The End of the Consumer Church in America

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

And those are?

1. 
   *]Promotion of free trade
   *]usury is legal
   *]corporations are allowed
   *]legal framework which rewards the large over the small
   *]allowance of advertising
   *]allowance to “own” land and not do anything with it (speculation)
   *]allowance to manipulate markets
   *]allowance of takeovers
   *]promotion of competition, not cooperation
   *]etc
   *]etc
   *]etc
   
   (insert what you think as “normal”)

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

Tell me what “the Catholic way” is.

Because up until now, I did not know there was a “Catholic way” to farm, make cars, or sell haberdashery.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There is a Catholic way to run an economy, treat workers, etc. Read the writings of the popes, especially His Holiness Pope Leo XIII.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hildebrand:

1. 
   *]Promotion of free trade
   
   So the “Catholic way” would be for us to say to the rest of the world, “You Mexicans and Chinese and other people starve! We’re hogging all the trade to ourselves?”
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   usury is legal

   So lend me $100,000 at 0% interest.
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   corporations are allowed

   So only small owner-operated businesses should be allowed?
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   legal framework which rewards the large over the small

   Give us an example
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   allowance of advertising

   I don’t understand what that means. Even in Christ’s time, merchants hawked their wares.
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   allowance to “own” land and not do anything with it (speculation)

   So the Nature Conservacy should be illegal? After all, they don’t “do” anything with the land – just let wildlife live on it.
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   allowance to manipulate markets

   How? Give us an example.
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   allowance of takeovers

   Now that’s a good one – if corporations are bad, how is takeovers wrong?
   
   In fact, legislation designed to PREVENT takeovers led to giving corporate officers the power to set their own salaries and so on.
   
   
   Hildebrand:
   

   promotion of competition, not cooperation

   So it’s wrong for me to make a better product and sell it at a lower price?
   
   

   (insert what you think as “normal”)

1. 
   
   You still haven’t told us what a Catholic economy would be like.

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

So the “Catholic way” would be for us to say to the rest of the world, "You Mexicans and Chinese and other people starve!

We’re hogging all the trade to ourselves?"

Before Clinton took office, that is exactly what we said to the Mexicans, “You Mexicans, STARVE!”… Ok, whatever.

Hogging all the trade to ourselves? No, we can have international tariffs that allows trade, but do not put American companies out of business because other nations have unethical economic standards or lower costs of living.
vern humphrey:

So lend me $100,000 at 0% interest.

I see you don’t understand what usury is. I am not surprised. Usury is not about interest. Usury is loaning money on consumable goods. Loans on durable goods/capital investment are moral.
vern humphrey:

So only small owner-operated businesses should be allowed?

No.
vern humphrey:

Give us an example

Eniment domain.
vern humphrey:

I don’t understand what that means. Even in Christ’s time, merchants hawked their wares.

Corporate advertising promotes brand names and consumerism. It does far more harm than good. I am not talking about going to a market and selling goods.
vern humphrey:

So the Nature Conservacy should be illegal? After all, they don’t “do” anything with the land – just let wildlife live on it.

I put in speculation to clarify what I was talking about. Speculating land is immoral because it manipulate the markets and drives up the cost of land, making it harder for families to afford homes. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it far better than I ever could:

Hence, producers and consumers are robbed by clever men, who manipulate the markets

in their own interests, produce nothing, perform no useful social service, and are parasites on commerce… The hope of becoming rich quickly and without the drudgery of labour distracts a man from pursuing the path of honest work. The speculator, even if he succeeds, produces nothing; he reaps the fruit of the toil of others, he is a parasite who lives by preying on the community.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14211a.htm
vern humphrey:

How? Give us an example.

Land speculation, etc. I can’t believe you don’t see all the examples around us.
vern humphrey:

Now that’s a good one – if corporations are bad, how is takeovers wrong?

Most takeovers sell off companies, lay off workers, destroy business, etc. It is all apart of not allowing people hide behind “corporations” while making immoral decisions.
vern humphrey:

So it’s wrong for me to make a better product and sell it at a lower price?

That is not happening anymore. We like to import junk from China. Cooperation would help to make better products at lower prices. That is where their cooperation would occur, they would be working together to make better products. Not trying to figure out how to put their competitors out of business.
vern humphrey:

You still haven’t told us what a Catholic economy would be like.

See my previous posts in this thread. I provided some links.

 

[Hildebrand]

Vern,

Here is a decent article:

cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hildebrand:

Before Clinton took office, that is exactly what we said to the Mexicans, “You Mexicans, STARVE!”… Ok, whatever.

And that was a good idea? A decent, Catholic attitude toward the world’s poor?

Hildebrand:

Hogging all the trade to ourselves? No, we can have international tariffs that allows trade, but do not put American companies out of business because other nations have unethical economic standards or lower costs of living.

Ahhh – we maintain our high standards of living at their expense?

We load the dice so they can’t win.

Hildebrand:

I see you don’t understand what usury is. I am not surprised. Usury is not about interest. Usury is loaning money on consumable goods. Loans on durable goods/capital investment are

moral.

So lend me $100,000 at 0% interest and I’ll spend it all on consumable goods.

Hildebrand:

No.

So corporations aren’t all bad? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Hildebrand:

Eniment domain.

So it’s always wrong to take land for public use?

Hildebrand:

Corporate advertising promotes brand names and consumerism. It does far more harm than good. I am not talking about going to a market and selling goods.

Can you quantify that harm? What data do you have?

Hildebrand:

I put in speculation to clarify what I was talking about. Speculating land is immoral because it manipulate the markets

and drives up the cost of land, making it harder for families to afford homes. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it far better than I ever could:

How does it “manipulate the market?” Explain.

Hildebrand:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14211a.htm

Land speculation, etc. I can’t believe you don’t see all the examples around us.

Do you know when the New Advent article was written? In those days there were all sorts of wierd economic theories circulating – most of which were simply wrong.

Hildebrand:

Most takeovers sell off companies, lay off workers, destroy business, etc. It is all apart of not allowing people hide behind “corporations” while making immoral

decisions.

There you are dead wrong. Most takeovers do indeed sell off parts of companies and lay off workers and save the business. A company becomes an attractive takeover target when it is badly managed, and someone realizes they can manage it better than the incompetents who are currently running it. I’ve been through several takeovers, and the result was a stronger, better run business.

Hildebrand:

That is not happening anymore. We like to import junk from China.

Who likes to import “junk” from China?

Hildebrand:

Cooperation would

help to make better products at lower prices.

How? Cooperation is sometimes called “price-fixing” and it results in higher prices to the consumer.

Hildebrand:

That is where their cooperation would occur, they would be working together to make better products. Not trying to figure out how to put their competitors out of business.

You have a strange idea about business.

I urge you to start your own and put your principles into practice – let us know how you make out.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Hildebrand:

See my previous posts in this thread. I provided some links.

Your links don’t tell us what a Catholic economy would be like.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hildebrand:

Vern,

Here is a decent article:

cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html

Roots of the Catholic Worker Movement: Distributism: Ownershipof the Means of Production and Alternative to the Brutal Global Market

You do understand what “ownership of the means of production” refers to?

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

And that was a good idea? A decent, Catholic attitude toward the world’s poor?

Are you always this insulting?
vern humphrey:

Ahhh – we maintain our high standards of living at their expense?

No, our standards went down and Mexico’s standards remained the same. Actually some say Mexicians are worse off since NAFTA.

How NAFTA failed Mexico
vern humphrey:

We load the dice so they can’t win.

The capitalists get rich and win with free trade. We can trade with other countries (tariffs). Send missionaries and capital investment to help our neighbors, but don’t hurt Americans.
vern humphrey:

So lend me $100,000 at 0% interest and I’ll spend it all on consumable goods.

Do some research on usury.
vern humphrey:

So corporations aren’t all bad?

I was talking about large companies.
vern humphrey:

So it’s always wrong to take land for public use?

No, the use of eminent domain I was referring to was when large corporations use eminent domain to buy out small business and homes. The United States has laws that favor large corporations over small businesses.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html
vern humphrey:

Can you quantify that harm? What data do you have?

Dorothy Day objected strongly to the totally materialistic life style dominating our culture. She talked about the need for a revolution-a revolution of the heart-to break away from the grip of materialism that tries to over throw us and our values and take possession of our souls. She said: “We are all guilty of concupiscence (desires of the flesh), but newspapers, radio, TV and the battalion of advertising people (Woe to that generation!) deliberately stimulate our desires.”

For her, to tempt people constantly and to barrage them with advertisement is immoral and unethical. One of the greatest sins, she says, is “to instill in the heart of the worker paltry desire, so compulsive that he or she is willing to sell liberty and honor to satisfy them.”

Wendell Berry outlines the clear connection between the commandment against adultery and advertisement:

“To make sex the preferred bait of commerce may seem merely the obvious thing to do, once greed is granted its now conventional priority as a motive… Television is the greatest disrespecter and exploiter of sexuality that the world has ever seen; even if the network executives decide to promote” safe sex" and the use of condoms, they will not cease to pimp for the exceedingly profitable “sexual revolution.”

http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html
vern humphrey:

How does it “manipulate the market?” Explain.

Are you serious? That is rather insulting.
vern humphrey:

Do you know when the New Advent article was written? In those days there were all sorts of wierd economic theories circulating – most of which were simply wrong.

That was from long held Catholic teaching, not “weird economic theories”.

*Nihil Obstat

Imprimatur
vern humphrey:

I urge you to start your own and put your principles into practice – let us know how you make out.

I know, that is how morally bankrupt this economy is. Sad, very sad.

Please read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” if you truly care to know more.

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

You do understand what “ownership of the means of production” refers to?

Please slander the article if you want to…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hildebrand:

Are you always this insulting?

I did not mean to be insulting.

However, there is a fundamental failure of logic in wanting all people to have a living wage and opposing free trade. Trade barriers hurt us all, but hurt the poor even worse.

Hildebrand:

No, our standards went down and Mexico’s standards remained the same. Actually some say Mexicians are worse off since NAFTA.

How NAFTA failed Mexico

How did our standards go down? We are richer, healthier and better off economically today than we were twenty years ago.

Hildebrand:

The capitalists get rich and win with free trade. We can trade with other countries (tariffs). Send missionaries and capital investment to help our neighbors, but don’t hurt Americans.

It sounds to me like “capitalist” is a code word to you, denoting something intrinsically evil.

Hildebrand:

Do some research on usury.

Oh, I have. Arkansas had a usury law. It was illegal to charge more than 10%. During the Carter administration, when inflation went well above that, credit in Arkansas dried up. The state was almost flooded with bankruptcies, businesses failed, no one could start a business. It was very bad.

Spain has a similar view on “usury” – which explains why, even though Spain had tons and tons of sliver and gold flowing into the country, England won the economic struggle – the money flowed right through Spain and into foreign banks.

Hildebrand:

I was talking about large companies.

No, the use of eminent domain I was referring to was when large corporations use eminent domain to buy out small business and homes. The United States has laws that favor large corporations over small businesses.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html

http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html

Are you serious? That is rather insulting.

As I said, I don’t mean to insult you – but you are advancing ideas which when laid side-by-side simply confound each other – the idea that “free trade” somehow hurts people and that trade barriers somehow help the poor is a good example.

Hildebrand:

That was from long held Catholic teaching, not “weird economic theories”.

Nihil Obstat

Imprimatur

**

I know, that is how morally bankrupt this economy is. Sad, very sad.

The Church is infallible on morals and theology – not on science, economics or other matters.

The Catholic Encyclopedia on the Web was published in 1917. It’s a massive work, and the articles took a long time to write – so they were mostly written well before 1917.

Now, do you recall who was president in the years before 1917? And who his Secretary of State was?

William Jennings Bryan!!! There were enough people in the US who believed his “Cross of Gold” speech was sound economics that the Senate confirmed him for such an important post!

That era was full of strange and erroneous economic theories. And as I said, the Church isn’t infallible on economics.

Hildebrand:

Please read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” if you truly care to know more.

I’ve read it. It does not call for killing industry and strangling trade.

I have read it. It still doesn’t tell me what you mean

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

I did not mean to be insulting.

I know, but you continually have baited questions when you know the answer to them. For instance the bait about Wal-mart (I think), when you could have made your point.

You know land speculators help drive up the price of land making it harder and more expensive for families to afford homes. I did not need to tell you that, you are very smart.
vern humphrey:

However, there is a fundamental failure of logic in wanting all people to have a living wage and opposing free trade. Trade barriers hurt us all, but hurt the poor even worse.

That is one opinion. In the 1950s, we were not all suffering from trade barriers. Our economy grew from 1789 to 1990 with tariffs, tariffs did not cripple our economy.
vern humphrey:

How did our standards go down? We are richer, healthier and better off economically today than we were twenty years ago.

Being in a massive trade deficit and having a massive federal debt is not a problem to you? Being dependent upon foreign goods and materials is ok?
vern humphrey:

The Catholic Encyclopedia on the Web was published in

1917 …]

The Church is infallible on morals and theology – not on science, economics or other matters.

…And as I said, the Church isn’t infallible on economics.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2420 The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, “when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it.” In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities:

the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end.

2421 The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church’s teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.

2422 The Church’s social teaching comprises a *body of *doctrine, which is articulated as the Church interprets events in the course of history, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in the light of the whole of what has been revealed by Jesus Christ.

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduces persons to nothing**more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. “You cannot serve God and mammon.”

http://198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/seventh.html#SEVENTH
vern humphrey:

I have read it. It still doesn’t tell me what you mean

The Catholic tradition has always taught the importance of working toward the common good

. Adam Smith, in opposition to this teaching, advocated self-interest as the motivation for one’s life. He added the adjective, “enlightened,” to the phrase, (whatever that means).

http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html

 

[VonMrs]

Hildebrand & Vern- Interesting discussion! I’d really like to chime in here on many of your points, but I have to get my kids to bed. Real quickly:

Hildebrand:

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to believe the current US capitalistic system is either morally good or the only workable system.

I am saying the reason why we have a capitalistic economy is because of government policies that protect and promote many of the dogmas of capitalism.

Ah, you are misunderstanding me! I am a fan of free market economics. However, we don’t really have an economy that runs on the principles of free market economics. (Though we are closer than say, Italy.) The government protects favored industries and manipulates the markets through our tax structure and regulatory agencies.

 

[Hildebrand]

vern humphrey:

However, there is a fundamental failure of logic in wanting all people to have a living wage and opposing free trade. Trade barriers hurt us all, but hurt the poor even worse.

How did our standards go down? We are richer, healthier and better off economically today than we were twenty years ago.

For centuries, European Imperialist nations exploited their colonies by forcing them to buy goods made in the mother country. They did so because they wanted to become successful, prosperous, and concentrate wealth and riches in their treasuries.

With free trade, America is the one buying the foreign goods, the one with the trade deficit, the one loosing manufacturing jobs, and the one going into debt. Every year our government pays out over 350 billion dollars on interest from debt alone (almost half of that goes to foreign governments). (So far) we spent only 250 billion on the entire War in Iraq. We are entering the third year of the Iraq War, it is relatively cheap compared to what we spend on our debt every year.
vern humphrey:

It sounds to me like “capitalist” is a code word to you, denoting something intrinsically evil.

It depends on what I mean by “capitalist”. If I mean a rugged individualist who does not care about the morality or ethics of his actions, he only cares about corporate profits and making money… then I guess so.
vern humphrey:

I’ve read it. It does not call for killing industry and strangling trade.

(You know what is killing American industry and manufacturing?

Answer: Free trade)

I know what you mean (your original point), our economy is so “filthy”, it is nearly impossible to make it moral and ethical. It would be like trying to make Osama a saint over-night… not going to happen (the reason why I used Osama is because I think he is the only person I can insult on this forum).

Our economy is functioning and growing because of many of the deadly sins. It can function much better on virtue, but the transition would not be pretty.

 

[Hildebrand]

VonMrs:

Ah, you are misunderstanding me! I am a fan of free market economics.

Sorry then.

VonMrs:

However, we don’t really have an economy that runs on the principles of free market economics.

I am for a moral limited market economy where people like George Soros cannot use speculation to cripple a currency in one day and make over a billion dollars out of it. Soros did this to the British Pound Sterling in the early 1990s.

 

[RobNY]

CollegeCatholic:

Maybe you missed my point that one must look to the old covenant for justification of the death penalty? Justification for the death penalty is not found in the NT or by Jesus. How convenient that you cite Leviticus to justify the death penalty but not to justify me cutting off a dude’s hand for striking his father or me destroying infadels and what not… ??? Maybe because we are no longer bound by the OT law because Christ has fullfilled the law and revealed to us the higher Truth of God with such things as “turn the other cheek,” “love your enemy as yourself,” “he who is without sin may cast the first stone,” and eating with sinners rather than killing them.

His point is not to enact the Levitical laws but to show that since God commanded the death penalty, it cannot be intrinstically wrong.

Remember that Jesus did not yet exist in the OT. The Son of God, made flesh to reveal the Truth, establish the Church, die, raise, and assume into heaven for the atonement of sin with glorified body; that is Jesus.

This is bordering on heresy, and I don’t mean this to discredit you in any argument. To say that Jesus did not yet exist is to imply that he had a beginning in time, which would make him a creature. To the contrary, Scripture states, “In the beginning was the Word,” and, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” Jesus has always existed as the second person of the Trinity, from eternity. Jesus was incarnated just prior to the NT. This is different than saying that he, ‘did not yet exist.’

Hitler was escaped abortion, perhaps we should have done a better job killing babies?

This is a terrible analogy. Abortion is always wrong no matter what, because babies are completely innocent. The difference between a guilty and an innocent person should be apparent, but seems not to be. I don’t even see how criminals escaping jail even starts to be able to be compared to Hitler espacing and abortion… it is just a bizarre analogy if I have ever seen one.

If you can convict the baby of a crime, I’ll support the death penalty for 'em.

Therese of Liseaux is a fine example of wisdom beyond years. Remind me at what age she died?

I know St. Therese of Liseux, and you sir are no St. Therese of Liseux.

Seriously though, until you can sure that you have the genius of St. Therese of Liseux, then you remain an exception to the rule, just as St. Therese was.

In any case, remember St. Ignatius of Loyola’s 12 rule for thinking with the Church:

It is a thing to be blamed and avoided to compare men who are living on the earth (however worthy of praise) with the Saints and Blessed, saying: This man is more learned than St. Augustine, etc…

 

[InnocentIII]

Hildebrand:

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to believe the current US capitalistic system is either morally good or the only workable system.

I am saying the reason why we have a capitalistic economy is because of government policies that protect and promote many of the dogmas of capitalism.

Frankly Hildebarnad your lack of knowledge about economics is only matched by your lack of knowledge about history. Governments did not create capitalism in fact they fought it every inch of the way. From Diocletian to Brezhnev governments have sought to control the economy for their own ends with those ends be pragmatic or ideological. And every one has failed because economics follows its own laws and those who break them are condemned to economic stagnation. The ownership of the means of production which is pure marxism and not Catholic theology ignores that fact that without investors you have no work. Why do you think people flocked to the cities during the industrial revolution … because that is where the work was. Who do you think inspired the industrial revolution … individual entrepreneurs often in the teeeth of government regulation. China was ahead of Europe in the 10th century but it stifled economic inititiative and so fell way behind. Capitalism has its demons just like any system but no system has ever produced the wealth for everyone that capitalism has. Get a grip on facts before you start sprouting slogans. If you want government policies that create misery take a look at regulations, minimum wages and the like. All they do is reduce employment. Prior to the industrial revolution the only choice a man had was working on the land for subsistence and if he was lucky a surplus he could sell or barter. The owners of the means of production own them because they invest their capital or there wouldn’t be any means of production. The Soviets discovered this and so the state provided the means and their workers ended up worse off than in the west. No-one is saying capitalism is the perfect system, just as no government system is perfect outside of Heaven. But like democracy it is the best an imperfect world can achieve. The only equality achievable here on earth is the equality of poverty{/b}. As has been said before those who set out to create heaven on earth end up in hell on earth.

 

[InnocentIII]

Hildebrand:

Hogging all the trade to ourselves? No, we can have international tariffs that allows trade, but do not put American companies out of business because other nations have unethical economic standards or lower costs of living.
Unethical economic standards?? it is unethical to be poor?? Wow!! You do realise that enforcing first world standards on third world countries is a guarenteed way of causing massive unemployment in third world countries … you know the poor we are supposed to be helping. It reminds me of the infamous White Australia policy which was promoted by labour unions to pretect white jobs. No matter how low the wages may be in comparison every country which has allowed companies to set up factories has seen an overall rise in living standards in those countries. Europe on the other hand is so ethical about workers standards of living that they have massive unemployment.

I see you don’t understand what usury is. I am not surprised. Usury is not about interest. Usury is loaning money on consumable goods. Loans on durable goods/capital investment are

moral.
You obviously don’t know what it means. From the dictionary meaning of usury

u·su·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yzh-r)
n. pl. u·su·ries
The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest

, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
Archaic. Interest charged or paid on a loan.

Corporate advertising promotes brand names and consumerism. It does far more harm than good. I am not talking about going to a market and selling goods.

Last I checked it wan’t compulsory to buy any of these brand names. I for one don’t. I generally buy generics. BTW have you considered if no-one bought these brand names what would happen to the workers employed by these companies? Or are they evil capitalists too??

That is not happening anymore. We like to import junk from China. Cooperation would

help to make better products at lower prices. That is where their cooperation would occur, they would be working together to make better products. Not trying to figure out how to put their competitors out of business.

Are you really that naive or just ingenuous? How do you know co-operation would help to make better products at lower prices? Can you give me a real world example or is this just the wish making the reality? The “junk” from China has raised the living standards of all Chinese more in two decades than the entire period of Mao’s domination. Or are the American more worthy than the Chinese poor???

Frankly all you have written is a mishmash of sixties myths, Marxist fallacies and unsupported assertions. Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world” yet it has not stopped man from trying to second-guess Him with disastrous results.

 

[Flopfoot]

I don’t understand why we have had discussions about economics and the death penalty going on for 2 pages on CAF. I thought the Church was pretty clear on what it taught - read the CCC, the sections about the 5th and 7th commandments to read about death penalty and economics respectively. It all made sense to me anyway.

College Catholic - my advice for the next thread you make - if you really want to change the minds of Catholics, let them know that what they’re doing is wrong, etc., then start your thread by posting some Catholic teaching because that’s a lot more authoritative than saying something like “this is my understanding of what the Gospel is trying to say” and then putting your opinion forward. Unless of course you are the pope or a bishop (read CCC 100). It would also ensure that what you are posting about actually is in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hildebrand:

I know, but you continually have baited questions when you know the answer to them. For instance the bait about Wal-mart (I think), when you could have made your point.

Now you’re insulting me – accusing me of “bait.”

Hildebrand:

You know land speculators help drive up the price of land making it harder and more expensive for families to afford homes. I did not need to tell you that, you are very smart.

That’s dead wrong. “Speculators” build the roads and infrastructure in areas where homes are to be built. If individual home-owners had to build their own roads, sewers and so on, home costs would be much higher.

(For those who don’t know how it works, the developer builds the streets and infrastructure and then gives it to the local government, which assumes ownership and maintenance responisbilities.)

Hildebrand:

That is one opinion. In the 1950s, we were not all suffering from trade barriers. Our economy grew from 1789 to 1990 with tariffs, tariffs did not cripple our economy.

Wrong again. Just for laughs, look up “the Great Depression” + “Smoot-Hawley Tariff.” Tariffs have slowed our growth, acerbated economic downturns, and were one cause of the Civil War.

Hildebrand:

Being in a massive trade deficit and having a massive federal debt is not a problem to you? Being dependent upon foreign goods and materials is ok?

Is this what you call “baiting?”

Our trade deficit is simply an accounting issue. Our federal debt is largely due to unrestrained spending by Congress.

Hildebrand:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

http://198.62.75.12/www1/CDHN/seventh.html#SEVENTH

[cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html](http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/rdistrib.html)

I am quite familiar with the Catechism – nowhere does it say tariffs are good and free trade bad.

 

[Hildebrand]

InnocentIII:

Frankly Hildebarnad your lack of knowledge about economics is only matched by your lack of knowledge about history. Governments did not create capitalism in fact they fought it every inch of the way.

Our American revolution was a revolt by capitalists. They wanted to create a limited (some may say libertarian) government.