What "Distrubutism" Really Is

[Abu]

The obvious confusion continues through the myopia of being unable to distinguish the fundamental economic laws which enable great productivity increases and wealth creation, discovered by Catholics and endorsed by the Catholic Church, from the activities of fallen individuals who need the moral teaching of Christ’s Church. The free enterprise economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of distribution whatsoever.

The Popes have moved from the re-distributist theory to acknowledging that all need to understand how to produce wealth through free enterprise as the West had learned. As Fr James A Schall explains: “This success was not primarily an exploitation or an injustice. It consisted in learning new ways of production and distribution that depended on intelligence, enterprise, and work, methods that did not in principle take away anything from anyone. These new methods proceeded from what exists, through the most basic of human resources, human knowledge and skill, to fashion new wealth. This approach was the real key to helping the poor, a key that often seemed to be understood everywhere better than in the Church.” (Does Catholicism Still Exist?, Alba House, 1994, p 177).

That is why Centesimus Annus endorses free enterprise, and condemns the Welfare State as contrary to human nature.

That is why Fr Schall writes:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organizations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (op. cit. p 184-5)

 

[ishii]

I agree with many of your points and disagree elsewhere (a Free Market is not self-correcting, for example, that’s why we have to have common sense regulation). I think you summarized it nicely here though.

The free market does correct itself, I think. The free market does allow for failure and bad ideas. The bad ideas/products tend to get weeded out by the law of supply and demand. (remember the Edsel). Also, the govt. is not a good substitute for the corrective nature of the free market. Here is what Mark Perry, an economics professor at the U. of Michigan had to say about this: "Markets, though, correct. Because they are ultimately tied to basic forces such as supply and demand, customer desires, and of course competition, they are anchored to real forces within the economy as a whole. No matter how out of whack they get, the long-term trend is always going to be in the right direction. More economic growth, satisfying customer demands, better quality at lower prices, and increased productivity and efficiency. Markets work well—not perfectly, but well—because they are not engineered from the top-down. They are chaotic. They encourage experimentation. They allow mistakes. In markets, even the mighty can fall".

Here is an example of what the free market, when freed from excessive regulation, can do to help small businesses and artisan type producers: it was the deregulation of the beer industry which spawned all of the micro-craft breweries that so many people enjoy today. Excessive regulation can stifle creativity and inhibit small businesses from starting. But what I hear about capitalism on this thread is that “unbridled” capitalism is bad and we must regulate, oversee, make sure it doesn’t get out of hand, etc. Again, the problem in America is not that we don’t regulate enough, but that we regulate too much. Too much talk of “unbridled capitalism” and not enough criticism of “unbridled regulation”.

True, there’s a lot to argue about and the end result is a mixture. An ideology one way or the other isn’t going to work. Some practical ideas have to be used – some things the government should do, some things should be left to the market.

Distributism offers some principles that should be part of the discussion.

Maybe so, but I still would like to know what the safeguards would be from corruption, etc. that I raised earlier.

Just as there is no pure, unbridled capitalism or socialism, there is no unmixed Distributism. It offers ideas on how to restrain the excesses of capitalism without promoting a Statist solution. It recommends more opportunities for business (and diversity) by having fewer monopoly corporations.

*Can you recommend a concise book or article defining and defending Distributism? I would like to read it. I have heard Hillaire Belloc has written on the subject. I would like to learn more about how Distributism would work in practice. *

Ishii

 

[reggieM]

Can you recommend a concise book or article defining and defending Distributism? I would like to read it. I have heard Hillaire Belloc has written on the subject. I would like to learn more about how Distributism would work in practice.

Ishii

The Wikipedia article on Distributism is pretty good - it gives an overview and rightly credits Distributism with anti-Trust legislation which limited what monopolies could do.

A great, recent book that I think you’d enjoy is “Small is Still Beautiful” by Joseph Pearce. This gives a lot of practical ideas on how Distribution contributes (he gives an example of independent micro-breweries, similar to your example).

Very often, communities protect themselves against monopoly corporations and from unrestrained capitalism in general. The government declares some areas to be non-commercial, thus intervening in the free market. But this protects the culture of the area.

As I said, an unrestricted, free-market real estate developer could purchase old churches in Italy, for example, destroy them and build McDonalds or parking-lots on them and make money. Now, let’s say that the market “self-corrects” that and the restaurants decline in popularity in years ahead. Now what? The architectural treasures have been lost. How does the market replace them?

The same is very much true with agricultural land. Once it is used for commercial purposes, the market cannot self-correct and restore it to agricultural use.

So, I think your remark on “common sense regulation” is absolutely correct. The Free Market by itself (unrestrained) lacks that common sense. Distributism offers concepts and policies that protect culture and actually protect a market economy in the long run.

 

[ishii]

The Wikipedia article on Distributism is pretty good - it gives an overview and rightly credits Distributism with anti-Trust legislation which limited what monopolies could do.

A great, recent book that I think you’d enjoy is “Small is Still Beautiful” by Joseph Pearce. This gives a lot of practical ideas on how Distribution contributes (he gives an example of independent micro-breweries, similar to your example).

Very often, communities protect themselves against monopoly corporations and from unrestrained capitalism in general. The government declares some areas to be non-commercial, thus intervening in the free market. But this protects the culture of the area.

As I said, an unrestricted, free-market real estate developer could purchase old churches in Italy, for example, destroy them and build McDonalds or parking-lots on them and make money. Now, let’s say that the market “self-corrects” that and the restaurants decline in popularity in years ahead. Now what? The architectural treasures have been lost. How does the market replace them?

I have seen outcries about developers’ plans to replace old buildings such that they had to change their plans because of public opposition and pressure. That is the market and democracy working. I would hope that the Italians would stick up for their architecural treasures. The developer has to decide if he/she wants to antagonize his/her market. But I have also seen businessmen thumb their noses at public pressure. We lost our basketball team in Seattle of over 40 years of history because of cut-throat, short sighted businessmen. Sometimes the free-market stinks, but I’m not sure of the alternative.

The same is very much true with agricultural land. Once it is used for commercial purposes, the market cannot self-correct and restore it to agricultural use.

So, I think your remark on “common sense regulation” is absolutely correct. The Free Market by itself (unrestrained) lacks that common sense. Distributism offers concepts and policies that protect culture and actually protect a market economy in the long run.

 

[Abu]

ishii
I think the govt does too much…I don’t see where distributism comes into play here.

Right. Not only has the free enterprise endorsed by the Church been hobbled by government finagling, hence the depressions and recessions, but Socialism and the Welfare State have been condemned by the Church.

This article faces reality.
What’s Wrong with ‘Distributism’, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. October 6, 2002
[Must Catholics Oppose the Free Market? - LewRockwell]](Must Catholics Oppose the Free Market? - LewRockwell])
Excerpts:
The popes have repeatedly observed that it is more difficult for a man to increase in virtue and to save his soul when living in utter destitution, so one would expect present-day Catholics to appreciate the value of a system that has made possible the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever seen – including stunning increases in life expectancy, caloric intake, housing quality, education, literacy, and countless other good things, as well as dramatic decreases in infant mortality, famine, and disease. And contrary to what the propagandists assert, nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the benefits of capitalism have overwhelmingly benefited the poor.

More recent papal encyclicals, such as Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, have likewise begun to reflect an understanding of the role of prices, entrepreneurship, and various other aspects of the market economy, thereby acknowledging what educated people around the world have themselves begun to see. Only through a genuine understanding of the mechanisms of the free economy, rather than through caricatures of them, can the moral dimension of economics be sensibly discussed.

Those who care to support locally based and smaller-scale agriculture have already been doing so for two decades now by means of community-supported agriculture, which is booming. On a purely voluntary basis, people who wish to support local agriculture pay several hundred dollars at the beginning of the year to provide the farmer with the capital he needs; they then receive locally grown produce for the rest of the year. The organizers of this movement, rather than wasting their time and ours complaining about the need for state intervention, actually did something: they put together a voluntary program that has enjoyed considerable success across the country. Perhaps, if distributists feel as strongly about their position as they claim, this example can provide a model of how their time might be better spent.

In his outstanding history of economic thought, Murray Rothbard went to great lengths to highlight the contributions of the Spanish scholastics, whose critical insights on a variety of crucial economic subjects Catholics might well consider a source of pride. But since these writers came down so often on the side of economic freedom, distributists treat the Spanish scholastics like the family’s crazy old uncle that you hope your friends never find out about.

 

[ishii]

Right. Not only has the free enterprise endorsed by the Church been hobbled by government finagling, hence the depressions and recessions, but Socialism and the Welfare State have been condemned by the Church.

This article faces reality.
What’s Wrong with ‘Distributism’, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. October 6, 2002
[Must Catholics Oppose the Free Market? - LewRockwell]](Must Catholics Oppose the Free Market? - LewRockwell])
Excerpts:
The popes have repeatedly observed that it is more difficult for a man to increase in virtue and to save his soul when living in utter destitution, so one would expect present-day Catholics to appreciate the value of a system that has made possible the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever seen – including stunning increases in life expectancy, caloric intake, housing quality, education, literacy, and countless other good things, as well as dramatic decreases in infant mortality, famine, and disease. And contrary to what the propagandists assert, nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the benefits of capitalism have overwhelmingly benefited the poor.

More recent papal encyclicals, such as Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, have likewise begun to reflect an understanding of the role of prices, entrepreneurship, and various other aspects of the market economy, thereby acknowledging what educated people around the world have themselves begun to see. Only through a genuine understanding of the mechanisms of the free economy, rather than through caricatures of them, can the moral dimension of economics be sensibly discussed.

Those who care to support locally based and smaller-scale agriculture have already been doing so for two decades now by means of community-supported agriculture, which is booming. On a purely voluntary basis, people who wish to support local agriculture pay several hundred dollars at the beginning of the year to provide the farmer with the capital he needs; they then receive locally grown produce for the rest of the year. The organizers of this movement, rather than wasting their time and ours complaining about the need for state intervention, actually did something: they put together a voluntary program that has enjoyed considerable success across the country. Perhaps, if distributists feel as strongly about their position as they claim, this example can provide a model of how their time might be better spent.

In his outstanding history of economic thought, Murray Rothbard went to great lengths to highlight the contributions of the Spanish scholastics, whose critical insights on a variety of crucial economic subjects Catholics might well consider a source of pride. But since these writers came down so often on the side of economic freedom, distributists treat the Spanish scholastics like the family’s crazy old uncle that you hope your friends never find out about.

Those are some great excerpts from an interesting article critical of Distributism. (I gave a link to the same article by Thomas Woods in post # 11 - beat you to it.) One of the biggest problems I have with the practical application of Distributism is the how of it all. Who will decide how much wealth is “too much” and if there was someone or some govt. panel who decided that, how are we to ensure that they won’t turn around and use their power to oppress us or the Church? I still haven’t heard an answer to this question from those who sing the praises of Distributism. That said, I can understand the desire of some to try to come up with a system that addresses the pitfalls of capitalism. And there are some.

Ishii

 

[reggieM]

I have seen outcries about developers’ plans to replace old buildings such that they had to change their plans because of public opposition and pressure. That is the market and democracy working. I would hope that the Italians would stick up for their architecural treasures. The developer has to decide if he/she wants to antagonize his/her market. But I have also seen businessmen thumb their noses at public pressure. We lost our basketball team in Seattle of over 40 years of history because of cut-throat, short sighted businessmen. Sometimes the free-market stinks, but I’m not sure of the alternative.

Well, I think the alternative is having a good government helping to preserve the culture of the community and create opportunities for success.
In this case, losing an NBA team has a major effect on the community but a cut-throat market policy could just sell off the team for profit, leaving the fans with nothing. The free-marketeers just take the cash and leave the community, and thus avoid backlash.

I’m a Buffalo Bills fan and we’re worried about the owner doing something similar with that team (50 years of history). When you build trust with a customer-base (the fans) over a long time, and make millions of dollars doing it – the Distributist view would be that the owner has a responsiblity to the community. The unrestricted market view is that he can do whatever he wants with his business.

So, I think the point is that the government needs to be involved in the right way.
As Catholics, we should work for that goal – a good goverment interacting with business to achieve the best success for both the economy and the long-term future.

So, that’s different from the message that “government is always bad”. That’s too simplistic and many people today take that message to heart, with bad consequences. Plus, it leaves them in a hypocritical situation when they have to rely on government to help in situations like national disasters.

So, the answer should be a good government, active in supporting business and culture. That’s the Catholic solution to the problem – not a denial of the value of government.

 

[reggieM]

Those are some great excerpts from an interesting article critical of Distributism. (I gave a link to the same article by Thomas Woods in post # 11 - beat you to it.) One of the biggest problems I have with the practical application of Distributism is the how of it all. Who will decide how much wealth is “too much” and if there was someone or some govt. panel who decided that, how are we to ensure that they won’t turn around and use their power to oppress us or the Church? I still haven’t heard an answer to this question from those who sing the praises of Distributism. That said, I can understand the desire of some to try to come up with a system that addresses the pitfalls of capitalism. And there are some.

The “who” is the community. An unrestricted free market, for example, has no problem with “adult” bookstores in residental neighborhoods. “Who” tells such businesses that they can’t do such a thing? The market does not correct itself in such matters – not at all.

 

[ishii]

Well, I think the alternative is having a good government helping to preserve the culture of the community and create opportunities for success.
In this case, losing an NBA team has a major effect on the community but a cut-throat market policy could just sell off the team for profit, leaving the fans with nothing. The free-marketeers just take the cash and leave the community, and thus avoid backlash.

I’m a Buffalo Bills fan and we’re worried about the owner doing something similar with that team (50 years of history). When you build trust with a customer-base (the fans) over a long time, and make millions of dollars doing it – the Distributist view would be that the owner has a responsiblity to the community. The unrestricted market view is that he can do whatever he wants with his business.

So, I think the point is that the government needs to be involved in the right way.
As Catholics, we should work for that goal – a good goverment interacting with business to achieve the best success for both the economy and the long-term future.

So, that’s different from the message that “government is always bad”. That’s too simplistic and many people today take that message to heart, with bad consequences. Plus, it leaves them in a hypocritical situation when they have to rely on government to help in situations like national disasters.

So, the answer should be a good government, active in supporting business and culture. That’s the Catholic solution to the problem – not a denial of the value of government.

Yes. What happened to the Sonics could have been prevented if the city of Seattle had been a little more pro-active. At different times we have been faced with losing either the Seahawks and the Mariners. In both cases the city rallied and voted to build a new stadium to entice the ownership to stay. Unfortunately by the time the Sonics were threatening to move, the city had no more will to save yet another sports team, even though the Sonics were (and still are) the only professional Seattle sports team to bring home a World Championship. (sorry Seattle Storm WNBA fans). A professional sports franchise is more than just a business - it is a civic unifier (if you will) and has a value more than just any other business. However, ultimately those who pay the bills will decide the fate of the business they invested in. I am not sure how many people would invest in a business knowing that they didn’t control it and could be subject to coercion by the local govt. to do something that is against their business interests. I am sure the city could have been more creative in helping keep the Sonics in Seattle instead of letting them move to Oklahoma City. As you can see, I still haven’t really gotten over it.

You’re right, government isn’t always bad. There are regulations that are necessary - such as not having adult movie theaters near elementary schools. We recently had an initiative to privatize the liquor industry in Washington state. My free market oriented brain told me to vote yes but my heart told me to vote no, so I ended up voting no. Liquor will continue to be regulated in Washington.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

The “who” is the community. An unrestricted free market, for example, has no problem with “adult” bookstores in residental neighborhoods. “Who” tells such businesses that they can’t do such a thing? The market does not correct itself in such matters – not at all.

No the market doesn’t correct itself here, the community, or pressure from society does. That is how a democracy works - we have the right to oppose an adult bookstore near a school. Local zoning ordinances, I would hope, are written to prevent such a thing from happening. Again, though, I am not sure where the “unrestricted free market” is, and who would advocate that we shouldn’t have common sense regulations of the market where appropriate. I guess the million dollar question is what exactly constitutes “common sense” regulations. I think that when people refer to the market “correcting itself” they are referring to more macro issues such as the dot.com bubble or the housing bubble bursting. The market does correct itself in those cases.

Ishii

 

[reggieM]

The community, or pressure from society.

Thus we have the government.

That is how a democracy works - we have the right to oppose an adult bookstore near a school.

That’s a restriction to the Free Market. Why should the government tell business owners what to do?

Local zoning ordinances, I would hope, are written to prevent such a thing from happening.

Actually, those ordinance don’t always prevent such things and the market does not correct itself. It needs to be corrected by agencies which exist outside the market – the community and government. My city had a businessman who bought an old movie theater in a commercial district and turned it into a huge porno shop. It was incredibly ugly and vulgar, but totally legal and it couldn’t be stopped. That’s the Free Market without restrictions (even though we have zoning laws for other areas of the city, but not in that area).

Again, though, I am not sure where the “unrestricted free market” is, and who would advocate that we shouldn’t have common sense regulations of the market where appropriate.

Those who would advocate for less or no restrictions are those who have something to benefit from it.

I guess the million dollar question is what exactly constitutes “common sense” regulations.

Excellent question and point. I think the answer is that various ideologies do not solve the problem. In other words, someone who upholds the Free Market as if it is a solution, will not be able to use common sense. Because eventually, the market has to be restrained.

It’s a question of degree, not of absolute values.

 

[Abu]

reggieM
The government declares some areas to be non-commercial, thus intervening in the free market….with agricultural land. Once it is used for commercial purposes, the market cannot self-correct and restore it to agricultural use. Distributism offers concepts and policies that protect culture and actually protect a market economy in the long run.

The protection of historic sites or buildings has nothing to do with economics or free enterprise or Distributism, it is a function of cultural values in a society which a society expects its government to protect through the political process.

To ‘One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” ’ (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201),

reggieM’s response is:
This suggests that there is no government involvement already distributing property, financing, employment opportunities, and various regulations – and that is obviously false.

Another example of confusion worse confounded, as the laws of economics on which free enterprise is based describe how, with the fact of scarcity of goods with alternative uses and through reason alone, ends may be achieved by voluntary exchanges of property. The statement is dealing with free enterprise economics not with governments, as Fr James Sadowsky, S.J., explains:
“…wealth is produced and wealth is exchanged. Period. So there are no distributors. If there is no distribution process on the market, how can there be an unjust process of distribution or – for that matter – a just process? Again, if there are no distributors, there can be no unjust distributors. The different holdings that result from the process of production and exchange will depend entirely on the justice of those processes.” (The Christian Response to Poverty, London: The Social Affairs Unit, 1985, 9).

An unrestricted free market, for example, has no problem with “adult” bookstores in residental neighborhoods. “Who” tells such businesses that they can’t do such a thing? The market does not correct itself in such matters – not at all.

This is really bizarre, and has nothing to do with the economic laws of free enterprise as above, but with the morality of those who engage in anything in society and the common good of society which is so neglected worldwide by governments in so many respects in favour of sex propaganda for children, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homomania, IVF, embryonic stem cell research.

The abysmal inability to understand what the Catholic Late Scholastics developed with free enterprise economic laws continues to bedevil many.

 

[ishii]

Thus we have the government.

Its not always the government. Things have been reversed because of overwhelming popular opposition. Obamacare, I hope will become the latest example of this. (of course now we’re talking about “unbridled government” instead of the free market).
That’s a restriction to the Free Market. Why should the government tell business owners what to do?

I smell a hint of a straw man. Who has been advocating for a free market completely devoid of any regulation whatsoever?

Actually, those ordinance don’t always prevent such things and the market does not correct itself. It needs to be corrected by agencies which exist outside the market – the community and government. My city had a businessman who bought an old movie theater in a commercial district and turned it into a huge porno shop. It was incredibly ugly and vulgar, but totally legal and it couldn’t be stopped. That’s the Free Market without restrictions (even though we have zoning laws for other areas of the city, but not in that area).

Then you need to work to change the zoning laws in that area. That is how I would approach the issue.

Those who would advocate for less or no restrictions are those who have something to benefit from it.

Again, who is advocating for “no restrictions” ?

Excellent question and point. I think the answer is that various ideologies do not solve the problem. In other words, someone who upholds the Free Market as if it is a solution, will not be able to use common sense. Because eventually, the market has to be restrained.

One can uphold the free market as a solution, as I do, with the understanding that there will be some limits on the free market, imposed by government. Those limits should only be when necessary. When government sticks its hand in business, it usually mucks it up.

It’s a question of degree, not of absolute values.

Agreed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

One can uphold the free market as a solution, as I do, with the understanding that there will be some limits on the free market, imposed by government.

What does one mean by a free market. If there are limits then it is not a freedom in an absolute sense, just like private property is not a right in an absolute sense. Conditions must be met in-order to justify its existence. Its a regulated market. Its a market with moral regulations. Of course there is true freedom, as in the freedom to make certain choices; but some choices are unacceptable because they undermine the dignity of the common good. Therefore some freedoms we cannot have, and what ever freedoms we do have must have limits. Thus one must expect that some choices which ocurr to the detriment of the common good, economic or otherwise, must be regulated by the government and laws must be in-forced in-order prevent such evils, economic or otherwise. But many on this forum seem to despise such regulations and want a free market, so I must ask what it is exactly that you mean by a free market, if not one that is free to undermine the common good.

Secondly, if you agree that a market should have moral regulations enforceable by law, then you should agree that when the moral dignity of human beings is undermined by the market, the government has a responsibility to step in and regulate that market toward the greater good of all individuals, the common good, instead of the good of a few, such as 11 percent of the population.

 

[ishii]

What does one mean by a free market.

What do you think the practical definition of a free market is? Not the absolute definition, but the practical one? I would say that a system in which the market is allowed to operate freely most of the time would be a “mostly” free market. As one regulates, the market ceases being free and becomes a command economy.

If there are limits then it is not a freedom in an absolute sense, just like private property is not a right in an absolute sense. Conditions must be met in-order to justify its existence. Its a regulated market. Its a market with moral regulations. Of course there is true freedom, as in the freedom to make certain choices; but some choices are unacceptable because they undermine the dignity of the common good. Therefore some freedoms we cannot have, and what ever freedoms we do have must have limits. Thus one must expect that some choices which ocurr to the detriment of the common good, economic or otherwise, must be regulated by the government and laws must be in-forced in-order prevent such evils, economic or otherwise.

Who should decide that? Should we regulate the fast food industry because so many people choose to eat Big Mac cheeseburgers to the detriment of their health? Do we need a national “Daddy” telling us what’s good for us? Or maybe a nanny?

But many on this forum seem to despise such regulations and want a free market, so I must ask what it is exactly that you mean by a free market, if not one that is free to undermine the common good.

The problem is in agreeing on what the regulations should be and to what extent. Your characterization of those on this forum who generally believe in the free market as “despising such regulations” amounts to a straw man. What is your standard for common sense regulations - ones that you favor? As I mentioned in an earlier post, the elimanation of regulations of the beer industry in the '70’s ushered in a burdgeoning of the micro-brew industry which as been overall positive in terms of the increased competition toward the big breweries and also it gave more choices to the consumer. I don’t despise all regulations, just ones that do more harm than good.

Secondly, if you agree that a market should have moral regulations enforceable by law, then you should agree that when the moral dignity of human beings is undermined by the market, the government has a responsibility to step in and regulate that market toward the greater good of all individuals, the common good, instead of the good of a few, such as 11 percent of the population.

I figured that’s where you were going. Once again, my boss (the owner of the company I work for) is probably in that 11%. I hope he gets richer because that would mean more opportunities for me and my co-workers.

Ishii

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
what it is exactly that you mean by a free market, if not one that is free to undermine the common good.

Failure to get to know the free enterprise laws discovered and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, and what they mean, is at the root of the dilemma. People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

Pope John Paul II came to see that dilemma and solved it, and in post #21 we see the renowned Fr James A Schall, S.J., exploring that solution.

Pope John Paul II teaches in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Dr Alejandro Chafuen: Economics “is the study of the formal applications that can be deduced from the fact that human beings act purposefully. It does not consider whether these actions are good or bad (an ethical question). Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 33).

The application of these laws has enabled the huge increases in standards of living for all, following the Catholic insights beginning early in the ninth century, by Catholic monks seeking to ensure the economic security of their monastic estates. How these scientific economic laws are used by mankind is the ethical question which was addressed in my first paragraph.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

Pope John Paul II came to see that dilemma and solved it, and in post #21 we see the renowned Fr James A Schall, S.J., exploring that solution.

Pope John Paul II teaches in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Dr Alejandro Chafuen: Economics “is the study of the formal applications that can be deduced from the fact that human beings act purposefully. It does not consider whether these actions are good or bad (an ethical question). Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 33).

The application of these laws has enabled the huge increases in standards of living for all, following the Catholic insights beginning early in the ninth century, by Catholic monks seeking to ensure the economic security of their monastic estates. How these scientific economic laws are used by mankind is the ethical question which was addressed in my first paragraph.

At the end of the day, the capitalist system can be used to phenomenally negative result for the many for the maximum benefit of the few - and regularly is… and has been recently. And monopolies remain, as anyone putting up with the umpteenth version of windows will attest. Consumerism, the evil child of capitalism, is guilty for the rapidly accelerated increase in waste production over the last century or so… in the UK, the reduction of state-run industries has more often than not led to greater expense and poorer services for the tax-payer than when they were state run… and anyone watching the government handing out sickening amounts of money to the wholly irresponsible idiots whose greed led to this present economic disaster in the first place, to keep their corrupted businesses alive, instead of taking control by the state, which, if tax-payer money is going to be used, most certainly should be done, has lost the plot. The lack of responsibility for the old-boy network of increasingly careless managing directors must, surely, be stopped. Soon…

Does the Church really support this failed economy of carelessly corrupt ineptitude?!?

 

[Abu]

Mystic Banana
Consumerism, the evil child of capitalism…monopolies remain, as anyone putting up with the umpteenth version of windows will attest…Does the Church really support this failed economy of carelessly corrupt ineptitude?!?

Since savings are the lifeblood of investment which is the warp and woof of free enterprise, such puerile confusion helps no one.

Like every vice you can think of, the vice of living above your means is overcome by a virtue – in this case the virtue of thrift; add prudence and temperance. There are several good computer interfaces and the idea that MS Windows has no competitors is another red herring example.

When the time and effort is taken to understand how senseless government economic intervention has created booms which have to be followed by busts such as the 1930’s and this one, prolonged by senseless stimuli, while the 1920’s were spared meltdowns, sanity may prevail.

Here is a very interesting article debunking the Welfare State, and concluding that if market economies based upon the protection of private property and driven by competition and technological innovation tend to reduce the cost of goods and services over time, then surely none will benefit more than the poor. British philosopher John Locke is featured.
In fact this is what free market economies do.

insidecatholic.com/feature/how-john-locke-influenced-catholic-social-teaching.html
**How John Locke Influenced Catholic Social Teaching **, Joe Hargrave, Nov 5, 2010.
“I once believed that Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclicals, if they did not call for a welfare state, could at least be read in such a way to justify that principle. Rereading Rerum Novarum in the light of Locke’s influence, however, it is not possible to sustain this interpretation. On a deeper level, it is clear that Locke and Leo were ultimately dealing with the same issue: setting the boundaries on the scope of government’s legitimate role via natural rights. This was also the issue that was addressed in the Declaration of Independence. It is by the doctrine of natural rights that men preserve both their dignity and security in society, for not only do these rights exist independently of the state, never to be abrogated by it, but the very reason the state exists is to defend them (RN, 51). That Leo would ultimately approve of this Lockean argument is unsurprising, given that he was addressing the claims of socialists and communists who would abolish private property and establish totalitarian regimes that recognize few if any boundaries between the citizen and the state."

 

[reggieM]

I don’t despise all regulations, just ones that do more harm than good.

That sounds fine except that you really have to look at the common good in a long-term perspective. That’s more consistent with Distributism than with Free Marketism. In other words, if you establish “the Free Market” as an absolute, or as an ideal – then you’d have to oppose anything that restricts the market, on principle.

Should we regulate the fast food industry because so many people choose to eat Big Mac cheeseburgers to the detriment of their health? Do we need a national “Daddy” telling us what’s good for us? Or maybe a nanny?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

That’s a good idea, but it still wouldn’t solve the unemployment problem; and it hardly going to help a great number of people if we are relying merely on the whim of the heads of some kind of business. I here that some business are actually taking this on board, but how many bosses are going to agree with this? And is it really responsible to leave the future dignity of human beings to the whim of big business as we see it today?

Why is it less attractive to leave the “dignity of human beings to the whim of big business” than to leave it to the whim of politicians?

I don’t understand why so many people seem to believe that politicians are more virtuous than businesspeople. Is the ambition for power more virtuous than the ambition for money? It seems to me that, if businesses overstep, there is legal recourse. If government oversteps, there isn’t – because, in overstepping, the recourse was at best weakened and at worst eliminated.

Peace,
Dante