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

[Latias]

Take up your complaints with the church. I was really pointing out that always categorically condemned socialism and communism .

I guess we could agree that the Church did historically condemn those ideologies in unequivocal terms. Whether this is admirable or reprehensible is for one to judge (and unfortunately, I feel like that I already made my judgment).

Now, could someone respond to my remarks about Dorothy Day? Would it be beneficial to the Church if they effaced her far-left leanings in order to deny any ideological credibility to left-wing thinking?

Remember that she is a saint, in heaven, and she would not benefit from official canonization; it is for the benefit of the Church and living so that people would not feel isolated from the Church. Even then, it still likely be interpreted as mere tokenism unless many others who were killed in Central and South America are also canonized.

 

[Theo520]

How can you love your neighbour and take a profit from him ?

LOL, so if I allow my neighbor to use my mower, and he returns it with a full tank and a basket of garden tomatoes, I’ve made a very handsome profit off the exchange. Thus you are saying I hate the guy???

What if I loan him $100, which he repays the next day, along with a bag of corn from his garden? I’m a big winner here too since the bill was just sitting in my wallet.

 

[Darryl1958]

The profit motif is very strong in the parables of Jesus, from what I recall.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That seems so idealistic. Most people do not earn enough to own the means of production, but merely earn enough to support themselves, while still being subject to the vicissitudes of life in a modern capitalist economy, such as recessions and off-shoring. In the case of “modern” liberal democratic countries. the bottom 90 percent own (both through direct and indirect, as “direct” means “not owned through a retirement account”) only 20% of equities, while the “direct” figure is 3.3%. (See this, page 11.) Thus, the common worker does not own much of the corporate equities. (However, to put this into perspective, I need to know what proportion of the corporate capital structure is in debt vs. equities, along with the distribution of those who own corporate debt, or even Treasuries and municipal bonds.)

Also, here is an entry from Wikipedia about the Salvadorian civil war. I suppose this would be subsumed under a “capitalist” system, since the US aided and abetted inhumane efforts against revolutionary and reform in that country during the 80s. The Church did not give an explicit denunciation of US foreign policy in Central America, nor did it condemn the actions of the death squads, but rather suppressed liberal theology by appointing conservative bishops. The Apartheid is another example of a socially just regime too.

No one can credibly buy that rhetoric about the concern for the working man’s “liberty of disposing of wages” to “obtain property”. How would a little “socialism” harm them, but it would harm the interests of the US and the landowners.

==
I posted this before:

As land is less and less used in subsistence farming, the narrow ownership of land in El Salvador, for instance, doesn’t tell us much. 60% of the farm land in the U.S. is owned by .1.7 million people. That’s about 5/1000 of the population, far fewer than is the case in El Salvador, where you say 1% of the population owns 41% of the land.

There are a lot of reasons for that, certainly including the ever-increasing urbanization of the population, the lack of farming knowledge on the part of the vast majority, and the size of a farm it now takes to be viable. Why has viability required more and more land? Because agricultural commodities are a lot cheaper than they were, say, 100 years ago.

There are a lot of “mini-entrepreneurs” in the part of the world where I live, and most definitely a person of ordinary means can manage it on at least a small scale. I have previously mentioned the example of a young woman I know who works in a feed mill at yeoman’s wages. She saved up and bought a tractor, then a mower and round baler, then a tedder, (all used, of course) upgraded the tractor, and so on. She does custom haying after work and on weekends. With her, having a job at all, being frugal, but most importantly having the knowledge and skill, is what made it work.

I realize in urban areas opportunities are different.

I might mention that the later Popes who wrote Social Encyclicals said farming is no longer the model for widespread ownership of productive, inheritable assets.

 

[estesbob]

I guess we could agree that the Church did historically condemn those ideologies in unequivocal terms. Whether this is admirable or reprehensible is for one to judge (and unfortunately, I feel like that I already made my judgment).

Now, could someone respond to my remarks about Dorothy Day? Would it be beneficial to the Church if they effaced her far-left leanings in order to deny any ideological credibility to left-wing thinking?

Remember that she is a saint, in heaven, and she would not benefit from official canonization; it is for the benefit of the Church and living so that people would not feel isolated from the Church. Even then, it still likely be interpreted as mere tokenism unless many others who were killed in Central and South America are also canonized.

I fail to see how canonizing Dorothy day in any way translates to the Church endorsing Socialism. You can “identify” her a socialist if you want but Dorothy day is remembered by most Catholics’ for her tireless efforts on behalf of the disadvantaged.

 

[Latias]

As land is less and less used in subsistence farming, the narrow ownership of land in El Salvador, for instance, doesn’t tell us much. 60% of the farm land in the U.S. is owned by .1.7 million people. That’s about 5/1000 of the population, far fewer than is the case in El Salvador, where you say 1% of the population owns 41% of the land.

Your reflexive response is to defense the economic situation there, with tedious caviling, because that arrangement would be presumably more benign that any socialist, agrarian economy at a similar level of economic development. It comes with the rather absurd conclusion that El Salvador’s distribution of resources is equitable, at least relative to the US. Perhaps those peasants should be content with their lot, and not have any sympathies towards the revolutionaries or express any support for substantial land reform.

Note, the Wikipedia quotes “rural population” not “population” and made references to “peasants”, so using the total US population as the denominator is patently specious reasoning if you want to make a comparison to El Salvador. One could also presume that El Salvador is highly rural then and to still highly rural now, with the exception of its textile industry which now dominants its export sector. But how many people own the means of production of those factories?

By the way, how many farm workers own land in the US?

I fail to see how canonizing Dorothy day in any way translates to the Church endorsing Socialism. You can “identify” her a socialist if you want but Dorothy day is remembered by most Catholics’ for her tireless efforts on behalf of the disadvantaged.

I said she was a left-anarchist and a far-leftist, but she notably opposed US foreign policy. She was definitely an anti-imperialist. I never said she was a “socialist” nor she was a person with a Cold Warrior mentality. Perhaps you are projecting when you said that I was identifying her a “socialist” while I was projecting when I referenced cold warriors.

 

[estesbob]

Your reflexive response is to defense the economic situation there, with tedious caviling, because that arrangement would be presumably more benign that any socialist, agrarian economy at a similar level of economic development. It comes with the rather absurd conclusion that El Salvador’s distribution of resources is equitable, at least relative to the US. Perhaps those peasants should be content with their lot, and not have any sympathies towards the revolutionaries or express any support for substantial land reform.

Note, the Wikipedia quotes “rural population” not “population” and made references to “peasants”, so using the total US population as the denominator is patently specious reasoning if you want to make a comparison to El Salvador. One could also presume that El Salvador is highly rural then and to still highly rural now, with the exception of its textile industry which now dominants its export sector. But how many people own the means of production of those factories?

By the way, how many farm workers own land in the US?

I said she was a left-anarchist and a far-leftist, but she notably opposed US foreign policy. She was definitely an anti-imperialist. I never said she was a “socialist” nor she was a person with a Cold Warrior mentality. Perhaps you are projecting when you said that I was identifying her a “socialist” while I was projecting when I referenced cold warriors.

Forerunner has" reflex" response and I’m “projecting” Not a lot of room for discussion when one has a casual disdain for the opinions of others.

 

[Latias]

Forerunner has" reflex" response and I’m “projecting” Not a lot of room for discussion when one has a casual disdain for the opinions of others.

Most people express casual disdain.

You seem to be concerned about “socialism”, that’s what I meant, since I never associated Dorothy Day with “socialism” nor did I have any interest in labeling her a “socialist”.

I pointed out that 'Runner used specious reasoning to provide a false context about the economic inequality or perceived lack of it in El Salvador. It seemed to defend the economic status quo of El Salvador in the 1980s by downplaying its inherently inegalitarian economy, but I do not see why one would have any interest in correcting the perception of El Salvador having an inequitable distribution of land, unless one wants to defend US foreign policy (as has been done many times on this forum), which I tied into my initial remark.

I could say that my initial to response your comment was a expression of cordial concurrence although I did criticize that Encylical on the basis of economic reality, since most people do not own productive property to a significant extent).

I guess we could agree that the Church did historically condemn those ideologies in unequivocal terms. Whether this is admirable or reprehensible is for one to judge (and unfortunately, I feel like that I already made my judgment).

 

[Crossbones]

That moral duty is a personal responsibility we cannot delegate to the government . That does not mean the government does not have a place in caring for the poor and needy but a Catholic cannot fulfill their personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for politicians who promise to take other peoples money and do it for them

Right on. As a Catholic, it helps to do both. Vote for government officials that believe that the government has a place for taking care of the poor and support the poor through personal efforts.

 

[Smfm]

The Lord stoops down to the humble.

 

[Theo520]

As land is less and less used in subsistence farming, the narrow ownership of land in El Salvador, for instance, doesn’t tell us much. 60% of the farm land in the U.S. is owned by .1.7 million people. That’s about 5/1000 of the population, far fewer than is the case in El Salvador, where you say 1% of the population owns 41% of the land.

This analysis is further complicate by many of the companies being listed on the stock market. Thus there are many many owners through the magic of pension funds and mutual funds.

 

[Latias]

This analysis is further complicate by many of the companies being listed on the stock market. Thus there are many many owners through the magic of pension funds and mutual funds.

The CBO accounted for that by saying designating “indirect ownership” which included retirement funds. I don’t know if it accounts for only large capitalization companies.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, as of November 30, 2014, the S&P 500 has a market cap of 19 trillion while the Russell 2000, which is a subset of the bottom 2000 stocks in the Russell 1000.

The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index is a subset of the Russell 3000® Index representing approximately 10% of the total market capitalization of that index. It includes approximately 2000 of the smallest securities based on a combination of their market cap and current index membership. The Russell 2000 is constructed to provide a comprehensive and unbiased small-cap barometer and is completely reconstituted annually to ensure larger stocks do not distort the performance and characteristics of the true small-cap opportunity set.

russell.com/indexes/americas/indexes/fact-sheet.page?ic=US2000

It has a mean market cap of $1.9 billion (and a median 0.820 billion), so the total market capitalization is $3.8 trillion, about a tenth of the S&P 500​

Like Ridgerunner, I made a mistake by making my denominator too large. The CBO statistics cite the distribution of equity ownership among the equity-holding class of baby-boomers, not just all baby-boomers. 30% of baby-boomers do not own financial assets.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Right on. As a Catholic, it helps to do both. Vote for government officials that believe that the government has a place for taking care of the poor and support the poor through personal efforts.

You need to dig deeper. Often those claiming to care for the poor through government are frauds or incompetent. It is not a matter of stated goals, it is a matter of results. Reagan did more for the poor than any president since WWII, for example.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You need to dig deeper. Often those claiming to care for the poor through government are frauds or incompetent. It is not a matter of stated goals, it is a matter of results. Reagan did more for the poor than any president since WWII, for example.

Whatever Reagan did for the poor, it was not because of small government.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Whatever Reagan did for the poor, it was not because of small government.

Maybe not smaller government, but a government that takes a lower percent of GDP in the form of income taxes than had previously been the case. Reagan passed massive cuts in marginal income tax rates but this led to increased economic activity and therefore higher tax revenues.

He cut marginal tax rates dramatically. This led to tremendous improvement in the economy, cutting unemployment rates in half, cutting interest rates in half and then some, increasing federal tax revenues, and decreasing inflation by more than half.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Maybe not smaller government, but a government that takes a lower percent of GDP in the form of income taxes than had previously been the case. Reagan passed massive cuts in marginal income tax rates but this led to increased economic activity and therefore higher tax revenues.

Actually, when you cut taxes and run a deficit, you are not really cutting taxes in the aggregate, you are just making future generations pay for your profligate spending ways. So Reagan was not really acting differently than any other president in that regard. Marginal tax rates were cut, and that had some effect on the economy, on the other hand, he raised other taxes, such as social security taxes. In 1986 he also raised capital gains taxes, so his record on taxes is more mixed than most people realize. Also, what caused the economic growth of the 80s is still up in the air, it could be the higher spending he implemented, it could be the tax cuts and it could have been demographic changes.

He cut marginal tax rates dramatically. This led to tremendous improvement in the economy, cutting unemployment rates in half, cutting interest rates in half and then some, increasing federal tax revenues, and decreasing inflation by more than half.

Like I said, he cut some taxes and raised others. He did little to affect inflation, that was Paul Volker. It is tough to disentangle cause and effect, so we have to be careful attributing economic success to particular presidents, because the economy grew just as fast when Clinton raised taxes.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Actually, when you cut taxes and run a deficit .

Not true. A deficit occurs when tax revenue is less than expenditures.

Under both Reagan and Bush Jr. we saw dramatic increases in tax revenue after their tax cuts. The tax cuts were not the problem.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not true. A deficit occurs when tax revenue is less than expenditures.

Reagan cut taxes and raised spending. If he didn’t realize that would cause a deficit he needed a little remedial economics education.

Under both Reagan and Bush Jr. we saw dramatic increases in tax revenue after their tax cuts. The tax cuts were not the problem.

Actually, growth in real federal income tax revenue (i.e. adjusted for inflation) was rather weak under Reagan, it grew only by 2.2% per year. Real income tax collections grew faster under Carter and Clinton than Reagan. It was particularly faster under Clinton than anyone else. Real income tax collections fell during Bush, Jrs. term.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Reagan cut taxes and raised spending. If he didn’t realize that would cause a deficit he needed a little remedial economics education.

For those who recall (or bother to do some research), there was this small thing called Congress which resisted spending cuts. Attributing everything to the office of the presidency is kindergarten level political analysis.

 

[stinkcat_14]

For those who recall (or bother to do some research), there was this small thing called Congress which resisted spending cuts. Attributing everything to the office of the presidency is kindergarten level political analysis.

Kind of like attributing economic growth to the president? And if you would bother do some research you would know that no budget becomes law without a president’s signature. So Reagan certainly bears his share of the blame for increased government spending.