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.
Instead, on this thread, we’ve seen the commentary that the pope was making an economic argument about whether trickle-down brings prosperity. Not his point. ·37 minutes ago
Hey Mulville,
Do you have even the slightest criticism of the Pope, or even the language he used? Will you go as far as Fractus in saying that it was “an unfortunate” choice of words?
Or is this man, as always, a perfect saint who can do no wrong. KC, I will engage you on any other topic I can think of, and I will give you every benefit of the doubt. But you’ve already shown your answer to my first question, and that has decimated your credibility on this point. You can say “he’s not infallible” all day long, but unless you’re willing to admit of any fallibility, I don’t really care to hear your endless and tiresome defenses.
I’ll say it again: Pope in a Che shirt.
Wrong Argentine, I think , he’s much closer to Peron. ·
indeed. But where are the Peron silhouette shirts when you need them? ·
I think Ryan M. had it right the first time. Read the sections (59 & 60) in which the Pope all but justifies violence in the name of equality.
Let me ask the question again: do you believe that justice comes through prosperity?
Obviously not – but you’re confusing language. Justice is a legal construct. “Social Justice” is a fiction. All of New Testament grace is injustice by the will of God for our benefit. I love it, but when we talk about examples, we would be foolish to not admit the contradiction. Which justice do we choose? The better answer to your question is this: “Old Testament justice leads to prosperity, under which those attempting to emulate Christ may choose to display New Testament justice.” It is that first part that liberals, democrats, and this pope have 100% wrong.
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.”
No, justice does not come through prosperity, but poverty can only be ended by the creation of wealth. The Pope is explicitly attacking the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known, and in doing so is condemning millions to poverty.
The second sentence decries the supposed ascendancy of the market over the “right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good.” States may be charged with the common good, but they typically ignore that duty, favoring the rich and well-connected at the expense of the poor (by blighting their opportunity to escape poverty) and the middle class (by confiscating the fruits of their labor).
Of course not, but if economics weren’t an integral part of life why are so many of Jesus’s teachings given through parables about work and money?
Of course, Christ himself was a tekton. Not sure how many many Vicars of Christ I’d trust with a hammer save for JP the Great.
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?
This statement betrays the Pope’s ignorance. The fact is that the environment is far better protected in capitalist countries than in those countries in which power is centralized in the hands of governments “charged with vigilance for the common good.”
That the environment has been virtually destroyed in countries like the Soviet Union and China has been well documented, and it shows the Pope’s profound and inexcusable ignorance.
Moreover, it displays a deep lack of humility. He has the unbelievable arrogance to pronounce on subjects about which he clearly knows nothing. And this ignorance will not hurt him, but will hurt the millions of poor people in whose name he claims to speak.
Let me ask the question again: do you believe that justice comes through prosperity?
No, justice does not come through prosperity, but poverty can only be ended by the creation of wealth. The Pope is explicitly attacking the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known, and in doing so is condemning millions to poverty.
Moreover, efforts to “cure” the uneven reach of prosperity often result in injustice as well as poverty.
Two caveats: when amelioration efforts are personal (voluntary community) they are much less likely to create injustice; when the efforts are state-run (coercive systems) they are much more likely to perpetuate poverty and prevent justice.
Well said. The book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, documents the power of voluntary giving – not just of money and goods, but of time and caring – to turn lives around. It also documents the power of government handouts to destroy lives and create more poverty.
Let me ask the question again: do you believe that justice comes through prosperity?
No, justice does not come through prosperity, but poverty can only be ended by the creation of wealth. The Pope is explicitly attacking the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known, and in doing so is condemning millions to poverty. ·5 minutes ago
Moreover, efforts to “cure” the uneven reach of prosperity often result in injustice as well as poverty.
Two caveats: when amelioration efforts are personal (voluntary community) they are much less likely to create injustice; when the efforts are state-run (coercive systems) they are much more likely to perpetuate poverty and prevent justice.
… that has decimated your credibility on this point. You can say “he’s not infallible” all day long, but unless you’re willing to admit of any fallibility, I don’t really care to hear your endless and tiresome defenses.
Ryan, at this point, we’re having a discussion about what the pope said.
I won’t get drawn into a pointless personal argument with you. Once again, you put words into my mouth (I haven’t said a word about infallibility, and wasn’t planning to, since this isn’t an infallible teaching and I can criticize it as much as I want), and then you attack the words you yourself imagined. You attack what I didn’t say, and conveniently overlook what I do say. I don’t want to be included in your self-dialog. Let me know how it works out, OK?
Funny to get this thread on the same day I am reading Michael J Totten’s dispatch from Cuba.
In it I find this little gem,
Just a little bit after this one.
Gee places with even somewhat unfree markets sound better than this place.
More “Just” too, capital J and all.
… that has decimated your credibility on this point. You can say “he’s not infallible” all day long, but unless you’re willing to admit of any fallibility, I don’t really care to hear your endless and tiresome defenses.
Ryan, at this point, we’re having a discussion about what the pope said.
I won’t get drawn into a pointless personal argument with you. Once again, you put words into my mouth (I haven’t said a word about infallibility, and wasn’t planning to, since this isn’t an infallible teaching and I can criticize it as much as I want), and then you attack the words you yourself imagined. You attack what I didn’t say, and conveniently overlook what I do say. I don’t want to be included in your self-dialog. Let me know how it works out, OK?
read back over what I said again. You haven’t disagreed with a single one of the words I “put into” your mouth, and in fact, you here repeated them. I don’t think you understood what I was saying.
Several months ago when I posted my grave reservations about Francis and my prediction that very soon he will be said to have “grown in office” by the MSM, I was assured by Catholic apologists that Francis’ words were being misconstrued by the media. It’s pretty clear now that Francis is just a typical Latin American leftie. I still say that before the end of his tenure as Pope there will be a resurgence of liberation theology. Bring back Benedict! He’s tan, rested, and ready. Well, rested and ready.
Here is a link to an interview with Thomas Sowell in which he lays bare the “trickle down theory” myth.
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. ·42 minutes ago
Sure. I didn’t mean to imply that I was judging the Pope on how he’d be interpreted. I was commenting that regardless of the Pope’s intentions it is relevant to consider how his words will be received.
I was with him up to the sentence on income distribution. It reminds of something Thomas Sowell would often say about the Left’s bias regarding income and wealth. They speak of it as if it’s a given and the only question is how do you distribute it. What does income distribution mean? Who is distributing it? How? If you deal with the zero-sum game fallacy and show it’s faults then all of the income distribution arguments must fall by the way side I think.
Also, my problem with the Pope’s concept of justice is that it focuses on the results when justice is about the process. If the goal is to engineer the final “distribution” then you will inevitably have to forcibly redistribute. If the focus is on justice then you can’t use the results as a reliable measure because you never know who earns what. The only thing you can guarantee is the legitimacy of an economic and legal system that protects the our rights and ensures we have opportunities in the future.
In railing against “attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force,” the Pope again shows a profound ignorance of basic economics. The whole history of human progress is one of finding more efficient ways to provide for our needs. Yes, change displaces some workers; buggy whip makers are no longer in demand. But the alternative means (1) preserving the status quo through force and (2) condemning people to live in poverty. Moreover, anyone who claims to care about the environment, as the Pope does, must care about productive efficiency. Inefficiency is waste and waste is pollution.
This takes us back to the issue of whether he was really addressing the United States.
Let’s all of us, for the moment, pretend that today we are chosen as Pope. One of our missions, of course, is to help end suffering, poverty, sickness and inequality in the world.
If there are 196 countries in the world, I’m looking into the problems in America 196th on the list.
Let’s face it – on a comparative analysis we have our stuff together when it comes to the poor.
I’m from one of the poorest cities in the country regarding per capita income. Yet everyone has a roof, heat, air conditioning and $190 basketball shoes, even the latter courtesy of the government. ·10 hours ago
Great insight, Tommy. Nice to meet you.
But we are #1 and currently NEED the pope to help us promulgate freedom. As W said, the state of other people around the world is a matter of conscience and directly affects our security. Peace through strength, both physical and moral.
The whole document is a biting criticism, but the capitalism thing is a small part of it.
Perhaps for Roman Catholics it is, but for those of us who are not, it is (I would guess) the part that counts the most. In Pope Francis, the economic ‘left’ (I’m using that loaded word loosely) has found a charming and eloquent spokesman, and one who has the benefit of a pretty powerful megaphone. It is thus important to push back–and push back hard. His views on these topics are too destructive to be given a free pass. ·1 hour ago
Good Lord! (And for once I mean that as more of a prayer than as a mere loose expression of bewilderment.) I’ve been reading and thinking about this all morning. My conclusion? Well, let me put it this way: I, a Catholic for lo these many years, find myself, a) appalled by the Supreme Pontiff, and, b) in total agreement with my atheist friend Mr. Stuttaford.
The world turned upside down.
Perfectly true, Qunitilian. The argument that we’re all simply misunderstanding Francis, or misreading him, or failing to put his most controversial remarks in the larger context in which he intended them–that argument is, as of today, simply ludicrous.
·3 hours ago
That, Duane, is just what I’m trying to figure out. (Not that I’m a “good” Catholic, you understand. But four or five days out of every seven, I try.)
Great thought here, Bereket, although I thought Due Process was about the ‘process’ and Justice (hopefully) results from its application.
The Pope’s vision of justice is materialistic and coercive. To him, “equality” clearly means equality of material goods and his mechanism for achieving that is through the state’s coercive power.
Look at Richard go. I’m glad he’s doing it, because it means I don’t have to.
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. ·
Well, with respect – great respect, by the way – I read it differently.
The comments about “economics” was within the “challenges we face” section. Before he starts to lay out his vision of how to approach the world, he gives some comments about what kind of world we’re going into.
And what he’s saying is that this is a world that largely seeks “earthly” fulfillment. The dominant mentality of the world is not about caring for our fellow man (love one another) but is dominated by the hope that economic prosperity will bring justice and solve all out problems.
Put not your hope in princes. Put not your hope in economics.
Justice … how we rightly treat each other as fellow humans … can’t be reduced to economics.
What should be our guide to dealing with one another? The good news … the gospel … after all, this apostolic exhortation is called The Joy of Evangelization.
Economics is important and vital, but there’s so much more.
This is one of the things that disturbs me the most… use of that word “distribution”, as if wealth were A)Fixed, and B)subject to rationing by some central authority, and then C) subject to re-distribution if the rationing wasn’t “fair enough”. Earned or created never comes into it. Just “need” and “justice”. That’s essentially Marx’s view of wealth (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”). And we’re hearing that view a lot from Rome these days.
I dispute the idea that the environment is fragile.
Great thought here, Bereket, although I thought Due Process was about the ‘process’ and Justice (hopefully) results from its application.
I agree, we do want to see the right outcome but we don’t design the system to reach a particular conclusion. We have rules that govern the process so you get a fair trial. You can have a fair system that sometimes comes up with bad results. If the process becomes corrupt then it loses legitimacy and the result is always wrong. That is, we’re not concerned with only one particular case but with any moral case. I hope that clarifies my point.
I dispute the idea that the environment is fragile.
The environment is not fragile in that it can compensate for changes and disturbances. But it is amazingly complex – an interrelated network of living creatures and processes – and even small changes to the environment can have far-reaching and unpredictable results.
Like the environment, an economy is a complex ecosystem. It is endlessly adaptable, but interference with its subtle processes can have damaging unintended consequences.