Pope vows to study US criticism of his anti-capitalist rhetoric

[graciew]

Worse than that, he ill serves the poor in his attacks on capitalism which, for all the benefits it brings to the rich and middle classes, does its greatest work for the poor.

Our roads meet again,Bubba. We wrote " the poor" in our posts at the same time.

 

[Darryl1958]

Though I am reluctant to addressing South America as if we were " all the same" ,cause our countries differ in many ways,I do agree with you that corruption is a big issue.
What makes things worse,at least where I live,is that it is widespread at higher levels,those whom the Pope so often addresses should be held to a higher standard,and it became a sort of " why pay if it s going to end in their purses" for a vast majority of the population.
So the ones who pay are overburdened with taxes. Among others …
Poverty has different causes, and it has often been a political decision to keep it that way,but greed is at its base.
The thing is that face to face,nothing explains why I was born somewhere where I have a bed,and food and warmth and somebody just like me sleeps under tin and cardboard walls. It is something one cannot deal with from a theory,at least for me. When persons have a face and a name,it is about that person and I and not " the poor". Maybe I am not being clear.

When it comes to the seven deadly, I can’t imagine South Americans as being any more greedy than people in North America, or any where else for that matter. It is not a matter of education either, for South America is of the same culture as the rest of Euro-america, and is resource rich, and any other of a number of comparable factors are roughly equivalent.

I think it was in Brazil that an example was given which I read a few years back of the huge amount of red tape that one would need to get through in order to get a simple loan for a micro-business. It makes getting ahead unaffordable for the poor who do not have the resources to get through all that red tape.
One might ask who all that red tape serves? It could be that, like in NA it is driven by the left and their desire to stifle capitalism as much as possible through making the cost of business as onerous as possible.
Or it could be that red tape is the way that bureaucrats themselves extract payment for themselves.
Or it could be that the deadly system is one of pride, and the rich in many of these countries not liking the idea of the hoi-polloi being on the same social class level, so the system is structured, like an Indian caste system, to ensure that this does not happen.

It could be other explanations too, or just the way things are done traditionally without any rational explanation whatsoever.

Whatever the reason is, poverty very often is built right into the system.

 

[triumphguy]

I regard the Holodomor as anti-communist propaganda. See Douglas Tottle’s* Fraud, Famine, and Fascism*.

Russia was subject to numerous periodic famines before Collectivization, such as the Famine of 1921. Moreover, the Famine of 1932-33 affected other regions of the Soviet Union. There was no Holodomor where the Soviet regime maliciously starved millions, but there was a famine, agricultural sabotage, and anti-Kulak operations.

eh.net/book_reviews/the-years-of-hunger-soviet-agriculture-1931-1933/

I’m happy for you.

 

[triumphguy]

Worse than that, he ill serves the poor in his attacks on capitalism which, for all the benefits it brings to the rich and middle classes, does its greatest work for the poor.

The Pope does not attack Capitalism - carefully read his actual words.

Pope Benedict used very similar words:“Unregulated capitalism increases inequalities”

St. John Paul II’s views expressed in “Centesimus Annus” are exactly the same as Pope Francis.

“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? . . . 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, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ **But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative” **(81-82)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Pope does not attack Capitalism - carefully read his actual words.

Pope Benedict used very similar words:“Unregulated capitalism increases inequalities”

St. John Paul II’s views expressed in “Centesimus Annus” are exactly the same as Pope Francis.

“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? . . . 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, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ **But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative” **(81-82)

Yes, it’s true that the Pope Francis did not invent the term “unfettered/unbridled/unregulated capitalism” and that the Catholic clergy have, in general, long been enamored of third-way-ism. (Not to be confused with criticizing the failures or excesses of capitalism in practice which even the most earnest capitalists do.)

There are two ways to interpret this term:

1. literally: the popes are literally against unregulated free enterprise which has never existed anywhere on the planet earth. The precise term for this is anarcho capitalism and it’s hard to imagine the popes taking such an interest in such a fringe viewpoint.
2. figurativly: the popes believe that capitalism, as practiced in countries like the United States or even Europe, is insufficiently regulated.

I’ve seen people argue either interpretation depending upon whether or not they are critics or fans of capitalism.

However, Pope Francis is unique in his anti-capitalist rhetoric. One can easily find pro-capitalism comments from the prior popes who recognized the benefits of its various institutions. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has demonstrated no such balance and, by his own admission, has had no prior interest in understanding it.

I do believe that Pope Francis is earnest in his desire to understand why those Catholics who support capitalism are dismayed by his attacks on it and I hope that he follows through on his promise to listen to them. Perhaps he might call Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute to Rome as an advisor.

 

[zz912]

I don’t include myself, since my family simply makes it paycheck to paycheck every month. But we make it, and that’s what is important. However, there are people who aren’t making it.

No one ever considers THEMSELVES as well off. But the fact of the matter is if you are middle class in America, you are in the top 10% of wealthy people in the world. You are part of the rich.

The dollar menu goes a long way, even for an adult. Rice and chicken can, too, sure but again… When you’re working long hours and just making it, chances are you don’t feel like cooking.

Was my mother lazy, after working twelve hours a day, five days a week, to not want to cook something when she gets home? I’d say not.

Besides, McDonalds was just an example; there’s a lot of other cheap food that isn’t good for you either.

Now you are changing your argument when the first argument failed. First you argued that McD’s was cheaper than cooking at home, so that was why poor people were obese. When that was proven false, you change your argument to a claim that all the poor work 2-3 jobs and are too tired to cook at home. This is false also.

Let me be clear here. I never meant to imply that they are not at fault. They are. However, it’s not a black and white issue. Thinks aren’t as simple as “chicken and rice or McDonalds”. There are a lot of factors involved.

There is a LOT of fault that belongs to the poor for their obesity. In fact most of it is their own fault. We live in a land of plenty where food is cheap. You even claim that hot, fresh fast food is cheaper than uncooked food from grocery stores. Even if that is true, there is no excuse for eating so much food that you become obese. A poor family can certainly control their eating and not overeat. Quit excusing bad behavior and infantilizing people (it robs them of their dignity)

What you call envy, I call empathy. I won’t apologize for believing that no human being deserves to be a multi-millionaire and have a lot, while other people have nothing.

Your statement here appears to suffer under the false premise that the multi-millionaire was given his millions, and the it was taken from the people who have nothing. This is simply not true. Bill Gates didn’t steal or take ONE PENNY from poor people.

Not to mention I don’t have anything against people with money. What I do have a problem with is people who make a lot of money by exploiting others. Being ethical is a rare thing among the most wealthy of people.

This is flat out false, and you are accusing large amounts of people of sinful behavior when you have no evidence whatsoever. You do know that’s a sin, right?

Most wealthy people became wealthy by hard work, providing a good/service that people needed, and delivering it to their customers well. Quit believing communist lies about the wealthy.

Actually, it seems you don’t understand it. As another has said, anarchism is universally considered a left-wing political ideology and the whole idea that the “left favors big government while the right favors small” sounds like something I’d here on Fox News - and that no one else would ever agree with. (Unless, of course, you’re willing to call the PATRIOT Act supporting Republicans who support an invasive NSA “left wing”, in which case while I’d disagree with your terminology but agree with the idea.)

I understand politics and ideologies far better than you think. The “anarchists” on the left are nothing of the sort. They are communists/socialists who promote violent upheaval and revolution to cause chaos. In this chaos they wish to see their communist goals enacted. They don’t favor getting rid of govt, they favor getting rid of the CURRENT govt, and installing a more oppressive one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When it comes to the seven deadly, I can’t imagine South Americans as being any more greedy than people in North America, or any where else for that matter. It is not a matter of education either, for South America is of the same culture as the rest of Euro-america, and is resource rich, and any other of a number of comparable factors are roughly equivalent.

I think it was in Brazil that an example was given which I read a few years back of the huge amount of red tape that one would need to get through in order to get a simple loan for a micro-business. It makes getting ahead unaffordable for the poor who do not have the resources to get through all that red tape.
One might ask who all that red tape serves? It could be that, like in NA it is driven by the left and their desire to stifle capitalism as much as possible through making the cost of business as onerous as possible.
Or it could be that red tape is the way that bureaucrats themselves extract payment for themselves.
Or it could be that the deadly system is one of pride, and the rich in many of these countries not liking the idea of the hoi-polloi being on the same social class level, so the system is structured, like an Indian caste system, to ensure that this does not happen.

It could be other explanations too, or just the way things are done traditionally without any rational explanation whatsoever.

Whatever the reason is, poverty very often is built right into the system.

I agree with you to a degree, but I suspect there’s something additional afoot in the differences among countries when it comes to prosperity and wealth. Yes, the cultures of Europe, North America and South America are not starkly different in many ways. But there do seem to be differences.

Why, for example, is northern Europe far more prosperous than is southern Europe? Protestants used to cite Catholicism vs “the Protestant ethic” as the reason, but I don’t think that works. Germany is about half Catholic and is prosperous. Northern Italy is at least nominally Catholic and is massively more prosperous than is southern Italy.

So what’s the deal? Brazil is greatly more blessed with resources than is Germany. So is Argentina.

One of the things that has stuck with me over the years is something told to me by a friend who had been in the Peace Corps. He was an engineer and had taught engineering students in Venezuela. His students were largely inattentive and really didn’t learn. Ultimately, he was told that, in Venezuela, some jobs have “Dignidad” and some don’t. “Dignidad”, as I understood it, was a social, if not economic, elevated place in the social heierarchy. If you are a lawyer or a government functionary, you have “Dignidad”. If you’re an engineer, you don’t, even if, as an engineer you make more money than the former.

So, do people in Latin America (and other places) have a peculiar sense of social “place” that discourages enterprise and development; a subcultural characteristic not shared among Danes, Dutch, Germans or Americans? Is there social status with a bureacratic job in Brazil that causes them to stretch things out interminably in order to maintain the appearance of their “necessity”? I have read that is definitely the case in India.

Historically, one recognizes that commerce was always the mainstay of, say, the Dutch, whereas having “landed wealth” seemed more socially important in other places. What happens, then, when the world economy shifts toward commerce and away from agriculture? Do people not change their thought processes for a long time, perhaps?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to any of that, but it has always struck me as curious.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I agree with you to a degree, but I suspect there’s something additional afoot in the differences among countries when it comes to prosperity and wealth. Yes, the cultures of Europe, North America and South America are not starkly different in many ways. But there do seem to be differences.

Why, for example, is northern Europe far more prosperous than is southern Europe? Protestants used to cite Catholicism vs “the Protestant ethic” as the reason, but I don’t think that works. Germany is about half Catholic and is prosperous. Northern Italy is at least nominally Catholic and is massively more prosperous than is southern Italy.

So what’s the deal? Brazil is greatly more blessed with resources than is Germany. So is Argentina.

One of the things that has stuck with me over the years is something told to me by a friend who had been in the Peace Corps. He was an engineer and had taught engineering students in Venezuela. His students were largely inattentive and really didn’t learn. Ultimately, he was told that, in Venezuela, some jobs have “Dignidad” and some don’t. “Dignidad”, as I understood it, was a social, if not economic, elevated place in the social heierarchy. If you are a lawyer or a government functionary, you have “Dignidad”. If you’re an engineer, you don’t, even if, as an engineer you make more money than the former.

So, do people in Latin America (and other places) have a peculiar sense of social “place” that discourages enterprise and development; a subcultural characteristic not shared among Danes, Dutch, Germans or Americans? Is there social status with a bureacratic job in Brazil that causes them to stretch things out interminably in order to maintain the appearance of their “necessity”? I have read that is definitely the case in India.

Historically, one recognizes that commerce was always the mainstay of, say, the Dutch, whereas having “landed wealth” seemed more socially important in other places. What happens, then, when the world economy shifts toward commerce and away from agriculture? Do people not change their thought processes for a long time, perhaps?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to any of that, but it has always struck me as curious.

God keep me, but I have always thought there was a some truth to the Latin vs. Germanic stereotype. It extends beyond that of course and I am fully aware of individuals who are in one group not following their stereotype, but there is just so much “truth” to it in reality it’s astonishing. I do think there is a strong cultural element to work ethic (and ethics in business as a value to be desired if not consistently achieved) - beyond that I can’t say.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree with you to a degree, but I suspect there’s something additional afoot in the differences among countries when it comes to prosperity and wealth. Yes, the cultures of Europe, North America and South America are not starkly different in many ways. But there do seem to be differences.

Why, for example, is northern Europe far more prosperous than is southern Europe? Protestants used to cite Catholicism vs “the Protestant ethic” as the reason, but I don’t think that works. Germany is about half Catholic and is prosperous. Northern Italy is at least nominally Catholic and is massively more prosperous than is southern Italy.

So what’s the deal? Brazil is greatly more blessed with resources than is Germany. So is Argentina.

One of the things that has stuck with me over the years is something told to me by a friend who had been in the Peace Corps. He was an engineer and had taught engineering students in Venezuela. His students were largely inattentive and really didn’t learn. Ultimately, he was told that, in Venezuela, some jobs have “Dignidad” and some don’t. “Dignidad”, as I understood it, was a social, if not economic, elevated place in the social heierarchy. If you are a lawyer or a government functionary, you have “Dignidad”. If you’re an engineer, you don’t, even if, as an engineer you make more money than the former.

So, do people in Latin America (and other places) have a peculiar sense of social “place” that discourages enterprise and development; a subcultural characteristic not shared among Danes, Dutch, Germans or Americans? Is there social status with a bureacratic job in Brazil that causes them to stretch things out interminably in order to maintain the appearance of their “necessity”? I have read that is definitely the case in India.

Historically, one recognizes that commerce was always the mainstay of, say, the Dutch, whereas having “landed wealth” seemed more socially important in other places. What happens, then, when the world economy shifts toward commerce and away from agriculture? Do people not change their thought processes for a long time, perhaps?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to any of that, but it has always struck me as curious.

A lot of interesting ideas here. One thing that you miss is that relative economic performance not only varies across nations and cultures but across time. Today we think of northern europe as hard working as compared to southern europe but that was obviously not the case in Roman times when the Mediterrenean was the center of civilization and northern europe was barbarian.

It’s proabably, though, important to distinguish pre- and post-industrialization economies. Before industrialization standards of living grew slowly and while commerce was important, concentrations of wealth typically flowed to conquerers (e.g. the Roman Empire). After industrialization, commerce became ever more important and war simply destructive, not enriching.

Some have argued that hierarchical societies, as you describe Venezuela, are better suited to martial than commercial activities but commercially successful societies seem able to field stronger militaries too.

 

[sugarcat]

To ZZ912 -partial quote here - "( you include yourself in that condemnation? You are among the top 10% of the world in wealth. Or is it just people richer than you who you think are “living high off the hog”?

What a ridiculous and false claim to excuse laziness. No, McD’s is NOT cheaper than just buying some real food and making it yourself. A couple of chicken breasts and some rice or potatoes is much cheaper than 2-3 happy meals and food for an adult at McD’s.

This excuse needs to be shredded, burned, drawn, quartered ,and destroyed. It infantilizes the poor and gives them an excuse that their obesity is not their fault. Good, healthy food is cheaper than fast food.)"

Nice scathing condemnation, eh? You missed the “working 2 or 3 part-time jobs” part - if you have the time, yes, real food is cheaper IF you also shop only the really good sales. Note unless living in a big city with great public transit, a car is required to get to those jobs - Why part time? The USA “Obamacare” and onerous business regs have resulted in the new “part-time work force” And there is gas, insurance, licensing, wheel tax, etc. I note the price of electricity, gas, food, etc. is the same to rich and poor. I don’t think the author of this post has spent any time living at or near the poverty line in the USA. Cash, and time - poor, and often sleep and physically tired -with the same responsibilities as everyone. Try walking a mile in their shoes first before you condemn!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Some tough love for Pope Francis:

I don’t have the space or frankly the heart to go into just how crude, how conspiratorial, simplistic, and uncharitable Pope Francis’s recent statements on the causes of poverty really are. For a measured account, see Samuel Gregg’s analysis at the Stream. Like Donald Trump, Pope Francis has grasped some simple truths; he has pointed to real and enduring problems that need to be taken seriously. Also like Trump he has adopted a frankly Manichean stance, looking for villains and exploiters and recklessly casting blame. Instead of sober analyses of economics and immigration, what the pope and The Donald have given us are Huey Long–level rants, which feed the worst impulses of demagogic politicians, and do nothing at all to further the common good. To say so isn’t impious. To say less would frankly be unfaithful — to our country, our church, and even the papacy itself. No less a Catholic than Dante was outraged at the megalomania of the reigning pope of his day, and in The Divine Comedy he pictured that pope in Hell.

nationalreview.com/article/421219/pope-francis-donald-trump-papacy

 

[FollowChrist34]

Some tough love for Pope Francis:

nationalreview.com/article/421219/pope-francis-donald-trump-papacy

Yeah, I just finished that article myself. Mama mia!

 

[PatrickSebast]

Some tough love for Pope Francis:

nationalreview.com/article/421219/pope-francis-donald-trump-papacy

A man without any established academic background in economics refers to an opinion piece (which performs no objective numerical analysis, nor looks to anything but snippets of text and assumptions about the Pope’s ideas) by a man with background in economic PHILOSOPHY while complaining that the Pope doesn’t have the authority or proper knowledge to speak on such issues?

And yet I am supposed to believe that these explosive rallies and rants against the Pope’s “Socialist” or “Populist” worldview are all good willed informed objections, while Pope Francis is just a silly old man who hasn’t thought it through?

 

[FollowChrist34]

A man without any established academic background in economics refers to an opinion piece (which performs no objective numerical analysis, nor looks to anything but snippets of text and assumptions about the Pope’s ideas) by a man with background in economic PHILOSOPHY while complaining that the Pope doesn’t have the authority or proper knowledge to speak on such issues?

And yet I am supposed to believe that these explosive rallies and rants against the Pope’s “Socialist” or “Populist” worldview are all good willed informed objections, while Pope Francis is just a silly old man who hasn’t thought it through?

It may be a little bit over the top (or…just well-written and effective), but I fear many are thinking this way, to a certain degree with legitmacy. I don’t have a problem with people voicing their opinions. I can see where he is coming from and share some of his views. That said I also see where the Pope is coming from and share some of his views.

Ha! How is that for diplomacy. Maybe I should work for the UN. Someone once told me that years ago; should of listened.

 

[Theo520]

Capitalism in every single developed country is HIGHLY REGULATED!!
Thus, attacking capitalism is off the mark. If he really meant to demand even more regulation then wouldn’t he have done so? I find this a hard argument to win on his behalf.

Regarding your other point in bold, demanding a “strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom” this is already the norm. All developed countries also ascribe to the rule of law, which most would agree is the reason they are 1st tier developed countries.

If he wanted to make a difference, his focus would be on reducing corruption and implemented the rule of law in developing countries. That tact would actually help the poor.

The Pope does not attack Capitalism - carefully read his actual words.

Pope Benedict used very similar words:“Unregulated capitalism increases inequalities”

St. John Paul II’s views expressed in “Centesimus Annus” are exactly the same as Pope Francis.

“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? . . . 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, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ **But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative” **(81-82)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Capitalism in every single developed country is HIGHLY REGULATED!!

Everytime I hear the phrase “unfettered capitalism” I bring this up.

Alas, the anticapitalists refuse to address this question. They prefer ambiguity and confusion.

 

[sallybutler]

Everytime I hear the phrase “unfettered capitalism” I bring this up.

Alas, the anticapitalists refuse to address this question. They prefer ambiguity and confusion.

This is my answer, as I haven’t had the pleasure of talking with the Pope

Most of the die-hard capitalism supporters blame any problems on the fact that there are regulations. It is the fault of the practitioners, not the theory. This is similar to die-hard communists saying we are still working towards the ideal state described by Marx.

While capitalism may have the best track record so far, it is not perfect. Perhaps we need to try to understand the Pope’s position also. I think he is asking us to remember those who do the work, not just those who provide the actual capital. Remember those who benefit and those who don’t. Remember those who have no say because they don’t have enough money to be heard.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is my answer, as I haven’t had the pleasure of talking with the Pope

Most of the die-hard capitalism supporters blame any problems on the fact that there are regulations. It is the fault of the practitioners, not the theory. This is similar to die-hard communists saying we are still working towards the ideal state described by Marx.

Anarcho-capitalists aside (they are a fringe), can you acknowledge that “die-hard capitalism supporters” are not advocating an end to all regulation of free markets but only less or better regulation? Or do you really equate all those who argue against burdensome regulation as the equilvalent to Marxists?

While capitalism may have the best track record so far, it is not perfect. Perhaps we need to try to understand the Pope’s position also. I think he is asking us to remember those who do the work, not just those who provide the actual capital. Remember those who benefit and those who don’t. Remember those who have no say because they don’t have enough money to be heard.

It would help if he took more of an interest in the subject. By his own admission, he doesn’t really know much about it.

 

[sallybutler]

Anarcho-capitalists aside (they are a fringe), can you acknowledge that “die-hard capitalism supporters” are not advocating an end to all regulation of free markets but only less or better regulation? Or do you really equate all those who argue against burdensome regulation as the equilvalent to Marxists?

It would help if he took more of an interest in the subject. By his own admission, he doesn’t really know much about it.

Are you willing to admit that some have been hurt by capitalism? Btw, I prefer capitalism. However, I am also willing to admit that it has hurt some. And the Pope is looking at those who are hurting, both physically and spiritually. As the Vicar of Christ, I think that is part of the job description.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Are you willing to admit that some have been hurt by capitalism? Btw, I prefer capitalism. However, I am also willing to admit that it has hurt some. And the Pope is looking at those who are hurting, both physically and spiritually. As the Vicar of Christ, I think that is part of the job description.

It depends on what you mean. If one person loses his job to another then he obviously suffers. When someone loses his business to competition, he and all his invesors and employees suffer. We can observe that while some are hurt in this way, for example, overall, we are better off not mitigating that suffering by regulating against it.