What is wrong with capitalism?

[essie7777]

That’s why 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).

As Fr James Schall, S.J., points out this is how poverty in the world is alleviated:
“Since the 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 organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185).

As i, and others, have stated numerous times before, we simply can not fathom why you quote in favor of all the functions and reasons for a just social system according to Church teachings, and then try to make it fit your argument that the Church is AGAINST minimum wages, fair treatment, equality etc.

I am truly appreciative of your adding further quotes to further entrench and provide evidence from within the clergy for the Church’s teachings on social justice. It seems you are acknowledging the error in your previous statements.

As stated i pray that you continue to find the truth in church teaching, Papal documents and clergy written books as demonstrated with this comment.

It is rewarding that you can see that the basis of social teachings are the root of the truth for a moral society and using these quotes to demonstrate that the Church agrees with these and that you are prepared to offer these quotes which are clearly proof against your previous statements which certainly seemed to malign the words and intent of the Catholic Church and its teachings.

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #318
It seems you are acknowledging the error in your previous statements.

Another figment of your imagination.

You simply have failed to follow the scope of what has been discussed, resulting in misrepresenting the discussion and jumping to ill-formed conclusions.

1. Post #317 actually repeats the quotes from Fr Schall in posts #65, & 91; nothing new there.
2. The impossibility of a defining a just wage as doctrine is obvious as shown by Fr Harrison (post #316), and the danger of increased unemployment from fixing a minimum wage is equally clear in my #308: QA72. “In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.” Thus practical real-world restrictions are recognised and allowed for.
3. In #305 you fantasise that I “argue against a minimum wage, against a social system that protects the weak and infirm, you argue against taxes” totally without foundation, when it is the Pope that is warning against the danger of unsustainable wage levels; and the charade against an imagined neglect of the “weak and infirm and against taxes” is as pathetic as it is untrue.
4. Thus in my #308: Thus it is incredibly foolish to ignore the practical results following from the wise consideration of “the state of the business, and the common good.”
5. Your #290: *you must be American as here the confusion of government and capitalism is evident in most things you read and watch …the lines are blurred since capitalists are now running government … this however is not how it is supposed to work – look at the hundreds of other countries who manage to exist with capitalism being the economic structure and the state looking after the social welfare of its people.*The absurd idea that “capitalists” are running the U.S. government is as bad as saying that “Catholics” are running the U.S. government, when the administration has been hellbent on useless stimuli and wanting to raise taxes. But the toadying to the condemned Welfare State is the last straw.

My #309 put paid to that.

 

[essie7777]

Another figment of your imagination.

You simply have failed to follow the scope of what has been discussed, resulting in misrepresenting the discussion and jumping to ill-formed conclusions.

Please don’t try to insult me as as in all of my comments you have ignored the arguments that you have no answer for – so i would challenge again that you simple don’t understand the intellectual complexities of the economics you are trying to defend … if you did you would be able to defend them without trying to attack me without foundation.

1. Post #317 actually repeats the quotes from Fr Schall in posts #65, & 91; nothing new there.

Never have i disputed your quotes --only your use of them to cut thoughts in half, take words from sentences and then put your own “spin” on them. Its your conclusions that show a lack of understanding of Catholic Teaching.

1. The impossibility of a defining a just wage as doctrine is obvious as shown by Fr Harrison (post #316), and the danger of increased unemployment from fixing a minimum wage is equally clear in my #308: QA72. “In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.” Thus practical real-world restrictions are recognised and allowed for.

AGAIN you find a totally different conclusion in a few sentences than the total work examines and explains … maligning total works by purposely misquoting for your own agenda is irresponsible. You are the only person who finds the conclusion a minimum wage should not be too high to mean don’t have one.

1. In #305 you fantasise that I “argue against a minimum wage, against a social system that protects the weak and infirm, you argue against taxes” totally without foundation, when it is the Pope that is warning against the danger of unsustainable wage levels; and the charade against an imagined neglect of the “weak and infirm and against taxes” is as pathetic as it is untrue.

I ask anyone reading this to read my post at #305 as Abu has taken half of a sentence, purposely redefined its meaning by doing so then jumped to some very strange conclusions which weren’t written.

Its laughably inept and ill-educated to behave in that manner.

1. Thus in my #308: Thus it is incredibly foolish to ignore the practical results following from the wise consideration of “the state of the business, and the common good.”

You are foolish to presume you have the credentials to even begin to understand practical results when you have proven that your agenda is promoting a political system you can not even define correctly. You also ignored all valid challenges from my previous post. They must have been too difficult to respond to???

1. Your #290: you must be American as here the confusion of government and capitalism is evident in most things you read and watch …the lines are blurred since capitalists are now running government … this however is not how it is supposed to work – look at the hundreds of other countries who manage to exist with capitalism being the economic structure and the state looking after the social welfare of its people.]

You must be the only American who doesn’t appreciate the power and corrupt nature of the political/economic divide here in the US. Do you watch the news, read financial press, follow any information source that is respected for their opinions on this? Have you even noticed the very prominent wall street protests, the wall street commentators who are concerned that the government is covering capitalist misdeeds more dangerous than the cause of the financial crisis in the last few years.

From your post i’d have no choice but to assume not.

(And before you jump on the bandwagon that i must be reading/watching bias political party led shows --they all say the same thing, look at independent reporting from Europe Le Monde, Financial News, bbc.)

The absurd idea that “capitalists” are running the U.S. government is as bad as saying that “Catholics” are running the U.S. government, when the administration has been hellbent on useless stimuli and wanting to raise taxes. But the toadying to the condemned Welfare State is the last straw.

You do highlight your political bias so succinctly though in the last part that again you do no more than allow people to read this and come to the same conclusion as i have. You aren’t promoting, defending Catholic Teachings – rather you are trying to fit this to a political point of view… and this is not the right forum for that.

It has been interesting, although TBH anyone reading this thread can identify the flaws in what you say so there really isn’t any need to continue showing how flawed your interpretation is based on a lack of knowledge of complex economics as well as an unbelievable arrogance that you know better than even Pope John Paul II, as his conclusions are well known on these topics but you still feel you can change them to your own political point of view.

You do a huge disservice by picking random words and ignoring the intent and the overall message in the works you quote. This is why i don’t have any issue with what you refer to – only your very fallible interpretation that against what the works represent in total. Hardly charitable Catholic reasoning is it???

 

[chevalier]

That’s what the State is there for – just laws as we have stated over and over, not for finagling.

The state should be somewhat subsidiary but details of the extent of the state’s regulation or interference are not exactly a religious matter, or even a moral one, they are a matter of political doctrine and practice. Catholics can have diverging opinions and fair bit of legitimate difference may exist in between.

That’s called prejudice, and what is required is a careful understanding of economics and the Church’s social teaching and the wise, prudent, just and temperate application of these principles with fortitude.

BTW an enterprise is a cooperation of employees, managers and investors for supplying goods and services that a people require at a price they are willing to pay. Not enough understand that.

There’s nothing wrong with having one’s own enterprise and employees and regarding the enterprise as an enterprise and employees as employees, as opposed to treating employes like equity partners. On the other hand, it is somewhat superior (while it shouldn’t be required) to equip employees with more responsibility and perhaps some participation in the profits, indeed treating them like partners (not in the legal sense but in the colloquial sense) in whatever one is doing. What is wrong is when abuse starts and people are getting exploited, that is, the wage isn’t fair.

Since you mentioned people being willing to pay, “willing to pay” is frequently misunderstood. Just because someone will accept the deal it doesn’t mean the deal is fair. It may mean that the deal is the best available option. As Catholics, we owe our neighbours more than the best available deal (out of bad ones). As a minimum we can’t content ourselves with mere consent received from our contractual parties and rest assured that everything is okay since they accepted and didn’t have a gun to their head. This is something that enthusiasts of capitalism frequently miss.

As far as I believe, there is also a general problem in a system in which the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and/or there are bariers to the growth of new enterprises e.g. due to the lack of capital or lack of sway with the local authorities, or prevention of upstart competition by established enterprises. While I seriously dislike that kind of systems, this is more economy and politics than morality (we need to remember the Church worked with slave economies, worked with monarchies, worked with feudal economies, changing them from the inside as opposed to a revolution), but I suppose there is a moral angle too (it’s just that freedom for new people to get rich isn’t a top priority moral concern (as opposed to e.g. their ability to work and receive enough salary to support a family, which actually is a top moral concern)).

In fact the question of a just wage has been discussed in On wage fixing, by Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., in *Religious Liberty And Contraception *(John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties.

Without doubting Father’s credentials, I’m not exactly sure that what I read in the quote is perfectly consistent with the social teaching of the Church the way I see it.

(An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

Everybody deserves justice. To do injustice, e.g. to fail to pay for the work done by a worker, is a sin. A labourer deserves payment. It cannot be said that an employer who himself is struggling owes his employees comfortable wages. However, that the wage should allow the worker to support his family is basically Magisterial teaching that cannot be trumped by a book written by a theologian.

Also, from Gospel itself it should be clear that it’s not okay for an employer to go about hiring people at the lowest salary he can get away with paying them due to the adverse economic conditions that will force them to accept whatever they can get. This said, it is better if they receive anything as opposed to having no opportunity to earn a single penny. However, it is immoral for the employer to exploit his employees. It was also immoral for a feudal lord to abuse his serfs and it was immoral for a slave owner to abuse his slaves or a master to abuse his servants. It is immoral for parents to abuse their children.

The problem I see with capitalism is not free market per se or entrepreneurship or anything of the kind. Those are just the new bourgeois reality, focused on trade and business, which has replaced the previous reality controlled by noblemen and focused on war, genealogy and land ownership. Myself, I am a business owner, regardless that I’m not a big fan of this whole bourgeois thing. The problem I see with capitalism, or rather in capitalism, is how people try to justify unfair dealings with formal consent from the other party and lack of overt compulsion in the negotiation process. Social responsibility associated with ownership also tends to be forgotten.

 

[chevalier]

By the way, taxes should be paid where they are due and how much is due, too, instead of coming up with whatever the IRS won’t be able to find or successfully assail in court. Dodging the taxes with whole networks of untraceable parent and child companies, selling copyrights etc. within one’s own capital group in order to e.g. pay a licence fee to a Bahama company on each cup of a beverage with his own sold, e.g. a US company that runs a fastfood chain establishes a Bermuda corporation and transfers to it the intellectual property to corporate logos, symbols, trademarks etc., and from each $2 paid by a customer for a coffee or a burger, $1.50 goes to Bermuda as a “licence fee” for the use of the logo that is painted on the coffee cup or burger wrap. This is not fine and is another problem with capitalism or rather with capitalists, to be honest. As a lawyer, I refuse to provide any advice in that type of schemes. (And it’s not like I love taxes or agree with whatever tax officers enjoy doing to torment the populace, far from that.)

Pay the employees and suppliers as little as the law allows, the employees (or suppliers) will accept and the bishop won’t excommunicate you for, while dodging legitimate taxation with all sorts of shenanigans abusing corporate law or intellectual property law that lawyers should be ashamed of designing, is not the way a Catholic person should conduct an enterprise. This is basically a freedom we don’t, won’t and can’t have.

This is a bit like the original contraception problem (when social acceptance of sexual relations was limited to married couples): people wanted total freedom after legitimately marrying. The popular demand associated with capitalism is total freedom from morality in the economy area. Capitalism is only good when the rights of all sorts of people participating in the economy are respected (and they should be protected as a matter of justice and not merely relegated to charity and reliance on charity). Otherwise it is a system favouring money-having business owners, who are but one group within the society. An important one but by no means deserving to control the system and be given the majority of the benefit of it.

Edit: Also, while it is true that setting a high minimum wage may discourage employment, this doesn’t provide a moral justification for the employers who pay below subsistency or take for themselves a flagrantly disproportionate share of the profit brought in by the labourer’s work. The state may decide to allow a lower minimum wage to avoid unemployment but in reality the state should be, if possible, using efforts to rectify the situation and incline the employees to be more fair and less greedy.

By the way, when employment volume falls, employees get overtime, for which they are often not paid and cannot refuse. This is not fine either.

 

[David_Castlen]

It is always interesting to read posts where commentators try desperately to force Catholic Teaching into their political point of view.

I’d challenge that unfortunately you don’t seem to have any true understanding of complex macro economics and certainly can’t explain or define free enterprise correctly.

Please stop hijacking sound moral Catholic beliefs to try and further your personal political agenda. This is not the right forum for that type of post.

**I am amazed, Essie, at your comments. You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data. I try not to comment as Abu does a far far far better job supporting my cause so my comments wil onlyl take up space, but when his adversaries provide nothing but Ad Homen responses … well here I go…
**

 

[John21652]

Actually this is blatantly false.

To be clear the Catholic Late Scholastics are a group of Catholic theologians, often Spanish, of the 16th and 17th centuries. They don’t favor leaving wages down to "common estimation’ of the market rather they simply state it should be amount agreed upon by all parties.

So, maybe you could explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

 

[David_Castlen]

So, maybe you could explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

 

[essie7777]

**I am amazed, Essie, at your comments. You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data. I try not to comment as Abu does a far far far better job supporting my cause so my comments wil onlyl take up space, but when his adversaries provide nothing but Ad Homen responses … well here I go…
**

I think you may be confused about my the statement you quote --allow me to explain;

Abu provides a lot of quotes that support Catholic social teaching ( it his insistence that he interprets these small quotes differently to the whole works premise that is frustrating, especially when he suggests he understands and can conclude what Pope’s wrote better than they themselves); no where does he provide consistent data on complex economic structures.

Abu likes to tey and “blind people with science” as the phrase goes; through enough quotes and official sounding words together and a reader won’t actually question that they don’t support his point of view. It’s the small unquoted conclusions that demonstrate the inability to cohesively support his thinly veiled political agenda.

For example as a Catholic do you honestly believe from Abu’s postings that the Church no longer supports minimum wages because it causes unemployment??? I sincerely pray you are not that blinded by rhetoric to see that this is not right nor factual.

By all means share a political point of view but please don’t try to force Catholic teachings to justify it, that’s inappropriate.

 

[Abu]

chevalier #321
Since you mentioned people being willing to pay, “willing to pay” is frequently misunderstood. Just because someone will accept the deal it doesn’t mean the deal is fair. It may mean that the deal is the best available option. As Catholics, we owe our neighbours more than the best available deal (out of bad ones). As a minimum we can’t content ourselves with mere consent received from our contractual parties and rest assured that everything is okay since they accepted and didn’t have a gun to their head. This is something that enthusiasts of capitalism frequently miss.

From This World, Fall 1983, pp. 115-125
Capitalism, Ethics, and Classical Catholic Social Doctrine
James A. Sadowsky, S.J.
Here economic realities cannot be ignored as Fr James Sadowsky explains:
“Rerum Novarum was written in 1891. Marx had died in 1883, and Engels was to die in 1895. The important treatises on classical economics had already been completed, and the age of Austrian economics had begun with the publication of Menger’s Principles in 1871. Yet Rerum Novarum betrays no significant amount of attention to any of the writings of the great economists––though if one wishes to understand the workings of the market, that is exactly what one has to do.

“Presumably, the worker is to expect of his employer at least what he could have obtained by expending his energies on his own behalf instead of on behalf of an employer. All well and good. But isn’t that what is happening? Why is our man not self-employed in the first place? Is it not because he thinks that his employer is giving him more than he would have received by going into business himself?”
anthonyflood.com/sadowskycatholicsocialdoctrine.htm

Leo XIII warned explicitly against thinking that Popes have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

that the wage should allow the worker to support his family is basically Magisterial teaching that cannot be trumped by a book written by a theologian.

This ignores the fact that the reasoning used by Fr Harrison is demonstrating that for a certain norm of action to be “doctrine” it would have to be a universally binding norm of certain validity always and everywhere, and a “family living wage” to be paid by all businesses everywhere is obviously not. Further it is acknowledged by the Popes that it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.

That is precisely why the Catholic Late Scholastics favoured leaving wage determination to the ‘common estimation’ of the market, since any other method is inherently arbitrary and leads to endless complications.

Thus it is incredibly foolish to ignore the practical results following from the wise consideration of “the state of the business, and the common good.”

 

[essie7777]

So, maybe you could explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

My response was based on Abu’s insistence that no one should have a set and legally protected minimum wage in which case it is so very simple to explain these differences.

“common estimation of the market” is a phrase much quoted by Abu which actually allows a business to set wages based on its value and profitability – it is simply too subjective, it is too easily manipulated and abused.

For example; on average big business have seen a decline on average of close to 30% in turnover in 2010, the market estimation would see a business reducing wages by 30%, as the market can be commonly estimated at the same value.

This bizarre method would not take into account whether that is a living wage for a worker, a fair wage for their work, only how it reflects the businesses’ common estimate of value and profitability. If a business stated that the economy doesn’t support a living wage there is no recourse for that employee as the market has decreed that the value of a wage can be fluctuated depending on how that business runs. Please feel free to read the works quoted by Abu on this – they do so eloquently explain the flaws in this belief. Find below a excerpt from Abu’s posting on this:

A minimum wage set by a government was not advocated by the Late Scholastics: a minimum wage sufficient to maintain the labourer and his family has never been proposed in the belief that set above the common estimation level it would cause unemployment. (Chafuen, p 130-131).

An amount agreed upon by all parties, as happens all over the world today in countries which use minimum wages, allows for workers businesses and states to discuss and decide what is the minimum needed to survive and this sets the minimum wage. it does not fluctuate, there is legal recourse if you are not paid this and all are protected, there is no “wiggle room” to allow for mis interpretation of what the minimum wage is.

The obvious reason for this has been demonstrated and discussed not just by myself but other posters, i think Chevalier puts it best and covers a lot of ground in his post which confirm the need for state control/oversight of wages:

The state should be somewhat subsidiary but details of the extent of the state’s regulation or interference are not exactly a religious matter, or even a moral one, they are a matter of political doctrine and practice.

Since you mentioned people being willing to pay, “willing to pay” is frequently misunderstood. Just because someone will accept the deal it doesn’t mean the deal is fair. It may mean that the deal is the best available option. As Catholics, we owe our neighbours more than the best available deal (out of bad ones). As a minimum we can’t content ourselves with mere consent received from our contractual parties and rest assured that everything is okay since they accepted and didn’t have a gun to their head. This is something that enthusiasts of capitalism frequently miss.

 

[chevalier]

The problem with “agreed upon by the parties” is that economic necessity or lack of other options will make parties agree to unfair deals. People will agree to 16 hours at $5 per hour if their alternative is joblessness. This doesn’t make it morally good to hire people for 16 hours a day at $5 per (unless you actually can’t pay more or perhaps you don’t actually cut much of a profit on that work, and the people concerned would rather work for you so cheaply than not at all).

The Church seems to limit itself to the issue of paying wages below subsistency, i.e. the situation when the employer pays less than living costs. There doesn’t seem to be much further development, such as what if the the enterprise is doing particularly well or a relationship between the employer’s profit from the employee’s work and the salary the employee is being paid, or the reflection of the employee’s skills or costs of education etc. However, it doesn’t really take a big stretch of imagination to picture a situation in which the employee is paid at the subsistence level, has nowhere else to go and be paid more (e.g. because companies in this sector of industry have made a silent deal to keep employee salaries low), so he agrees to whatever the employer is offering him… while the employer makes several times more money on that worker’s work than he pays him. This isn’t fair. Nor is it fair when ignorance of market conditions (or some other facts) in young employees is exploited.

Basically, if the deal is fair, then it’s moral. When not, then not. The meat of the issue is that we can’t make unfair deals moral.

 

[John21652]

**I am amazed, Essie, at your comments. You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data. I try not to comment as Abu does a far far far better job supporting my cause so my comments wil onlyl take up space, but when his adversaries provide nothing but Ad Homen responses … well here I go…
**

I think you may be confused about my the statement you quote --allow me to explain;

Abu provides a lot of quotes that support Catholic social teaching ( it his insistence that he interprets these small quotes differently to the whole works premise that is frustrating, especially when he suggests he understands and can conclude what Pope’s wrote better than they themselves); no where does he provide consistent data on complex economic structures.

Abu likes to tey and “blind people with science” as the phrase goes; through enough quotes and official sounding words together and a reader won’t actually question that they don’t support his point of view. It’s the small unquoted conclusions that demonstrate the inability to cohesively support his thinly veiled political agenda.

For example as a Catholic do you honestly believe from Abu’s postings that the Church no longer supports minimum wages because it causes unemployment??? I sincerely pray you are not that blinded by rhetoric to see that this is not right nor factual.

By all means share a political point of view but please don’t try to force Catholic teachings to justify it, that’s inappropriate.

And you went and did again exactly what David pointed out you did. Which is **“You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data.”

Too funny!

**And afore I forget, can you please, please, explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

We’re all just dying to know…

 

[chevalier]

“Presumably, the worker is to expect of his employer at least what he could have obtained by expending his energies on his own behalf instead of on behalf of an employer. All well and good. But isn’t that what is happening? Why is our man not self-employed in the first place? Is it not because he thinks that his employer is giving him more than he would have received by going into business himself?”
anthonyflood.com/sadowskycatholicsocialdoctrine.htm

The worker is definitely not to expect at least the same of what he would earn if he worked for himself and not his employer. The function of employers and enterprises is not to improve people’s earning opportunities above whatever they would be able to earn if they were self-employed. Self-employment is the option for people who want to 1) have more control of their earnings and policies etc., while 2) take the responsibilities and risks on themselves. Self-employment will typically pay more than salaried work unless there’s a problem finding customers.

Even a reseller is entitled to something for his fatigue. Much more so an employer. An employer is perfectly well entitled to a compensation for getting the business to come to the company, for the reputation and the brand that he has created and is creating, for whatever efforts he expends in management, finally, he is actually entitled to a lion’s share due to the fact that he owns the place.

What he is not entitled to is basically, forgive the language, screwing people around.

Leo XIII warned explicitly against thinking that Popes have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs.

Freedom of men to work out their own affairs is not the freedom for the more powerful people to bully the less powerful people to comply with a maximum of exploitation they are going to accept without rebellion. Working out affairs implies honest negotiation like partner to partner (partner in negotiation, not partner in business).

Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

The above quoted part does not translate into “capitalism is fine”, let alone “capitalism is good”. It’s more like the Church is not an economic think tank and its priority is salvation, while it is also concerned with social justice. Secular Catholics have the opportunity and the obligation to make the best out of what they can in terms of politics, law and economy.

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42].

The Church is perfectly entitled and empowered to say that abuse of workers is not fine.

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

The Church has no models to offer, this is one of the key things in understanding the social teachings of the Church. The Church possibly came close to recommending corporatism but did not take that position fully. The Church suggests basic moral ideas, leaving the details and specifics to be worked out by secular people.

This ignores the fact that the reasoning used by Fr Harrison is demonstrating that for a certain norm of action to be “doctrine” it would have to be a universally binding norm of certain validity always and everywhere, and a “family living wage” to be paid by all businesses everywhere is obviously not.

A “family living wage” is truly hard to present as some kind of long-standing church doctrine (although at the time only the man worked). However, it doesn’t take a genius to deduct from the Gospel that wage should actually be fair, not even compliant with a minimum, and that the labourer is worth his salary. Finally, basic fairness is very much binding doctrine and paying people below subsistency while profiting from their work violates very basic honesty. I’m not sure it isn’t actually very close to direct theft.

By the way, a wage allowing one to support a family is not understood as mandatory to pay for an easy half-time job.

Also, remember that Pope > priest, basically. Even as a private theologian and philosopher, JPII is more authoritative, let alone in an encyclical (which is, however, not infallible). You don’t need to agree with family wage to be saved. You can actually argue against it. But it’s a part of the social teaching of the Church by now.

 

[chevalier]

Further it is acknowledged by the Popes that it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.

True. But how is subsistence wage excessive? And how would cessation of exploitation ruin a legitimate business? Because a business built on exploitation should be ruined, basically it should be shut down by the state. This is not to say that the employer is obliged to pay a full subsistence wage (let alone the “family wage”) if he just can’t. But family wage for worker is basically more important than marble floors, golden door knobs and luxurious food on the employer’s table. He can’t use the “ruin/calamity” excuse if he draws big profits for himself from the enterprise. He can only use the excuse if he really, really can’t pay that without getting ruined and losing the workplaces for his workers.

That is precisely why the Catholic Late Scholastics favoured leaving wage determination to the ‘common estimation’ of the market, since any other method is inherently arbitrary and leads to endless complications.

Common estimation of the market is a very fine method for determining wages (although it allows for supply/demand mechanics to trump education, diligence and other qualifications sometimes but I suppose I need to live with that since the alternative could be worse). However, it cannot justify below subsistence wages being paid by employees just because the employees have no better alternative (e.g. because all of the businesses within the particular sector have a silent agreement to keep wages low).

Thus it is incredibly foolish to ignore the practical results following from the wise consideration of “the state of the business, and the common good.”

Of course it is but JP2 wasn’t advocating that. Papal teaching has always left room for the genuinely not very well doing employer who can’t afford the wage that the employees should normally be getting. But we need to take marble floors and golden door knobs and yachts out of the equation. “State of business and the common good” leaves no room for the employer to profit at the expense of the workers’ suffering.

Finally, what would the real purpose of abolishing minimum wage be? Profit to the owners or managers of the business, most likely. What effect? Paying people peanuts when they have no power to oppose that arrangement and have to take whatever is thrown at them. Like imagine if banks weren’t giving loans to fresh MDs to open up private practices (buy equipment, get a room etc.) and hospitals decided to pay them $5 per hour.

Look, I’m a big fan of the kind of capitalism where everybody can get the most out of his skill, education and hard toil or creatitivity or acumen, and where there are opportunities for everybody and banks are giving non-extortionate loans to upstart businesses with a sound businessplan. Even if people who lack the proverbial claw can’t make a fortune or a name that’s a shame, actually, but doesn’t make the system bad as long as they still get their due. This kind of capitalism is far superior to a welfare state or a socialist economy as we know it, as long as those other states or models don’t e.g. entail greater success in cultural or spiritual areas but I don’t see proof of that.

However, imagine art or education or science or even healthcare driven by unrestrained laws of the market…

On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the 19th century capitalism devoid of any social guarantees and struggling with monopolies and cartels. That’s basically jungle law. The rule of the strongest and darwinism. There’s gotta be barriers against abuse.

 

[Savior2012]

Funny how the people who covet anothers wealth and will not reap what they sow, hate Capitalism. But these takers are the first with their hand out for a free lunch.

 

[chevalier]

Funny how the people who covet anothers wealth and will not reap what they sow, hate Capitalism. But these takers are the first with their hand out for a free lunch.

I have issues with capitalism but have not taken welfare even when I was entitled to it because I preferred the money to go to people in worse situations than I was. There are things I love about capitalism, and things I hate. The things I hate about it need fixing. Basically like the American political system which is supposed to promote and preserve freedom, or any other similar political system, contains a set of checks and balances for the branches of government to work properly and in balance, so does the economic system need to contain checks and balances. No empowerment of the poor just because they are poor and no reverse-government where workers could order managers around (that’d be madness). But they need legal guarantees of their rights as long as the employers are not generally prepared to respect their rights without a legal obligation. Employers too are protected by the law, as are their just claims to whatever employees owe them.

 

[essie7777]

And you went and did again exactly what David pointed out you did. Which is **“You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data.”

Too funny! **

Please feel free to read what i wrote AGAIN … maybe this time with an open mind rather than simply trying to defame what i am saying.

For the people that have failed to pay attention:

The quotes so ably provided by Abu and others on Catholic Teachings especially the Pope’s works do not need to be changed, altered amended or any of the above.

Shocking eek isn’t it that as a Catholic i would agree with Church data, writings and teachings … duh???

As previously stated so many times this is valid data …what i dispute is Abu’s interpretation of this data.

Please if you are not capable of keeping track of the conversation don’t post statements that demonstrate your intentional ignorance of the content written!

And afore I forget, can you please, please, explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

We’re all just dying to know…

Sarcasm generally shows a lack of ability to intelligently answer a challenge, as you demonstrate here using it to deflect from not only my previous post in reference to the differences but also additional commentors posts regarding the inadequacy of “common estimation”. Pay attention.

I do find it interesting to note that your contributions are solely to defend Abu usually by attempting to discredit, defame and i will admit “politely” insult those who disagree with him.

Do you not have anything of value to add yourself? If you are so confident in the opinion obviously you should be able to provide content that would convince others (myself) included that quoting two or three words from hundreds of pages, purposely misquoting the theme of the total work and then attempting to squash this misinterpretation into a political theory that is completely impractical and NEVER been seen to work in history, is actually Catholic teaching…No answer … that’s not really any surprise

 

[John21652]

Please feel free to read what i wrote AGAIN … maybe this time with an open mind rather than simply trying to defame what i am saying.

For the people that have failed to pay attention:

The quotes so ably provided by Abu and others on Catholic Teachings especially the Pope’s works do not need to be changed, altered amended or any of the above.

Shocking eek isn’t it that as a Catholic i would agree with Church data, writings and teachings … duh???

As previously stated so many times this is valid data …what i dispute is Abu’s interpretation of this data.

Please if you are not capable of keeping track of the conversation don’t post statements that demonstrate your intentional ignorance of the content written!

Sarcasm generally shows a lack of ability to intelligently answer a challenge, as you demonstrate here using it to deflect from not only my previous post in reference to the differences but also additional commentors posts regarding the inadequacy of “common estimation”. Pay attention.

I do find it interesting to note that your contributions are solely to defend Abu usually by attempting to discredit, defame and i will admit “politely” insult those who disagree with him.

Do you not have anything of value to add yourself? If you are so confident in the opinion obviously you should be able to provide content that would convince others (myself) included that quoting two or three words from hundreds of pages, purposely misquoting the theme of the total work and then attempting to squash this misinterpretation into a political theory that is completely impractical and NEVER been seen to work in history, is actually Catholic teaching…No answer … that’s not really any surprise

**I am amazed, Essie, at your comments. You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data. I try not to comment as Abu does a far far far better job supporting my cause so my comments wil onlyl take up space, but when his adversaries provide nothing but Ad Homen responses … well here I go…
**

And you’ve done it all over again.

And instead of answering the question, you respond with this diatribe -

Sarcasm generally shows a lack of ability to intelligently answer a challenge, as you demonstrate here using it to deflect from not only my previous post in reference to the differences but also additional commentors posts regarding the inadequacy of “common estimation”. Pay attention.

I know it hurts when someone draws attention to your own argument’s shortcomings, but really, to label someone as unintelligent and not paying attention as a means of covering your inability to answer a question about a statement that never made sense in the first place is just stretching credulity too far.

Can’t seem to help yourself, can you.

None so blind…

To refresh your memory, the question was -

So, maybe you could explain the difference between an “amount agreed upon by the parties” and the “common estimation of the market”.

Now you are allowed 6000 words in a single post. Why don’t you write as many words as you can, up to and including 6000 words if you need that many, explaining the difference to all we ignoramuses and non-attentive, unintelligent posters. And maybe have a try at doing so without writing opinions about the mental states of other posters and without making sweeping statements based on sweeping judgements about what others might mean. Go on then, have a good crack at it. We wait with bated breath

 

[Savior2012]

Absolutely. But businesses are not interested in creating jobs. Businesses are interested in making profits. If cutting jobs will increase profit, they will cut jobs.

…

Ya think??

Well hate to break it to ya, Econ 101 is companies just like a family need profits to survive. Only govt like can survive on deficits.