Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Which the Pope Informs us that the Free Market is Very, Very Bad
From today’s “Apostolic Exhortation,” posted, for now, without comment:
Published in General54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting….
204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.
For 35 years I have been under the loving assault of Mrs. LookAway to convert to the “Faith”. Bishop Sullivan of Central Virginia gave me my first excuse through his weekly Letters to the Editor extolling the virtues of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. We all know how that ended. My second excuse was how could I take the Church seriously when it gave communion to people like the Kennedy s with their pro-abortion stance. This one continues to hold water. Pope John Paul II made me weaken and my admiration for him and Sister Teresa knows no bounds. But this Pope has now made me realize that I cannot trust this Church, no matter how much you mince his words, because it will eventually break my heart the way the Episcopalian Church did. I keep God in my heart and for me that is where he will stay. Despite all, Mrs. LookAway prays for my immortal soul.
Corporatism and Paronism both considered themselves free markets. They were each touted as a “third way” between socialism and capitalism.
But they both self-identified as free market. ·3 minutes ago
Good to know. I learned something new today.
Personal Water Craft. It’s what you need to wade through the you know what.
Okay, genferi, I give: What’s “PWC” mean?
(Thanks for your earlier link to the whole document, btw.) ·11 minutes ago
Okay, genferei, I give: What’s “PWC” mean?
Posted Without Comment.
What worries me the most is how often he describes the state as the responsible moral agent to redistribute income, as well as to arm the state with unilateral authority in pursuit of that redistribute. Perhaps the worst part of the message was when he insisted that the nation is actually a more fitting vessel for the Kingdom of God than the the family (too parochial and powerless) or the church (too divided and reactionary).
Oh, wait, that was mainstream American Protestantism from Rauschenbusch until Niebuhr.
It’s not surprising that when the pope offers a moral critique of capitalism that lots of conservative Protestants, at last, get to stretch their legs a bit. They get cramped up when packed into the ecumenical van the Catholic Church has been driving around American conservative politics.
What Protestants often forget is how the American experience of capitalism is highly specific to America. The nation has vast resources, a British liberal tradition, and got started at the same time economic theory and industrialization were on the rise. The Frontier offered a safety valve. Populism finally lost on the bank issue. Slavery ended. All of these color the American experience of markets.
Cont@#70
Corporatism and Paronism both considered themselves free markets. They were each touted as a “third way” between socialism and capitalism.
But they both self-identified as free market. ·3 minutes ago
Good to know. I learned something new today. ·0 minutes ago
I have some quotes from no less than Churchill praising Mussolini for his break from socialism with his new fascism. It was all the rage among American economists as well.
Two serious comments:
54 – In reference to “those who wield economic power”, the Pope forgets that in a true, free market, it is the people who wield economic power. It is not a politician, nor an unelected bureaucrat, nor a dictator, nor a union boss, nor a soviet. It is each of us, looking after our own interests. The Pope is right to worry about elitist who control the economy. But those people are the enemy of free market capitalism.
204 – Show me a programme that is geared to distribute income and I will show you a gaggle of the elitists I just mentioned. To the other point in that paragraph, I rarely see a business man who seeks to increase profit by reducing the work force. I’ve been in corporate America for over 20 years, and nobody from the top to the bottom like layoffs. But sometimes they are necessary, and almost always they result in a business that is more efficient, and better able to hire good people in the future. If I had spent my life working inside the bureaucracy of a massive, global religion, I might see things differently.
Then why not speak directly about corporatism or state capitalism or Peronism or one of the recognizable distortions of liberty? Also, if he were really addressing about these phenomena, he would not use that Scotsman’s metaphor of “the invisble hand.”
My guess is that Francis knows not what he does in these matters.
Capitalism most certainly does not guarantee ‘Social Justice’, because “Social Justice” is a political concept used to justify the use of force to distribute goods to select groups of people based on the values of another select group of people. It’s an intentionally vague concept, like ‘fairness’, used by advocates of state intervention to justify the current cause du jure.
All capitalism guarantees is maximum innovation, maximum economic growth, and maximum individual liberty. That’s good enough for me. Does it leave people behind? Absolutely. And that’s where private charity comes into play. Allow the free market to do what it does best, and if that does not comport with your idea of ‘social justice’, use extra-market mechanisms to address that. Wasn’t that what the church used to be all about?
Cont.from#65
Most of the world has not experienced capitalism this way. Instead, capitalism often has served to justify the monopoly power of several corporate interests who then align with either a single ruling party or two contesting ruling parties. This capitalism is rather more common and should be regarded as the more stable than the kind experienced in America, where centralizing forces –both corporate and political–are constantly trying to end free markets, risk, the rise of small competitors, etc.
When the pope condemns more ordinary capitalism, he does not do so commanding the state exercise monopoly coercive power to redistribute. Instead, he recommends that individuals as moral agents engage in acts of loving contributions to one another. The result is not necessary rapid economic growth but rather the formation of families and communities whose values and traditions form a bulwark against economic forces.
Only once these are in place can Americans–or anyone–engage in the kind of risk free-market capitalism requires. Why? When one knows that a community of families can offer support in failure, as well as invest, the risk is considerably minimized.
Over sixty comments in, and nobody’s linked to this yet?
Corporatism and Paronism both considered themselves free markets. They were each touted as a “third way” between socialism and capitalism.
But they both self-identified as free market.
But their are millions of Catholic’s that didn’t live under Paronism, and most don’t know what it is. To most of the devoted it sound like an attack on Capitalism.
And why does it seem like time and time again he makes statements that look like they’ve been written by Elizabeth Warren? Seriously, is there an already established way of interpreting what he says so it doesn’t come across as it does? ·7 minutes ago
The difference is that Elizabeth Warren is talking about the United States, where the move away from capitalism has been demonstrably detrimental. I sincerely doubt the Pope would endorse the “gimme” mentality pushed by Warren and her ilk.
As Mark and Tommy have pointed out, though, Francis is from Argentina, a place where what passes for “capitalism” is much closer to actual corporatism than the Friedmanite ideal. It’s sort of like how “secularism” is viewed badly in the Middle East, because to them it implies Hussein, Mubarak, Hassan, etc. When we think of capitalism we think of Bill Gates and Mitt Romney; Argentinians think of some government crony robber baron.
Then why does he attack the free market if he’s talking about countries and economies that didn’t/don’t have one?
Corporatism and Paronism both considered themselves free markets. They were each touted as a “third way” between socialism and capitalism.
But they both self-identified as free market. ·16 minutes ago
As a point of clarification: what do you think he’d call the actual free market?
I feel badly for my Roman Catholic friends.
Cont.from#70
Sweet Jeebus does this commenting system suck eggs.
For Protestants here who have wed their faith to faith in free markets, I recommend this book.
It’s not a deflection. If the Pope says we need more social justice and it’s interpreted by 300 million American’s as more socialism/fascism it doesn’t matter what he thinks he said. There’s a reason that the left constantly attacks and co-opts words – corrupting language is a way of preventing you from making your argument and framing the debate on their terms.
I read it too, although I can’t claim to have thought about it (:
Much of it is wonderful: bracing, disconcerting, but ultimately joyous and positive.
The two excursions – into economic matters, and into peace – have a different feel from the rest.
The beginning of the discussion on peace – the dialectical bit – was frankly impenetrable to me. But as it developed into something I could understand it seemed good, solid stuff.
The discussion on economics – from about para 180 to 208 – had the feeling, on the one hand, of something Francis had once read in Time magazine, and on the other of assuming an absent conversation: What are the “structural causes of inequality”?
To be fair, while he says the Church must give concrete, practical advice (182), such advice cannot be universal, and should be worked out country by country by their own local communities (184).
Nevertheless, the call seems to be to abandon the market, fundamentally transform our mindset, and thereby eliminate inequality (which is the root of social ills), a task in which politicians feature prominently.
(contd)
He then goes on to say:
That is, Peter was doing what was requested, and, with a watchful scrutiny of the signs of the times, inviting a discussion of the concrete proposals of the document in the light of their practical conclusions, and the input of the different sciences to these matters, with objectivity and regard to the situation of the US in particular, and other countries as necessary.
(As for not posting a link: when has Peter ever done this? Also, it is literally impossible to arrive on the Vatican homepage without a giant popover showing the links to the letter.)
I’m out.
(…continued from #117)
“…the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.”
“I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism…”
“…but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.”
The Left sure is making a lot of hay about Francis being “theirs”.
Then I sincerely hope they read him carefully and take his words to heart. For instance:
True. We can debate about what he *meant* to say or what he’s really saying or the context from which he’s coming which doesn’t mean what it sounds like he means but at the end of the day it matters more how his words will come across to people and how it will be used.
Millions of leftists will read Ricochet and conclude that we are cold hearted, survival-of-the-fittest Randians who think poor people deserve it. Their misunderstanding does not make us wrong. Judge the Pope based on what he means, not what others will twist his words into.
Umbra,
The only means we have of knowing what he is trying to say are his words.
(My new phone is tough to type on)
The pope is right that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will not inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. Economic growth would–or could– decrease material poverty, but that’s a different thing.
But, really, this means much less and much more than it seems to in isolation: it really needs to be read in context.
If I may be so bold, it is probably too early by many generations to expect to have a fully worked out theory of ‘social justice’ (in the Catholic sense), so trying to apply it to concrete reality is fraught with difficulties. The first ecumenical council was nearly 300 years after Christ’s resurrection. Sometimes it just takes time to work out complex things. The moral status of a free market in a pluralistic democracy may also be one of those things.
I’ll say it again: Pope in a Che shirt.
Wrong Argentine, I think , he’s much closer to Peron. ·1 hour ago
indeed. But where are the Peron silhouette shirts when you need them?
No, I don’t think this is true. Nor do I think that Francis’s repeated example of movements in stock market being ‘news’ where the death of an elderly homeless person is not says anything important about our culture.
Let me ask the question again: do you believe that justice comes through prosperity?
Do we reduce the whole of our dealings with our fellow man to economics?
Is it true that “The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”