Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues

[pnewton]

The bolded statement is simply false.

No. It is my opinion. You may deem if false. You may think have one oil company ran by Standard Oil, for example the epitome of free enterprise. I do not. Nor do I think many living at the turn of the Twentieth Century when government regulation of industry was new. Fortunately, enough Americans were aware, despite the enormous wealth to the American barony, so that we had such presidents as Taft and Roosevelt.

As far as “backing up my claim”, I was assuming basic understanding of American History. No matter. Here is a quick refresher:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Note that the purpose (and test) of this legislation is to address restraint of trade. However, if you note my first statement in response to the article, it was not I that made the first claim, but the news article. I merely challenged the assumption on which it was based. So there you have my evidence. Capitalism, when allowed to run unfettered, resulted in many industries being reduced to a single man who was in charge of that industry in America and against whom none could compete. This resulted in many evils and sins against the poor, something that cries out to God.

I find it strange that I am defending Catholic teaching here. No wonder conservatives have issues with the Pope.

 

[lynnvinc]

newsday.com/news/new-york/pope-francis-visit/pope-francis-draws-criticism-from-some-conservative-catholics-over-stances-on-economy-environment-social-stances-1.10770830
…

Are you sure they are Catholic?

(That was the question posed to me when I told my current Carmelite community at a dinner with wine that my previous Carmelite community members were against drinking. )

 

[Odell]

Here is a rather long Facebook critique/rant of the Pope’s economic stance. Where is he wrong and where is he right?? He is on a rant against an article by this Dr. Nadal. I am less concerned about what he had to say then my friends response to him. I believe my friend doesn’t realize how much capitalism has helped (in my understanding as a proponent of Distributism) destroy the South American economy. To him it is all non capitalistic corruption of the government that the Popes home of Argentina has failed economically. To me he parts PJPII and Benedict from Francis economic stance. Well this isn’t what I have gathered since becoming more in favor of the Distributionist economic model. To me the Popes stance is very much in line with previous popes. I just can’t articulate it well enough. So do you agree or disagree??

Where to begin? Dr. Nadal raises offers some worthy insights here but his piece is notable for some serious confusion. Dr. Nadal bemoans “words, words, words” of past pontificates and offers, “We don’t need any more John Pauls and Benedicts. And this pope is right. It isn’t necessary for popes to always talk of sex and abortion. Where he comes from, those are secondary in magnitude to the evil of avoidable poverty, and all of the secondary violence and evils spawned by abject, grinding poverty. And to be brutally honest and completely fair to Francis, in 35 years of John Paul and Benedict, I heard comparatively little in traditional circles about third world poverty and the social justice teaching of the Church.”
I’m not sure where Dr. Nadal has been for 35 years but perhaps we should start by considering what type of “poverty” he is speaking about. Over the 35 years of John Paul and Benedict, I witnessed not just words, but countless courageous efforts and actions taken to reduce the spiritual poverty which dominates the world. A world which was rapidly descending into an abyss where the value of a life is variable and could be assigned by men, was openly confronted by both these Popes, and a pause initiated which has allowed a movement for the defense of life to take a foothold. Dr. Nadal is part of the reason for this, but believes that things have gotten much worse over the last 35 years in spite of John Paul and Benedict. I would say while culture has continued a descent into relativism, we have developed an anti-culture steeped in the dignity of life that has created enormous challenges for those seeking a godless world.

At this point I only have time to consider Pope John Paul II. More on Benedict later. The Soviet dragon which was crushing the spirit and lives of residents in the Soviet Union and East Bloc, with intentions of marching across Europe and third world nations in Asia, Africa and South America, was slain during the reign of Pope John Paul II. Arguably a key moment in that battle was Pope John Paul’s visit to an enslaved Poland in 1979 where millions turned out to greet the Holy Father despite the determined efforts of state security. Millions in Kracow and village squares were screaming, “We want God, ” under the watchful eyes of hundreds of KGB and Polish secret police. One Polish senior secret police commander, seeing the reaction of the crowds, was heard to say, “It is over.” It was the beginning of the end for communist rule in Poland.

What is the legacy Saint John Paul left us? Is it words, words, words? Hardly. Saint John Paul taught us that every human life is of consequence. Every human life has inherent, built-in, inextinguishable dignity. Every human life has infinite value. That is what John Paul II taught when he walked, in pain, in the footsteps of Jesus and St. Paul, in the Holy Land, in Damascus, in Greece. That is what he exhibited by embracing lepers in Mali and Korea, visiting residents of Ecuadorian shantytowns, and stopping to lunch with residents of mud hut villages in Togo. That is the truth he embodied when he returned insults with affection, when he acted on the belief that even those most filled with hate can become, once again, capable of decency. He lived this commitment to rejuvenating impoverished spirits when he forgave the Muslim assassin sent by Russia to kill him. This is what he modeled for us when suffering with Parkinsonism he mustered the mental will to lead the Church in its mission of evangelization. This unshakable commitment to the dignity of the human person is the prism that focuses John Paul’s approach to world politics and economics.
Pope Francis commented on economics at the UN in 2014, “The legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.” John Paul viewed the economy slightly differently. He understood two things. Systemic economic poverty is symptomatic of much larger cultural deficiencies and it is only by a true acceptance of the sanctity of every life that ultimately individuals can be elevated out of poverty. John Paul openly addressed his views on poverty in three encyclicals…Centessimus Annus, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Laborem Exercens…and a variety of other documents. He was a critical actor in the drama that led to the removal of the shackles of slavery that ruled the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union.

Continued…

 

[Odell]

The themes of the Pope John Paul II papacy included— wealth as the product of intelligence, creativity, imagination, and entrepreneurship; empowerment and inclusion as the core of serious anti-poverty programs. John Paul also insisted on the imperative of a public culture of honesty to make the free economy work.
From “Centissimus”, the current economic challenges are “a consequence of the violation of the human rights to private initiative, to ownership of property and to freedom in the economic sector. To this must be added the cultural and national dimension: it is not possible to understand man on the basis of economics alone, nor to define him simply on the basis of class membership. Man is understood in a more complete way when he is situated within the sphere of culture through his language, history, and the position he takes towards the fundamental events of life, such as birth, love, work and death. At the heart of every culture lies the attitude man takes to the greatest mystery: the mystery of God. Different cultures are basically different ways of facing the question of the meaning of personal existence. When this question is eliminated, the culture and moral life of nations are corrupted.”

John Paul II knew that corruption was one of the primary reasons that the world, including Catholic Latin America, was failing to fulfill its enormous potential. “He also knew that the kind of systemic, culturally reinforced corruption that had turned Argentina from one of the world’s wealthiest countries into a bankrupt basket case reflected an enormous failure on the part of the Catholic Church, which had had 500 years to help build something better, something nobler, something more empowering — something more resonant with human dignity. The Eucharist makes it the business of the church to concern itself with the entire lived reality of each and every human being.”

Pope John Paul II also understood communism was based on a false understanding of the human person, human community, human origins, and human destiny. And by restoring to his own Polish people the truth about themselves, John Paul II helped them forge tools of liberation that Communism could not match, while reinforcing the similar strategy of resistance by “living in the truth” that was being deployed by secular, anti-Communist human-rights activists such as Václav Havel, using what Havel famously called “the power of the powerless.”

Pope Francis on the other hand has been promulgating a
very different view. In Evangelium Gaudi he states, “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.” Francis refers to trickle down theories…a progressive political term…that have never been proven? Capitalism, especially capitalism as defined by the Founders of this nation and Western Europe, has lifted the world out of poverty.

John Paul states in Centessimus, “Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress? The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative.”

Simply, Pope Francis views the world economy as a zero sum game in which economic poverty will never be reduced without state intervention, or intervention of an overseeing world order, to execute wealth redistribution in order to offer hope to the impoverished. There is little mention that many of the most impoverished areas of the world are governed by absolutely corrupt regimes (Mexico and many African nations), are Muslim nations or are failed socialist experiments (Latin America and Asia). John Paul recognized the power of a “market economy”, in a culture that respected human dignity and possessed structures to provide adequate juridical support to support citizens seeking to advance their standing. John Paul accepted the Novak thesis of Democratic Capitalism. “Democratic capitalism is a system of political economy constituted by three relatively independent systems: the free economy, the free polity (under limited government and the rule of law), and a free system of moral and cultural institutions. The latter is the most important, and difficult to constitute.”

Continued…

 

[Odell]

Hopefully advisors are huddled with the Pope as he considers future statements on poverty. The empirical evidence from the swift upward thrust of the war-leveled economies of 1946–48 — those of Japan and Germany, but also those of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, which turned to democracy and one form or another of capitalism — is overwhelming. But so also is the evidence from most of us in the United States, whose grandparents were “the wretched refuse” of the earth, yet now in a short time their families are counted among the most affluent people of the world. How was that possible? Through what system was that done, and what are its imitable secrets?

The world that Pope Francis and the Catholic Church faces today is arguably even more unstable than that faced by John Paul II. And when a petty thug like Evo Morales of Bolivia can hand a hammer and sickle cross to the Pontiff with no response, we are dealing with a Vatican that does not clearly see the threats that face the Church and the world. Accommodation and moral equivalency are hardly effective methods for the head of the Catholic Church dealing with the likes of Putin, ISIS, Khameni, and Obama. Today, sadly, the Vatican needs to rediscover the lessons, teaching and accomplishments of John Paul II in advancing the cause of the Church and all mankind through his actions on the international stage. Failure to do so ill serves Pope Francis, whose public persona and popularity, like John Paul’s, could create openings for real change to happen: change that leads to the empowerment and inclusion of the poor and marginalized. Such change seems unlikely, however, in circumstances in which Evo Morales thinks he can offer the first Latin American pope the dumbed-down, faux-Communist equivalent of Andres Serrano’s **** Christ — and get away with it.

 

[Odell]

Last one

my prayer is that pope francis will understand that he has much to learn from pope john paul ii. The world does not need to be awakened to its “collective” humanity, as dr, nadal advises, it needs to be awakened to the individual humanity of every person on this planet. Every one of us is jesus in his distressing disguise. Collectivism obscures that. Further to reduce the john paul papacy to a “pro-life apologetic” betrays a serious lack of understanding of what saint john paul achieved. If all you thought pope john paul ii did was talk about “sex and abortion”, you weren’t listening. If dr. Nadal’s “last war” refers to the war for individual human dignity, we are in big trouble. If we are abandoning that field, keep running, because we will all than be left to the whims of statist engineers and men without chests proclaiming a desire to pursue the collective good as they crush liberty and religious freedom for all.

The forces of secularism are violent and determined. Isis, russia, iran, jihadist islam, china and progressivism here in the us are all interested in one thing…power and control. There are only two organized forces which stand in their way…the united states, specifically the united states military, and the catholic church. All these ruthless factions will be happy to partner with a well-meaning man of god committed to “collective humanity” and willing to look the other way while catholics and christians are crucified and burned alive across the middle east, nations like china and north korea jail and kill thousands as dissidents, single mothers account for 40% of births in the us, and nations unwilling to support their populations, some of them “catholic” nations, send millions of citizens on death defying journeys to illegally enter other countries.

Pope francis has a tremendous opportunity to reinvigorate a morally impoverished world. The world desparately needs a loving man of god who is willing to incorporate the work begun by pope john paul ii, and benedict, in his papacy pope francis has rightly been critical of greed, corruption, and lack of concern for the poor. These are serious problems, but the “capitalism” he has seen in argentina is not the “capitalism” that has transformed the west. The key from a papal perspective would appear to be advocating for the saving message of christ and the gift of the eucharist in declaring war not on economic poverty but the moral poverty of this world. Similarly the vatican appears to be adopting rapprochement or ambivalence with numerous state and non-state actors which threaten not only the liberty of their own people but the liberty and lives of large numbers of christians. The vatican should study the failure of such appeasement with tyrannical states prior to john paul ii.
The “traditionalism” disparaged by dr. Nadal is the catholic faith. This faith is one of beauty, tradition, self-sacrifice and love. It offers strength, hope and love through the redeeming grace and sacrifice of our lord. This is the light that francis needs to share with the world as evangelizes. The secular press and media may be more interested in a grandfatherly religious man with the power of the papacy who advocates social policy which satsifies progressives. What i pray is that the holy father understands that those who advocate such policies in the name of the common good are little interested in the dignity of the individual, be it an unborn infant, an 80 yo with alzheimers, the severely depressed seeking euthanasia, a poor yezidi family being crucified by isis or a mexican family sent on a death defying journey across mexican and us deserts to illegally immigrate. These secular, progressive forces are uninterested in individual human dignity. Rather in the name of the “collective good” they seek to supplant christ and god in society with a new god…an all powerful state run by men.

Pope francis has said, “jesus is the path, and the path is for walking and following.” he powerfully reminds us that, “we cannot follow jesus on the path of love unless we first love others.” we saw that this week. If francis truly intends to reinvigorate the world in its commitment to loving and assisting those most marginalized in society, he has a tremendous mentor in pope john paul ii. Going along to get along and focusing on failed economic systems in a morally impoverished world is too easy, and destructive. This pope is capable of so much more. I pray that saint john paul and the holy spirit will surround pope francis with the extraordinary grace that will be required for him to meet the challenges of this world.

 

[zz912]

No. It is my opinion. You may deem if false. You may think have one oil company ran by Standard Oil, for example the epitome of free enterprise. I do not. Nor do I think many living at the turn of the Twentieth Century when government regulation of industry was new. Fortunately, enough Americans were aware, despite the enormous wealth to the American barony, so that we had such presidents as Taft and Roosevelt.

As far as “backing up my claim”, I was assuming basic understanding of American History. No matter. Here is a quick refresher:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Note that the purpose (and test) of this legislation is to address restraint of trade. However, if you note my first statement in response to the article, it was not I that made the first claim, but the news article. I merely challenged the assumption on which it was based. So there you have my evidence. Capitalism, when allowed to run unfettered, resulted in many industries being reduced to a single man who was in charge of that industry in America and against whom none could compete. This resulted in many evils and sins against the poor, something that cries out to God.

I find it strange that I am defending Catholic teaching here. No wonder conservatives have issues with the Pope.

Your own example disproves your contention. Before the govt came in and broke up Standard Oil, the free market, through competition, had reduced the market share of Standard Oil from 90% down to 60-70%, and was falling. The only instances where you have monopolies exist for any substantial time is when the govt protects them. Naturally occurring barriers to entry (like the massive capital required with oil production) may cause a monopoly to appear briefly, but competition eventually comes in and ends the monopoly.

 

[Trader]

It is time for someone else’s opinion, Saint Augustine of Hippo, still relevant and one of the greatest theologians and philosophers of all time after 1600 years:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

 

[Thomas_White]

IMHO, the difficutly is in viewing Catholic teaching, in particular the Church’s social teaching, through the prism of partisan politics and political ideology. It would seem the division in the U.S. Church could not be understood in any other way.

 

[pnewton]

Your own example disproves your contentiony.

I will simply disagree with your understanding of history. The point is, the Church has spoken on this. If I agreed with you, I would still have to consider that the Church has condemned unrestricted capitalism. So, on one hand I have the Church, the saints, popes and everything I have been taught about history. On the other I have one that says his understanding of history is that monopolies are good. This is not hard for me, on a Catholic site, where Catholic teaching matters.

So, do you think the Catholic Church is wrong, or that the Catholic Church does not condemn unrestricted capitalism? If the latter, can you show one pope in the last one hundred years that agrees?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

the Church has condemned unrestricted capitalism

It’s hard to imagine a more abused term than this; “unrestricted capitalism” seems to mean whatever people want it to mean at the moment. Nobody is willing to define it and this faciliates a classic exercise in equivocation.

Suffice it to say that “unrestricted capitalism”, in the literal sense, has never existed and is advocated by nobody. Of course, people argue all the time about more or less regulation of capitalism but the Church has not condemned less regulation in general.

 

[sallybutler]

The minute a Catholic or Christian says free market, I want to ask them what do you believe in the ‘free market’ or God?" It is not a biblical teaching. It is not a Catholic teaching.

It is the same as believing in fairies (and I am Irish). There is no such thing (in spite of what I told my kids).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The minute a Catholic or Christian says free market, I want to ask them what do you believe in the ‘free market’ or God?" It is not a biblical teaching. It is not a Catholic teaching.

It is the same as believing in fairies (and I am Irish). There is no such thing (in spite of what I told my kids).

No, it is not biblical. It is in fact a relatively new invention. Of course, those who curse the free market don’t actually wish to live a biblical life of subsistence agriculture, they just want to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while they pose as righteouser than thou. It’s as biblical as the Pharisees.

 

[Latias]

No, it is not biblical. It is in fact a relatively new invention. Of course, those who curse the free market don’t actually wish to live a biblical life of subsistence agriculture, they just want to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while they pose as righteouser than thou. It’s as biblical as the Pharisees.

Perhaps some of those people would want the benefits of a capitalism where domestic industry (instead of it being offshored) would produce the (informational and electronic) innovative goods (normally associated with capitalism such a computers and iPads) that global capitalism has furnished, where the government would perhaps have more leverage over companies and maybe have more state-owned enterprises.

It does not necessarily follow that those who aspire for a more benign capitalism want to live in a primitivist agrarianism society or a single-party socialist state

So do you think it is hypocritical for anyone to enjoy goods and services produced by a capitalist system to criticize the notion of a fairly unregulated market and a state that does not provide much social welfare?

People can note that there are negative aspects of globalism capitalism because there are negative aspects, and one could think about the benefits an alternative system. One can also criticized the Chicago School rhetoric of “economic efficiency” and “comparative advantage” that accompanies apologia for the Washington Consensus and globalization. Please note that Henry Clay and Alexander Hamiliton where not proponents of the free market.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, it is not biblical. It is in fact a relatively new invention. Of course, those who curse the free market don’t actually wish to live a biblical life of subsistence agriculture, they just want to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while they pose as righteouser than thou. It’s as biblical as the Pharisees.

While one can debate the ideal role of government in society. One cannot apriori determine that those who either want more are less government regulation are acting like pharisees.

 

[zz912]

I will simply disagree with your understanding of history. The point is, the Church has spoken on this. If I agreed with you, I would still have to consider that the Church has condemned unrestricted capitalism. So, on one hand I have the Church, the saints, popes and everything I have been taught about history. On the other I have one that says his understanding of history is that monopolies are good. This is not hard for me, on a Catholic site, where Catholic teaching matters.

So, do you think the Catholic Church is wrong, or that the Catholic Church does not condemn unrestricted capitalism? If the latter, can you show one pope in the last one hundred years that agrees?

Your use of a strawman argument here tells me you can’t actually rebut my argument.

I denied your claim that unfettered capitalism produces monopolies, and you have only given one example (Standard Oil). I showed that even before it was broken up, its market share had fallen by 30% and was going to keep falling. So your lone example didn’t prove your point. I contended that in unfettered capitalism, any naturally occurring monopolies exist because of natural barriers to entry (large start-up costs, expertise, know how), but that these monopolies are short-lived.

You have given no argument or evidence otherwise. I have never contended that the Church denounces unfettered capitalism, nor do I or anyone I know promote or wish for it.

So why don’t you start over and actually argue against what I actually said.

 

[zz912]

The minute a Catholic or Christian says free market, I want to ask them what do you believe in the ‘free market’ or God?" It is not a biblical teaching. It is not a Catholic teaching.

It is the same as believing in fairies (and I am Irish). There is no such thing (in spite of what I told my kids).

The principles of a free market certainly are quite biblical. Scripture is clear that people deserve payment for their services and goods, and Scripture is quite clear that people have property rights (which is the basis for a free market).

1 Tim 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Leviticus 19:13 Do not defraud or** rob your neighbor**. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

Luke 10:7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Exodus 20: 15 Thou shall not steal,

Deuteronomy 5:21 You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land…or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Gen 23:8-9 And he said to them, “If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar,that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place.”

2 Thes 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.

2 Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

 

[pnewton]

The principles of a free market certainly are quite biblical. Scripture is clear that people deserve payment for their services and goods, and Scripture is quite clear that people have property rights (which is the basis for a free market).1 Tim 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

None of this promotes capitalism, per se. It does promote the right to ownership, which the Church has always promoted. Thus, communism is immoral as it denies this right. There is inherent in it a some type of market, though how free is not included. Such a concept did not even exist then. Needless to say the world has changed a lot since then.

BTW - The verse from Timothy is about pastoral support, not economics.

 

[stinkcat_14]

None of this promotes capitalism, per se. It does promote the right to ownership, which the Church has always promoted. Thus, communism is immoral as it denies this right. There is inherent in it a some type of market, though how free is not included. Such a concept did not even exist then. Needless to say the world has changed a lot since then.

BTW - The verse from Timothy is about pastoral support, not economics.

Also, the passages that says the worker is worth his wage can also be used to support a minimum wage. After all, there is nothing in scripture that suggests a minimum wage is immoral. Scripture does not really tell us much to determine what the optimal level of government in the economy should be.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Perhaps some of those people would want the benefits of a capitalism where domestic industry (instead of it being offshored) would produce the (informational and electronic) innovative goods (normally associated with capitalism such a computers and iPads) that global capitalism has furnished, where the government would perhaps have more leverage over companies and maybe have more state-owned enterprises.

Perhaps some people would like to vacation 365 days a year. Who are we to tell them “no”?

You can spin all sorts of elaborate theories about how life ought to be, utopianism, but grappling with life as it is is, well, life.

The problem with utopianism has always been the licsense that it grants those who pursue it. It is not a coincidence that Communism, which promised a better life, led to the deaths of millions.

People who can’t even run a lemonade stand ought not be inventing new economic systems.

It does not necessarily follow that those who aspire for a more benign capitalism want to live in a primitivist agrarianism society or a single-party socialist state

My comment was directed at a very specific aspect of your post, namely that free markets are not biblical and therefore that they are ungodly. Look around you and you will see that very little in your life is biblical starting with the internet through which we are communicating.

So do you think it is hypocritical for anyone to enjoy goods and services produced by a capitalist system to criticize the notion of a fairly unregulated market and a state that does not provide much social welfare?

I think it is foolish to criticize what you do not understand quit apart from whatever benefit you might derive from it. Note that “fairly unregulated” is a pretty vague term and is certainly not the same as “unregulated” or “unfettered” the term preferred by clerics.

People can note that there are negative aspects of globalism capitalism because there are negative aspects, and one could think about the benefits an alternative system. One can also criticized the Chicago School rhetoric of “economic efficiency” and “comparative advantage” that accompanies apologia for the Washington Consensus and globalization. Please note that Henry Clay and Alexander Hamiliton where not proponents of the free market.

Many good things have negative aspects. If you eat too much nutrious food you will get fat. It doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with nutrious food.

Those who seem obsessed with the Chicago School rhetoric of “economic efficiency” seem to have a problem with efficency in general. Or what the CCC calls ‘prudence’. They would rather dream of utopia and scold those who do the hard work of creating a better world because their latte is not the right temperature.