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

[stinkcat_14]

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.

It depends how you define better off, since that is subjective. Some might prefer the regulated outcome and they are not necessarily wrong, they just have different preferences.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It depends how you define better off, since that is subjective. Some might prefer the regulated outcome and they are not necessarily wrong, they just have different preferences.

Some might prefer to drink slow poison while running razor blades over their skin. They just have different preferences.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Some might prefer to drink slow poison while running razor blades over their skin. They just have different preferences.

You clearly don’t understand economics do you? I would suggest you learn a little economics is you want to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Theo520]

Some might prefer to drink slow poison while running razor blades over their skin. They just have different preferences.

LOL, it’s more like some might prefer their children, or the guy in the next town is the one forced to drink poison and play with razors. People are so selfish sometimes.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You clearly don’t understand economics do you? I would suggest you learn a little economics is you want to have an intelligent conversation.

LOL, it’s more like some might prefer their children, or the guy in the next town is the one forced to drink poison and play with razors. People are so selfish sometimes.

The Greeks prefer that someone else pay for their early retirement. Who is selfish? The Greeks or the Germans?

 

[stinkcat_14]

LOL, it’s more like some might prefer their children, or the guy in the next town is the one forced to drink poison and play with razors. People are so selfish sometimes.

All economic policy decisions are ones where we collectively decide who gets the cookies and who gets the poison. In that situation it rare to have a policy that is unambiguously better than another.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

All economic policy decisions are ones where we collectively decide who gets the cookies and who gets the poison. In that situation it rare to have a policy that is unambiguously better than another.

Ambiguity is not a license for relativism nor are collective policy choices equivalent to individual economic choices.

People vote for all sorts of dumb things hoping to get the promised benefits and not to be the one to pay the piper.

In other words, voting for the guy in the next town to get the poison.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Ambiguity is not a license for relativism nor are collective policy choices equivalent to individual economic choices.

People vote for all sorts of dumb things hoping to get the promised benefits and not to be the one to pay the piper.

In other words, voting for the guy in the next town to get the poison.

I am not talking about relativism. I am saying that all policies have winners and losers. Who we think the winners and losers should be is subjective. So we cannot say in most cases that one policy is strictly better than another.

 

[Peccavi]

Study Jesus and take your economics from him. According to Luke’s gospel, early in the public ministry of Jesus, he went to a synagogue gathering and read a passage from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. God has sent me to bring good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim release of captives and liberty to the oppressed. This is the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Everyone in his hearing understood what he was saying. Israelites had gone too long without a Year of Jubilee. It was time for the wealthy to turn loose what they had accumulated. It was time for the poor to receive their full stewardship.
Seems to me if I remember the Gospel rightly Jesus got angry with the money lenders (ie bankers) in the Temple and overturned their tables…Go therefore and do as the Master taught us.

 

[estesbob]

Study Jesus and take your economics from him. According to Luke’s gospel, early in the public ministry of Jesus, he went to a synagogue gathering and read a passage from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. God has sent me to bring good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim release of captives and liberty to the oppressed. This is the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Everyone in his hearing understood what he was saying. Israelites had gone too long without a Year of Jubilee. It was time for the wealthy to turn loose what they had accumulated. It was time for the poor to receive their full stewardship.
Seems to me if I remember the Gospel rightly Jesus got angry with the money lenders (ie bankers) in the Temple and overturned their tables…Go therefore and do as the Master taught us.

And exactly how is it you’re going to accomplish this?

 

[Jerusha]

I just don’t fit into American politics.

Catholicism doesn’t fit into American politics.

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)

Agreed. Any poster on this subject needs to read
educationforjustice.org/catholic-social-teaching/encyclicals-and-documents
before criticizing Pope Francis. He is 100% in line with those documents, going back to 1890.

 

[Jerusha]

People who live in the USA don’t like to read them because they go contrary to much of American culture.

 

[PatrickSebast]

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.

It is a pretty common sentiment in the west for governments and politicians to argue purely for economic growth. Trickle-down economics is a good example of an idea that has been critiqued by the last 3 Popes very clearly and yet it still plays a leading role in US politics.

I am having a really hard time believing that the Pope’s opponents on this issue have any genuine interest in understanding or discussing his actual criticism’s of capitalism because the Church has been pretty historically clear on the basic matters of infusing morality into our economic systems and the idea that “Growth for the sake of growth” is not a moral or just system. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, and JP2 all were very clear on the matter that we should consider and actively care for the poor. That our systems should be built with considerations of human conditions and not simply getting the best possible numbers on the DOW.

It isn’t an argument about the existence of regulations, but one that we are a culture built around the idea of consumerism and wealth hoarding.

 

[Peccavi]

It is not for me to accomplish Gods Kingdom on Earth. It is the duty of all Christians, especially Catholics. Being a follower of Jesus is a social act and requires Christians to gather together to achieve the Kingdom of God on this World God so loved ( note his love was not conditional).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not talking about relativism. I am saying that all policies have winners and losers. Who we think the winners and losers should be is subjective. So we cannot say in most cases that one policy is strictly better than another.

In fact, whether or not you realize it, you are talking about relativism.

Allow me to illustrate.

In 1935 Germany passed the Nuremberg laws. According to you, this was just a collective policy choice with winners and losers. Ultimately, the laws led to the murder of some 6 million Jews but, hey, who are we to judge the subjective preferences of others. According to you, we cannot say that allowing Jews to live is strictly a better policy than murdering them.

 

[SWolf]

People who live in the USA don’t like to read them because they go contrary to much of American culture.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is a pretty common sentiment in the west for governments and politicians to argue purely for economic growth.

You must be following different news sources than me because I see moral arguments all the time from politicians. Rarely do politicians limit themselves to purely issues of economic growth, though even pure economic growth is a moral issue.

Trickle-down economics is a good example of an idea that has been critiqued by the last 3 Popes very clearly and yet it still plays a leading role in US politics.

Indeed, much to their shame. “trickle-down economics” is a pejorative description coined by politicians, not an accurate description of any actual economic policy.

I am having a really hard time believing that the Pope’s opponents on this issue have any genuine interest in understanding or discussing his actual criticism’s of capitalism because the Church has been pretty historically clear on the basic matters of infusing morality into our economic systems and the idea that “Growth for the sake of growth” is not a moral or just system. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, and JP2 all were very clear on the matter that we should consider and actively care for the poor. That our systems should be built with considerations of human conditions and not simply getting the best possible numbers on the DOW.

It isn’t an argument about the existence of regulations, but one that we are a culture built around the idea of consumerism and wealth hoarding.

You’ll get no argument from me here. There is a branch of economics that regards economics and amoral but it is not the common view. Adam Smith, one of the most famous advoctes of free market economics, first advanced the idea in a book called: The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

 

[estesbob]

People who live in the USA don’t like to read them because they go contrary to much of American culture.

I didn’t see anything in them that was contrary to American culture. Perhaps you can point it out to us. ?

 

[estesbob]

It is not for me to accomplish Gods Kingdom on Earth. It is the duty of all Christians, especially Catholics. Being a follower of Jesus is a social act and requires Christians to gather together to achieve the Kingdom of God on this World God so loved ( note his love was not conditional).

And what is Your solution to these alleged problems? I don’t believe God calls a us to stand on the side throwing stones at everybody who was working to find solutions .

 

[SWolf]

It is a pretty common sentiment in the west for governments and politicians to argue purely for economic growth. Trickle-down economics is a good example of an idea that has been critiqued by the last 3 Popes very clearly and yet it still plays a leading role in US politics.

Trickle down economics is a leftist strawman.

I am having a really hard time believing that the Pope’s opponents on this issue have any genuine interest in understanding or discussing his actual criticism’s of capitalism because the Church has been pretty historically clear on the basic matters of infusing morality into our economic systems and the idea that “Growth for the sake of growth” is not a moral or just system. Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, and JP2 all were very clear on the matter that we should consider and actively care for the poor. That our systems should be built with considerations of human conditions and not simply getting the best possible numbers on the DOW.

It isn’t an argument about the existence of regulations, but one that we are a culture built around the idea of consumerism and wealth hoarding.

Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services. It’s morally neutral. Popes have justifiably railed against cronyism and corporatism, yet these are not capitalism. Governments choosing winners and losers in an economy is oligarchy. Governments granting special rights to specific economic actors is not capitalism, but fascism-lite.

Socialism is morally unethical, as it inhibits the fundamental rights of the family. Popes have explicitly said this.

Communism is even worse, as it removes a person’s fundamental right to property. Popes have also explicitly stated this.

Mixed economies try to direct free exchange towards a more “moral” outcomes in the eyes of the State. In the medical realm this seems to include contraceptives, abortion, and, increasingly, euthanasia.

A lot of the consumerism and debt-based expansion is a result of the Federal Reserve infusing money into the economy. Hardly Free Market Capitalism. I have yet to see a pope condemning Central Banks and fiat money though.

Does the government spending money on what they deem to be the poor make an economic system more moral?
What if welfare policies hurt those it tries to help?
What if labor regulations create a barrier to employment that makes it hard for the young to get a job?
What if high taxes hurt a person’s chances of freely giving to more worthy causes?

These are prudential matters that need to be addressed. Caring for the poor properly is much more complicated than more government.