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.
Perhaps Obama acted too hastily before closing the Vatican embassy. Comrade Francis and he seem to be on the same page here.
This sort of nonsense is why I no longer attend Mass regularly. ·3 hours ago
Really? The doctrine of the Church certainly hasn’t change and I don’t typically hear this kind of political tirade in the homilies. I can’t imagine giving up on a religious faith simply because the leader is mis-informed about a scientific issue (over which he has no authority (infallibility only applies to doctrine)). The Catholic church has had many people who were wrong about empirical issues (need I mention geocentrism), this is simply a modern version of that idea.
Keep the faith. Keep attending Mass. The church will right itself on this scientific misapprehension just like it did with Galileo.
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.
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.
Atheist?! I have found myself in agreement with M.Stuttaford as well, but I’d also enjoy butting heads with him, I think, on that underlying point. For all this stuff about the pope, it is believing Christians who should be most upset… I’d think Catholics chief among them.
I love being rebellious, so let me push back against the flogging that the idea of trickle down is taking lately, inclusive of Thomas Sowell.
When Henry Ford began mass producing automobiles, he answered the critics on price by predicting that the poorer classes would eventually buy the used cars of the upper classes, as they decided to buy new again. Cars would trickle down the class system.
He was right.
Is it difficult to transfer the concept to matters beyond the automobile? It’s not a limitless concept – there is only so much a wage earner is ever going to be able to demand from an employer. However it’s easy to see that an employer will have more money to spend on exceptional labor when he has less money ordered toward the government in taxes.
I realize Sowell’s point – trickle down has only ever been raised as a criticism of an economic theory and not the theory itself.
I find references to America on the left are usually limited to criticism too. I’m not going to join in with them.
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.
In all seriousness, Peter … do you think this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?
There are 288 sections in this thing. Ricochet is up in arms about 10 of them. Don’t you find it ironic that the pope criticizes the world for seeing everything through economics, only to have people ignore most of his message because of a disagreement about … economics? Almost proves the point.
(Feel free to yell at me. I’m an ex-Jesuit and a father of teenagers; don’t worry, I’m used to it!)
Those 10 sections, to the extent they are followed, can result in a lot of deaths and a lot of state violence against individuals.
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.
In all seriousness, Peter … do you think this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?
There are 288 sections in this thing. Ricochet is up in arms about 10 of them. Don’t you find it ironic that the pope criticizes the world for seeing everything through economics, only to have people ignore most of his message because of a disagreement about … economics? Almost proves the point.
(Feel free to yell at me. I’m an ex-Jesuit and a father of teenagers; don’t worry, I’m used to it!)
One could say the same thing about socialism.
Well said.
And while we’re on the subject, there are many non-Catholic members on this site who joined because of a sincere belief in capitalism and the Protestant work ethic; must we be assaulted by a daily barrage of Catholic doctrine that seems to question the very principles espoused by the Founders?
Ditto.
In my opinion, Ricochet would be a better place if Religion had a separate feed alongside other passionate but parochial interest groups such as Philosophy, Literature, Men & Women, Baseball, and Television. I’d certainly enjoy quicker access to conversations about the last two.
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.
In all seriousness, Peter … do you think this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?
There are 288 sections in this thing. Ricochet is up in arms about 10 of them. Don’t you find it ironic that the pope criticizes the world for seeing everything through economics, only to have people ignore most of his message because of a disagreement about … economics? Almost proves the point.
(Feel free to yell at me. I’m an ex-Jesuit and a father of teenagers; don’t worry, I’m used to it!)
Those 10 sections, to the extent they are followed, can result in a lot of deaths and a lot of state violence against individuals.
I was brought up in the Catholic Church and I am deeply saddened by the way the Church’s authority has been used for evil.
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. ·12 minutes ago
No dispute with what you have said here. Nice to interact with you, by the way. Are you school complete?
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.
In all seriousness, Peter … do you think this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?·1 minute ago
Here’s what I think, KC:
Item: Most people spend most of their waking lives engaged in economic behavior. Economics matters.
Item: When he speaks on economics in this new document, the Pope is wrong–egregiously wrong.
To be cont’d….
Those 10 sections, to the extent they are followed, can result in a lot of deaths and a lot of state violence against individuals. ·
Those sections argue that the world we face is materialist and devoted to money instead of justice for each other.
There’s a huge distinction between that and arguing for tyrannical state power.
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.
In all seriousness, Peter … do you think this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?·1 minute ago
Here’s what I think, KC:
Item: Most people spend most of their waking lives engaged in economic behavior. Economics matters.
Item: When he speaks on economics in this new document, the Pope is wrong–egregiously wrong.
To be cont’d….
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.·2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
This is, alas, wrong. This Pope does call for the state to exercise monopoly coercive power to redistribute. See # 43, above.
Those 10 sections, to the extent they are followed, can result in a lot of deaths and a lot of state violence against individuals. ·
Those sections argue that the world we face is materialist and devoted to money instead of justice for each other.
There’s a huge distinction between that and arguing for tyrannical state power.
The Pope’s remedy for materialism is the use of state power. He makes that very clear.
Oh, heck. I wrote about another 300 words in replying to KC, but then the editing function here on dad-blasted Ricochet 1.0 deleted them.
Maybe it’s just as well. Maybe I should just sum it up:
Do I think, KC, that “this apostolic exhortation is reducible to an economic criticism that we disagree with?” No I do not. But I do think the Pope’s economic assertions are breathtakingly foolish and ignorant, I do think they matter, a very great deal, and I do think, therefore, that we have something like a duty, as Andrew Stuttaford put it, to “push back–hard.”
No let me see if I can hit the “post comment” button before this, too, disappears….
Love the passion – that’s why we come here too.
Yet the Pope, in his economics, conflates Caesar’s sphere with God’s.
Here, in the course of railing against “unwarranted generalizations,” the Pope makes some unwarranted generalizations of his own. First that [material] inequality engenders violence, and second that “some… claim that the solution is an ‘education’ that would tranquilize them.”
Who on earth has ever prescribed education as a means of pacifying the poor and contenting them with their lot? If anything, education causes unrest – a yearning for a better life.
At the risk of triggering a Ricochet meltdown — get those servers ready — let me ask the same question that the pope’s assertion assumes:
Given, as you say that economic matters … and that people spend a considerable amount of their waking lives focused on economic matters … how do you rebut this assertion?
Love the passion – that’s why we come here too. ·5 minutes ago
If we could only get Francis to sign up to Ricochet, too, we could get everything turned right around, don’t you suppose?
Love the passion – that’s why we come here too. ·5 minutes ago
If we could only get Francis to sign up to Ricochet, too, we could get everything turned right around, don’t you suppose?
Keep him away from Fred Cole.
Perhaps we need a different explanation for immigration reform:
We need to secure our borders and deport immigration law transgressors in order to protect undocumented immigrants from our overly free market. To save ’em from themselves.
Where’s Pseudodionysius when we need him? Wish he hadn’t left…
Note, however, this damage is done – not through the free market – but through violations of the principles of free trade and the rule of law.
… how do you rebut this assertion?
The pope (or anyone) could read two Adam Smith books and realize that the two are not mutually exclusive.
As presented, it is a false choice. Nobody here in any advocates “lack of concern for human beings.” Rather, we believe that government is not a solution but a bigger problem. The above statement does not really say anything useful. It is very easy to point to limitations in the market, or to deficiencies in human nature… my problem is with the implied solution. I am reminded of the French revolution: recognize a problem, tear a system down… and then what? It’s the underwear gnomes all over again. Fine, there are problems in the world. How do you get from there to an endorsement of statism? Free markets allow for the greatest good; it is no indictment to point out that we’ve_yet_to_achieve_utopia.
“Whose” lack of concern for real human beings? That of businessmen? But that’s nonsense–he’s simply reducing businessmen to a ridiculous caricature, as if they were villains in James Bond movies. Every businessman I know cares a lot about people as people. As for reducing “man to one of his needs alone, consumption,” what’s the big deal? The study of economics does just that, as the study of medicine examines man as an animal, and the study of psychology and brain function reduces man to a set of chemical and electrical impulses. That’s what all academic disciplines do, for goodness’s sake: They take particular aspects of human existence, and study only those.
So the pope is either saying nothing of any importance (economics views humans as economic creatures) or engaging in crude, cheap and ignorant caricature (businessmen are all nasty, unfeeling creeps). Well, there is a third option: namely, that the assertion here is so vague and incoherent that it doesn’t really mean anything at all. What’s so shocking about this document is that that third possibility would really be by far the best.
Amazingly eloquent, Peter.
Those 10 sections, to the extent they are followed, can result in a lot of deaths and a lot of state violence against individuals. ·
Those sections argue that the world we face is materialist and devoted to money instead of justice for each other.
There’s a huge distinction between that and arguing for tyrannical state power. ·13 minutes ago
He calls for “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.” We know, and he should know, that these decisions and programmes can only be undertaken by governmental institutions. He should know that some countries have done this and that it has led to great misery and oppression (and, frequently, suppression of religious rights). I’m with Stuttaford, we need to push back. As The Dude would say,
At the risk of triggering a Ricochet meltdown — get those servers ready — let me ask the same question that the pope’s assertion assumes:
Given, as you say that economic matters … and that people spend a considerable amount of their waking lives focused on economic matters … how do you rebut this assertion?
Gee, KC, that seems to me only too easy to rebut, as in, What the heck is the pope even talking about here?
To be cont’d….
Continuing from above….
Whose lack of concern for real human beings? That of businessmen? But that’s nonsense–he’s simply reducing businessmen to a ridiculous caricature, as if they were villains in James Bond movies. Every businessman I know–and I even know quite a few–cares a lot about people as people. As for reducing “man to one of his needs alone, consumption,” what’s the big deal? The study of economics does do that, just as the study of medicine examines man as an animal, and the study of psychology and brain function reduces man to a set of chemical and electrical impulses. So what?
So the pope is either saying nothing of any importance (economics views humans as economic creatures) or engaging in crude, cheap and ignorant caricature (businessmen are all nasty, unfeeling creeps). Well, there is a third option: namely, that the assertion here is so vague and incoherent that it doesn’t really mean anything at all. What’s so shocking about this document is that that third possibility would really be by far the best.
Love the passion – that’s why we come here too. ·5 minutes ago
If we could only get Francis to sign up to Ricochet, too, we could get everything turned right around, don’t you suppose? ·2 minutes ago
At the risk of yielding an inch … he does need to hear the backlash. And don’t kid yourself, he will hear it.