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

[StudentMI]

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/rush-limbaugh-doesnt-get-pope-francis

Great article.

 

[ishii]

   **THIS:**

No, but unregulated (or insufficiently regulated) it supports, by default, a kind of predatory and entitlement dynamic by those who have accumulated wealth. I am absolutely not in favor of “redistribution” by force, nor in a level of regulation which also de-motivates. I think there’s a balance which is possible and which is morally called for.

Agree. I am not for “unfettered capitalism” - the kind that characterized the late 19th century when children worked in coal mines. There needs to be some regulation. And a safety net for those who can’t help themselves. The problem is when politicians realize that the entitlement programs they pass can turn into votes and support that things go wrong. And then we end up with a “hammock” instead of a safety net.

…My point being that government is capable of providing, in addition to some level of regulation, strong incentives (rewards) for such cooperation with private groups in a much more personalized way than now exists.

Pardon the analogy, but the vast majority of corporate “giving” or “community” outreach is no better than the blind flooding of Haiti, post-earthquake, with excessive food, randomly available without a plan. (When most of that food was diverted, and when secure housing was far more urgently needed.) Modern NGO’s, including their various counterparts on the corporate level, remind me of the carpet bombing in Vietnam, or those who may remember that period: lazy, unfocused, random, inefficient, overkill. It’s what’s worst about America, not what’s best. Like gov’t assistance, it stresses grand gestures, everything operating on the mega and macro level, but lacking discernment, clarity, thought, accuracy, and efficiency…

I think that kind of “macro level” grand gestures is exactly what the principle of subsidiarity preaches against: because it is so often counter productive and even makes things worse, causes entrenched bureaucracies, dependent classes, etc. And interesting parallel you make with the carpet bombing of Vietnam and the macro-level govt. programs. The “war on poverty” - happened during the same era (the 1960’s) when it was thought by liberals that government could achieve almost any goal as long as you had “enlightened” individuals calling the shots. Thus - the “best and the brightest” of the JFK and LBJ administrations. There was kind of an arrogant hubris that characterized the era - and the belief that big government can lead the way at home and abroad to solve most problems was a manifestation of that arrogance. It was also ignorant. And, that mentality still exists today among many in government - such as those who believe that if only the federal government calls the shots on healthcare, things will be better. So in a way, people like Kathleen Sebelius are like the successors to the Mcnamara’s and the McGeorge Bundy’s.

Thanks for your comments.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

At the level of governments, there is somewhat of a consensus that to help a country in the long run, you have to strengthen its institutions and systems rather than simply taking a piecemeal approach. I would think similar reasoning would apply to helping the poor in our own country, taking aim at the structural barriers or weaknesses that keep people poor (something that the government is better equipped to do) in addition to targeting individual families’ needs (something that charities and individuals are invaluable at).

Are you suggesting that the government, which is guilty of passing programs that perpetuate and exacerbate the societal problems you speak of, is better equipped to solve the structural barriers and weaknesses that keep people poor? Are you aware that the government programs put in place in the 60’s - designed to “take aim at structural barriers” that keep people poor, actually made matters worse? The modern welfare state, in undermining minority families, for instance, went a long way toward ensuring those minorities stayed poor. Who needs a Dad when you have the govenment taking care of you? No, Seekerz, government is not the answer to what keeps people poor. One of the things that keeps people poor is the lack of intact families. Welfare has encouraged this for decades.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I had missed that post Elizabeth, and I agree that it does not have to be gigantic at all. I was simply making the point that efficiency might well be a factor of the size of the entity doing the helping, rather than whether the entity is governmental or not.

Government, by its very nature, is more inefficient that private organizations or charities. Government bureaucracies by their very nature seek to perpetuate and reinforce their reason for existence. There is little accountability in government. Now large organizations can also be inefficient, but there is a built-in aspect to government inefficiency.

Ishii

 

[KSU]

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/rush-limbaugh-doesnt-get-pope-francis

Great article.

I hate to say it, but that article does not rise to the level of CA’s standards and should be amended. The author chose not to note that Limbaugh added his suspicion of a mistranslation from the original. Limbaugh was correct about the mistranslation as has been demonstrated in the posts herein above, e.g., catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

Here is what Limbaugh added:
QUOTE I am receiving e-mails from people who are telling me that the pope, his economic writing, has been mistranslated. Now, my first reaction was, “Come on, this document is too big and massive for it to be mistranslated.” But then I caught myself, and this is exactly what the left does. If they had a chance to take somebody as influential and revered and beloved as the pope and put their words in his mouth, they would do it in a minute.

So now I’m gonna have to track this down, because I have to tell you, what has been attributed to the pope here doesn’t make sense, with 50 years of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t jibe. But it sounds exactly like what your average, run-of-the-mill leftist would say each and every day: unfettered capitalism, trickle-down doesn’t work. I don’t know this pope, but I don’t know that the bishop of Rome speaks in terms of trickle-down. One of the things they’re saying is that the pope didn’t say “trickle-down,” that the correct translation would be “spillover.” He didn’t say “trickle-down.” So there are people that are telling me, “Hey, Rush, the pope was mistranslated,” and my first reaction, “Come on, now.”

But then I had to catch myself. They are – by “they,” I mean the worldwide left – they are entirely capable of this, and they wouldn’t hesitate to do it, if they thought they could get away with it. Hell, they wouldn’t hesitate to do it even if they do get caught doing it because they know that the original phony translation they put out will be the one that survives. The truth takes a long time to catch up when the lie gets out of the gates first. So I can’t sit here and summarily reject the claim that the pope has been mistranslated. I know it sounds inconceivable. (interruption) The pope? He said something about homosexuals and later they said he was mistranslated? His original statement, he appeared to condone homosexuality, and then somebody said he was mistranslated. Well, there seems to be a pattern here, then, of the pope being mistranslated. END QUOTE

 

[StudentMI]

I hate to say it, but that article does not rise to the level of CA’s standards. The author chose not to note that Limbaugh added his suspicion of a mistranslation from the original. Limbaugh was correct as demonstrated in the posts above, i.e., catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

I find it more interesting he didn’t even bother to read the article, apparently, before he bashed the Holy Father.

I don’t really see much difference between spillover and trickle-down, especially given the rest of the article which basically makes it clear what he’s saying.

 

[ProVobis]

Good thing both the Republicans and Democrats teach free-market capitalism . Democrats encourage regulatory capitalism, Republicans encourage laissez faire capitalism, but both teach capitalism.

They teach it via the stock market, but they seem to have no clue as to what it is or what the Pope really thinks of it.

 

[freeRadical]

Good thing both the Republicans and Democrats teach free-market capitalism . Democrats encourage regulatory capitalism, Republicans encourage laissez faire capitalism, but both teach capitalism.

LOL, that made me laugh. The Democrats do not teach free-market capitalism. It’s not a free market when they put their hands in it and regulate it into oblivion. Minimum wage does not equal free-market, vilifying profits does not equal free-market, bailing out losers does not equal free-market, etc. The Democrats think they know better then everyone and they should run the economy.

I’m going to say this to my econ professors, it will be a good laugh.

 

[bksumm]

As a student of economics, I wish to respectfully push back against what Pope Francis recently said, as I believe history proves capitalism produces a better standard of living for all. Economist Milton Freedman once pointed out “there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.” One can just look at the different standard of living between free-market economies and “planned” economies to know which is better. I suspect, I don’t know for sure, Pope Francis is talking about the Peronista type capitalism he saw in Argentina. The corrupt, crony capitalism found in his native land isn’t free-market capitalism. Also, I see a misunderstanding of Adam Smith, and a fixed-pie economic mentality in his writing. I know the Pope is sincere about helping the poor, but I think he is wrong.

 

[seekerz]

Are you suggesting that the government, which is guilty of passing programs that perpetuate and exacerbate the societal problems you speak of, is better equipped to solve the structural barriers and weaknesses that keep people poor? Are you aware that the government programs put in place in the 60’s - designed to “take aim at structural barriers” that keep people poor, actually made matters worse? The modern welfare state, in undermining minority families, for instance, went a long way toward ensuring those minorities stayed poor. Who needs a Dad when you have the govenment taking care of you? No, Seekerz, government is not the answer to what keeps people poor. One of the things that keeps people poor is the lack of intact families. Welfare has encouraged this for decades.

Ishii

I am suggesting, that no charity I know of can impact all the environmental, political and social factors which contribute to poverty in the way that government policies can (for example infrastructure, zoning laws, education, housing standards, health care access).

The “we have spent so much but still have not eliminated poverty” argument totally eludes me. Why doesn’t this same argument seem to apply to ANY of the other issues we are happy to tackle everyday from generation to generation? Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, we have spent billions (make that trillions) of dollars on research and medicine yet we have not eliminated disease! Maybe health insurance creates dependency among the sick…?

 

[seekerz]

As a student of economics, I wish to respectfully push back against what Pope Francis recently said, as I believe history proves capitalism produces a better standard of living for all. Economist Milton Freedman once pointed out “there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.” One can just look at the different standard of living between free-market economies and “planned” economies to know which is better. I suspect, I don’t know for sure, Pope Francis is talking about the Peronista type capitalism he saw in Argentina. The corrupt, crony capitalism found in his native land isn’t free-market capitalism. Also, I see a misunderstanding of Adam Smith, and a fixed-pie economic mentality in his writing. I know the Pope is sincere about helping the poor, but I think he is wrong.

Wrong about what? Did he say capitalism is worse than other economies or did he simply point out its flaws? Methinks you are pushing back on a misunderstanding of what he is saying.

No man-made system is perfect, we just need to deal with that fact and refrain from putting words in the Pope’s mouth.

 

[seekerz]

Simply put if I hear much more about what the Pope says about capitalism I will stop putting the envelope in the basket on Sunday morning. .

Suit yourself. Christ’s promises to Peter do not depend on the contents of anyone’s wallet. This is not a political campaign.

 

[seekerz]

"Republican Catholics and Democratic Catholics"

I got into the Rush debate on the Facebook discussion and I was taken aback by some of the comments about Rush that look all to familiar to me. I usually defend Rush and I continue to do so but Its obvious that a number of Catholics are a little left of center and some of them were a little un Christian to say the least.That being said I only know one type of Catholic and its not a Republican or a Democrat.We are only Catholics to me.

The only unChristian comments you’re aware of in the “Rush debate” are those made by these “left of center Catholics”? I find that really odd…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

After reading some of the responses I am glad to say that I did not go to college and cannot hope to discuss Keynes(is that right?) or the English guy(whats his name,the other English guy) so I deal with more simple explanations. I know I am far behind in this discussion but was it President Reagan who said something like this,its a recession if the other guy is out of work and its a depression if your out of work. Simply put if I hear much more about what the Pope says about capitalism I will stop putting the envelope in the basket on Sunday morning. BTW I am one of those lower 50% who pays taxes but does not pay taxes if you know what I mean.

I think a better response is to give to Christian organizations like the Acton Institute who are making the Christian case for of free market captialism and to engage those opposed in respectful debate. That, in turn, will require educating yourself on the issues and ideas. I can tell you I learned a lot more about economics after college and certainly I never heard the Christian case for free markets during my Catholic education. A lot of Catholics are under the misconception that free markets are a Protestant or even atheist idea. But there have been some great books from Catholic historians showing the Christrian roots of free market ideas and arguing, in fact, that it was no coincidence that it developed in the Christian world.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

I wonder if anyone posting here can give me an example of exactly where “unfettered capitalism” is practiced?

 

[agnes_therese]

Simply put if I hear much more about what the Pope says about capitalism I will stop putting the envelope in the basket on Sunday morning.

You’re going to punish your parish because of the comments of random strangers.

Very odd.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As a student of economics, I wish to respectfully push back against what Pope Francis recently said, as I believe history proves capitalism produces a better standard of living for all. Economist Milton Freedman once pointed out “there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.” One can just look at the different standard of living between free-market economies and “planned” economies to know which is better. I suspect, I don’t know for sure, Pope Francis is talking about the Peronista type capitalism he saw in Argentina. The corrupt, crony capitalism found in his native land isn’t free-market capitalism. Also, I see a misunderstanding of Adam Smith, and a fixed-pie economic mentality in his writing. I know the Pope is sincere about helping the poor, but I think he is wrong.

You are in good company. It’s anyone’s guess what Pope Francis was referring to by “unfettered” capitalism.

You might find this article interesting:

forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2013/12/04/pope-francis-and-the-economists-2/

He argues that:

One economist who has a strong influence on the Vatican is Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who some credit for dressing the Third Way economic system in academic garb.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I wonder if anyone posting here can give me an example of exactly where “unfettered capitalism” is practiced?

That question has been posed numerous times without reply. It is an interesting question. There are a number of similar questions that deserve answers. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

 

[Havard]

That question has been posed numerous times without reply. It is an interesting question. There are a number of similar questions that deserve answers. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

I don’t think it is practiced anywhere… Hong Kong is often cited as being the least regulated, passing Singapore in recent years, but even Hong Kong has a minimum wage as well as other regulations.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am suggesting, that no charity I know of can impact all the environmental, political and social factors which contribute to poverty in the way that government policies can (for example infrastructure, zoning laws, education, housing standards, health care access).

You definitely seem to have a centralized, bureaucratic preference to the actually mutli-faceted, differentiated, and sometimes individualized reasons and manifestations of human needs.

Sometimes governments do quite well, and far better than any charity or any individual. For example, in my region (I’m sure many others, too) the homelessness situation is a study in the shame of inefficiency and detachment: the government could help, often inexpensively, in ways it is not helping, and could do so in cooperation with churches of all kinds who are willing to provide labor and food and supplies, but cannot fund structures (shelters). Government, possibly because of stupid existing regulations which could be changed, insists on “doing it all” if they do anything. Thus, if it’s “their” shelter, they insist on rigid conditions and prohibitions and personnel, rather than being willing merely to offer the existing, empty building owned by the City for the use of church/synagogue personnel to serve those homeless with ready volunteers, and more than just certain hours per day.

The idea that a shelter has to be only a place to bed down, and then you’re ejected for the rest of the day, is not a solution. There are gov’t buildings which, with slight modifications and little expenditure, could be partitioned into sleeping quarters, hygiene quarters, daycare quarters for single homeless parents, and employment resource quarters for the employable. Those “quarters” (literally) could be funded with a combination of gov’t and private charities/organizations/individuals, the latter of which would do most or all of the daily work.

The current situation is a study in despair, with gov’t mixing the unemployable (often mentally diagnosed, alcoholic, drug-impaired, or otherwise dysfunctional) with the employable and even just newly homeless. The entire shelter population is dumped onto the street, quite literally, with no differentiation, at daybreak, also with nowhere to go and no practical direction or resources. Gov’t can provide physical structures far more efficiently; private organizations tend to provide personal services more effectively (and often more efficiently as well).

The unemployable and socially dysfunctional should be separated from those with the mental wherewithal to function and return to the mainstream. That is something, actually, which government could also assist in, given that it has resources to differentiate one group from the other, and has treatment resources as well.

Some of you may not be aware, but many local gov’ts actually have funds and departments for local homelessness. In my area, those funds were shamefully mined by some corrupt official or officials, and I would be all in favor of such fraud being designated as a felony with mandatory incarceration and financial recompense, since homelessness affects the welfare of the entire community and even larger society.

I’m just so tired of the failed One Size Fits No One approach. It’s also very lazy, and Sloth is a Capital Sin.

Charity favors a multi-faceted and cooperative approach which doesn’t cynically and ungenerously tolerate homeless “hotels” for the night, but assumes that there is a subset of the homeless population that is highly motivated to become housed a.s.a.p. Charity assumes that such motivation deserves a pathway of support beyond an evening hotel.