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

[Elizabeth502]

The problem, Seekerz, is that the overall tone and argument of your posts betray a seeming love for good old government solutions to people’s problems.

I see I’m not the only one who came to the same independent conclusion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Look Elizabeth, we can have a reasonable discussion or we can not.

I’m always amused when liberals claim they have a patent on “reason,” whereas all those who disagree with their viewpoints must be, by definition, “unreasonable.” Got it.

Zoning laws, transportation, housing, access to basic services…are not tangential to poverty they are central to the ability of people to find a job, keep a job or to subsist on what passes as wages in some companies

Zoning laws are irrelevant to the specific kind of shelter I was discussing as one example of a specific Corporal Work of Mercy which would benefit from joint governmental-private cooperation. Zoning laws are off-topic to the point I was making. While homeless people sometimes find jobs (and sometimes such jobs pay for housing), the obstacles both to finding and to keeping a job while homeless are considerable, and include hygiene, sleep, grooming, clothing, bathroom facilities, dressing facilities. Shelter and food are the two most elemental needs for survival anywhere, for any length of time.

If any of you live in an urban area and have recently needed to use a public restroom late at night because you’re having plumbing problems at home, you know exactly what I mean. Good luck finding open, accessible bathroom facilities. For the most part, anywhere there is a significant homeless population, public restrooms are locked and off-limits, in a coordinated fashion, except during daylight hours. It’s really a form of inhumanity.

The business about zoning laws is a red herring, because no one challenged whether a government is needed for zoning laws, public safety, and the like. That’s not the definition of “charity” when it comes to Jesus’ entreaty to us. Nowhere in the Gospels does he command his followers to get involved in areas of their non-expertise, nor does He say or imply that leaving it up to (then, Rome) is a reasonable solution. He says Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (zoning laws, public works), but to the individual who has enough to share, He commands us to care for those others.

I think Jesus is quite clear that He expects individual action, which translates, practically, to what is local and attainable, as much as what is in our capability without neglecting our other responsibilities as well.

I live in the real world and experience the goodness and the selfishness of real people.

Again with the arbitrary categories. Sounds like MSNBC’s The [Spin] Cycle. I don’t live in the real world? What kind of attitude is that about a fellow human being?

Government is no better or worse than real people because it is a reflection of who we are.

Locally, a government near me but not within my voting area ripped its citizens and taxpayers off, not to mention homeless people, who had a special fund set up for them. There was no “goodness” there, apparently. Only venal selfishness. No, that government does not reflect “who I am,” and you wouldn’t know who I am, because you continue to get my statements wrong.

So the question of whether it MUST be ***either government or charity *** only does one thing: it leaves me wondering what exactly lies at the root of this insistence.

What “insistence?” What have you convinced yourself I’m “insisting” on? You are the one, by the way, posing the either/or. Others of us are not.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

God bless you, Thomas Peter. Sounds like your family is blessed to have you!

Thank you Havard.My 3 boys are the greatest blessing our Lord has bestowed upon me. I have always felt honored to be their dad. God Bless and Peace be with you.

 

[ProVobis]

Bolded by me. I personally think decentralization is essential to well-functioning government.

Then why have a government at all? Or a state or a county, for that matter?

And, btw, what gives any state (or any body, for that matter) the right inter alia to confiscate your property simply because you don’t pay taxes on it? Isn’t there some higher entity which we can appeal to? A body perhaps which is supposed to protect our lives, freedom, and property?

 

[Trader]

Then why have a government at all? Or a state or a county, for that matter?

And, btw, what gives any state (or any body, for that matter) the right inter alia to confiscate your property simply because you don’t pay taxes on it? Isn’t there some higher entity which we can appeal to? A body perhaps which is supposed to protect our lives, freedom, and property?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Pretty good explanation for 237 years ago from a guy who wasn’t even Catholic.

 

[seekerz]

I am with you to a point: the government is in a position to contribute to the public good - at the lowest level in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. The further removed the government is, the less good it does and also less accountable it is, imo. As you might guess, I’m not big of big federal government programs. That does not mean that I don’t recognize a need for government to be involved in dealing with some problems.

Seekerz. your analogy is false. I never made the argument that the measure of govt. success must be complete 100% success in solving the problem it sets out to solve. But I don’t think its unreasonable to demand that the government not make things worse - which I believe it did with all the war on poverty programs of the 60’s that encouraged illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family, dependance on government, etc. Getting back to your analogy, if we spend billions on research of a medicine to cure cancer the effect was to increase the numbers of people with cancer, then I’d argue it was not money well spent.

Ishii

And I would disagree that such money was wasted, if only because correlation does not imply causation (in fighting disease as in fighting poverty).

At the risk of going off-topic (actually I think it is a perfect analogy to poverty alleviation), I would suggest to you that an increasing number of people with cancer in the face of billions spent on research could be due to a multitude of factors that have nothing to do with usefulness of the research. The drug could be 100% effective and cancer incidence could still rise, if a. nobody can afford to buy it, b. it is not used properly, c. there is a shortage…and on and on. In addition, if new cases of cancer arise faster than people are cured (that is if inflow exceeds outflow) there will still be a rise in cancer even with a perfectly effective drug. In medical research as in social science, even if a solution/‘cure’ is found to directly cause worsening of a problem, it is still not a waste because it tells us what does not work so we can move on to trying an alternative.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think you understand:

You were using the legitimate (although ideally those functions could be privatized) government function to try and show that as some kind of charity.

That’s not charity, that’s doing a job you’re expected to do.

I think you were just using that to diminish the role of private charity, but you were comparing apples and oranges.

I’m not calling it charity - I’m calling it a function of government that impacts (worsens or improves) poverty.

And please stop projecting your impressions onto me - I have nothing against private charity OR government. Like I have asked umpteen times: why MUST it be either or?

 

[Forkfoot]

The Church hasn’t changed its thinking, but this is definitely changing the way people think about the Church. Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

 

[seekerz]

I see I’m not the only one who came to the same independent conclusion.

Independent? Similar theories lead to similar conclusions, no?

 

[seekerz]

I’m always amused when liberals claim they have a patent on “reason,” whereas all those who disagree with their viewpoints must be, by definition, “unreasonable.” Got it.

Zoning laws are irrelevant to the specific kind of shelter I was discussing as one example of a specific Corporal Work of Mercy which would benefit from joint governmental-private cooperation. Zoning laws are off-topic to the point I was making. While homeless people sometimes find jobs (and sometimes such jobs pay for housing), the obstacles both to finding and to keeping a job while homeless are considerable, and include hygiene, sleep, grooming, clothing, bathroom facilities, dressing facilities. Shelter and food are the two most elemental needs for survival anywhere, for any length of time.

If any of you live in an urban area and have recently needed to use a public restroom late at night because you’re having plumbing problems at home, you know exactly what I mean. Good luck finding open, accessible bathroom facilities. For the most part, anywhere there is a significant homeless population, public restrooms are locked and off-limits, in a coordinated fashion, except during daylight hours. It’s really a form of inhumanity.

The business about zoning laws is a red herring, because no one challenged whether a government is needed for zoning laws, public safety, and the like. That’s not the definition of “charity” when it comes to Jesus’ entreaty to us. Nowhere in the Gospels does he command his followers to get involved in areas of their non-expertise, nor does He say or imply that leaving it up to (then, Rome) is a reasonable solution. He says Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (zoning laws, public works), but to the individual who has enough to share, He commands us to care for those others.

I think Jesus is quite clear that He expects individual action, which translates, practically, to what is local and attainable, as much as what is in our capability without neglecting our other responsibilities as well.

Again with the arbitrary categories. Sounds like MSNBC’s The [Spin] Cycle. I don’t live in the real world? What kind of attitude is that about a fellow human being?

Locally, a government near me but not within my voting area ripped its citizens and taxpayers off, not to mention homeless people, who had a special fund set up for them. There was no “goodness” there, apparently. Only venal selfishness. No, that government does not reflect “who I am,” and you wouldn’t know who I am, because you continue to get my statements wrong.

What “insistence?” What have you convinced yourself I’m “insisting” on? You are the one, by the way, posing the either/or. Others of us are not.

“Others of us”? What happened to your ‘independent’ conclusions about me?

Perhaps I can be a tad clearer on my stance: there is a role for private charity AND for government in poverty alleviation and there are some functions that one performs better than the other because the factors that cause poverty exist at different levels, from the micro to the macro.

That is what I believe based on years of study, research and personal experience. I may be mistaken but THAT is what I believe.

 

[seekerz]

Are you saying that the government owes everyone a car and a house? A bus pass and a condo? An apartment? A crime-ridden, dumpy, depressing complex of apartments? (government “housing” tends to end up being just that).

Did I say any of that? I said the government has responsibilities regarding housing, transportation, zoning regs etc. How you can translate that into “owing” anybody anything leaves me somewhat bemused.

The problem, Seekerz, is that the overall tone and argument of your posts betray a seeming love for good old government solutions to people’s problems. In fact, government IS the problem in many cases. Did you know that one of the biggest indicators of poverty is being single/unmarried? Did you know, Seekerz, that the federal govt. welfare programs helped facilitate the rise in illegitimacy rates by encouraging unwed mothers to have more children = get more welfare? You tell me who has the better interests of the poor in Portland, Oregon - a bureaucrat working Washington DC, or a private charity operating in Portland, Oregon?

I love solutions, period. I am not particularly invested in who does what…“just get it done already”, aptly sums up my general attitude.

That’s too bad about the park employee with family. Something tells me though, that there is much more going on in their lives, which contribute to their inability to make a good living and get by than the mere absence of the kind of govt. you’re advocating. A welfare check might help for a while, but you create a dependent class, and you also eventually run out of others’ money.
Ishii

“A welfare check” was not my suggested solution to these families’ dilemma but I think I am correct in deducing that the Pope is saying we can’t simply accept such dehumanizing situations. We (individuals and government) are duty bound to DO something about it. I don’t particularly care what form that action takes as long as it is not immoral.

 

[ProVobis]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Problem is we have a government that offers protection against none of those things.

 

[Trader]

Problem is we have a government that offers protection against none of those things.

Then it is time to alter or abolish it. I hope you meant to say “protection of those things”, ie., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I find this passage in the Compendium interesting.

…

Bolded by me. I personally think decentralization is essential to well-functioning government.

You won’t find things like that quoted in the press. The principle of subsidiarity is inherebtly biased toward decentralization which stands in stark contrast to the very visible hand of government which has a strong bias toward centralization and usurpation of the private sphere and civil society.

 

[ProVobis]

Then it is time to alter or abolish it. I hope you meant to say “protection of those things”, ie., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, that’s what I meant. For some reason I was struggling with it, don’t know why. It’s an easy concept actually.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“Others of us”? What happened to your ‘independent’ conclusions about me?

Nothing “happened” to it. Independently, several of us have remarkably come to similar conclusions about your positions.

That is what I believe based on years of study, research and personal experience. I may be mistaken but THAT is what I believe.

Again with the artificial “contrast.” What leads you to believe that your debaters lack a similar basis? i.e.,

years of study, research and personal experience

 

[seekerz]

Nothing “happened” to it. Independently, several of us have remarkably come to similar conclusions about your positions.

Again with the artificial “contrast.” What leads you to believe that your debaters lack a similar basis? i.e.,

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this thread is not about me and it is certainly not about the things I never said that have been projected onto me. Perhaps we can expend time and energy discussing the issues rather than each other’s perceptions of each other (pardon my grammar/syntax).

 

[GLam8833]

Yes, the root of the problem in the projects is not hunger, as I’ve already said. The problem is now partially fueled by the culture of dependency, entitlement, immorality, indolence, and incompetent parenting.

First off, I would like to thank all the previous posters for their insightful views,
as to this quote, I would like to ADD that these problems arise because THE
CHURCH is not fulfilling it’s role to care for the poor, and therefore has forfeited
it’s right to be a voice of MORALITY in society. Welfare can no longer be ONLY a
political solution, it must be a RELIGIOUS obligation.(Acts 3:44-45)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Possibly of passing interest, the French version uses the words “rechute favorable”, meaning, literally, “favorable relapse”. In other words, a return of accumulated wealth favorable to its sources. It does differ from “trickle down” in two ways. First, the French version implies a total return or churning of money through society, like plowing fertilizer into the earth, while “trickle down” implies tiny bits of return, like crumbs falling off a table. Also, as near as I can tell, “rechute favorable” is not a negative political term used in France to wrongly describe something entirely different. “Trickle down” in (negative) political parlence in America was an intentional mischaracterization of Reagan’s theory that encouragement of production would raise incomes. It was called “trickle down” by his political enemies based on their belief that increasing production would benefit only a few, and that this was Reagan’s intent.

Perhaps a French person can correct me on this, but I do not see that the respective terms mean quite the same thing. One would not be terribly surprised if the term “trickle down” was used in the English version by whoever it is in the Vatican’s employ who turns out English versions of Papal statements, disclosing his/her own political biases in the process, in preference perhaps to what the Pope actually intended. In reality, it doesn’t really fit in the context taken as a whole.

If so, it’s a shame, because some people in the U.S. are quite aware that “trickle down” is a political slur, and many will think (mistakenly in my opinion) the Pope shares the animosity toward them of those who coined the term.

 

[JimG]

If so, it’s a shame, because some people in the U.S. are quite aware that “trickle down” is a political slur, and many will think (mistakenly in my opinion) the Pope shares the animosity toward them of those who coined the term.

Yes, I just read Thomas Sowell’s slim paperback about “trickle down” theory, and it is true the theory has nothing to do with trickling down at all. The term was invented by its detractors.