The Moral Case for a Free Economy

[ACCT]

Defending The Free Market – The Moral Case for a Free Economy
The Rev. Robert Sirico
Publisher: Regency Publishing, Inc.
ISBN: 978-1-59698-325-0

*When I started to read this book I had a notion in my mind of how we could best help the poor in our neighborhoods after all we have been doing it for almost three years now. After reading this book, I am not so sure.

The Reverend Rober Sirico, President of The Acton Institute, lays out for us in great detail a new way of thinking about economics, health care, and support for the poor around us. I say a new way of thinking because he does not condemn what is happening now, in fact in many ways, he clearly lays the blame right at the feet of the Church.

Fr. Sirico begins with his story and how he came to think the way he has. From the streets of Brooklyn to the streets of Washington, DC he refined he thoughts on issues using Scripture and the long standing Jeudeo-Christian principles that American was founded on.

The most striking of the chapters has to be chapter three, Want to Help the Poor? Start a business. Fr. Sirico tells the story of working in a soup kitchen during his days of seminary and coming to the realization that this system may in fact be hurting more than it is helping. By not asking questions, and feeding everyone, are we in fact hurting the local economy, this is just one of the questions I have not only after the Acton Institute but after reading this book. Are we doing the right thing?

Surprisingly Fr. Sirico is hard on the Church and associated institutions. He asks the question how the institution of the Church can criticize the government if we take the governments money. The focus has shifted from true philanthropy to government subsidized charity. He makes the case that we need to return to a true sense of what charity is actually for. We need to return to the sense that all of humanity is created in the image and likeness of God ad is unique and unrepeatable. This is the entire theme of this book.

The final chapter of the book asks the same question that I had, what does the church know about economics and the like? The parable of the Good Samaritan is used as an illustration to point out that he needed more than good intentions to help the poor beaten man he needed money.

In the end we are asking the wrong the question. We should not be asking how to we help the poor but rather how we create wealth. Like I stated at the start, it’s a new way of thinking.*

 

[Contarini]

So he’s not just condemning government welfare programs, but the private charity that most “conservatives” think ought to replace these programs?

He’s essentially saying that charity is bad for society?

Much worse than I thought.

I hope the CDF takes some time out from their legitimate pursuit of unorthodox teaching with regard to sexual morality to peruse the work of Fr. Sirico. I would like to hear their judgment on his teaching.

Edwin

 

[Captain_America]

Sirico’s an interesting guy and this is likely a good book to read.

I would point out that some persons simply will not be used by businesses or our economic system, since they are not able or willing to be productive.

This can be due to either personal defects of some sort, or personal intentions.

I am always skeptical of those who somehow believe people living “on the dole” actually enjoy it.

There’s much to be said for employing people, and putting to work good people! I’ve run into quite a few guys I would like to be able to hire!

AT THE SAME TIME, it’s important to realize that we live in the Age of Quick and Dirty Impersonal Capitalism: the individual matters not, but the ROI. And transfers of capital can be made extremely quickly, can really involve no broad questions, such as questions of justice and social concern. . . leaving communities and individuals drowning.

 

[sedonaman]

Defending The Free Market – The Moral Case for a Free Economy
… etc.

Sowell has written extensively on the MW and its consequences. The reality is counter-intuitive. And that’s the problem: too many people use their intuition to attempt to solve a problem instead of using facts. The problem with setting a MW is that the naive think everything else stays the same, i.e., constant. How many times has the MW been increased since it was first legislated in 1938? Were the workers ever made any better off? If they could, then why not set the MW at $10, $20, or even $50? There is no reason not to if you follow their logic. Others have ulterior motives. Unions use it to leverage higher wages for their members. In the end, everyone is worse off because prices in general rise. If I have a year of experience over someone getting minimum wage, and he’s earning the same as I after his is raised, am I going to be happy?

With regard to socialism in general, “The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp” by R.A. Radford, from Economica, November, 1945, facstaff.uww.edu/kashianr/POWCampRadford.pdf , provides us a look at how markets emerge as a result of human need. What it illustrates is that people do not want equality, for that is how they start out when the Red Cross packages are distributed. What followed was the emergence of a free trading system that raised the overall well-being of the inmates in general. IOW, wealth [Red Cross goodies] was used to create more wealth [enhanced quality of life], even though the amount of goods held by the prisoners remained the same. A socialist injected into this picture would immediately, if not sooner, decry the inequality of one prisoner having, say two candy bars and no cigarettes, and another having two packs of cigarettes and no candy bars. He would then set out to capitalize [no pun intended] on the envy of both and work to return the whole camp back to the way it was originally, thus reducing wealth by lowering its over-all well being.

---

“If incomes are equalized, they will be equalized at a low level.” – Vilfredo Pareto

 

[RPRPsych]

Quite an original point of view, and I’m sure he’s going to take a bit of stick for it.

But it’s important to remember (as most “welfare states” don’t) that the two approaches are complementary, not contradictory or mutually exclusive.

When someone is truly “down-and-out” - bankrupt, mentally ill, alcoholic, the survivor of a natural or man-made disaster, going through a major personal crisis, and so on - then a charitable “safety net” is actually the kindest thing to do. Telling someone to “get on their bike” or “pull themselves together” at such a moment, even if theoretically accurate, might not get much by way of results.

But it’s equally true that people need to move on from a crisis, and they can, provided they are given the right sort of guidance and support. Attempts at rehabilitation (for a person who is ill or addicted), employment, and spiritual guidance should follow immediate “crisis inteventions”. Doing so requires resources, particularly the generation of wealth that can then be used wisely. “Giving alms”, in a society as complex as ours, is not just a matter of soup or money.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

So charity is bad according to him?

I agree that starting a small business is the best way to help the poor, but that doesn’t mean charity is bad.

 

[sedonaman]

… a charitable “safety net” is actually the kindest thing to do. …

That’s all well and good, but how many safety net programs do we need? For example, there are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, W.I.C., and who knows how many others to feed the poor. Why can’t they all be combined into one? Answer: They feed more than the poor; they feed a massive, complex bureaucracy, and any consolidation means elimination of too many layers of management. And that doesn’t count the fraud, waste, and abuse.

 

[RPRPsych]

That’s all well and good, but how many safety net programs do we need? For example, there are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, W.I.C., and who knows how many others to feed the poor. Why can’t they all be combined into one? Answer: They feed more than the poor; they feed a massive, complex bureaucracy, and any consolidation means elimination of too many layers of management. And that doesn’t count the fraud, waste, and abuse.

Apologies if I wasn’t too clear

I meant a “charitable” safety net of a private / parochial nature, not a “bureaucratic” safety net.

Believe me, I know all too well what a bureaucracy can do - I’ve been working for the Government for the past two years; and while they can do good to many people in many cases, the colossal waste and complexity of it all (committees, subcommittees, “governing bodies”, etc.) is enough to make one weep.

 

[bilop]

So charity is bad according to him?

I agree that starting a small business is the best way to help the poor, but that doesn’t mean charity is bad.

No, I think he’s saying that taking government funding as the main basis for your charity is bad.

Charity should come from voluntary contributions, and should focus on reforming the recipient’s life, so they no longer need charity.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Sirico’s an interesting guy and this is likely a good book to read.

I would point out that some persons simply will not be used by businesses or our economic system, since they are not able or willing to be productive.

This can be due to either personal defects of some sort, or personal intentions.

I am always skeptical of those who somehow believe people living “on the dole” actually enjoy it.

Well, if it’s “unwilling” to be productive, then they shouldn’t get charity. As St. Paul said “If a man will not work, neither shall he eat”.

I would require mandatory work for any able bodied person receiving welfare or long term charity support.

God Bless

 

[sedonaman]

…I would require mandatory work for any able bodied person receiving welfare or long term charity support.

God Bless

You don’t understand. If memory serves me, the government tried that about 25 years ago, and the number on welfare dropped significantly. This is bad because they don’t want fewer people on welfare; they want more in order to continue to justify an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No, I think he’s saying that taking government funding as the main basis for your charity is bad.

Charity should come from voluntary contributions, and should focus on reforming the recipient’s life, so they no longer need charity.

God Bless

That’s not what I’m reading.

Fr. Sirico tells the story of working in a soup kitchen during his days of seminary and coming to the realization that this system may in fact be hurting more than it is helping. By not asking questions, and feeding everyone, are we in fact hurting the local economy.

 

[Captain_America]

Well, if it’s “unwilling” to be productive, then they shouldn’t get charity. As St. Paul said “If a man will not work, neither shall he eat”.

I would require mandatory work for any able bodied person receiving welfare or long term charity support.

God Bless

I agree. I know in my area, a township tried to do this, but got increasingly concerned about bogus lawsuits filed by “hurt” workers/recipients.

I don’t mind even getting a little bit of work out of them. For some it would be a positive thing in their life, or would come to appreciate it as such.

I was shocked recently to hear that our so-called “high” minimum wage is actually much less than the minimum wage for 1969, when the idea first was enacted.

I’m keen on the living wage; we need to support families and the whole person. Not subsistence wages/slavery wages/3-jobs just to pay rent wages. I AM willing to pay more for this.

 

[ACCT]

You don’t understand. If memory serves me, the government tried that about 25 years ago, and the number on welfare dropped significantly. This is bad because they don’t want fewer people on welfare; they want more in order to continue to justify an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

 

[ACCT]

And please don’t tell me the free market is a myth simply because it
has never existed in a pure form anywhere. Tell that to my grandfather.
He came over to America with $35 in his pocket, yet almost all of his
thirteen children went on to become middle class. Capitalism, rightly
understood and pursued, has lifted untold millions out of abject poverty
and allowed them to use skills and talents they would never have discovered,
and to build opportunities their grandparents never dreamed were
possible.* The free economy is a dream worthy of our spiritual imaginations.***

Father Robert Sirico

 

[ACCT]

*We need to look around us. Aside from the two world wars, the current
global debt level is unprecedented. When one generation borrows
more than the next generation can ever expect to repay, a society eventually
reaches a tipping point.

And consider the demographic winter that is rapidly descending on
Europe. Have Europeans lost hope and are therefore losing the desire to
have children? Or has raising children simply become too much of a bother
for a culture increasingly interested in the pleasures of the moment? In
either case, the consequences are heavy. All the talk of a pension plan
crisis in Europe masks what is really a moral crisis: Europe is growing
sterile, and the bonds that link one generation to the next have been
weakened by a nanny state that has taken over many tasks previously
filled by parents caring for their children and children caring for their
aging parents. The result is an aging population who, in many cases, are
alienated from their children. In such a context, who will willingly produce
the multitude of goods and services the European elderly will require
to enjoy the many idle years they hope for? All of the financial sleight of
hand in the world will not remove the problem of fewer and fewer workers
being asked to produce goods and services for a growing number of
retirees—whom the workers may have little personal connection with or
affection for.

Even within the United States, there is an evident tendency in the same
direction. Our birthrate has dropped to just over the replacement rate,
with a growing number of young men and women opting to relax and
enjoy the fruits of our prosperity rather than raise a new generation to
carry it on.*

Rev. Robert Sirico

 

[ACCT]

*The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Some assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. They say that only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society. In Defending the Free Market, Father Sirico shows:

Why we can’t have freedom without a free economy
Why the best way to help the poor is to a start a business
Why charity works—but welfare doesn’t
How Father Sirico himself converted from being a leftist colleague of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden to recognizing the merits of a free economy.

In this heated presidential election year, the Left will argue that capitalism may produce winners, but it is cruel and unfair. Yet as Sirico proves in Defending the Free Market, capitalism does not simply provide opportunity for material success, but it ensures a more ethical and moral society as well.*

 

[gnjsdad]

I hope the CDF takes some time out from their legitimate pursuit of unorthodox teaching with regard to sexual morality to peruse the work of Fr. Sirico. I would like to hear their judgment on his teaching.

I agree. It’s long overdue.

 

[ACCT]

We have to summon the courage to reject the increasingly oppressive measures being taken against us in this nation. We can start by rejecting the oppressive measures of Omamacare in the voting booth in November.

 

[sedonaman]

And please don’t tell me the free market is a myth simply because it
has never existed in a pure form anywhere. Tell that to my grandfather.
He came over to America with $35 in his pocket, yet almost all of his
thirteen children went on to become middle class. Capitalism, rightly
understood and pursued, has lifted untold millions out of abject poverty
and allowed them to use skills and talents they would never have discovered,
and to build opportunities their grandparents never dreamed were
possible.* The free economy is a dream worthy of our spiritual imaginations.***

Father Robert Sirico

Personally, I think that too many accept America’s economic status quo [a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage] as a given. They can’t imagine what it took to get here.