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

[Bubba_Switzler]

Can you provide your data on this?

See, for example, The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy.

 

[StudentMI]

It is very possible that Pope Francis is not embracing a socialist or even liberal message.

Can we stop the talk of socialism? The Pope nowhere called for the nationalization of the means of production. One may not like the idea of the state helping the poor and needy, but if it does so that is not socialism, it’s not Marxism, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

I do wish the pope had done a little more research on the subject before sharing his thoughts. But there are many others involved. There is the Latin-to-English translator who chose to use the loaded term “trickle down”, there is the press eager to publicize any criticism of free markets while ignoring criticisms of the welfare state, and there are leftist Catholics who pretend that all right-thinking Catholics are in agreement on the subject and that no “authentic” Catholic could support free markets.

But the pope is the author of this document and at least partly responsible for how his words are received and understood and used.

Good points. I always suspect some deception going on when the translated word fits right into some American political slogan.

But for the record, perhaps even worse, this wasn’t translated from the Latin AFAIK. Not that is should matter also know that the Italian economy is on the brink of bankruptcy itself. My broker advised me several months ago to sell all my Italian bonds, which I have.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The principles of capitalism, emphasizing disparity of income in the reality of profit, which cannot exist without cheap labor relative to company income.
versus
The principle of universal economic opportunity, which theoretically assumes that anyone from any economic class can become the privileged CEO someday of the same company for which he might have worked on the low end.

Part of the problem arises from the human condition. Contary to the literal reading of the American Declaration of Independence, we are not created equal in the mathematical sense. Some of us are more gifted in economically valuable ways than others. I don’t know of any serious advocate of free market capitalism who claims that it will lead to equality of condition.

What free market advocates claim, rather, is that even the poor are better off under free market capitlaism than it’s many alternatives. Every effort to improve on free market capitalism has led to human degradation of one form or another.

 

[Suslar]

On his own personal level, Pope Francis’s answer to poverty is not giving to the poor in order that all are equally rich. His answer to poverty was to actually BE poor, to LIVE poor.

His is an existent and a life of poverty and chastity. He embraces poverty.

I fully accept that that is the authentic Christian life.

Yes, the Pope certainly does advocate solidarity with the poor as the Church always has. He’s given us a great example. Detachment from material desires and voluntary poverty in solidarity with our brothers and sisters are real, viable options for eudaemonistic justice for those who suffer.

I asked a number of posts back, but no one answered . . . .What will this exhortation do to change us as people who are entrusted to care for our brothers and sisters in Christ? What alms will you give during this holy season of Advent? How will you make a difference in the life of another? The exhortation is all about the Joy of the Gospel. How will you joyfully evangelize through your actions?

 

[stinkcat_14]

See, for example, The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy.

I suspected you were referring to that data. Unfortunately there are few studies that look at the consumption habits of the wealthy, so it is hard to know how robust the results are.

 

[Darryl1958]

Can we stop the talk of socialism? The Pope nowhere called for the nationalization of the means of production. One may not like the idea of the state helping the poor and needy, but if it does so that is not socialism, it’s not Marxism, etc.

You can call it whatever you like-liberalism, socialism, big government, the nanny state, big brother, or just whatever makes you happy.

The options are the state taxing the people and the individual and the church taking on a smaller role as a result, or the state taxing less, providing less, and the individual and the church therefore being able to be in a position to do more in the arena of charitable giving.

There is also the case where the state taxes more and more, and tends to the state more and more through the taxes, and the church(through donations from individuals) and individuals also give more and more.

That would mean that their hearts have grown a few sizes bigger, or that the economy is growing so that they can afford more for taxes AND for private charity though. Other than that, the higher the taxes the lower the rate of private charity is the usual scenario.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Other than that, the higher the taxes the lower the rate of private charity is the usual scenario.

I think it would depend on the structure of taxation. For example, in the US we allow charitable contributions to be deducted from taxes. This reduces the “price” of giving to charity. And when the price falls, giving to charity tends to increase.

 

[Darryl1958]

Societies, ancient and modern, which have suffered less from inequality of result, have been those in which there was an informal but voluntary commitment (non-governmental) to provide for all – to notice who did not have enough, and correct that out of personal donations, assistance, etc. One of my students this year wrote about a solo trip of his to a country in South America. He was struck by how no one in the village he visited was ever homeless or hungry, because the residents voluntarily saw to that – not rich residents, mind you. We have also the obvious example in the Book of Acts, of voluntary sharing, based on moral (non-governmental, non-coerced, non-taxed) commitment. And the result of that was similarly that no one was imperiled.

This describes North American pioneer society too, where everybody helped each other out. Even being rich was not of much benefit, because it is not as if the forests would clear themselves, or the barns would raise themselves, or that money would be able to pull you out of the snow bank. Everyone shared the same challenges, and met them as part of the same community. This was instrumental in erasing the inheritance of social class through blood lines that characterized European society, and helped institute the idea that merit, and not birth, were the defining characteristics of the man.
It is the kind of thing that is possible in simpler societies based on personal relationships.
Highly urbanized, highly mobile societies where most people you see in a day remain strangers require much more complex relationships.

It is not as if people woke up one day and started caring less about their neighbours. It is just that we often are rubbing shoulders and passing literally thousands of our neighbours on the street each day.
Urban networks tend to weave out their own networks as well though. There is a little bit of skill involved in creating these networks though, and those without the emotional ability to become a part of those kind of networks, such as schitzophrenics, are the ones that suffer.
Churches, and private organizations-Kiwanis, Lions, Knights of Columbus- at one time were the ways that tended to those who fell through the cracks.
Now government takes on that role in most modern societies.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think it would depend on the structure of taxation. For example, in the US we allow charitable contributions to be deducted from taxes. This reduces the “price” of giving to charity. And when the price falls, giving to charity tends to increase.

Certainly. I gave that as a general rule.
In America, the role of the individual is still valued.
Obama wants to change the tax structure on those points, because it is not according to his values.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Stop making sense!

Where was this response when it comes to so-called “gay marriage”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I really have to shake my head at the demagoguery that goes on in threads like these. I primarily work with small businesses, and small business jobs represent half of private sector jobs.

There is a tendency among many to talk about fat cats with their yachts, but the fact is, a huge chunk of job-makers are struggling themselves. I work with these people, men and women who own single shops, small service businesses, etc. Many of them are immigrants themselves, who have never gone to college. Small business owners are quite possibly the hardest working people I know, because they pour their heart, along with their hopes and dreams, into their trades, for hopes of better futures for their kids.

For example, one particular small business owner that I know well (a man in his mid-50’s) has been living in a three-bedroom house with five other men until his business gets on its feet. His wife lives in another state, because she can’t quit her own job in this economy, and the opportunity he got was location-specific. They have phone dates every night. Thankfully, their kids are grown and moved out of the house.

I could tell you many other examples like this, but my point is to implore people to stop framing employers of minimum wage jobs simply as greedy corporate tycoons. Many of them are struggling themselves.

Most of those fat-cats are dedicated Western leftists; the same ones who condemn the very system that makes them rich and well-to-do.

Of course, it’s a “human right” for them to keep their stash----some one else has to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[SuperLuigi]

On his own personal level, Pope Francis’s answer to poverty is not giving to the poor in order that all are equally rich. His answer to poverty was to actually BE poor, to LIVE poor.

Yeah, well, tell that to the left. They’re too busy trying to use the force of government to take from others so they can take credit and look and feel good.

They are taking the Pope’s statement to mean they have their cake—ie be cool and popular with the worldly in-crowd, vote for the Democrat Party despite their open war on Catholic values, and they think they’ll shoot right up to heaven when they die.

See, they’ve got it all figured out nice and crisp.

 

[ProVobis]

Yeah, well, tell that to the left. They’re too busy trying to use the force of government to take from others so they can take credit and look and feel good.

The righties aren’t doing that much better. Remember Solomon Bros, Bear Stearns, Novastar, AIG, Lehman Bros, etc? They were in that beggar category themselves.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yeah, well, tell that to the left. They’re too busy trying to use the force of government to take from others so they can take credit and look and feel good.

They are taking the Pope’s statement to mean they have their cake—ie be cool and popular with the worldly in-crowd, vote for the Democrat Party despite their open war on Catholic values, and they think they’ll shoot right up to heaven when they die.

See, they’ve got it all figured out nice and crisp.

I think when it comes to the pope’s words, in my heart of hearts, there is a certain amount of mea culpa when I look at myself. I live an average North American lifestyle complete with mortgage, driving my kids to sports and activities, and wireless internet.

I live in a rather liberal leaning area, and many if not most of the people I deal with tend to the left. What I do note is that they live the same kind of lifestyle as I do.

The only difference is that my response is a mea culpa, and the leftist response here is to agree with a finger pointing and a “YOUa culpa!”

 

[dmelosi]

The righties aren’t doing that much better. Remember Solomon Bros, Bear Stearns, Novastar, AIG, Lehman Bros, etc? They were in that beggar category themselves.

Are you classifying these companies as righties?

 

[globaljim]

Timothysis- “in his opinion”
I do not think that the Pope in an Encyclical is just giving his opinion. The ordinary way
an Encyclical works is by the Pope presenting the truths handed down by his predecessors
adopted to the needs of our times. He certainly may have his own opinions like anyone else
but that is not the place to express them. If you believe it is merely opinion then you should show that it is not in sync with the living tradition as handed down over the past century in the
Encyclicals as far back as Leo XIII.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The righties aren’t doing that much better. Remember Solomon Bros, Bear Stearns, Novastar, AIG, Lehman Bros, etc? They were in that beggar category themselves.

Bailouts are not a conservative position. It’s government picking winners and losers. Besides, this left-wing administration and Senate as well as the 2006-2010 Donkey Congress continued the bail-outs.

Conservatives railed against Bush for the Detroit bailouts, but you’ll note the same crowd that would celebrate Pope Francis as anti-capitalist defended “helping” Detroit as an act of “compassion” and many of them probably were privately educated.

So hypocrite is thy name.

Of course, when the TEA PARTY emerged to counter special interests, they were demonized by the elite on all sides.

The elite wannabes merely followed suit as they always do.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s a common mistake for some Catholics to think that liberal = helping poor and conservative = prolife.

This sort of thinking comes from a lack of understanding or the classical syndrome of reading headlines only.

People who think like that are dangerous to liberty and freedom because they don’t understand the issues and don’t want to take the time to. They just expect the two sides to meet and compromise.

It’s also probably why people like to label our Popes after Western political ideologies.

 

[StudentMI]

You can call it whatever you like-liberalism, socialism, big government, the nanny state, big brother, or just whatever makes you happy.

When talking about the Church it’s not “whatever makes you happy.” Socialism is immoral because it is theft, as numerous Popes have said. But the state has the right to intervene when the situation calls for it. That is not socialism. Or are you going to call Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis socialists?