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

[Lapey]

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?

Big difference between contribute, which is voluntary, and tax increase which is mandatory.

 

[Crossbones]

I’m trying to understand what is so stunning about this document that the National Review has had several articles on it. I mean, it’s not like we didn’t know that capitalism could lead to the idolatry of money if we don’t check ourselves. Then it occurred to me that it is challenging the belief that the economics proposed by the Republican party have held to be moral and in line with Catholic teaching, and the Pope is saying that they are not - that, at best, they are neutral or perhaps even immoral.

Now, I don’t care that greatly about this in the realm of politics. I have accepted that the state has a role to play in the economics of a country, and, while I don’t subscribe to the belief that the Republican party economical platform is all holy, I also don’t subscribe to the belief that the Democratic party’s economical platform is either. Furthermore, the Republican party tends to be more right on social issues like abortion, that I care more about.

That said, the Republican party has largely failed on this issue, going so far as to nominate former pro-abortionist candidates for the presidential election. I think many hold that this is ok, because the Republicans are more right on the economic issues. The Pope is suggesting otherwise, and it makes many here uncomfortable. For if the Republicans can’t stand together firmly on abortion, then why should Catholics be voting for them?

 

[Darryl1958]

And I don’t think that you have disproved my original comment that our bankruptcy laws encourage excessive risk taking.

Fair enough
Delving into the history further though, did Lehman have the expectations already set forth that they would be bailed out?

heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/lehman-brothers-bankruptcy-and-the-financial-crisis-lessons-learned

I do agree that the laws themselves were inadequate to the practices,People in real estate in Canada were shaking their heads in disdain at what their counterparts were getting away with in the US at the time. Saner laws and saner practices prevailed here.
Also, the economic models put out by economists were not based in reality.

My intention was not to disprove your contention by the way, but to add another dimension to it. Government plays a role integral to the process. The problem is not that governments are too prone to cede to greed, or not compassionate enough.
Bad laws and bad policies will not be solved by moral thinking. Even the best of people can make very bad laws and policies, and according to a variety of intentions.

 

[ProVobis]

Fair enough
Delving into the history further though, did Lehman have the expectations already set forth that they would be bailed out?

Probably but I found it interesting among their last hopes were the Koreans and the British bank Barclays, but they operate under a different set of rules.

 

[KSU]

I’m trying to understand what is so stunning about this document that the National Review has had several articles on it. I mean, it’s not like we didn’t know that capitalism could lead to the idolatry of money if we don’t check ourselves. Then it occurred to me that it is challenging the belief that the economics proposed by the Republican party have held to be moral and in line with Catholic teaching, and the Pope is saying that they are not - that, at best, they are neutral or perhaps even immoral.

Now, I don’t care that greatly about this in the realm of politics. I have accepted that the state has a role to play in the economics of a country, and, while I don’t subscribe to the belief that the Republican party economical platform is all holy, I also don’t subscribe to the belief that the Democratic party’s economical platform is either. Furthermore, the Republican party tends to be more right on social issues like abortion, that I care more about.

That said, the Republican party has largely failed on this issue, going so far as to nominate former pro-abortionist candidates for the presidential election. I think many hold that this is ok, because the Republicans are more right on the economic issues. The Pope is suggesting otherwise, and it makes many here uncomfortable. For if the Republicans can’t stand together firmly on abortion, then why should Catholics be voting for them?

Who was it that mentioned the Tower of Babel earlier?

 

[freeRadical]

I believe we’ve been there in a different thread Estebob, wages have to take into account dependents but obviously, they cannot be individually tailored, so a reasonable minimum would be wages sufficient to at least equal, if not surpass, the poverty threshold for an average-sized family.

Do you think prices should take into account number of dependents? Should a gallon of milk cost less for a single mom with a child then a single man without a child?

 

[Dranu]

For years many in the Church have rightly protested when some Catholic’s ignoring Church teaching on Abortion or Same Sex “Marriage”. But now, when the Pope has said something that challenges them, they are the first to dissent from his teachings.

I admire your zeal to agree with anything a Pope says, but not all things are binding, and dissent is not necessarily immoral when it does not pertain to a teaching on faith and morals. The application of force (or restraint thereof) by the State against its citizens in economic matters is largely a matter of prudence (within certain obvious bounds). Thus, someone disagreeing with the clergy on these matters may, and may even be right, whereas one disagreeing about the morality of abortion would be wrong.

With that said, I think people have mostly drawn interpretations of what the Pope said than what his words literally convey.

 

[ReConverted]

Reagan was elected in 1980. “Trickle down” hasn’t worked in the 33 years since his election. I’m very glad that the Holy Father has spoken up about this.

 

[stinkcat_14]

While on can debate the role Reagan’s policies had in our economic growth, I think we can be pretty confident that Pope Francis was not thinking about Reagan when he wrote this message.

 

[estesbob]

Reagan was elected in 1980. “Trickle down” hasn’t worked in the 33 years since his election. I’m very glad that the Holy Father has spoken up about this.

Neither Reagan or any other Republican ever proposed"trickle down" economics.With the abject poverty and corupt govts in third world countries I seriously doubt The Holy Father was addressing a 35 year old political spat in the US

 

[ReConverted]

While on can debate the role Reagan’s policies had in our economic growth, I think we can be pretty confident that Pope Francis was not thinking about Reagan when he wrote this message.

So what? Since the USA is a huge country, with a LOT of Catholics who are suffering, I’m pretty sure he was speaking about it worldwide. Many people is the USA have suffered from the effects. Last time I checked he’s the Pope for the entire world.

 

[ReConverted]

Neither Reagan or any other Republican ever proposed"trickle down" economics.With the abject poverty and corupt govts in third world countries I seriously doubt The Holy Father was addressing a 35 year old political spat in the US

Now there’s a reach. Please see my latest post above.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Neither Reagan or any other Republican ever proposed"trickle down" economics.

it amazes me the amount of denial and mental gymnastics GOP Catholics (Fr. Sirico and Acton Institute) go through to defend the intersts of the rich over the poor. It’s an example of cafeteria Catholicism at its finest.

 

[Crossbones]

Neither Reagan or any other Republican ever proposed"trickle down" economics.With the abject poverty and corupt govts in third world countries I seriously doubt The Holy Father was addressing a 35 year old political spat in the US

Well, let’s see what he said:
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

I take this to be a comment that economic policies that favor the rich have not solved the issues faced by the poor. This probably would include the economic policies favored by the Republican party. That said, I don’t see it as a condemnation of capitalism, just a statement that we can’t expect these policies to solve all issues faced by the poor.

 

[KSU]

Reagan was elected in 1980. “Trickle down” hasn’t worked in the 33 years since his election. I’m very glad that the Holy Father has spoken up about this.

My friend, the haters on MSNBC say the same thing, e.g., youtube.com/watch?v=3VmuMhkVgFw

Doesn’t it give you serious pause that they agree with you?

A few days ago, in another CA thread, I said that the pope did not and would not and could not reject the social teaching in the Compendium. [See, for example, Compendium paragraphs 347 and 424], and that, therefore, Pope Francis could not have knowingly attacked the American Conservative political system, pejoratively known as “trickle-down” economics. American style Capitalism is the most unique, life-affirming, /url]Church supporting, charitable, compassionate, just and productive system of government ever known to mankind. No serious person would dispute the fact that the poor in America have benefited from that system more than any poor class anywhere in any age.

The angels in heaven would be dancing with joy if by some miracle Satan was vanquished and the entire world adopted the American Conservative political system of so-called “trickle-down” economics. Pope Francis knows that, and Rush Limbaugh, who suspected a mistranslation of trickle-down, apparently got it right. See post #257 in this thread.

We also were told the pope attempted to change Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior. Did you believe that as well?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do you think prices should take into account number of dependents? Should a gallon of milk cost less for a single mom with a child then a single man without a child?

Only if there’s a private agreement. I don’t want the government deciding that in sweeping legislation.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m trying to understand what is so stunning about this document that the National Review has had several articles on it. I mean, it’s not like we didn’t know that capitalism could lead to the idolatry of money if we don’t check ourselves. Then it occurred to me that it is challenging the belief that the economics proposed by the Republican party have held to be moral and in line with Catholic teaching, and the Pope is saying that they are not - that, at best, they are neutral or perhaps even immoral.

Now, I don’t care that greatly about this in the realm of politics. I have accepted that the state has a role to play in the economics of a country, and, while I don’t subscribe to the belief that the Republican party economical platform is all holy, I also don’t subscribe to the belief that the Democratic party’s economical platform is either. Furthermore, the Republican party tends to be more right on social issues like abortion, that I care more about.

That said, the Republican party has largely failed on this issue, going so far as to nominate former pro-abortionist candidates for the presidential election. I think many hold that this is ok, because the Republicans are more right on the economic issues. The Pope is suggesting otherwise, and it makes many here uncomfortable. For if the Republicans can’t stand together firmly on abortion, then why should Catholics be voting for them?

In the USA I promise you that if the GOP has a bad economic policy (and it would really need to be bad to be worse than than the Dems policies) they will lose and lose big.

Most Americans vote on economics before any of the social issues. The only reason the social issues have been afforded to be more at the forefront by the left is because the Fed Reserve Board has very carefully floated an artificial economy along.

Even then, the democrats after all of #occupy and the faux “war on women” had to have record turnout in some places just to get Obama/Biden across the finish line.

Of course, the American media might try and tell you otherwise, but when Americans get in hit in the wallet and lose their insurance, they tune out the elites.

 

[SuperLuigi]

My friend, the haters on MSNBC say the same thing, e.g., youtube.com/watch?v=3VmuMhkVgFw

Doesn’t it give you serious pause that they agree with you?

A few days ago, in another CA thread, I said that the pope did not and would not and could not reject the social teaching in the Compendium. [See, for example, Compendium paragraphs 347 and 424], and that, therefore, Pope Francis could not have knowingly attacked the American Conservative political system, pejoratively known as “trickle-down” economics. American style Capitalism is the most unique, life-affirming, /url]Church supporting, charitable, compassionate, just and productive system of government ever known to mankind. No serious person would dispute the fact that the poor in America have benefited from that system more than any poor class anywhere in any age.

The angels in heaven would be dancing with joy if by some miracle Satan was vanquished and the entire world adopted the American Conservative political system of so-called “trickle-down” economics. Pope Francis knows that, and Rush Limbaugh, who suspected a mistranslation of trickle-down, apparently got it right. See post #257 in this thread.

We also were told the pope attempted to change Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior. Did you believe that as well?

It should be crystal clear to everyone that Reagen and Coolidge had it right. They created jobs and prosperity.

For those few were not fortunate (many of them by choice), private giving increased substantially under Reagen. I don’t have stats for Coolidge, but I suspect it’s the same because, well, the American people spend their earned money better than someone who uses political force to redistribute it.

Funny how that works, eh?

 

[epan]

So the person who is making minimum wage should also pay the babysitter minimum wage?

If so, they why would the first person work those hours at all, every cent they make is then being turned over to the babysitter.

I did not say that. You appear to me to have a one way agenda which is to speak and not to listen.

So, is your point that a plastic surgeon should work below minimum wage when he does reconstructive surgery on an unemployed person? It seems to me that you espouse the view that the price for services should be based on the ability to pay for the service or goods, and not on the value of the goods.

Actually, we might find some agreement, in that I am an advocate of that approach for medical care. I believe that a prosperous society, such as the US, can afford easily to provide good medical care for everyone, including the babysitter and the minimum wage earner.

 

[epan]

Neither Reagan or any other Republican ever proposed"trickle down" economics.With the abject poverty and corupt govts in third world countries I seriously doubt The Holy Father was addressing a 35 year old political spat in the US

Uhmmm. Yes he did. It was called “supply side economics”, which was more accurately described as “trickle down.” The important word is “trickle” which we see now coming to fruition with the elimination of the middle class in the US.

That was the obvious ramifications of trickle down, which is how it was so named. It was probably not the intent. As mean spirited and hard hearted mr. Reagan was, he probably did not understand the extent of the suffering he might cause by his actions. I believe that every president does his best. History has not been kind to Saint Reagan, outside of arch conservative circles. But it would be unkind to suggest that he understood the ramifications of his behavior. He was a brilliant man in many ways, but remarkably dull on basic morality.