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

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In other words, the democrats and republicans together blocked the bill. That we can agree on. The democrats could not have blocked it without republican help. So you cannot pin this all on the democrats, the republicans get an equal share of the blame.

It was primarily blocked by democrats. Did you even read the article?

Democrats have since then tried to blame Bush for the financial crisis. Pathetic hypocrisy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It was primarily blocked by democrats. Did you even read the article?

Democrats have since then tried to blame Bush for the financial crisis. Pathetic hypocrisy.

What was the vote count? If the financial crisis occurred during Obama and the republicans blocked fannie reform, are you saying that they would not have blamed Obama? If we got rid of all the hypocrites in Congress it would be pretty empty.

 

[Theo520]

What was the vote count? If the financial crisis occurred during Obama and the republicans blocked fannie reform, are you saying that they would not have blamed Obama? If we got rid of all the hypocrites in Congress it would be pretty empty.

What’s clear is that you should no longer blame Bush personally. Probably fair to point a finger at the lobbyists that have their pockets into both parties.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What’s clear is that you should no longer blame Bush personally. Probably fair to point a finger at the lobbyists that have their pockets into both parties.

I think there is a lot of blame to go around for the financial crisis. I agree that both republicans and democrats acted badly, the power of our special interest groups does not encourage good behavior. Which of course may be one of the reasons Pope Francis is critical of capitalism. The question is, can you have a capitalist system where the large players don’t capture the government regulatory apparatus? That is far from clear.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think there is a lot of blame to go around for the financial crisis. I agree that both republicans and democrats acted badly, the power of our special interest groups does not encourage good behavior. Which of course may be one of the reasons Pope Francis is critical of capitalism. The question is, can you have a capitalist system where the large players don’t capture the government regulatory apparatus? That is far from clear.

Unfortunately, spreading the blame around must also include not just the “special interest groups” but the voters themselves. People tend to vote for expedience and will do almost anytning to avoid short-term pain even a the risk of long-term decline. Look no further than Greece for a recent example of that dynamic.

It might feel good to blame “large players” but if you want to find the culprit, look in the mirror.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Unfortunately, spreading the blame around must also include not just the “special interest groups” but the voters themselves. People tend to vote for expedience and will do almost anytning to avoid short-term pain even a the risk of long-term decline. Look no further than Greece for a recent example of that dynamic.

It might feel good to blame “large players” but if you want to find the culprit, look in the mirror.

Where does your part of the blame lie?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Most of you writing here seem to support Calvinism attitudes where the accumulation of wealth while so many others had nothing could be a Christian goal. I thought we were Catholics ?

Do you think Pope Leo XIII and his successors were Calvinists? They actually spoke in favor of the accumulation of productive, inheritable assets. Never did they say ordinary people were under obligation to impoverish themselves in order to be charitable.

And “wealth” is relative to what everybody else in one’s society has. In some parts of Africa, a man with 20 cows is considered exceedingly “rich”, and relative to his fellow tribesmen, he is. In the U.S., that’s not being “rich”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The question is, can you have a capitalist system where the large players don’t capture the government regulatory apparatus? That is far from clear.

I don’t think you can have any form of government that absolutely prevents it. A thinning down of the regulatory apparatus would help in some ways.

 

[estesbob]

Most of you writing here seem to support Calvinism attitudes where the accumulation of wealth while so many others had nothing could be a Christian goal. I thought we were Catholics ?

Let me see. I am a greedy capitalistic business owner. I employ 7 people-all of whom depend upon my business for their livelihood. Would it better if I fired all them, sold my business and gave the money to the poor?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Let me see. I am a greedy capitalistic business owner. I employ 7 people-all of whom depend upon my business for their livelihood. Would it better if I fired all them, sold my business and gave the money to the poor?

The answer of course, is it might be. If you really are a greedy business owner and your business is causing you to sin, it would be better to avoid the occasion of sin. Even if you are not greedy, one cannot say one should not sell their business and give the money to the poor. If your employees are legitimate employees with skills, they should have no problem finding other jobs. Especially that if your firm leaves, someone else is going to have to pick up the slack, unless we implement tax simplification. Now it might be charitable to help the employees make a transition, but can we rule out selling the business and giving the money to the poor. No.

 

[sallybutler]

Let me see. I am a greedy capitalistic business owner. I employ 7 people-all of whom depend upon my business for their livelihood. Would it better if I fired all them, sold my business and gave the money to the poor?

If you feel that you are a better person than those without money or who are employees and or you feel that this is a sign that God approves of you (otherwise you would have less), then it is possible you are influenced by Calvinist principles or Social Darwinism.

 

[estesbob]

If you feel that you are a better person than those without money or who are employees and or you feel that this is a sign that God approves of you (otherwise you would have less), then it is possible you are influenced by Calvinist principles or Social Darwinism.

Looks like a win ,win situation. I go on welfare, the employees go on unemployment until they can find a job and another heartless businessman is put down! And since we are all suddenly on the dole we will most assuredly vote Democrat.!

 

[Theo520]

If you feel that you are a better person than those without money or who are employees and or you feel that this is a sign that God approves of you (otherwise you would have less), then it is possible you are influenced by Calvinist principles or Social Darwinism.

Sally,
I read Estesbob was expressing a sense of responsibility, not superiority.

I’d also bet you never studied Calvinism. Calvinist principles are not the force behind prosperity theology. The writers trying to blame the Greece crisis on Calvinist economics have also never studied Calvinism (I assume that’s where you picked it up)

 

[estesbob]

Sally, you’ve been reading the wrong press too.

1st, I read Estes was expressing a sense of responsibility, not superiority

2nd, I’m betting you never studied Calvinism. Calvinist principles are not the force behind prosperity theology. The writers trying to blame the Greece crisis on Calvinist economics have also never studied Calvinism (I assume that’s where you picked it up)

That is one thing those with socialistic leanings never grasp-employers don’t feel a sense of superiority over their employees-they feel, as you said, a sense of responsibility. I have 7 people who’s families depend on my business for their livelihood. I don’t make any decisions in my business without first determining what impact it will have on my employees. And in my 35 years of dealing with small businesses on a daily basis I can assure you most small businessmen feel the same way.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That is one thing those with socialistic leanings never grasp-employers don’t feel a sense of superiority over their employees-they feel, as you said, a sense of responsibility. I have 7 people who’s families depend on my business for their livelihood. I don’t make any decisions in my business without first determining what impact it will have on my employees. And in my 35 years of dealing with small businesses on a daily basis I can assure you most small businessmen feel the same way.

On the other hand, I also know plenty of businessmen who feel the opposite as well. Some don’t care about their employees and will do whats right for themselves and could care less what happens to the employees. One would hope that a Catholic businessman or woman gives some thought to the wellbeing of their employees. But there is little inherent in capitalism that would bring that about. For example, I know a CPA firm that has routinely hired accounting graduates and portrayed it as a permanent position. What they meant was permanent until the end of tax season. Now that is a sleazy thing to do in my opinion, but morality might encourage honesty about the nature of the position but capitalism won’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On the other hand, I also know plenty of businessmen who feel the opposite as well. Some don’t care about their employees and will do whats right for themselves and could care less what happens to the employees. One would hope that a Catholic businessman or woman gives some thought to the wellbeing of their employees. But there is little inherent in capitalism that would bring that about. For example, I know a CPA firm that has routinely hired accounting graduates and portrayed it as a permanent position. What they meant was permanent until the end of tax season. Now that is a sleazy thing to do in my opinion, but morality might encourage honesty about the nature of the position but capitalism won’t.

A key factor in estesbob’s posting was small business. The sense of detachment between management and employees that you have observed is harder to maintain when the business is small and everyone has occasion to relate to everyone else on a personal level. The larger the corporation, the more impersonal everyone feels. Also the sense of responsibility toward individuals is diluted when responsibility can be shared. That is why, for example, it is much easier to get a firing squad to perform an execution rather than a single person with a gun. That said, there are some large corporations with inspired leadership that do foster that sense of care for the individual employee.

 

[sallybutler]

That is one thing those with socialistic leanings never grasp-employers don’t feel a sense of superiority over their employees-they feel, as you said, a sense of responsibility. I have 7 people who’s families depend on my business for their livelihood. I don’t make any decisions in my business without first determining what impact it will have on my employees. And in my 35 years of dealing with small businesses on a daily basis I can assure you most small businessmen feel the same way.

I did not say YOU thought you were better than your employees or those without money. I said IF you did and MIGHT be influenced by Calvinist principles or Social Darwinism.

 

[stinkcat_14]

A key factor in estesbob’s posting was small business. The sense of detachment between management and employees that you have observed is harder to maintain when the business is small and everyone has occasion to relate to everyone else on a personal level. The larger the corporation, the more impersonal everyone feels. Also the sense of responsibility toward individuals is diluted when responsibility can be shared. That is why, for example, it is much easier to get a firing squad to perform an execution rather than a single person with a gun. That said, there are some large corporations with inspired leadership that do foster that sense of care for the individual employee.

I even known small business owners who were incredibly dishonest. I do agree that knowing your employees personally ought to give a sense of responsibility to them and in many cases it does. But if you are a selfish person to begin with, you don’t become charitably disposed by owning a business.

 

[estesbob]

I even known small business owners who were incredibly dishonest. I do agree that knowing your employees personally ought to give a sense of responsibility to them and in many cases it does. But if you are a selfish person to begin with, you don’t become charitably disposed by owning a business.

I do to.We dump them quickly as clients. I tell all.my new business clients the secret to success is to treat your employees and customers first class. You are dependent on both of them for your businesses success.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On the other hand, I also know plenty of businessmen who feel the opposite as well. Some don’t care about their employees and will do whats right for themselves and could care less what happens to the employees. One would hope that a Catholic businessman or woman gives some thought to the wellbeing of their employees. But there is little inherent in capitalism that would bring that about. For example, I know a CPA firm that has routinely hired accounting graduates and portrayed it as a permanent position. What they meant was permanent until the end of tax season. Now that is a sleazy thing to do in my opinion, but morality might encourage honesty about the nature of the position but capitalism won’t.

There is little inherent in any system that brings about altruism on the part of those who hire others. It’s not peculiar to capitalism.

But I’ll say this. It occurred to me some time ago that while people are reluctant to part with money, especially for a service, they’ll do it readily if they perceive that what they’re getting is worth what they’re giving for it. To whatever degree one’s product may be unique, the producer satisfies a need or want that would not otherwise be satisfied.

When it comes to a service, the same is true. People hire others to perform services they could not perform themselves, or don’t want to perform. And they’ll part with money to have one do it. That, frankly, is to me a high compliment, one of the highest one person can give to another.

And so, when it comes to Estesbob’s business which I understand to be accounting, it isn’t as if there are no competitors for his service. Yet, some number of people go to Estesbob, meaning they value what he can give them more than what some other can give them. Now, maybe they’re mistaken in that belief, but maybe they’re not.

If Estesbob, then, sells his business or liquidates it, is it a zero sum game? Yes, his employees can go get another job, and his clients can go to someone else. But for his devoted clients, it sure isn’t a zero sum game. They will be obliged to go to some person who has not had years of understanding their situation and will never do things quite the way Bob did.

So to me, as long as a business is run reasonably on the square, and as long as Bob is reasonably decent in his support, by money and otherwise, of activities that help the less fortunate, there is no moral fault in failing to sell it up and giving the proceeds to the poor.
At least some people will be better off if he doesn’t.