Welfare and strength of capitalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two thoughts come to mind.
  1. how do they define competitive capitalist economies? Is it based on GDP growth? Exports? Standard of living?
  2. Most importantly, do you notice a significant commonality of the 5 countries listed? And no- I am not talking about their relative geographic location. They are all relatively small countries (population wise) compared to the other industrialized countries listed. This is key. If we assume their economies are the best, and they have large welfare systems, perhaps we should consider that they are able to implement them without ignoring subsidiarity. Quite the opposite, they can easily have highly regulated and high levels of social nets because subsidiarity is maintained almost by definition.
In other words, what works in a small country does not normally work in a large country.
 
tafan said:
Two thoughts come to mind.
  1. how do they define competitive capitalist economies? Is it based on GDP growth? Exports? Standard of living?
  2. Most importantly, do you notice a significant commonality of the 5 countries listed? And no- I am not talking about their relative geographic location. They are all relatively small countries (population wise) compared to the other industrialized countries listed. This is key. If we assume their economies are the best, and they have large welfare systems, perhaps we should consider that they are able to implement them without ignoring subsidiarity. Quite the opposite, they can easily have highly regulated and high levels of social nets because subsidiarity is maintained almost by definition.
In other words, what works in a small country does not normally work in a large country.
Click to expand...
In respect to size, perhaps America could implement welfare systems at the state or county levels. Would this not control for size?
 
Robert_Sock said:
In respect to size, perhaps America could implement welfare systems at the state or county levels. Would this not control for size?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this would be fine, and even add healthcare to the list. The problem is implementing it. There are a couple of hurdles. First of all, our taxes are upside down. By this, I mean that the majority of our taxes paid go to the federal government. So there is not enough space on the overall “tax revenue” spectrum for states and local governments to take in more. Taxes at the federal level need to be drastically reduced in order to allow states or local governments to implement needed programs.

Of course, this will never happen. So when the feds try to implement something approaching subsidiarity, they do it with block grants: iie the feds collect a massive amount of taxes and then send it back down to the states. Besides being woefully ineffiecient, this does not come without massive amounts control (witness ObamaCare or any other program of the sort).

On top of that, people have the woefully misguided idea that we have to implement the same solution everywhere in the nation, so control has to be at the highest level.

All-in-all, we have totally abandoned the principle of subsidiarity, so pretty much anything we do to try to fix our big problems is doomed to eventual failure.
 
Like most internet memes, this has absolutely no sources to back up its claim.
 
cjkaupke said:
Like most internet memes, this has absolutely no sources to back up its claim.
Click to expand...
👍👍

Yes. These are the kinds of ignorant memes which give people the idea they are reading an undisputed fact, when they are actually just being deluded.
 
I think all would concur if you mean taking care of “the least among us” or those who have “fallen on to hard times”. But the linking analogy of “welfare”…i.e., the “Welfare State” somehow “strengthening Capitalism” is skewed at best…simply wrong at worse. The States listed have taken very little responsibility for the Global well being of mankind…good people but turned in on themselves…they don’t lead in Global responsibility…either militarily, economically or diplomatically…the good news…they have most all of their money to take care of themselves. Just an opinion…surely am not an expert…but there is an “Expert” available on this subject…The Catholic Church

Recommend you take a look (online link below) at the incredible Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church…(2004 approved by Blessed Pope John Paul II)…it is one of the Church’s masterpieces of Doctrine. It gives no quarter to:…“The Left” or “The Right”…“The Liberal”/"The Progressive"or “The Conservative”…“The Socialist” or “The Libertarian” or “Capitalist”…it’s based on God’s Plan of Love in the Human Family of Man…and God’s Justice…the Justice and the Dignity of the Human Person…and especially the Family…marriage and children…in the context of Natural Law morality and a culture based on the Common Good.

Pax Christi
**PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE
**
COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
Click to expand...
  1. Inextricably connected to the topic of rights is the issue of the duties falling to men and women, which is given appropriate emphasis in the interventions of the Magisterium. The mutual complementarities between rights and duties — they are indissolubly linked — are recalled several times, above all in the human person who possesses them.[322] This bond also has a social dimension: “in human society to one man’s right there corresponds a duty in all other persons: the duty, namely, of acknowledging and respecting the right in question”.[323] The Magisterium underlines the contradiction inherent in affirming rights without acknowledging corresponding responsibilities. “Those, therefore, who claim their own rights, yet altogether forget or neglect to carry out their respective duties, are people who build with one hand and destroy with the other”.[324]
Click to expand...
  1. …
    Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also[351].
Click to expand...
  1. …
    The** principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms**.** “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State** leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.
Click to expand...
  1. The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be** inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.**[733] **Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”, while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. **In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function”.[734].
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Rights and duties
Click to expand...
 
  1. Northern Europe is in stagnation.
  2. There is zero historical context provided. Northern Europe has been socialistic for a long time, and yet it only attained its current level of wealth post-WW2, while most of mainland Europe was in the process of rebuilding. In the 19th century people were emigrating from it. So is welfare the cause of its stability, or is it largely coincidental? Europe in general has had much lower violent crime than the American continents for centuries, for example. It is something that long predates the more integrated welfare state of the late 20th century.
  3. It’s not even entirely accurate to say that Northern Europe is heavily socialistic. In some respects it is, but it also tends to have lax labor laws that promote competition. I would consider France more socialistic than Denmark.
 
I agree. Sort of.

Here are my thoughts:

Welfare, provided at local levels, is a very good thing. But it can’t merely be delegated to the state. It involves a cooperation of the State, local community, the market, and other intermediary organizations, especially local Churches. But we also have to understand the situation of the economies of those countries listed (all of which, btw, are very small compared to the US).

All of the Scandinavian countries have a long history of being socialist. We know that socialism is bad because of the disrespect granted to the principle of subsidiarity, which makes everything more efficient and less impersonal. Social Democracy leaves out room for intermediary institutions, especially Churches, to fill the gap and provide for the poor in a personal and efficient way. However, the Scandinavians have, for a while at least, found a way around that because in all of the Nordic countries the State IS the Church. Up until very recently, the major Church of the region was the state; the King of Sweden/Norway/whatever was the head of the Church. So by establishing a statist structured welfare system based on social democracy, much of what was normally lost in a socialist system wasn’t actually lost in Scandinavia. Of course, there are other problems when the state is the Church, especially lack of religious fervor, which cause several intra-societal problems over time.

On the other hand, there is Switzerland. Switzerland, along with the other Germanic countries (Austria and Germany), is extremely efficient, and the principle of subsidiarity has been entrenched in there for centuries. In fact, almost all of Swiss history revolves around subsidiarity. So naturally the Swiss are going to be efficient and have a competitive economy. The system there is actually really effective, and I personally think all countries should adopt something similar. IE, a social market economy. But, like almost all European countries now, the system is slowly starting to fall apart as they lose inner coherency caused by radical individualism, which in turn is caused by secularism. The reason it worked so well, and still does, is because it is based off of CST. But when the heart of what made the system work goes out the window, the outer shell can’t last forever.

The real conclusion is that we need the Church, and we need her bad. Otherwise, some other spirituality that by definition can’t fill society in the way it needs will take over. Secularity isn’t fulfilling and humans can’t live and find fulfillment with it. No other religion but Catholicism can truly fill that gap. Something less perfect than the Church, probably Islam, will likely eventually fill that gap at the rate we are going.

But if you just want to stick to mechanical changes, there are numerous problems with the US’ welfare system as it is. I’ll just list a few of them, but there are plenty.
  1. It is extremely inefficient. It is bureaucratic, and most costs are administrative.
  2. Once you get off welfare, you lose your benefits. They encourage you to not be productive.
  3. They discourage stable families and thus trap generations into welfare.
The rich think the poor are being lazy because they stay poor. The poor think the rich are greedy because they can never get rich. So now there is class warfare. The real people to blame are the politicians, of course, but the ideas behind the problems are much more related to our society. It is a combination of strong individualism, not meaning a strong work ethic, but that everything revolves around the individual, around one’s self. The other problem is that there is an element in society that is very social oriented and cares about the path of society, but it is misguided and ignores the transcendental. While clearly America has some very compassionate, honest, and hard-working Christians, we let the other side take control and dictate how our country should be achieving more prosperity. Which in turn only makes us disintegrate since, like I mentioned earlier, their ideas of prosperity are misguided.

I’ll finish by quoting Bishop Emeritus of Santiago de Veraguas, Oscar Mario Brown Jimenez: *As regards neoliberal globalization of the economy, there was need to apply the principles contained in the Encyclical “Centesimus annus” in order to construct a social market economy or an economy of solidarity.
*

The need still exists for an economy of solidarity. We can still create a social market economy; all it needs to start is us.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I agree. Sort of.

Here are my thoughts:

Welfare, provided at local levels, is a very good thing. But it can’t merely be delegated to the state. It involves a cooperation of the State, local community, the market, and other intermediary organizations, especially local Churches. But we also have to understand the situation of the economies of those countries listed (all of which, btw, are very small compared to the US).

All of the Scandinavian countries have a long history of being socialist. We know that socialism is bad because of the disrespect granted to the principle of subsidiarity, which makes everything more efficient and less impersonal. Social Democracy leaves out room for intermediary institutions, especially Churches, to fill the gap and provide for the poor in a personal and efficient way. However, the Scandinavians have, for a while at least, found a way around that because in all of the Nordic countries the State IS the Church. Up until very recently, the major Church of the region was the state; the King of Sweden/Norway/whatever was the head of the Church. So by establishing a statist structured welfare system based on social democracy, much of what was normally lost in a socialist system wasn’t actually lost in Scandinavia. Of course, there are other problems when the state is the Church, especially lack of religious fervor, which cause several intra-societal problems over time.

On the other hand, there is Switzerland. Switzerland, along with the other Germanic countries (Austria and Germany), is extremely efficient, and the principle of subsidiarity has been entrenched in there for centuries. In fact, almost all of Swiss history revolves around subsidiarity. So naturally the Swiss are going to be efficient and have a competitive economy. The system there is actually really effective, and I personally think all countries should adopt something similar. IE, a social market economy. But, like almost all European countries now, the system is slowly starting to fall apart as they lose inner coherency caused by radical individualism, which in turn is caused by secularism. The reason it worked so well, and still does, is because it is based off of CST. But when the heart of what made the system work goes out the window, the outer shell can’t last forever.

The real conclusion is that we need the Church, and we need her bad. Otherwise, some other spirituality that by definition can’t fill society in the way it needs will take over. Secularity isn’t fulfilling and humans can’t live and find fulfillment with it. No other religion but Catholicism can truly fill that gap. Something less perfect than the Church, probably Islam, will likely eventually fill that gap at the rate we are going.

But if you just want to stick to mechanical changes, there are numerous problems with the US’ welfare system as it is. I’ll just list a few of them, but there are plenty.
  1. It is extremely inefficient. It is bureaucratic, and most costs are administrative.
  2. Once you get off welfare, you lose your benefits. They encourage you to not be productive.
  3. They discourage stable families and thus trap generations into welfare.
The rich think the poor are being lazy because they stay poor. The poor think the rich are greedy because they can never get rich. So now there is class warfare. The real people to blame are the politicians, of course, but the ideas behind the problems are much more related to our society. It is a combination of strong individualism, not meaning a strong work ethic, but that everything revolves around the individual, around one’s self. The other problem is that there is an element in society that is very social oriented and cares about the path of society, but it is misguided and ignores the transcendental. While clearly America has some very compassionate, honest, and hard-working Christians, we let the other side take control and dictate how our country should be achieving more prosperity. Which in turn only makes us disintegrate since, like I mentioned earlier, their ideas of prosperity are misguided.

I’ll finish by quoting Bishop Emeritus of Santiago de Veraguas, Oscar Mario Brown Jimenez: *As regards neoliberal globalization of the economy, there was need to apply the principles contained in the Encyclical “Centesimus annus” in order to construct a social market economy or an economy of solidarity.
*

The need still exists for an economy of solidarity. We can still create a social market economy; all it needs to start is us.
Click to expand...
Individualism is the source of the problem, and it will take the media to turn things around. Everything in today’s media promotes individualism.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Individualism is the source of the problem, and it will take the media to turn things around. Everything in today’s media promotes individualism.
Click to expand...
I’d say a combo of individualism a la classical liberalism and Marxism.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I’d say a combo of individualism a la classical liberalism and Marxism.
Click to expand...
How do we solve the problem of individualism, and instead promote charity? I do not think simply being right-wing would solve anything.
 
We need to put certain things under public control, provide strong welfare, and establish fair trade laws.
 
. . . also, let’s have an agency to ensure fairness in the operations of banking and the stock market.

“SEC” you say?

Come on! You cannot be serious!!!

The SEC fails and fails and fails; the taxpayer bears the brunt. What’s needed is an SEC of a much, much larger magnitude.

We also need to be able to tell Wall Street what WE want, rather than the other way around.
 
Robert_Sock said:
How do we solve the problem of individualism, and instead promote charity? I do not think simply being right-wing would solve anything.
Click to expand...
While speaking about international aid to foreign (poorer) countries, I think this could apply at home as well:

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well. (Caritas in Veritate 60)

And how would you define “right-wing”?
 
CrossofChrist said:
While speaking about international aid to foreign (poorer) countries, I think this could apply at home as well:

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well. (Caritas in Veritate 60)

And how would you define “right-wing”?
Click to expand...
What if citizens refused to allocate any tax monies to welfare? Should not the government then step in and do whatever it takes to end extreme poverty?

I was using the term right-wing loosely to mean conservatives.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What if citizens refused to allocate any tax monies to welfare? Should not the government then step in and do whatever it takes to end extreme poverty?

I was using the term right-wing loosely to mean conservatives.
Click to expand...
Sure. But the point is that the whole system we have now in America is set up so horribly that unless Congress restructures the whole welfare system not much is going to help. And Congress doing anything now is unlikely.

Still very broad. Conservative can mean anything from quasi-libertarian to semi-fascist to pretty much moderate. There’s the European definition, then American, and then the definitions vary between different people in various regions of those respective areas. 🤷
 
CrossofChrist said:
Sure. But the point is that the whole system we have now in America is set up so horribly that unless Congress restructures the whole welfare system not much is going to help. And Congress doing anything now is unlikely.

Still very broad. Conservative can mean anything from quasi-libertarian to semi-fascist to pretty much moderate. There’s the European definition, then American, and then the definitions vary between different people in various regions of those respective areas. 🤷
Click to expand...
Congress and FDR restructured the whole thing in 1933. It was done under emergency powers. The welfare system is a necesssary component of the new system. Without it, people would become less enamored of the currency.

But today we see the result of 80 years of money creation built on credit/debt, and we now know it cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, Congress has been co-opted by business and industry, so I don’t think it’s very likely that meaningful reform will come soon, if at all.

To solve this problem, it has to begin at the local level in my opinion. People need to take charge of their neighborhoods, and become invested in their neighbors. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen either. I think the US is doomed for the ash heap of history soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top