You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jonatello
Guest
it seems a major central element to your position is the idea that quality is a direct result of profit-first motiveThats quite a claim. Its finding the accused guilty right at the start. Through the entire article no evidence is provided that this claim is true.
An error of thinking, a society in which private property is allowed, the separation of capital from labor will take place.
Furthermore the separation of capital from labor has been with us at least since 3000 years. Slaves provided the labor and the capital, e.g. land or mines, were owned by the slave owner. And many farmers of the middle ages did not own the land they worked on, but it was owned by some lord.
At least here the article is honest, there is nothing directly wrong with capitalism,its the consequence that are deemed to be a problem.
The inteermediary is not concerned with the quality of the product he sells or buys?
Nonesense, if the quality is bad, his only hope of not making loses is that he can deceive the next buyer. Such ponzi model works for some time and it can be a problem for society, but most of what happens in economics has nothing to do with such ponzi models. Nearly all products i buy i buy from intermediaries and nearly all are of acceptable quality and nearly all intermediaries i buy from seem to be concerned about the quality of the products they sell.
And the measure of sucess for a farmer or carpenter is not tied to whether and how much his customers pay for his products?
Quite unlikely.
So thats the core of the arguments against capitalism:
-Consumers are too stupid to notice how much **** they are enticed to buy
-Politicians are bribed
But these are not specific capitalistic problems, they are general problems of human nature and will exist under any system.E.g. up to 19 th century or so, people paid “doctors” for bloodletting. Same problem, consumers deceived into thinking they needed a product/service, which actually they did not need or in that case was even harmful.
This problem cannot be solved by having a different system, but only limited by laws against fraud, enough competition, information for consumers and moral education for everyone.
And about bribing politicians, politicians are bribed because they have to decide important things. The less they have to decide, the less bribery will happen, reduced power for the state could help there. The bribing for example probably increased a lot when politics decided 2008/2009 it has to change the regulations of wall street - no capitalist would bribe politicians if their decisions did not influence him.
this common idea sort of makes sense at a glance, but i would beg you to look closer and think it through
C
Cormacnl
Guest
The notion that capitalism provides for common or general ownership is a fallacy.
A few people at the top get most of the profit and some more goes to create a loyal middle class of obedient consumers.
The problem gets worse because the minority at the top can’t resist grabbing even more for themselves at the expense of the middle class.
Hence we periodically get a crisis as we have today, and a portion of the loyal middle class get dumped into the lower class pool of the exploited and forgotten. It is all about greed and destruction.
A few people at the top get most of the profit and some more goes to create a loyal middle class of obedient consumers.
The problem gets worse because the minority at the top can’t resist grabbing even more for themselves at the expense of the middle class.
Hence we periodically get a crisis as we have today, and a portion of the loyal middle class get dumped into the lower class pool of the exploited and forgotten. It is all about greed and destruction.
S
sw85
Guest
You are conflating capitalism the organizational strategy with capitalism the philosophy. The latter is what I’m talking about, and it is a good deal more than mere “free enterprise.”Well welcome to the fallen human race!
Of course free enterprise does not make a fetish of the pursuit of money.
The best evidence that philosophic capitalism is a thing of the world (and thus a thing of evil) is that it has its roots in the errors and absurdities of John Locke. His incoherent and absurd conception of the nature of property rights and government is alone sufficient to damn his entire works and all the fruits which grew from that poisoned tree.
Yes, hard work has always been a form of prayer, a praiseworthy thing. Capitalists didn’t invent hard work, they don’t get to take credit for, and it wouldn’t disappear if their system did.Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, as does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].
D
Dirt
Guest
I prefer this take on St. Matthew:Well welcome to the fallen human race!
Of course free enterprise does not make a fetish of the pursuit of money.
Christ’s parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, as does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].
Dr Woods puts it simply:
“Profit informs the firm that it has employed resources in conformity with consumer desires, taking raw materials valued less and transforming them into finished products that consumers value more – and which they value more than the use of those raw materials in alternative production processes.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church and the Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 21).
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20111113_en.html
A
Abu
Guest
False.sw85
The best evidence that philosophic capitalism is a thing of the world (and thus a thing of evil) is that it has its roots in the errors and absurdities of John Locke.
Free enterprise economic development started in the great Catholic monastic estates of the ninth century, and a solid basis of economic Catholic thought developed from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).
The Catholic stress on individualism was foreign to many cultures, and Jeremy Waldron, in God, Locke and Equality, 2002, affirms that Locke built his thesis on the doctrine concerning morality; “returning to the standpoint of St Thomas and the Scholastics.” (The Catholic Church And the Counter-Faith, Philip Trower, Family Publications, 2006, p 74).
See How John Locke Influenced Catholic Social Teaching, Joe Hargrave, Nov 5, 2010.
“In Locke’s and Leo’s treatment of charity, however, it is also made clear that the right to private property coexists with an obligation to give charitably, and even a right to theft in cases of extreme want. In the short term, this may justify some sort of safety net for the unemployed and those unable to care for themselves. But may we not ask whether or not a free economy would generate a level of wealth and prosperity that would almost entirely eliminate the sort of extreme poverty that would morally justify theft – and whether it has in fact done so in many nations already?
“There are fewer uncharitable assumptions made in politics as often as the accusation that the advocates of freer markets are acting out of selfishness. 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.”
crisismagazine.com/2010/how-john-locke-influenced-catholic-social-teaching
For “Dirt”, who “prefers” the spiritual “take on Matthew” in the Parable of the Talents – a Parable is mean to convey a spiritual message from a secular scenario.
What “Dirt” fails to appreciate is Christ’s respect for commerce which Fr Percy elucidates. (See post #80).
D
Dirt
Guest
Yes, I prefer to follow our Holy Fathers, past and present for my opinion on economy and social doctrine rather than attempting to justify a system that is the pyramid scheme of all pyramid schemes, namely the Capitalist system that exists in the US today. I attempt to follow our Lords teachings:"[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?"For “Dirt”, who “prefers” the spiritual “take on Matthew” in the Parable of the Talents – a Parable is mean to convey a spiritual message from a secular scenario.
What “Dirt” fails to appreciate is Christ’s respect for commerce which Fr Percy elucidates. (See post #80).
These are my study guides for social teaching:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6develo.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12PELER.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11IMPEN.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11QUADR.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rgt.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
A
Abu
Guest
The value of free enterprise is found in Christ’s Parables, in the teaching of the Popes, and in the multitudes that have been enabled to escape grinding poverty since it became better known.
On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”
Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”
[catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])
On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”
Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”
[catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])
D
Dirt
Guest
OK so you found a Fatherthat gives a critique that fits into your ideal. If that works for you…good. I prefer to follow :The value of free enterprise is found in Christ’s Parables, in the teaching of the Popes, and in the multitudes that have been enabled to escape grinding poverty since it became better known.
On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that the Pope clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also, not only does the encyclical not even once use the world “capitalism”, but it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth. It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.”
Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the “redistribution of wealth,” which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an “effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by “wealth redistribution” is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”
[Library : The Truth about Caritas in Veritate | Catholic Culture]](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102])
"22. Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles;[9] that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ – threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord[10] – and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men’s minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one ills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. “It is lawful,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.’’[11] But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? – the Church replies without hesitation in he words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the apostle saith, ‘Command the rich of this world . . to offer with no stint, to apportion largely’.”[12] True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”[13] But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”[14] It is duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity – a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving – “It is more blessed to give than to receive”;[15] and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself – “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.”[16] To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. “He that hath a talent,” said St. Gregory the Great, “let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.”[17] From His Holiness Pope LeoXIII Rerum Novarum.
Let us agree to disagree. Have a Blessed Advent
N
Newbie2
Guest
There’s an excellent book by Michael Novak entitled "The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Captialism that’s worth a read.
amazon.com/Catholic-Ethic-Spirit-Capitalism-Michael/dp/002923235X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322443705&sr=1-8
amazon.com/Catholic-Ethic-Spirit-Capitalism-Michael/dp/002923235X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322443705&sr=1-8
A
Abu
Guest
The quotation from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum in post #89 has no condemnation of free enterprise, nor is there any anywhere else in the Church’s teaching. It is affirmed as social teaching develops, especially in Centesimus Annus, (CA) Bl John Paul II, 1991.
Condemned in the Church’s teaching are Communism, Socialism and the Welfare State.
The revered Fr James V Schall, S.J., in Does The Catholic Church Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, points out re CA that “The very meaning of ‘options for the poor’ need no longer be ideological in overtones but directed instead to the very real possibilities for a poor people to overcome their own problems with the intelligent aid of those who know how to produce wealth in the first place.’ (p 178).
“If the first unique aspect of this Encyclical is its analysis of the real problem with totalitarianism, the second unique aspect is its willingness to accept the general principles of the market economy. The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system. No one needs to deny his point to recognise that he also calls attention to what have become commonplace among those who have sought to understand how modern societies develop their material bases.”
(p 185-6).
“It is the capacity to motivate work and the systematic reinvestment of profits that account for the immense productivity of capitalism, just as Weber and Marx pointed out more than a century ago.” [The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 57].*
Condemned in the Church’s teaching are Communism, Socialism and the Welfare State.
The revered Fr James V Schall, S.J., in Does The Catholic Church Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, points out re CA that “The very meaning of ‘options for the poor’ need no longer be ideological in overtones but directed instead to the very real possibilities for a poor people to overcome their own problems with the intelligent aid of those who know how to produce wealth in the first place.’ (p 178).
“If the first unique aspect of this Encyclical is its analysis of the real problem with totalitarianism, the second unique aspect is its willingness to accept the general principles of the market economy. The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system. No one needs to deny his point to recognise that he also calls attention to what have become commonplace among those who have sought to understand how modern societies develop their material bases.”
(p 185-6).
“It is the capacity to motivate work and the systematic reinvestment of profits that account for the immense productivity of capitalism, just as Weber and Marx pointed out more than a century ago.” [The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 57].*
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The quotation from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum in post #89 has no condemnation of free enterprise, nor is there any anywhere else in the Church’s teaching. It is affirmed as social teaching develops, especially in Centesimus Annus, (CA) Bl John Paul II, 1991.
Condemned in the Church’s teaching are Communism, Socialism and the Welfare State.
The revered Fr James V Schall, S.J., in Does The Catholic Church Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, points out re CA that “The very meaning of ‘options for the poor’ need no longer be ideological in overtones but directed instead to the very real possibilities for a poor people to overcome their own problems with the intelligent aid of those who know how to produce wealth in the first place.’ (p 178).
“If the first unique aspect of this Encyclical is its analysis of the real problem with totalitarianism, the second unique aspect is its willingness to accept the general principles of the market economy. The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system. No one needs to deny his point to recognise that he also calls attention to what have become commonplace among those who have sought to understand how modern societies develop their material bases.”
(p 185-6).
“It is the capacity to motivate work and the systematic reinvestment of profits that account for the immense productivity of capitalism, just as Weber and Marx pointed out more than a century ago.” [The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 57].*
Glad you mentioned it; because Centesimus Annus, (CA) Bl John Paul II, 1991 is an extremely important encyclical.
AND, it seems to me … [needs verification] … that the original was not issued in Latin, but in English. And that Michael Novak, an American, may have had a role in drafting it.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Here’s what the Catechism says:
What is the Church’s stance on capitalism or the free-market economy?
"Any form of capitalism that is not embedded in an established system of law runs the risk of detaching itself from the COMMON GOOD and becoming a mere means for individuals to make profits. The Church rejects that decisively. On the other hand, she supports a free-market system is at the service of man, prevents monopolies, and ensures that all are supplied with employment and vitally necessary goods." [2426]
What is the Church’s stance on capitalism or the free-market economy?
"Any form of capitalism that is not embedded in an established system of law runs the risk of detaching itself from the COMMON GOOD and becoming a mere means for individuals to make profits. The Church rejects that decisively. On the other hand, she supports a free-market system is at the service of man, prevents monopolies, and ensures that all are supplied with employment and vitally necessary goods." [2426]
C
Cormacnl
Guest
I find it amusing that people who criticise capitalism are often treated as if they are the lowest of the low. Of course any criticism of capitalism will inevitably lead to Godless communism.
Witness the establishment panic over something as bland as the Occupy movement, a naïve call for fair-play earns a pepper-spraying.
At the end of the day blindly serving capitalism is more important than the right to express an opinion.
Witness the establishment panic over something as bland as the Occupy movement, a naïve call for fair-play earns a pepper-spraying.
At the end of the day blindly serving capitalism is more important than the right to express an opinion.
C
charliedrake
Guest
Never covet thy neighbors wealth, you reap what you sow.
Join RCIA and get back on track in life.
Join RCIA and get back on track in life.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
D
Dirt
Guest
from the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Ch. 6, wherin Christ Jesus says;
"[19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.
[21] For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also."
“[24] No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
" Mammon: That is, riches, worldly interest.
from the Gospel of Saint Mark;
“[21] And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. [22] Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God! [24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God?
[25] It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Should we not focus more on the economy of Salvation?
Scripture from: drbo.org/
"[19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.
[21] For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also."
“[24] No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
" Mammon: That is, riches, worldly interest.
from the Gospel of Saint Mark;
“[21] And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. [22] Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God! [24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God?
[25] It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Should we not focus more on the economy of Salvation?
Scripture from: drbo.org/
C
Cormacnl
Guest
Tell that to the millions of Americans struggling to get by each day.
A
Abu
Guest
That is why free enterprise, like every endeavour, needs people of high faith and reason. See post #80 for the Parable of the Talents.Dirt # 97
Should we not focus more on the economy of Salvation?
For Cormacnl:
Economies are in stress because of governments finagling with free enterprise and thus destroying the working of the principles elucidated by the Catholic Late Scholastics, especially over then last 80 years in the U.S.A., wasted stimulus packages, and discouraging people to act with prudence, fortitude and temperance.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Lay it all off on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their other cohorts who forced the banks to make bad home mortgage loans.Tell that to the millions of Americans struggling to get by each day.
But, there ARE well-paying private sector jobs out there.
For example, read this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564249
Consider that people do vote with their feet. And they are leaving high tax states and moving to low tax states.
And to the maximum extent possible, so are companies [aka, employers].
Just familiarize yourself with the recent efforts that Boeing had to go through to build and open a new airplane factory in South Carolina.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.