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

[Dawnia]

Dear friend, the last thing I was doing was criticizing you. I DID assume that your question was sincere, and I had no idea of your opinion or political bent, and I still don’t.

One becomes a little blunt after a lifetime of battling those who debate in bad faith (certainly not you), so please accept my apology for not being more clear. My poor wife would agree with you.

Your appology is certainly accepted. It probably didn’t help that I came in right in the middle of things.

So, now, please, for the love of God…is “trickle-down” called something else? I’ve never heard it by any other name.

 

[fnr]

It is actually quite clear.

He’s no fan of Hayek. Sorry, Tea Party. But he calls the Church to radical mission.

202. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

1. The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies. At times, however, they seem to be a mere addendum imported from without in order to fill out a political discourse lacking in perspectives or plans for true and integral development. How many words prove irksome to this system! It is irksome when the question of ethics is raised, when global solidarity is invoked, when the distribution of goods is mentioned, when reference in made to protecting labour and defending the dignity of the powerless, when allusion is made to a God who demands a commitment to justice. At other times these issues are exploited by a rhetoric which cheapens them. Casual indifference in the face of such questions empties our lives and our words of all meaning. Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.

204.** We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. **Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

1. I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.[174] We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”.[175] I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare. Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society.
2. Economy, as the very word indicates, should be the art of achieving a fitting management of our common home, which is the world as a whole. Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.

Here is what may be my favorite paragraph…*

1. Any Church community, if it thinks it can comfortably go its own way without creative concern and effective cooperation in helping the poor to live with dignity and reaching out to everyone, will also risk breaking down, however much it may talk about social issues or criticize governments. It will easily drift into a spiritual worldliness camouflaged by religious practices, unproductive meetings and empty talk.*
2. If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology. My words are not those of a foe or an opponent. I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centred mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth.

 

[_thaddeus]

Your appology is certainly accepted. It probably didn’t help that I came in right in the middle of things.

So, now, please, for the love of God…is “trickle-down” called something else? I’ve never heard it by any other name.

It’s also known as “magic-glass” economics.

 

[KSU]

Your post did not adress any part of what you responded to, interestingly enough. Your response is totally beside-the-point, as nobody ever claimed that the Pope was marxist (with the possible exception of Mr. Limbaugh.

This was my post #798, responding to seekerz:

Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerz
Thanks Abyssinia, that’s what I’ve been saying all along: the Pope is saying nothing new.​

To what are you referring, the near-Marxist English mistranslation or his actual words?

If the latter, you are correct. If the former, you are dead wrong.​

That post of mine responded directly to what seekerz wrote; it should be clear enough for you that the pope’s mistranslated words absolutely would be something new… But, again, you would have to know Catholic social Doctrine to understand that. See my post #919.

And what is up with all the leftist invective against Rush Limbaugh? Is it because this non-Catholic (yet) admirer of Catholicism and champion of Christian Conservatism is all over the secular, Church hating news regarding the Vatican’s English mistranslation of E. G.? Not that the mistranslation of the words of the Left’s new best friend is ever mentioned, of course.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If the English translation was off, then the German one is as well since they even put “trickle down theories” in parentheses (in English). So it seems as though the phrase is not there by accident.

Pope Francis even said in a recent interview (which has really good stuff on Christmas BTW) that his use of the phrase “trickle down” was the only time he meant to reference a specific theory. So it looks like the phrase isn’t there by accident or merely a translation error; what needs to be evaluated is what “trickle down theories” actually means.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So, now, please, for the love of God…is “trickle-down” called something else? I’ve never heard it by any other name.

This is difficult question to answer. It’s a bit like asking for the non-derogitory term for “papist”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If the English translation was off, then the German one is as well since they even put “trickle down theories” in parentheses (in English). So it seems as though the phrase is not there by accident.

Pope Francis even said in a recent interview (which has really good stuff on Christmas BTW) that his use of the phrase “trickle down” was the only time he meant to reference a specific theory. So it looks like the phrase isn’t there by accident or merely a translation error; what needs to be evaluated is what “trickle down theories” actually means.

I think there is no doubt at this point but that the use of the term reflects Pope Francis’ genuine views and is not simply an error by the translator.

 

[Dawnia]

This is difficult question to answer. It’s a bit like asking for the non-derogitory term for “papist”.

Except that when someone uses the term “papist”, we know exactly what they are referring too. So what is that something that “trickle-down” is referring too?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Except that when someone uses the term “papist”, we know exactly what they are referring too. So what is that something that “trickle-down” is referring too?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

 

[KSU]

Your appology is certainly accepted. It probably didn’t help that I came in right in the middle of things.

So, now, please, for the love of God…is “trickle-down” called something else? I’ve never heard it by any other name.

I don’t think there is a “new” name in the sense you mean. “Trickle-down” is just a term of derision, such as Reaganomics, the American Left came up with for the original Judeo-Christian Conservative system of economic policy in America; the wildly successful, generally free market system established by our founders which has become the envy of the Socialist world. Even the European Socialists, and most certainly the Communist Chinese see its indisputable worth. Not that the Communists would ever let its benefit$ “trickle-down” to the people–the workers are paid only what their Government masters believe will keep the people from a revolution.

Pope Francis wrote in Spanish; he never used the English term “trickle-down.” Here is a link, provided by Ender in an above post, to a correct translation from the pope’s Spanish:
jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/

Also see Brendan’s post #759. If I don’t understand what you are asking, please let me know.

In any event, the pope recently confirmed that he was not speaking technically. His point is that, because of our fallen human nature, there has never been a system of economics that is sufficient BY ITSELF to help the poor enough–that’s our job as individuals.

 

[KSU]

If the English translation was off, then the German one is as well since they even put “trickle down theories” in parentheses (in English). So it seems as though the phrase is not there by accident.

Was this a Vatican translation of the original Spanish into German?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Pope Francis wrote in Spanish; he never used the English term “trickle-down.” Here is a link, provided by Ender in an above post, to a correct translation from the pope’s Spanish:
jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/

.

From the link:

1. In this context, some defend “spillover” theories which suppose that all economic growth, for which a free market is [most] favorable, by itself brings about greater equity and social inclusion in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve confidence in the generosity of those [people] who wield economic power and in the workings mechanisms of that ruling economic system.

Do you really find this translation so very different?

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t think there is a “new” name in the sense you mean. “Trickle-down” is just a term of derision, such as Reaganomics, the American Left came up with for the original Judeo-Christian Conservative system of economic policy in America; the wildly successful, generally free market system established by our founders which has become the envy of the Socialist world. Even the European Socialists, and most certainly the Communist Chinese see its indisputable worth. Not that the Communists would ever let its benefit$ “trickle-down” to the people–the workers are paid only what their Government masters believe will keep the people from a revolution.

Pope Francis wrote in Spanish; he never used the English term “trickle-down.” Here is a link, provided by Ender in an above post, to a correct translation from the pope’s Spanish:
jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/

Also see Brendan’s post #759. If I don’t understand what you are asking, please let me know.

In any event, the pope recently confirmed that he was not speaking technically. His point is that, because of our fallen human nature, there has never been a system of economics that is sufficient BY ITSELF to help the poor enough–that’s our job as individuals.

Thank you. I was under the impression it referred to a specific economic theory. This makes things so much clearer…especially as to what you were trying to explain in your first reply to me. (Sometimes my lightbulb just doesn’t turn on the first time. :newidea

 

[KSU]

From the link:

1. In this context, some defend “spillover” theories which suppose that all economic growth, for which a free market is [most] favorable, by itself brings about greater equity and social inclusion in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve confidence in the generosity of those [people] who wield economic power and in the workings mechanisms of that ruling economic system.

Do you really find this translation so very different?

You betchum, Red Rider! Lefties would then half to break their backs bending over backwards to say the pope was attacking the U. S. system.

But then TIME would have picked Miley Cyrus or Kathleen Sebelius as person of the year.

 

[KSU]

Thank you. I was under the impression it referred to a specific economic theory. This makes things so much clearer…especially as to what you were trying to explain in your first reply to me. (Sometimes my lightbulb just doesn’t turn on the first time. :newidea

The pope was referring to a type of economics rather than a country-specific system.

American Conservatives really do believe (correctly) that a rising tide lifts all boats. The pope was just saying individuals must contribute to the effort.

 

[Ender]

1. 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.

It is actually quite clear.

Define trickle-down and explain the absence of the words “by itself” (por si mismo) which appear in the original Spanish version but not the English translation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

In general it isn’t a good idea to cite Wikipedia on any topic that has even the remotest political significance. The article you cite, in addition to giving a definition that most people would not recognize (it was certainly new to me), later on included these observations:[Economist Thomas] Sowell further has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a “trickle-down” theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents.

Although the term “trickle down” is mainly political and does not denote a specific economic theory, some economic theories reflect the meaning of this pejorative.
Ender

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Define trickle-down and explain the absence of the words “by itself” (por si mismo) which appear in the original Spanish version but not the English translation.

Ender

The Pope already gives quite a nice summary but from another source we have:

An economic idea which states that decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates - especially for corporations, investors and entrepreneurs - can stimulate production in the overall economy. According to trickle-down theory proponents, this stimulus leads to economic growth and wealth creation that benefits everyone, not just those who pay the lower tax rates.

President Reagan’s economic policies, commonly referred to as “Reaganomics” or supply-side economics, were based on trickle-down theory. The idea is that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, business can produce (or supply) more, increasing employment and worker pay. Reagan initially slashed the top income-tax rate from 70% to 50%. Trickle-down policy’s detractors see the policy as tax cuts for the rich and don’t think the tax cuts benefit lower-income earners.

investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

I see no need to explain the absense of the words “by ityself” as I do not see the omission as significant to the message.

Also of interest:

The Pope’s words, and the public response to them, suggest that just now—with the top income share rising, the share of income going to labour falling, and real wages and employment rates stagnant—there is a certain appetite for calls for change.

economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/12/economic-growth

 

[estesbob]

I think there is no doubt at this point but that the use of the term reflects Pope Francis’ genuine views and is not simply an error by the translator.

Fine. Then we know the comment wasn’t addressed at the US since no one here ever promoted “trickle down” economics

 

[Ender]

The Pope already gives quite a nice summary but from another source we have:

No, the pope gave no explanation at all for that phrase for the very simple reason that it is meaningful solely in the US. There is no such thing as a “trickle-down” theory of economics. It is a pejorative, nothing else.

President Reagan’s economic policies, commonly referred to as “Reaganomics” or supply-side economics, were based on trickle-down theory.

[The phrase trickle-down economics]* was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry.* (George Leef, Forbes magazine)

I see no need to explain the absense of the words “by ityself” as I do not see the omission as significant to the message.

If you are content with the mistranslation then it is understandable that you see no need to correct it, there is nonetheless a significant difference in saying something will not succeed and saying it will not succeed by itself. The former implies we should try something different; the latter implies something that needs to be supplemented rather than changed.

The Pope’s words, and the public response to them, suggest that just now—with the top income share rising, the share of income going to labour falling, and real wages and employment rates stagnant—there is a certain appetite for calls for change.

This rather makes my point. “Calls for change”, coming after a purported denunciation of lower (read sensible) corporate and individual tax policies, suggests nothing so much as government control of the economy. That may be how this apostolic exhortation is being read but it seems a misreading based on a mistranslation and way more specific than anything that would be appropriate in a papal document.

Ender