “teoria del derrame.” “Derrame” means a slow leak, hence a trickle, and so the English translation is accurate. The translated term “free market” is more literally “the liberty of the market” in the original Spanish, but* the meaning is the same**.* http://notesonliberty.com/2013/12/15/pope-francis-on-economics/

Even this very Conservative/Republican Catholic, who (laughably) implies that a conspiracy must be behind some of the translation, does not disagree that it refers to Trickle-down theories in itself (like you did when you called it a “marxist phrase”). catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

As for the discussion between Matthews (a TV pundit I believe?) and some other guy, it doesn’t really interest me, nor is it particularly relevant (though obviously calling the Pope’s views that of a “conservative Democrat” is strange, and just shows a parochialism that I fear is rather common in the U.S.).

 

[Randomname]

I know I’ll be sorry for responding to you, but I’ll try this again. First, if you want to debate by swapping links, your links must work. This doesn’t, viz: [http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391](http://http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/te…ex.php?id=1391)

Second, my link dictionary.reverso.net/spanis…ame%20cerebral does work (give it a few seconds), and it utterly destroys your argument, which is that, according to you, the Spanish word “derrame” in the pope’s Exhortation means “trickle-down.” Use my link for the English meaning of the Spanish word derrame.

The closest English equivalent, “spillover”, makes sense and does not require a transgression of the Compendium; e.g., 424…QUOTE For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate 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

More, importantly, Randomname, “spillover” is the choice of experts in Spanish as spoken in Argentina, not some article by a U. S. Socialist.

And speaking of Krugman, I thought this was amusing:

CP: MSNBC host Chris Matthews compared Pope Francis to a conservative Democrat in American politics, meaning he will be conservative on abortion and marriage and liberal on economic issues. Is that a helpful way to think about the new pope?

Weigel: No. It’s a stupid way to think about this pope or any pope, but it’s the way that people who can’t think in anything other than political categories try to seem clever in discussing the Catholic Church. If Chris Matthews thinks that Pope Francis is going to be Paul Krugman in a white cassock, he is likely to be sorely disappointed. And, while we’re at it, there’s nothing “conservative” about the Catholic Church’s settled teaching on the right to life (a deeply feminist position) or marriage (a true “liberal” position, in the sense that classic liberalism understood the limits of what states can do – and states can’t decide that Adam can “marry” Steve any more than they can repeal the law of gravity). christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-is-an-evangelical-catholic-catholic-theologian-says-92247/

Not as sorry as I am for having to reply to yet another round of non-sequiturs.

(Your only marginally valid point is that I got the link wrong. I decided not to fix it, as I thought the real name would be obvious. Though as you twice totally misunderstood/distorted the meaning of the link, it doesn’t really matter. But here goes: [s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391](http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391) )

As for the *spillover *part, the two concepts are obviously related. While your opinion seems firmly set, I will provide a few more pieces of evidence. From an Argentinian university:Teoría del derrame. (en inglés: Trickle-down effect
mdp.edu.ar/index.php?key=4993

From a strongly economically right-wing page: The English-edition term “trickle-down theories” is translated from the Spanish, “teoria del derrame.” “Derrame” means a slow leak, hence a trickle, and so the English translation is accurate. The translated term “free market” is more literally “the liberty of the market” in the original Spanish, but* the meaning is the same**.* notesonliberty.com/2013/12/15/pope-francis-on-economics

Even this very Conservative/Republican Catholic, who (laughably) implies that a conspiracy must be behind some of the translation, does not disagree that it refers to Trickle-down theories in itself (like you did when you called it a “marxist phrase”). catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

As for the discussion between those two guys, it doesn’t really interest me, nor is it particularly relevant (though obviously calling the Pope’s views that of a “conservative Democrat” is strange, and just shows a parochialism that I fear is rather common in the U.S.).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If I am wealthy and give to the poor, how does that not reduce inequaliity? In other words, how does not result in me having less and the poor having more?

Let’s dive into this with seriousness and not rest on sloppy rhetoric.

First, we have to be clear about what we mean by inequality. Here are some candidates:

• income inequality
• consumption inequality
• wealth inequality
• happiness/satisfaction inequality
• natural inequality (i.e. skills, ability, good looks)

Of these, only one is going to be affected in your above transaction: consumption inequality. But when the pope spoke most precisely about inequality he was talking about salaries, not consumption. Now matter how much of your salary you give to the poor it will not reduce salary inequality.

Next we have to consider what population we are measuring. Are we talking about your town? Your state? Your country? Worldwide? The reason this is important is because poor by local standards may be rich by international standards. To give a simple example, next to Bill Gates, you are a pauper. Next to those laboring in Chinese factores, you are a rich man. But they are rich compared to those living in the slums of Calcutta. Helping poor Americans doesn’t do much for international inequality.

Further, if we take at face value the claims of some politicians, helping the poor in America benefits the economy which make international inequality actually worse. I don’t believe those politicians but then I don’t believe most of the claims about inequality and it’s “solutions”.

Here is another good article on the subject:

nationalreview.com/article/366599/inequality-does-not-matter-kevin-d-williamson

 

[ishii]

Let’s dive into this with seriousness and not rest on sloppy rhetoric.

First, we have to be clear about what we mean by inequality. Here are some candidates:

• income inequality
• consumption inequality
• wealth inequality
• happiness/satisfaction inequality
• natural inequality (i.e. skills, ability, good looks)

Of these, only one is going to be affected in your above transaction: consumption inequality. But when the pope spoke most precisely about inequality he was talking about salaries, not consumption. Now matter how much of your salary you give to the poor it will not reduce salary inequality.

Next we have to consider what population we are measuring. Are we talking about your town? Your state? Your country? Worldwide? The reason this is important is because poor by local standards may be rich by international standards. To give a simple example, next to Bill Gates, you are a pauper. Next to those laboring in Chinese factores, you are a rich man. But they are rich compared to those living in the slums of Calcutta. Helping poor Americans doesn’t do much for international inequality.

Further, if we take at face value the claims of some politicians, helping the poor in America benefits the economy which make international inequality actually worse. I don’t believe those politicians but then I don’t believe most of the claims about inequality and it’s “solutions”.

Here is another good article on the subject:

nationalreview.com/article/366599/inequality-does-not-matter-kevin-d-williamson

Excellent post Bubba Switzler. Way to challenge the simplistic platitudes with substantive points.

Ishii

 

[KSU]

(Your only marginally valid point is that I got the link wrong. I decided not to fix it, as I thought the real name would be obvious. Though as you twice totally misunderstood/distorted the meaning of the link, it doesn’t really matter. But here goes: [s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391](http://www.s(name removed by moderator)ermiso.info/textos/index.php?id=1391)

As for the *spillover *part, the two concepts are obviously related. While your opinion seems firmly set, I will provide a few more pieces of evidence. From an Argentinian university:Teoría del derrame. (en inglés: Trickle-down effect
mdp.edu.ar/index.php?key=4993 …

Your sources for saying derrame means trickle-down are an old Spanish-language article by a Capitalism-hating U.S. Socialist (who of course would use an anti-Republican derogatory term) and an old Spanish-language article by an unknown author under the name of some Argentinean university. That carries no weight when compared to the objective sources provided by Ender and Brendan and Catholic Culture’s very objective Phil Lawler and an objective Spanish-English dictionary, as well as the Compendium’s prohibition.

Accordingly, you will have to find someone else to argue with about derrame.

In the meantime, you won’t enjoy these excerpts from what Bishop James D. Conley wrote in NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE :

QUOTE Among other things, the pope critiques the belief that unregulated free markets will ‘inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world’… Most reasonable conservative leaders recognize the value of limited government regulation, even in mostly free markets, as essential for protecting the most vulnerable.

Evangelii Gaudium did not reject capitalism, or even particular market theories [SUCH AS TRICKLE-DOWN, MY EDIT]. Instead, it rejected idolatry of any economic system as a panacea, and it called Catholics to human solidarity in the context of public policy. The pope affirmed that markets must be understood and administered in justice, with due regard for the sovereignty and solidarity of families and human dignity. Pope Benedict XVI presented similar ideas in depth in 2009, as did Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine. Evangelii Gaudium’s economic message was particularly powerful because it called all of us to consider the consequences of our own financial decisions… Pope Francis is not calling for an advent of socialist economic policy or radical income redistribution. The Holy Father has lived through Latin America’s 50-year cycle of extremist economic policies. He’s calling for moderation, for freedom, and above all, for virtue… END QUOTE nationalreview.com/node/365197/print

 

[stinkcat_14]

Let’s dive into this with seriousness and not rest on sloppy rhetoric.

First, we have to be clear about what we mean by inequality. Here are some candidates:

• income inequality
• consumption inequality
• wealth inequality
• happiness/satisfaction inequality
• natural inequality (i.e. skills, ability, good looks)

Of these, only one is going to be affected in your above transaction: consumption inequality. But when the pope spoke most precisely about inequality he was talking about salaries, not consumption. Now matter how much of your salary you give to the poor it will not reduce salary inequality.

Next we have to consider what population we are measuring. Are we talking about your town? Your state? Your country? Worldwide? The reason this is important is because poor by local standards may be rich by international standards. To give a simple example, next to Bill Gates, you are a pauper. Next to those laboring in Chinese factores, you are a rich man. But they are rich compared to those living in the slums of Calcutta. Helping poor Americans doesn’t do much for international inequality.

Further, if we take at face value the claims of some politicians, helping the poor in America benefits the economy which make international inequality actually worse. I don’t believe those politicians but then I don’t believe most of the claims about inequality and it’s “solutions”.

Here is another good article on the subject:

nationalreview.com/article/366599/inequality-does-not-matter-kevin-d-williamson

None of which refutes my point, that if I am giving to the poor, it is by definition redistributive. If may be redistribution from my wealth to someone else’s consumption. But it is redistribution nonetheless. Of course it is not government redistribution, although all government spending is by definition redistribution. We are called as Christians to help the poor and there is no way to do that which does not involve at least some redistribution.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

None of which refutes my point, that if I am giving to the poor, it is by definition redistributive. If may be redistribution from my wealth to someone else’s consumption. But it is redistribution nonetheless. Of course it is not government redistribution, although all government spending is by definition redistribution. We are called as Christians to help the poor and there is no way to do that which does not involve at least some redistribution.

If you move your chair from your desk to your kitchen table that’s redistributive. But it won’t affect income inequality. So if you just like redistriburting things, go ahead. But if you are claiming we must reduce inequality, see my earlier points.

Focusing on inequality and redistribution is wrong for all the reaons I noted even when we leave government out of it but especially when it is involved as the article I cited showed.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If you move your chair from your desk to your kitchen table that’s redistributive. But it won’t affect income inequality. So if you just like redistriburting things, go ahead. But if you are claiming we must reduce inequality, see my earlier points.

Focusing on inequality and redistribution is wrong for all the reaons I noted even when we leave government out of it but especially when it is involved as the article I cited showed.

We are called to help the poor. If you can figure out a way to do that without any sacrifice on the part of those of us who are the wealthy of the world then God bless you.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We are called to help the poor. If you can figure out a way to do that without any sacrifice on the part of those of us who are the wealthy of the world then God bless you.

There is no great mystery there, the way to do that is free market capitalism.

I’m not saying that there is no place for charity but even in the case of charity the criteria is to help those in need, not to redistribute suffering much less punish.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There is no great mystery there, the way to do that is free market capitalism.

Not quite. I have friends in a less developed country. And while free market capitalism is a great thing, if you have little education it makes it much more difficult to participate in and benefit from free market capitalism. If there is no transportation infrastructure, free market capitalism does not work as well. If there is no access to capital markets, free market capitalism will not work as well. The problem with american capitalists is that we were born on third base and we think we hit a triple. One of the reasons why I have done so well in the economy over the past thirty years is that about 80 years ago a bunch of catholics sacrificed to build a Catholic school where I lived. Without that school, I would be much less successful. That school came not from the market but from other people sacrifice.

I’m not saying that there is no place for charity but even in the case of charity the criteria is to help those in need, not to redistribute suffering much less punish.

Do I suffer when I give to the poor?

 

[freeRadical]

Do I suffer when I give to the poor?

That’s not the question to ask. The question to ask is do people who are forced to give to the poor suffer?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Not quite. I have friends in a less developed country. And while free market capitalism is a great thing, if you have little education it makes it much more difficult to participate in and benefit from free market capitalism. If there is no transportation infrastructure, free market capitalism does not work as well. If there is no access to capital markets, free market capitalism will not work as well. The problem with american capitalists is that we were born on third base and we think we hit a triple. One of the reasons why I have done so well in the economy over the past thirty years is that about 80 years ago a bunch of catholics sacrificed to build a Catholic school where I lived. Without that school, I would be much less successful. That school came not from the market but from other people sacrifice. Do I suffer when I give to the poor?

See China and India for the latest examples of exactly such a transformation of undeveloped, uneducated poor as you dismiss with the example of your friends. We may have been born on third base but our ancestors were not. Quite, indeed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s not the question to ask. The question to ask is do people who are forced to give to the poor suffer?

Yes, in fact an even better question is whether the purpose of forced redistribution is to help the poor or to punish the rich. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the later.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That’s not the question to ask. The question to ask is do people who are forced to give to the poor suffer?

Who said anything about forcing people to give?

 

[ishii]

 Not quite.  I have friends in a less developed country.  And while free market capitalism is a great thing, if you have little education it makes it much more difficult to participate in and benefit from free market capitalism.  If there is no transportation infrastructure, free market capitalism does not work as well.  If there is no access to capital markets, free market capitalism will not work as well.  The problem with american capitalists is that we were born on third base and we think we hit a triple.  One of the reasons why I have done so well in the economy over the past thirty years is that about 80 years ago a bunch of catholics sacrificed to build a Catholic school where I lived.  Without that school, I would be much less successful.  That school came not from the market but from other people sacrifice.

But you have to understand that it takes a developed, sophisticated free market so that those who attend the Catholic school have the opportunities to do so well, as you have. If you built that school in the southern hemisphere or in a lot of other countries, the students might not have benefited the way you did. It was the quality of the American system which allowed you to use the education you received and flourish. Also, you need to understand that revenue to build and maintain the infrastructure comes from the taxes levied upon people with wealth, among other things.

Do I suffer when I give to the poor?

If we aren’t suffering, or made a little more uncomfortable when we give to the poor, then we aren’t doing enough, imo. If we are merely giving part of our surplus, then we aren’t giving enough. I say that not to point fingers but more to make the point that the Church calls us to give to the poor and be charitable. It starts with me of course. I understand that. I suppose this doesn’t really speak to the conversation between you and Bubba Switzler.

 

[freeRadical]

Who said anything about forcing people to give?

Isn’t that what redistribution is?

 

[stinkcat_14]

But you have to understand that it takes a developed, sophisticated free market so that those who attend the Catholic school have the opportunities to do so well, as you have. If you built that school in the southern hemisphere or in a lot of other countries, the students might not have benefited the way you did. It was the quality of the American system which allowed you to use the education you received and flourish. Also, you need to understand that revenue to build and maintain the infrastructure comes from the taxes levied upon people with wealth, among other things.

I agree that free markets are a necessary condition of lifting people out of poverty, but that they are not sufficient. There needs to be a number of other factors important as well. Transportation infrastructure, education system, social capital, protection of property rights all need to be in place as well.

If we aren’t suffering, or made a little more uncomfortable when we give to the poor, then we aren’t doing enough, imo. If we are merely giving part of our surplus, then we aren’t giving enough. I say that not to point fingers but more to make the point that the Church calls us to give to the poor and be charitable. It starts with me of course. I understand that. I suppose this doesn’t really speak to the conversation between you and Bubba Switzler.

My point with Bubba Switzler is that anything we give to the poor is going to be, by its nature redistributive. And we are called to sacrifice to help the poor. Of course, how that should be done is subject to debate.

 

[freeRadical]

I agree that free markets are a necessary condition of lifting people out of poverty, but that they are not sufficient. There needs to be a number of other factors important as well. Transportation infrastructure, education system, social capital, protection of property rights all need to be in place as well.

My point with Bubba Switzler is that anything we give to the poor is going to be, by its nature redistributive. And we are called to sacrifice to help the poor. Of course, how that should be done is subject to debate.

Voluntarily giving to the poor is not redistribution. The government taking from one person and giving to other as it sees fit is redistribution. So no, not everything we give to the poor is redistributive. Yes, we are called to willingly sacrifice to help the poor. Christ wants us to willingly give up what we have to help the less fortunate, that’s the kind of compassion he wants to see displayed. That’s what he has called us to. Maybe if people weren’t taxed so much they would be more wiling to give to local programs to help the poor in their city. But the attitude people nowadays have is, the government has welfare programs to take care of the poor funded my tax money, why should I give to the poor? I already have through the government, it’s their responsibility now.

Maybe if more people invested in their local poor, through local programs, local churches, etc, we could tackle this issue. I don’t see how a massive federal government program, administrated by a massive federal government bureaucracy is going to help the truly poor. We need a bottom-up approach, not a top-down. And the Church should lead the way. They’ve done more for the poor then any government ever is the history of our planet.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree that free markets are a necessary condition of lifting people out of poverty, but that they are not sufficient. There needs to be a number of other factors important as well. Transportation infrastructure, education system, social capital, protection of property rights all need to be in place as well.

As has been noted countless times in this thread, nobody has ever claimed that free market capitalism is sufficient. It has requirements and alway operates in conjunction with giving.

My point with Bubba Switzler is that anything we give to the poor is going to be, by its nature redistributive. And we are called to sacrifice to help the poor. Of course, how that should be done is subject to debate.

If how is subject to debate why not focus on the needs of the poor instead of the sacrifice of the giver? There is enough suffering in the world withhout the need of self-flagelation. Study what has worked elsewhereinstead of repeating what has consistently failed.