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

[Crossbones]

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.

Republican presidents have run up the deficits since the 80s, so I am not impressed with their economic policies. If you are right about Americans voting economic issues over social issues, which I agree with you, then the fact that Governor Romney lost with the worst economy in the last 70 years to a sitting president suggests that the American people are not impressed either.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I haven’t seen the stats but I’ll bet they spend a lot of borrowed money as well.

 

[Darryl1958]

I haven’t seen the stats but I’ll bet they spend a lot of borrowed money as well.

Borrowed money is not usually without collateral, which would represent a loss of earned money, if the borrowed money does not work out as a good investment.

It is their own economic future that is on the line either way. With a government bureaucrat, it is nine to five, with union protection of any costs that dumb mistakes may incur.

Make no doubt, people lose sleep over their debts just as much as the do over their hard earned cash. There is no a lot of breathing room between the two.

 

[gnjsdad]

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

Thank you for telling us what the Pope really should have said

It needs to be noted that no Papal encyclical has contained such sentiments as you have posted here.

 

[ProVobis]

Borrowed money is not usually without collateral, which would represent a loss of earned money, if the borrowed money does not work out as a good investment.

Fair point but there are such things as second mortgages and such which use the same collateral and that collateral can suddenly decrease in worth as well. One who knows how to game the system can really get himself into a lot of debt. Granted he can hire a lot of people with it and even donate a lot to charity, but if it doesn’t work out, he can always declare bankruptcy as I believe you imply here. And he might even be able to keep his necessities.

Make no doubt, people lose sleep over their debts just as much as the do over their hard earned cash. There is no a lot of breathing room between the two.

I’ll take your word for it.

Not too much fun getting those margin calls though, I’ll bet.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

There is nothing to spin.Conservatives are judt as dedicated to helping the poor and needy as Liberals are.We differ on the best way to do it.The other difference is Conservatives believe the right to life is foundational to helping the poor.Liberals believe they can cast that aside in favor of a candidate who promises higher taxes on the rich and bigger govt.

And what are the other Liberal approaches to helping the poor? Contraception, abortion, anything possible to keep the poor from having children.In tuth anyone who reed the Popes document in context with the Churches unchanging teachings on morality know its not the conservatives who need to do the spinning. I am sure this document will be misquoted ad nauseum as the next election approaches. Misused as evidence for those who put politics before faith that is ok to support evil for the greater good

Still a one-trick pony, aren’t you? Better change your act before the shepherd’s crook protends from Stage Right and snatches you from the stage.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Distributism is not capitalism. It’s communism minus all the bad stuff. Beyond that it is not even a meaningful concept. I think we’ve spent more than enough time in these forums trying to pin it down but it’s easier to nail jello to the wall.

Distributism is neither capitalism nor communism. And, yes, it is a meaningful concept. The fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t make it meaningless. I don’t understand quantum physics, but I would stop far short of saying that it was all malarkey.

Plenty has been written on the subject, and it’s not that hard to understand. You could start right here:

distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/ (What is Distributism?)

For anyone interested in learning more: intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/05/whats-wrong-with-distributism/

For anyone interested in hearing a Distributist response to the misconceptions and inaccuracies propounded in the above:
distributistreview.com/mag/2013/08/whats-wrong-with-distributism/

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
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

Thank you for telling us what the Pope really should have said

It needs to be noted that no Papal encyclical has contained such sentiments as you have posted here.

Read it again, please. I didn’t tell you “what the Pope really should have said”. I told you what he did not and could not have said. I.E., He absolutely did not say anything remotely like the denouncement you put in his mouth when you posted this: “‘Trickle down’ hasn’t worked in the 33 years… I’m very glad that the Holy Father has spoken up about this.”

Knowledgeable Catholics understand that Francis did not and could not denounce Conservative American political policy without violating Church TEACHING contained in the Compendium, such as in paragraphs 347 and 424:

QUOTE
347. The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]

1. Although the Church and the political community both manifest themselves in visible organizational structures, they are by nature different because of their configuration and because of the ends they pursue. The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867]…
   The duty to respect religious freedom requires that the political community guarantee the Church the space needed to carry out her mission. 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

You say that “no Papal encyclical has contained such sentiments as” I have posted regarding the democratic free market, Conservative American political program (which, because of its fruits, people of good will everywhere regard as an obvious blessing unknown to the world before America).

Well, what part of the following, above-quoted teaching don’t you understand?
Quote The duty to respect religious freedom requires that the political community guarantee the Church the space needed to carry out her mission. 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” End quote

As for an anti-democratic political order, don’t make me quote to you the Church’s stated abhorrence of the alternate political program, Socialism

 

[stinkcat_14]

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.

Actually, if we look at Reagan’s policies, we see a mix of different policies. Part of his policy was pure Keynesianism, in that he cut taxes and increased government spending. Another part of his policy mix that affected the economy was a tight monetary policy. But then again, it was Carter that appointed Volcker, not Reagan. Some policies were aimed at the supply side. For example, lowering marginal tax rates probably increased the supply of married women in the labor force. But women were entering the labor force even with higher tax rates, so measuring the true impact of the lower tax rates was difficult. Reagan also benefited from increasing globalization and favorable demographics which had little to do with his policies.

I am not sure what policies you think he had that were hard hearted.

 

[SMGS127]

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?

Oh, so now it’s come to an argument that conservative economics is Catholic moral teaching :nope:

None of us, regardless of political ideology, should be putting it above the Church and to equate our political beliefs as on the same level as our religious beliefs is, quite honestly, bordering on blasphemous. Being a Keynesian or Distributist is most certainly not being a heretic in the Church, but your statement would imply that it is. Republican-based economics are not imprinted in your Catechism, and your Catechism comes before your political views.

Consider the Pope’s actual words instead of telling us what he must be teaching. This, in context, says the exact same thing Rush Limbaugh is so mad about. What Pope Francis said about homosexuals, in context, was NOT what Rush Limbaugh was so mad about. That is the difference. Reading the context makes it clear that Pope Francis is denouncing unfettered capitalism and the idolatry of money that coexists with it.

Edit: Also, no it does not give me pause at all that someone who I may disagree with on moral teachings says X on something other than moral teachings. Actively gay people can be good people at heart and they can also be intelligent, yet they’d quite obviously disagree with me on moral theology. Saying that someone who supports gay “marriage” has no working knowledge of economics, quite honestly, has no logical evidence supporting it.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Oh, so now it’s come to an argument that conservative economics is Catholic moral teaching :nope:

None of us, regardless of political ideology, should be putting it above the Church and to equate our political beliefs as on the same level as our religious beliefs is, quite honestly, bordering on blasphemous. Being a Keynesian or Distributist is most certainly not being a heretic in the Church, but your statement would imply that it is. Republican-based economics are not imprinted in your Catechism, and your Catechism comes before your political views.

Yes! I’d venture to say some people even fancy Republican/libertarian economic principles are inscribed on the very blueprint of Creation itself, that every metaphorical nut and bolt in the universe is inscribed with the words “Made in GOPia”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes! I’d venture to say some people even fancy Republican/libertarian economic principles are inscribed on the very blueprint of Creation itself, that every metaphorical nut and bolt in the universe is inscribed with the words “Made in GOPia”.

It’s erroneous to equate libertarianism with the Repubs. After all, social libertarianism is at the very heart of the liberal ideology in this country. There is some overlay between libertarians and garden-variety Repubs when it comes to economic policies, but that’s the extent of it. And even then, there is a significant gap between, say, the likes of Boehner and that of, say, Ron Paul.

If the truth be told, “GOPia” is closer to the teachings of the Social Encyclicals than the ideology of those now in command of this country.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

It’s erroneous to equate libertarianism with the Repubs. After all, social libertarianism is at the very heart of the liberal ideology in this country. There is some overlay between libertarians and garden-variety Repubs when it comes to economic policies, but that’s the extent of it. And even then, there is a significant gap between, say, the likes of Boehner and that of, say, Ron Paul.

If the truth be told, “GOPia” is closer to the teachings of the Social Encyclicals than the ideology of those now in command of this country.

Economic policies were what I referred to. You prove my point.

As for “GOPia” being close to the teachings of Catholic social encyclicals, I don’t think there’s any a priori connection. The whole idea has an idolatrous ring to it, sort of like assuming anti-flag-burning amendments should be a priority item for Congress to take up.

 

[SMGS127]

If the truth be told, “GOPia” is closer to the teachings of the Social Encyclicals than the ideology of those now in command of this country.

Here’s the problem though. You’re saying (correctly) that the GOP platform is closer than the Dem platform for social teachings, which are basically abortion & marriage and issues pertaining thereof. Their platform is about 10% to the Democrats’ 0% on marriage, and they are 90% to the Democrats’ 0% on abortion. That much is true and completely uncontested by us.

HOWEVER, what KSU was arguing was that the economic policy of the GOP was Catholic doctrine, which also means that to oppose the GOP on matters of economics would make one a heretic. Neither of these points are true and merely stating them as capital-T Truth is blasphemy, and I would also call it much worse things but I wish to remain charitable.

There is a HUGE difference between what you just said and what KSU said. I have no problem with what you said.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think that free market principles are worthwhile defending and promoting from attacks, wherever those attacks might be coming from.

Typically, for every economy that has existed since the agricultural revolution is a huge pool of subsistence poor, and a very tiny upper crust of elite with privileges. Equality as it existed was that everybody was equally poor, and the upper crust could often take on the attributes of gods in their own eyes and the eyes of everybody else.

The development of middle classes as the greater proportion of a population is a relatively new phenomena. Basing a system on merit rather than on birth as in Europe was made possible by the radical equalization of the social classes brought on by the common hardships of pioneer life in North America.

Elitists have been trying to teach the bourgeois middle classes their place since even before Marx, and have even enlisted the resentments of the poor in order to bring that system down.

People can be for material equality, or for freedom, but not both. Curtailing Peter to equalize his situation with Paul is not a system based in freedom. Access to education, a social safety net to catch those who slip through the cracks, and family, church, and private organizations to maintain the social welfare of all are all parts of the American way.

What has been dramatically weakened in the last two or three generations is the role of family, church, and the absolute decline of private organizations dedicated to the common weal. Correspondingly the role of the governmental social safety net has gotten larger.At times that has been intentionally so in order to take over from family, church, private organizations. Inevitably, as the government safety net became larger, the role of family and individuals have became weakened.

There is no dignity in that.There are few modes of existence less dignified in fact, less destructive of spirit and soul than to be a perpetual dependant clinging for dear life to the government teat.

The role of American conservatives has been to advocate for stronger families and vibrant churches and strong individuals steeped in Christian values in order to give as many people as possible an alternative to the demeaning, soul destroying lives of dependency that an undignified life in the safety net provides.

Liberals are more than welcome to join us in that venture.

Or they can continue in their ventures to broaden the safety net at the expense of churches, families and individuals as the better method to achieve equality. There is nothing liberal in that though.

 

[seekerz]

I think that free market principles are worthwhile defending and promoting from attacks, wherever those attacks might be coming from.

The typical economy for every economy that has existed since the agricultural revolution is a huge pool of subsistence poor, and a very tiny upper crust of elite with privileges. Equality as it existed was that everybody was equally poor, and the upper crust could often take on the attributes of gods in their own eyes and the eyes of everybody else.

The development of middle classes as the greater proportion of a population is a relatively new phenomena. Basing a system on merit rather than on birth as in Europe was made possible by the radical equalization of the social classes brought on by the common hardships of pioneer life in North America.

Elitists have been trying to teach the bourgeois middle classes their place since even before Marx, and have even enlisted the resentments of the poor in order to bring that system down.

People can be for material equality, or for freedom, but not both. Curtailing Peter to equalize his situation with Paul is not a system based in freedom. Access to education, a social safety net to catch those who slip through the cracks, and family, church, and private organizations to maintain the social welfare of all are all parts of the American way.

What has been dramatically weakened in the last two or three generations is the role of family, church, and the absolute decline of private organizations dedicated to the common weal. Correspondingly the role of the governmental social safety net has gotten larger.At times that has been intentionally so in order to take over from family, church, private organizations. Inevitably, as the government safety net became larger, the role of family and individuals have became weakened.

There is no dignity in that.There are few modes of existence less dignified in fact, less destructive of spirit and soul than to be a perpetual dependant clinging for dear life to the government teat.

The role of American conservatives has been to advocate for stronger families and vibrant churches and strong individuals steeped in Christian values in order to give as many people as possible an alternative to the demeaning, soul destroying lives of dependency that an undignified life in the safety net provides.

Liberals are more than welcome to join us in that venture.

Or they can continue in their ventures to broaden the safety net at the expense of churches, families and individuals as the better method to achieve equality. There is nothing liberal in that though.

I’m not sure on what you base that historical progression (from private giving to government) or why you seem to expect charities to do better than government in helping people out of poverty. I remain to be convinced (based simply on the track record of large NGOs operating locally and internationally) that the nongovernmental approach is any more efficient.

Let’s take an example from one sector: religious organizations’ involvement in health care provision did not decline because the government took over the work of charitable organizations, but because the charities could no longer keep up with costs. I have nothing against charitable giving, but I don’t see where they have the capacity to take over what governments do. From what I can see, mismanagement and inefficiency happen in the private-giving world too, not just in government, so I would be really interested in finding out why nongovernmental assistance to the poor should be our goal.

I get why it is so important to people that helping the poor be a private venture, but I see no spiritual basis for insisting that it be so. The only nonnegotiable principle here is that the poor ***be helped ***in a manner that is moral, ethical and respectful of human dignity.

 

[ProVobis]

Another part of his policy mix that affected the economy was a tight monetary policy. But then again, it was Carter that appointed Volcker, not Reagan. Some policies were aimed at the supply side.

Carter also deregulated the airline, trucking, and railroad industries, irritating people like Kennedy in the process, but I think a good case could be made that by doing so, he was espousing free market principles. Of stymying inflation, anyway.

 

[SMGS127]

The only nonnegotiable principle here is that the poor ***be helped ***in a manner that is moral, ethical and respectful of human dignity.

This. While subsidiarity is a clear Church principle, we also, at the federal level, should not turn our backs on the poor if the lower levels clearly fail in their moral duties. Social safety nets erupted out of crippling poverty; they are very weak in nature and barely support someone for a very short time (less than 2 years allowed from 18-65), but they help keep people from straight up starving in the streets.

However, I recognize that others have other perspectives on the issue. And neither mine nor a conservative’s economic policy is necessarily contrary to doctrine, unlike, say, how a social liberal’s view on abortion is necessarily contrary to doctrine. But as such, I will also not stand by and willingly allow someone to claim something as Truth that is blatantly political in nature and that practicing Catholics may disagree in philosophy on in good conscience. To argue that it is Truth is to put your ideology over your own religion by trying to force others to believe that your economic ideology is the religion when it is not. This is extremely dangerous territory and part of what Pope Francis is teaching against.

 

[Brendan]

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

If you note, I posed a question, and then waited for an answer. How is that not listening?

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.

No, my point was that if an adult who has children is doing babysitting, you noted that she then deserves the minimum wage of $15/h.

In my example, it was a person who is making $15 who requires babysitting services. Does it make any monetary sense for that person to hire a babysitter at $15/h.

I would say that it does not, ergo the babysitter would not be hired. It would not make economic sense for someone to hire a babysitter under those circumstances

That would be my only claim to wages being tied to ability to pay. If hiring an employee does not make financial sense to a prospective employer, they will not hire.

Would you agree with that?

Or would you claim that that the first person SHOULD hire the babysitter at $15/h

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.

When you say that the US can afford good medical care, who in particular are you referring to?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure on what you base that historical progression (from private giving to government) or why you seem to expect charities to do better than government in helping people out of poverty. I remain to be convinced (based simply on the track record of large NGOs operating locally and internationally) that the nongovernmental approach is any more efficient…***I get why it is so important to people that helping the poor be a private venture, but I see no spiritual basis for insisting that it be so. The only nonnegotiable principle here is that the poor ***be helped ******in a manner that is moral, ethical and respectful of human dignity.

I agree, but unfortunately the American people, including apparently many members of the clergy, have come to associate “help” exclusively with big organizations, be those secular government, NGO’s (many of which are international), or large Catholic organizations such as CRS, CCHD, etc. Even the latter have suffered from the effects of centralization, and we have a mania in this country for preferring an assumed model of “efficiency” (production-line style, bureaucracy in spades) for local work, local workers, local information, and personal encounter with the poor. It’s a form of laziness, i.m.h.o.

Big organizations tend to be broken models. Perhaps some of the U.N. efforts have not suffered from that, but then the U.N. also promotes questionable initiatives which in themselves violate Catholic teaching. Why does the answer have to be gigantic, seekerz? (“I remain to be convinced (based simply on the track record of large NGOs operating locally and internationally) that the nongovernmental approach is any more efficient.”)

What LOOKS to be more efficient, because supposedly they have the resources and the organizational pattern, is not necessarily so, because the most important aspect to starting any initiative, including a business one, is to gather information. The proof that the NGO’s didn’t know what they were doing or what the primary needs were in Haiti after the earthquake is that their efforts had a net zero effect one year later. They hadn’t bothered to research the essential needs which would aid the people most desperate and most innocent.

It is possible to be both local and networked, without the inefficiencies of size. (Please see my post 368)