S
Silvio_Dante
Guest
Keep dodging reality. The facts speak for themselves…
Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality
- Status
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
:doh2::dts:
S
Silvio_Dante
Guest
Nice smilies…
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
K
KSU
Guest
Oxymorons can be frustrating.
Folks, it does no good to argue with “Catholic Socialists”. They don’t listen to the Church, but they are the first to point out selected sayings, beginning with Marx and Engels: catholicmediacoalition.org/catholics_socialism.htm
S
Silvio_Dante
Guest
We, LT advocates, have far more in common with Pope Francis than that which might or might not divide us.
Oxymorons can be frustrating.
Can the same be said for Free Market cheerleaders…?
S
Silvio_Dante
Guest
Basic manners would suggest that one does not refer to people in the third person in their presence.
Folks, it does no good to argue with “Catholic Socialists”. They don’t listen to the Church, but they are the first to point out selected sayings, beginning with Marx and Engels: catholicmediacoalition.org/catholics_socialism.htm
Just a thought…
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Capitalist systems are based on usury, which has always been condemned by the Church.
A capitalist system without usury would not be inherently unjust. Such a system is, I believe, what the Popes have referred to as a free market system. The terms “capitalist” and “free market” have been used interchangeably, but I believe there is a difference between the two. Take out usury, and allow for the primacy of the Catholic Church and the moral guidance of its teaching on economics, and you would have a genuine free market system.
F
freeRadical
Guest
There is a difference between usury and interest. Without interest there would be no saving, no investment, and no borrowing.
I
ishii
Guest
Could you explain why you think the capitalists system in the US is based on usury? How would you be able to have the primacy of the Catholic church and the moral guidance of its teaching on economics in the economic system in the US?
Ishii
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Here is Centesimus Annus 42:
"Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
“The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”
And in QuadragesimoAnno 101: "This system (capitalism) is not to be condemned in itself.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Because money in a capitalist system is lent out at interest with the sanction of the government. That is state-sponsored usury.
You can’t under the US system as it currently exists.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Usury isn’t the charging of interest, it’s the charging of excessive interest. There is a difference. At one time, the Church did condemn charging interest for money because they believed that money was an unproductive asset and charging people interest for the use of unproductive assets is wrong. However, they changed their stance on charging interest on money as they, and the world, learned that money is a productive asset. The Church may condemn usury but they do not condemn charging reasonable interest for borrowing and they do not condemn earning reasonable interest on savings and investments.
I
ishii
Guest
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Certainly, cultural tendencies have to be taken into account when it comes to what kind of economic system will serve the needs of a particular people the best. With very industrious people like the Germans and the Swedes, who value work in an of itself, and who have very high labor participation rates among their native populations, they have been able to make a cradle-to-grave system of social welfare work fairly well, albeit the problem of the cradles have been pretty much been emptied out there give reason for future concerns.
What works for the Nordics doesn’t seem to work as well for the Greeks though.
Either way, there are high levels of capitalism and low levels of government interference in these economies. And economies that do not resemble these in terms of high taxation cradle to grave welfare economies, such as the Swiss, have even lower poverty rates.
I think it is legitimate that there be criticisms of these economies, just as there is of other First World economies that have taken a different route. It is not so much a moral issue, as an issue of what techniques will be most effective.
But the more that you look, the more that you see that the low rates of government interference in the actual running of those economies, such as I have proposed here as a possible solution for the third world. is also a factor that needs to be accounted for even in these Nordic economies relative success.
It is worthwhile noting that the Liberation Marxist Theologies do not play a role in any of these economies whatsoever. The inherent evil of these kind of ideologies in ruining economies and ruining peoples lives cannot be stressed too much. You point out the example of Argentina of an economy ruined by this kind of thing. Venezuela is fast becoming another example of how this kind of delusional thinking absolutely leaves economies in ruins.
Zimbabwe could serve as a third that somebody has pointed out, if not in this thread, then in another similar to this that I have recently participated in.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
People that condemn charging interest for money across the board, and consider it all to be sinful usury, are in effect demanding that our economies be brought back to the feudal system, which is the kind of economy that you will get when you demand to turn back the clocks to the time when that was Church policy.
I
ishii
Guest
“What about Sweden?” is always the American left’s snappy answer to conservative opposition to activist government cradle to grave welfare. And you rightly point out that what works for a given country might not work for another country. Part of my opposition to cradle to grave welfare (in addition to believing that it doesn’t work) is that I simply distrust governments to do what is best. A government powerful enough to grant you welfare, healthcare, retirement, etc. is also a government which can impose limits on freedoms. The government which gives us everything can (and does) take away from us. Furthermore, the Swedish model violates the Catholic church teaching on the principle of subsidiarity. (a point I forgot to mention to our liberations theology/socialism advocating friend Silvio). But the history of South America is a sad one, particularly Argentina considering its position after WW2 to really take off economically and potentially join the first world level of advancement and prosperity. Had it been successful, it might have changed the whole history of the region.
This has been a fascinating thread and in some ways I would like to see the discussion continue after it has closed due to the number of posts.
Ishii
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Not according to defined Church doctrine, which condemns usury, not excessive usury. Usury has always meant interest.
What you are saying in effect here is that the Church at one point changed its defined teaching. At one time, charging interest for money was morally wrong. At another time, it is not morally wrong. Once something is defined as morally wrong, it’s always morally wrong. It’d be like the Church changing its teaching on contraception, or divorce and remarriage. If the Church changed its teaching on usury as you suggest it did, it would no longer be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, which is an impossibility.
I
ishii
Guest
No, gnjsdad, usury was forbidden by the Church, not interest. Does not the gospel of Matthew say, “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.” Taking interest is not inherently immoral.
No, the Church did not change its teaching. Here is a link to a good article explaining this:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
"Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. "Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran "(ibid., 263)."
Ishii
K
KSU
Guest
Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."You’re free to leave the discussion whenever you run out of justifications for economic slavery of the Third World…
Silvio, every time I see a post by a “Catholic Socialist”, I see the picture of Pope John Paul II wagging his finger at and publicly reprimanding the pathetic Liberation Theology priest and Sandinista Minister, Ernesto Cardenal. I would bet my last (shrinking) dollar that Pope Francis had John Paul in mind when he wrote sections of his Exhortation.
John Paul II quotes:
“Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create”.
“You are priests, not social or political leaders. Let us not be under the illusion that we are serving the Gospel through an exaggerated interest in the wide field of temporal problems.”
“The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.”
“Radical changes in world politics leave America with a heightened responsibility to be, for the world, an example of a genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.”
There also is a John Paul quote that applies to me when I break my own rule against trying to reason with Catholic Socialists: “Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn’t misuse it.” (Saul Alinsky’s Rule 4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”)
- Status