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

[KSU]

QUOTE trickle down vi (economics: work from top down) Argentina chorrear⇒ vi
La "teoría del chorreo” preconiza que hay que dar toda clase de privilegios y favores a los más ricos, haciéndolos aun más ricos, para que en el futuro algo de su riqueza les chorree a los más pobres. END QUOTE wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=trickle

Folks, can there be any question that the Vatican unfortunately mistranslated the pope’s words, enabling, as pointed out by the OP, the Washington Post to write this:

“On Tuesday, he showed a willingness to use tough language in attacking what he views as the excesses of capitalism. Using a phrase with special resonance in the United States, he strongly criticized an economic theory[trickle-down] — often affiliated with conservatives — that discourages taxation and regulation.”

The facts are that Francis never mentioned trickle-down or capitalism; never denounced “trickle-down”–the term used by the Left in America to attack Republicans.

But the damage is done: the Left 1, the Church and Conservatives 0.

 

[ishii]

I agree that free markets are a necessary condition of lifting people out of poverty, but that they are not sufficient.  There needs to be a number of other factors important as well.  Transportation infrastructure, education system, social capital, protection of property rights all need to be in place as well.

I agree, but I think where we would disagree is with the details, right? For example - how much money for the education system. How would you define “social capital” ? And what role would government play in encouraging or fostering it? Who has argued that we shouldn’t have infrastructure and protection of property rights?

My point with Bubba Switzler is that anything we give to the poor is going to be, by its nature redistributive. And we are called to sacrifice to help the poor. Of course, how that should be done is subject to debate.

I associate the word “redistributive” with the liberal idea of “income redistribution” which of course is what the government does when it taxes us and turns around and uses it for entitlements. Note that there are 3 parties involved here. With private charity, there is also three parties, but it is voluntary, not compulsory or confiscatory.

Ishii

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I associate the word “redistributive” with the liberal idea of “income redistribution”…

More simply, “redistribution” reflects an archaic zero-sum view of resources. Throughout most of human history this was the prevailing view of human existence: wealth could only come by conquest and aid by charity. Some still cling to this view for various reasons.

The invention of positive-sum economics is fundamentally a Christian idea but not all Christians embrace it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

More simply, “redistribution” reflects an archaic zero-sum view of resources.

No, how we are to live as Christians involves redistribution. We are called to contribute to others. We are called to give to the poor, if it is positive sum, then it is not giving.

"For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same?

Loving those who love you is positive sum. And that is not sufficient as a Christian.

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same?

Throughout most of human history this was the prevailing view of human existence: wealth could only come by conquest and aid by charity. Some still cling to this view for various reasons.

I don’t see anyone here arguing this, so I am not sure what your point is.

The invention of positive-sum economics is fundamentally a Christian idea but not all Christians embrace it.

Once again, I have not seen anyone deny positive sum economics. But the Church does not teach us that our only obligation to the poor is to engage in positive sum activities with them. We are called to sacrifice for the poor and for each other.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I agree, but I think where we would disagree is with the details, right?

With all the possible variations available it would be hard to find two people who agree on all the details.

For example - how much money for the education system.

Not just how much money, but how should education be produced. i.e. vouchers, charter schools, national schools, etc.

How would you define “social capital” ? And what role would government play in encouraging or fostering it?

What I mean is the level of trust and openness that is required for the economy to really function. For example, when I was visiting a LDC, I used to visit an internet cafe that was run by a Muslim woman. In that country which was mostly Christian nobody cared about her religion and everyone interacts peacefully. A couple of countries away, she would be burned out of the village. I don’t know how the government (or any other group) encourages this, but it does seem to be important.

Who has argued that we shouldn’t have infrastructure and protection of property rights?

What Bubba Switzler has said is that all we need is everyone following their self interest in the marketplace and everything will be fine. There are some things that are needed that don’t necessarily spontaneously show up through the market.

I associate the word “redistributive” with the liberal idea of “income redistribution” which of course is what the government does when it taxes us and turns around and uses it for entitlements. Note that there are 3 parties involved here. With private charity, there is also three parties, but it is voluntary, not compulsory or confiscatory.

Ishii

I never said redistribution should be done by government.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, how we are to live as Christians involves redistribution. We are called to contribute to others. We are called to give to the poor, if it is positive sum, then it is not giving.

"For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same?

Loving those who love you is positive sum. And that is not sufficient as a Christian.

I don’t see anyone here arguing this, so I am not sure what your point is.

Once again, I have not seen anyone deny positive sum economics. But the Church does not teach us that our only obligation to the poor is to engage in positive sum activities with them. We are called to sacrifice for the poor and for each other.

I’ll give you an “E” for effort but not much more than that for applying a teaching on turning the other cheek to charity and positive-sum economics. Clearly you are weded to the belief that giving requires sacrifice and that God has demanded a human sacrifice. So sad.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’ll give you an “E” for effort but not much more than that for applying a teaching on turning the other cheek to charity and positive-sum economics.

So why don’t you cite some Church teaching that says that we fulfill our obligation to the poor solely by pursuing our own self interests in the marketplace? You make those claims, but you don’t back them up.

Clearly you are weded to the belief that giving requires sacrifice

Can you give me an example of non-sacrificial giving?

and that God has demanded a human sacrifice. So sad.

I didn’t bring this up, so I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So why don’t you cite some Church teaching that says that we fulfill our obligation to the poor solely by pursuing our own self interests in the marketplace? You make those claims, but you don’t back them up. Can you give me an example of non-sacrificial giving? I didn’t bring this up, so I am not sure what you mean.

Here is one of the best examples of non-sacrificial giving: If I write a book and give copies away I am giving without sacrificing.

Here is a more common example:: if I give advice to someone I am not sacrificing.

More generally, when people do what they are best at and what they enjoy they are giving without sacrificing. Even those who support a family or engage in charity are generally doing what they love.

We are called, among other things, to help the poor. How that is best accomplished is a matter of prudence.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Here is one of the best examples of non-sacrificial giving: If I write a book and give copies away I am giving without sacrificing.

Did you not sacrifice time to write the book? Did you not sacrifice to have the book printed?

Here is a more common example:: if I give advice to someone I am not sacrificing.

I give advice to students all the time, but it comes at a sacrifice. I could be working on research instead of giving advice, I could be grading papers, I could be doing any number of things.

More generally, when people do what they are best at and what they enjoy they are giving without sacrificing.

I am fortunate that I have an occupation where I do what I like to do, but it still involves a sacrifice. So if I help out a colleague by teaching a class session for him, it still involves a sacrifice. I may help out once in a while out of generosity, but I wouldn’t teach a class for a whole semester without getting paid, because it involves sacrifice.

Even those who support a family or engage in charity are generally doing what they love.

We are called, among other things, to help the poor. How that is best accomplished is a matter of prudence.

In other words, you cannot cite any church teaching that says we fulfill our obligation to the poor solely by pursuing our own self interest in the marketplace.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The facts are that Francis never mentioned trickle-down or capitalism; never denounced “trickle-down”–the term used by the Left in America to attack Republicans.

But the damage is done: the Left 1, the Church and Conservatives 0.

*54. In diesem Zusammenhang verteidigen einige noch die „Überlauf“-Theorien (trickle-down theories), die davon ausgehen, dass jedes vom freien Markt begünstigte Wirtschaftswachstum von sich aus eine größere Gleichheit und soziale Einbindung in der Welt hervorzurufen vermag. * - German version of Evangelii Gaudium.

We’ve all seen the English version as well. And the Pope’s clarification in an interview. I don’t buy your view.

I’m not defending socialism or social democratic/statist policies. But to say he didn’t mention capitalism is false.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Did you not sacrifice time to write the book? Did you not sacrifice to have the book printed?

I guess they don’t teach sunk/fixed vs marginal costs in your department. So let’s make the example idiot-proof and assume I’m a successful author on a book tour. I have already made, and will continue to make, a good return on my initial work. Now I meet a poor man who needs my book but can’t afford it. So I give him a copy. Where is the sacrifice in that gift?

I give advice to students all the time, but it comes at a sacrifice. I could be working on research instead of giving advice, I could be grading papers, I could be doing any number of things. I am fortunate that I have an occupation where I do what I like to do, but it still involves a sacrifice. So if I help out a colleague by teaching a class session for him, it still involves a sacrifice. I may help out once in a while out of generosity, but I wouldn’t teach a class for a whole semester without getting paid, because it involves sacrifice.

In some departments this is called an opportunity cost. But you are ignoring the fact that you are paid to advise students and that most people who give advice to others do so because it brings them joy to help others. Similarly, arranged exchanges are not essential to trading. How long would you teach for someone who was simply shirking his responsibilities or never returning the favor?

In other words, you cannot cite any church teaching that says we fulfill our obligation to the poor solely by pursuing our own self interest in the marketplace.

Sadly, this is the same straw man that the pope used. What’s worse, you are demanding a negative proof. My claim is simply that sacrifice is not essential to giving either as a practical nor as a theological matter. If you have some evidence that sacrifice is essential to giving, show it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I guess they don’t teach sunk/fixed vs marginal costs in your department. So let’s make the example idiot-proof and assume I’m a successful author on a book tour. I have already made, and will continue to make, a good return on my initial work. Now I meet a poor man who needs my book but can’t afford it. So I give him a copy. Where is the sacrifice in that gift?

You could have sold the book you give away on ebay. That is called opportunity cost.

In some departments this is called an opportunity cost. But you are ignoring the fact that you are paid to advise students

Not all the students I advise are the ones I am paid to advise. Also, I sometimes advise students during the summer when I am not paid to advise.

and that most people who give advice to others do so because it brings them joy to help others.

Is that why McKinsey and Co gives away their advice for free? Oh, wait, they charge for the advice.

 

[fnr]

Wow.

In other words, you cannot cite any church teaching that says we fulfill our obligation to the poor solely by pursuing our own self interest in the marketplace.

I would go one step farther and claim that those who favor “limited government” are often the first to demand government intervention on their behalf. Let’s be empirical about how out politics works: the biggest expenditures by the US government in the last 15 years have been based on preserving the solvency of large financial institutions. The Federal Reserve governance structure is explicitly based on the notion that large regional banks are the most likely to understand the monetary needs of the market as a whole. Overspending on military, based on spending beyond Pentagon-recommended levels, is a not insubstantial fraction of long-term debt.

Other than outright anarchists, “free market” advocates support only those government policies that support owners, investors, and traditional elites. They’re fine with the use of police power of the state to suppress labor unions, including the historic use of national guard to suppress strikes and in modern time the legal suppression of voluntary labor contracts that specify closed shops. They endorse policies that promote elite lifestyles such as the mortgage interest deduction, which also happens to be a huge subsidy to banks.

To reduce costs to private investors and consumers, they advocate infrastructure spending on roads, bridges, canals, and ports. To shield property owners from risks that private insurance will not cover, they advocate flood insurance.

When they feel that “Christendom” is threatened, they call for government intervention. In the marriage debates, rather than saying that the state has no business in recognizing marriage, they insist that government benefits be restricted to marriages that comport with norms of sacramental marriage.

When teaching children history, they demand that state schools avoid “revisionist” accounts that create questions about the legitimacy of capital accumulation (i.e. the reliance of the norther textile industry on slave cotton as a precondition to capital formation).

When discussing reparations paid to native tribes with historically valid treaties abrogated by the US government, they insist that the past is the past and ignore the precondition to property rights of clear title.

Markets exist as an organic and inevitable consequence of voluntary human interactions. They’re exceptionally efficient for most allocations of resources. They do not allocate externalities like pollution efficiently. They do not price non-market goods such as marriage and children well. They do not create valid ownership if the participants in trade do not have clear title. And they do not efficiently allocate resources when information asymmetry exists between parties in a trade.

More fundamentally, markets do not efficiently allocate resources across generations. People do all sorts of things for their children, current and future, that are not well described by positive discount rates.

To me, the voice of the church must be about more than the promotion of a secular welfare state (as the Pope’s exhortation teaches). We must shine light on the parts of markets that are subject to political abuse.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You could have sold the book you give away on ebay. That is called opportunity cost.

Giving the book away doesn’t diminish my ebay sales. No opportunity cost.

But if you want to attribute very opportunity cost to sacrifice, is it a sacrifice if I refrain from beating up a homeless man and taking away his shopping cart full of stuff? Hey, look at me, I’m sacrificing for the homeless!

Not all the students I advise are the ones I am paid to advise. Also, I sometimes advise students during the summer when I am not paid to advise.

Good for you.

Is that why McKinsey and Co gives away their advice for free? Oh, wait, they charge for the advice.

Actually, they do give it away sometimes. There are all sorts of givaways and freebies in the economy if you only stop to look. This forum, for example.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would go one step farther and claim that those who favor “limited government” are often the first to demand government intervention on their behalf…Other than outright anarchists, “free market” advocates support only those government policies that support owners, investors, and traditional elites.

The typical definition of free market capitalism and limited government (which are closely overlapping concepts) is precisely that government ought to limit itself to protecting the most basic and fundamental rights and allowing people to freely organize to solve problems beyond that. Often this is derided as protecting the property interests of the rich but, in fact, as you point out, it is all to easy for the rich to capture politicians and it is typically the powerless who suffer most. A great example of this is occuring in China where peasants are kicked off their farmland, with little or no compensation, and that land is given to developers and the value of the improvements is shared between those developers and the politicians.

More fundamentally, markets do not efficiently allocate resources across generations. People do all sorts of things for their children, current and future, that are not well described by positive discount rates.

It’s hard to understand what you are calling “markets” here. Most people are doing well to feed, clothe, and educate their children and not to be a financial burden on them in their old age. Some die with significant wealth that is inherited but that is not the general case.

To me, the voice of the church must be about more than the promotion of a secular welfare state (as the Pope’s exhortation teaches). We must shine light on the parts of markets that are subject to political abuse.

That’s fine as far as it goes but what advocates of limited government are saying is that the more power government has the more it becomes a prize worth fighting over and the more powerful a tool it is for some to wield over others.

 

[KSU]

*54. In diesem Zusammenhang verteidigen einige noch die „Überlauf“-Theorien (trickle-down theories), die davon ausgehen, dass jedes vom freien Markt begünstigte Wirtschaftswachstum von sich aus eine größere Gleichheit und soziale Einbindung in der Welt hervorzurufen vermag. * - German version of Evangelii Gaudium.

We’ve all seen the English version as well. And the Pope’s clarification in an interview. I don’t buy your view.

I’m not defending socialism or social democratic/statist policies. But to say he didn’t mention capitalism is false.

Didn’t you bother to check the German translation before you posted? The Vatican’s German translation makes it even more likely that the pope wrote “spillover” in the original Spanish, as Ender and Brendan and I and others have contended. The Vatican used the German word “überlauf” which means “unloading excesses and spillage”. mymemory.translated.net/t/German/English/%C3%BCberlauf

Since “überlauf” was used by the pope, according to the Vatican translator, why then would the pope immediately write “(trickle-down theories)” in English in a German-language document? If I had to bet, I’d bet our friend the translator was at the bottom of it. But you say, what–that the pope really wrote it that way because he wanted to attack American Capitalism and be named Socialist Of The Year? Maybe you think the pope is defending Liberation Theology?

I know you’re not defending Socialism, but you are defending the proposition that the pope violated the Church prohibition (e.g., 424, Compendium) against engaging in politics:
QUOTE 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 can’t escape that implication, nor did you respond to it or to what Bishop James D. Conley wrote in NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE :

QUOTE Among other things, the pope critiques the belief that unregulated free markets will ‘inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world’… Most reasonable conservative leaders recognize the value of limited government regulation, even in mostly free markets, as essential for protecting the most vulnerable.

Evangelii Gaudium did not reject capitalism, or even particular market theories [SUCH AS TRICKLE-DOWN, MY EDIT]. Instead, it rejected idolatry of any economic system as a panacea, and it called Catholics to human solidarity in the context of public policy. The pope affirmed that markets must be understood and administered in justice, with due regard for the sovereignty and solidarity of families and human dignity. Pope Benedict XVI presented similar ideas in depth in 2009, as did Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine. Evangelii Gaudium’s economic message was particularly powerful because it called all of us to consider the consequences of our own financial decisions… Pope Francis is not calling for an advent of socialist economic policy or radical income redistribution. The Holy Father has lived through Latin America’s 50-year cycle of extremist economic policies. He’s calling for moderation, for freedom, and above all, for virtue… END QUOTE nationalreview.com/node/365197/print

So, again, I say the pope was not condemning American-style Capitalism, but you say that for me to say that the pope didn’t even mention capitalism is “false”.

If I missed it, please quote the pope’s words.

It’s easy to say things without links or other sources as back up, and it’s easy to simply ignore previously made uncontested points, thus requiring the other person to waste time restating those points. That’s not debating; it’s what Rush Limbaugh calls “drive by” journalism when the Leftist media uses that tactic.

 

[ishii]

Didn’t you bother to check the German translation before you posted? The Vatican’s German translation makes it even more likely that the pope wrote “spillover” in the original Spanish, as Ender and Brendan and I and others have contended. The Vatican used the German word “überlauf” which means “unloading excesses and spillage”. mymemory.translated.net/t/German/English/%C3%BCberlauf

Since “überlauf” was used by the pope, according to the Vatican translator, why then would the pope immediately write “(trickle-down theories)” in English in a German-language document? If I had to bet, I’d bet our friend the translator was at the bottom of it. But you say, what–that the pope really wrote it that way because he wanted to attack American Capitalism and be named Socialist Of The Year? Maybe you think the pope is defending Liberation Theology?

I know you’re not defending Socialism, but you are defending the proposition that the pope violated the Church prohibition (e.g., 424, Compendium) against engaging in politics:
QUOTE 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 can’t escape that implication, nor did you respond to it or to what Bishop James D. Conley wrote in NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE :

QUOTE Among other things, the pope critiques the belief that unregulated free markets will ‘inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world’… Most reasonable conservative leaders recognize the value of limited government regulation, even in mostly free markets, as essential for protecting the most vulnerable.

Evangelii Gaudium did not reject capitalism, or even particular market theories [SUCH AS TRICKLE-DOWN, MY EDIT]. Instead, it rejected idolatry of any economic system as a panacea, and it called Catholics to human solidarity in the context of public policy. The pope affirmed that markets must be understood and administered in justice, with due regard for the sovereignty and solidarity of families and human dignity. Pope Benedict XVI presented similar ideas in depth in 2009, as did Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine. Evangelii Gaudium’s economic message was particularly powerful because it called all of us to consider the consequences of our own financial decisions… Pope Francis is not calling for an advent of socialist economic policy or radical income redistribution. The Holy Father has lived through Latin America’s 50-year cycle of extremist economic policies. He’s calling for moderation, for freedom, and above all, for virtue… END QUOTE nationalreview.com/node/365197/print

So, again, I say the pope was not condemning American-style Capitalism, but you say that for me to say that the pope didn’t even mention capitalism is “false”.

If I missed it, please quote the pope’s words.

It’s easy to say things without links or other sources as back up, and it’s easy to simply ignore previously made uncontested points, thus requiring the other person to waste time restating those points. That’s not debating; it’s what Rush Limbaugh calls “drive by” journalism when the Leftist media uses that tactic.

Excellent points, KSU. And I bold underlined the last point which I think speaks to what happens here all the time. People ignore the previous points then you have to waste time restating the same points, while dealing with the ad hominems and straw men arguments at the same time. Very tedious.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

Since “überlauf” was used by the pope, according to the Vatican translator, why then would the pope immediately write “(trickle-down theories)” in English in a German-language document? If I had to bet, I’d bet our friend the translator was at the bottom of it. But you say, what–that the pope really wrote it that way because he wanted to attack American Capitalism and be named Socialist Of The Year? Maybe you think the pope is defending Liberation Theology?

In that case maybe someone ought to check an Ayn Rand (or von Mises) novel translated into German (or Spanish or Italian, for that matter) and see if the terms agree. Just a suggestion.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Didn’t you bother to check the German translation before you posted? The Vatican’s German translation makes it even more likely that the pope wrote “spillover” in the original Spanish, as Ender and Brendan and I and others have contended. The Vatican used the German word “überlauf” which means “unloading excesses and spillage”. mymemory.translated.net/t/German/English/%C3%BCberlauf

That doesn’t change the message.

In case you doubt that I inserted the phrase “trickle down theories” into the German translation, here it is: vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_ge.html

Since “überlauf” was used by the pope, according to the Vatican translator, why then would the pope immediately write “(trickle-down theories)” in English in a German-language document? If I had to bet, I’d bet our friend the translator was at the bottom of it.

I don’t know why it’s there, but the point is, it’s there.

But you say, what–that the pope really wrote it that way because he wanted to attack American Capitalism and be named Socialist Of The Year?

I said that? Can you direct me to where I said that?

Maybe you think the pope is defending Liberation Theology?

Obviously.

I know you’re not defending Socialism, but you are defending the proposition that the pope violated the Church prohibition (e.g., 424, Compendium) against engaging in politics:
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.

See the bold.

You can’t escape that implication, nor did you respond to it or to what Bishop James D. Conley wrote in NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE :

It wasn’t in your post that I quoted…

Evangelii Gaudium did not reject capitalism, or even particular market theories [SUCH AS TRICKLE-DOWN, MY EDIT].

You’re assuming “trickle-down theories” are particular market theories.

So, again, I say the pope was not condemning American-style Capitalism, but you say that for me to say that the pope didn’t even mention capitalism is “false”.

I generally assume people take the phrase free market to mean capitalism.

To suggest that I’m saying the Pope is condemning capitalism is false, as the Church has accepted capitalism since Rerum Novarum. The Church has condemned how capitalism is carried out, and has denounced “liberal capitalism” and “neoliberalism” under John Paul II.

It’s easy to say things without links or other sources as back up, and it’s easy to simply ignore previously made uncontested points, thus requiring the other person to waste time restating those points. That’s not debating; it’s what Rush Limbaugh calls “drive by” journalism when the Leftist media uses that tactic.

I’m waiting for a source from the Vatican that says, “Oops, we didn’t mean trickle-down theories. Translation problem.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

That doesn’t change the message.

In case you doubt that I inserted the phrase “trickle down theories” into the German translation, here it is: ."

I meant “in case you think I inserted”, not “in case you doubt”. Sorry.