Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[The Nehor]

Are you ready to condemn usury?

 

I am. Early Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all condemn usury to some extent. Usury allows for wealth perpetuation in idleness. I can see a spiritual danger there.

[3DOP]

I am. Early Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all condemn usury to some extent. Usury allows for wealth perpetuation in idleness. I can see a spiritual danger there.

The Catholic Church condemned it too, at least into the late Middle Ages and I think further. Anti-usury has a long and I would say, venerable history. I don't think it carries the weight of definitive teaching, but its history is partly what coaxes me to be willing to try to re-evaluate previously learned economic principles.  

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Are you ready to condemn usury? That's where Belloc goes. I just don't see what is wrong with charging an increase for loaning money today that you might get tomorrow according to the reliability of the creditor. Any way, I am going to try to keep an open mind. I had been a laissez faire guy before becoming Catholic and have just never seen anything they (the Distributists) have produced that makes me think it is wrong to allow people to buy and trade any commodity including land and labor at a freely negotiated price. But I really don't mind being wrong about this. My wife doesn't like my pre-Catholic economics and I usually end up believing what she does anyway. Heh.

 

I truly hope that Pope Francis is following popes like Leo XIII instead of his 1960's South American priestly formation. As you might see from the other thread, I have a few misgivings about him for other reasons. But I would be delighted and it would be very consoling to see that his economic initiatives are at least connected to a school of thought with such bright lights as the "Chesterbelloc" and Leo XIII.

 

Rory

Given usury has always been somewhat questionable as a Christian practice, yes I am.

[Vance]

What Republican healthcare plan?

Seriously?????

Do you just unquestioningly sop up the falsehoods put out by Obama regime and the leftists/progressives?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/

[Vance]

No, instead of the government deciding if I am worth it the insurance company makes the decision.

Which is written up in a legally binding contract that you sign when you buy the policy. If you don't like it, you could have purchased a different policy. That was the beauty of the free enterprise system.

[Vance]

I lived in Britain for several years. It is true that if you use the government system (you do not have to) you tend to get shorter doctor's visits but you DO almost always get the care you need.

That "almost always" really strengthens your case. No, really.

[Vance]

Healthcare is provided by working people. What right do you have to the fruits of their labors?

[The Nehor]

That "almost always" really strengthens your case. No, really.

As opposed to America where everyone always gets the healthcare they need. If I had said always you would have rightly called me out on imperfections in the system. No system is perfect. If your snide comment is meant to imply the United States has a perfect healthcare system then you have drunk the kool-aid and there is not hope for you.

Which is written up in a legally binding contract that you sign when you buy the policy. If you don't like it, you could have purchased a different policy. That was the beauty of the free enterprise system.

Yes, when I go to buy insurance we sit down and negotiate the terms of the contract and sign a unique contract that fits both our needs. Either that or I pick one or two options provided by my employer. Which do you think happens more often and which one almost never happens? The kind of insurance I want does not exist in. Any case. And no, sadly I do not have the capital or the drive to start my own insurance company. That whole "barriers to entry" thing keeps me out.

Seriously?????Do you just unquestioningly sop up the falsehoods put out by Obama regime and the leftists/progressives?http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/

I do sop up the idea that Republicans were not strongly united behind any of their plans. When I say Republicans do not have a health plan I mean one that most of them support. Of course individual and small groups of Republicans have various ideas for health care. So do Democrats. So do I for that matter. Of course it is all useless if you cannot get your own party fully behind them which Republicans have failed to do.

Healthcare is provided by working people. What right do you have to the fruits of their labors?

Are you aiming this at me? I have a fulfilling job. I am in the middle class in terms of my income and am in the high end of that range. If my current financial plans work (God is probably laughing) I will be a millionaire by the time I am 45. I am not the caricatured poor person you seem to hate so much in violation of the Second Great Commandment. Sorry to disappoint.

Looks like you drank the Ayn Rand kool-aid. Sadly the scriptures disagree with you. Read Jacob's comments about the wealthy or King Benjamin's address. The fruits of your labors are not yours. They belong to God who gave you the talents, position, intelligence, and good fortune to have enough to survive in. I also recommend the parable of the 10 Sons in the D&C which makes it very clear that wealth is not an indicator of virtue.

[thesometimesaint]

Worshiping at the feet of Ayn Rand is unbecoming and unwise for any member of the Church.

[pmccombs1]

So what you are saying is we should blame the health care crisis on those actually responsible for it: THE SICK!!!!

 

I like it.

 

LOL, I'm not sure what tone you are taking with that comment.  But in a very real and serious sense, this is absolutely correct. By far, most of today's serious and chronic illnesses could be prevented with a little personal and civic virtue. 

 

I refer you to professor Steven Aldana's research, some of which has been published in his book, The Culprit and the Cure. Dr. Colin Campbell's The China Study is another good source, with some eye-openers about the consequences of speaking truth to power.

 

Now, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is place "blame" for a crisis or withhold help from people who had a hand in their own trouble. I'm suggesting that we could get out of the crisis if we understood its principal causes and began to focus on First Things. I believe you will find a "first-things-first" approach if you study pope Francis' speech in the context of Catholic social teaching.

 

Thomas Edison once said that, "The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease." That is a correct First Thing. The next thing has to do with what we can do when we get sick or injured. It will still happen from time to time, regardless of how careful we are; but I find that there is a natural escalation. Most complaints can safely be dealt with at home through proper care.

 

I have children who have never in their lives seen a doctor on account of illness. Illness has never escalated to the degree where a fever has lasted long enough, or symptoms become severe enough, that we have had to take them in to the clinic. If the illness were to progress in severity to the point of concern, we would go in and petition a higher expertise. We try to match the question to it's appropriate response. "Johnny fell and scraped his knee. What shall I do?"  Is the proper response, "I see BLOOD! Take him to the emergency room!" Or is it, "Let's clean that up and dress the wound using our own knowledge and resources." This is the principle of subsidiarity. It works best when people are dependent on themselves and each other rather than on external experts.

 

Since the cost of experts is not incurred often, my healthcare costs are quite manageable and I am able to pay them out of my own pocket. The other way to reduce costs, of course, is to commoditize the product by generating an increased demand for it. That is our present model. We have a culture that glorifies unhealthy habits, that encourages frequent and unnecessary medical exams and procedures, and  that creates environments where contagion is easily spread. Quite a demand! And we get mass-produced, 2nd rate healthcare as a result.

 

In short, subsidiarity would entail:

 

1) How can we create an environment that encourages good and prevents ill? (Retooling education for personal and civic virtue rather than for serving economic ends)

2) What can we do for ourselves?

3) What can we do for our neighbor?

4) What must we seek from outside the family and community?

 

Catholic economics is not a question of supply and demand, but of subsidiarity. It is thought that people ought to be creative producers rather than dependent consumers, and the things they produce are meant to be used first by the local family and community before they are sold at a profit to distant strangers. The first steps in a Catholic economy are to go home, to be a family, to return to the family trade, and to participate again in the community life.

 

Capitalism and socialism have no bearing on that sort of economy because they both happen outside of the home where capital is concentrated (in corporations or government--rarely in households!).

[pmccombs1]

Are you ready to condemn usury? That's where Belloc goes. I just don't see what is wrong with charging an increase for loaning money today that you might get tomorrow according to the reliability of the creditor. Any way, I am going to try to keep an open mind. I had been a laissez faire guy before becoming Catholic and have just never seen anything they (the Distributists) have produced that makes me think it is wrong to allow people to buy and trade any commodity including land and labor at a freely negotiated price. But I really don't mind being wrong about this. My wife doesn't like my pre-Catholic economics and I usually end up believing what she does anyway. Heh.

 

I truly hope that Pope Francis is following popes like Leo XIII instead of his 1960's South American priestly formation. As you might see from the other thread, I have a few misgivings about him for other reasons. But I would be delighted and it would be very consoling to see that his economic initiatives are at least connected to a school of thought with such bright lights as the "Chesterbelloc" and Leo XIII.

 

Rory

 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a modest usury.  Again, it comes down to subsidiarity. If there is an appropriate place for usury and for trade, I don't think distributism necessarily condemns it (I'm sure there are distributists out there who might; not all are of the same stripe). These days, though, usury is often unreasonable and high-rate payday loans are used by the poor just to get by. It's just backwards, that's all. Debt and profit have become first things. The poor use debt to get by, and rich live for profits. Put debt and profit in the right context, and they become useful tools instead of taskmasters.

Edited December 19, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a modest usury.  

In a historicial context was a usury only for loans on money? Or did it inculde more than that? I really don't know so it's an honest question.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm in favor of Medicare for all.

[3DOP]

From his days in the Student Union at Oxford, (where his speeches were being compared for eloquence to the legendary Gladstone), a recent biographer of Belloc comments:

 

Belloc generally attacked the aristocracy during Union debates, from a specifically French Republican stance, and, when the policy of the Independent Labour Party was debated, he opposed it vigorously.

 

---Old Thunder, A Life of Hilaire Belloc, Joseph Pearce, p.46

 

This was in the 1890's. I think what he opposed with regards to the Labour Party would needs be what we now call socialism. It seems necessary that he was already drawing distinctions that would separate himself from the socialists, while irritating the free marketeers.

 

'How could Collectivism work', he exclaimed, 'without a military despotism? How could it work with the existing attitude of the individual conscience unchanged? In fact, it involves Theft in its inception, and Tyranny in its execution, and for neither is Society yet ready.' 

 

---ibid.

 

Here is what I think you might appreciate mccombs:

Belloc was already cutting through the cant of left and right and countering it with a beguiling combination of radicalism and libertarianism, learned from Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII, that would come to fruition as the creed of distributism many years later.

 

---ibid. 

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

LOL, I'm not sure what tone you are taking with that comment.  But in a very real and serious sense, this is absolutely correct. By far, most of today's serious and chronic illnesses could be prevented with a little personal and civic virtue. 

 

I refer you to professor Steven Aldana's research, some of which has been published in his book, The Culprit and the Cure. Dr. Colin Campbell's The China Study is another good source, with some eye-openers about the consequences of speaking truth to power.

 

Now, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is place "blame" for a crisis or withhold help from people who had a hand in their own trouble. I'm suggesting that we could get out of the crisis if we understood its principal causes and began to focus on First Things. I believe you will find a "first-things-first" approach if you study pope Francis' speech in the context of Catholic social teaching.

 

Thomas Edison once said that, "The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease." That is a correct First Thing. The next thing has to do with what we can do when we get sick or injured. It will still happen from time to time, regardless of how careful we are; but I find that there is a natural escalation. Most complaints can safely be dealt with at home through proper care.

 

I have children who have never in their lives seen a doctor on account of illness. Illness has never escalated to the degree where a fever has lasted long enough, or symptoms become severe enough, that we have had to take them in to the clinic. If the illness were to progress in severity to the point of concern, we would go in and petition a higher expertise. We try to match the question to it's appropriate response. "Johnny fell and scraped his knee. What shall I do?"  Is the proper response, "I see BLOOD! Take him to the emergency room!" Or is it, "Let's clean that up and dress the wound using our own knowledge and resources." This is the principle of subsidiarity. It works best when people are dependent on themselves and each other rather than on external experts.

 

Since the cost of experts is not incurred often, my healthcare costs are quite manageable and I am able to pay them out of my own pocket. The other way to reduce costs, of course, is to commoditize the product by generating an increased demand for it. That is our present model. We have a culture that glorifies unhealthy habits, that encourages frequent and unnecessary medical exams and procedures, and  that creates environments where contagion is easily spread. Quite a demand! And we get mass-produced, 2nd rate healthcare as a result.

 

In short, subsidiarity would entail:

 

1) How can we create an environment that encourages good and prevents ill? (Retooling education for personal and civic virtue rather than for serving economic ends)

2) What can we do for ourselves?

3) What can we do for our neighbor?

4) What must we seek from outside the family and community?

 

Catholic economics is not a question of supply and demand, but of subsidiarity. It is thought that people ought to be creative producers rather than dependent consumers, and the things they produce are meant to be used first by the local family and community before they are sold at a profit to distant strangers. The first steps in a Catholic economy are to go home, to be a family, to return to the family trade, and to participate again in the community life.

 

Capitalism and socialism have no bearing on that sort of economy because they both happen outside of the home where capital is concentrated (in corporations or government--rarely in households!).

 

It seems idyllic. Pictures of Bilbo's Shire happily come to mind.

 

Could you explain for me, if not others the meaning of "not a question of supply and demand, but of subsidiarity"? I know I have been seeing the word here before but put aside in my mind. I am sure I could benefit from a definition of subsidiarity. It doesn't call for subsidies? Maybe it calls for subsidies? But from a source that has been forgotten? Families? Communities? Not the central government? Anyway...help me out here if you can mccombs. 

[3DOP]

I'm in favor of Medicare for all.

 

I ask this question seriously. Would anyone have the right to fail to exercise, overeat, smoke, eat fast food? If everybody is responsible for my health care, am I not obliged to everybody to be healthy? Under Medicare for all, it seems like it would necessarily follow that failure to take care of our "temples" should result in some form of sanctions. Maybe those who choose to abuse alcohol could be exempted from the privilege of being in the otherwise universal health care system? I think that could work. Otherwise, it just makes those with good health pay for those with bad health. Universal healthcare seems okay except when bad health is directly linked to bad habits. The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

I ask this question seriously. Would anyone have the right to fail to exercise, overeat, smoke, eat fast food? If everybody is responsible for my health care, am I not obliged to everybody to be healthy? Under Medicare for all, it seems like it would necessarily follow that failure to take care of our "temples" should result in some form of sanctions. Maybe those who choose to abuse alcohol could be exempted from the privilege of being in the otherwise universal health care system? I think that could work. Otherwise, it just makes those with good health pay for those with bad health. Universal healthcare seems okay except when bad health is directly linked to bad habits. The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

While taking care of our bodies is a good idea and something everybody should be doing, we can easily strain at gnats on this issue.  Sugar is supposedly bad for your body, so no more sugar?   Fatty foods aren't good for us, either.  So no more fatty foods whatsoever?  And what about people who are born with bad genes as a result of... different reasons not all of which are attributable to bad health habits of a person's parents.   Even when people take very good care of their bodies, as well as they can, they can still run into problems that cost a lot of money from doctors and nurses and insurance companies who demand to be paid with money.

[3DOP]

While taking care of our bodies is a good idea and something everybody should be doing, we can easily strain at gnats on this issue.  Sugar is supposedly bad for your body, so no more sugar?   Fatty foods aren't good for us, either.  So no more fatty foods whatsoever?  And what about people who are born with bad genes as a result of... different reasons not all of which are attributable to bad health habits of a person's parents.   Even when people take very good care of their bodies, as well as they can, they can still run into problems that cost a lot of money from doctors and nurses and insurance companies who demand to be paid with money.

Okay so you are for universal health care without exception because of the difficulties involved with discerning and agreeing upon what are good and bad health habits? I am open about it, but I tend to go the other way, where everyone is responsible for their own health care.

[Stone holm]

I ask this question seriously. Would anyone have the right to fail to exercise, overeat, smoke, eat fast food? If everybody is responsible for my health care, am I not obliged to everybody to be healthy? Under Medicare for all, it seems like it would necessarily follow that failure to take care of our "temples" should result in some form of sanctions. Maybe those who choose to abuse alcohol could be exempted from the privilege of being in the otherwise universal health care system? I think that could work. Otherwise, it just makes those with good health pay for those with bad health. Universal healthcare seems okay except when bad health is directly linked to bad habits. The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

So not understanding this. Medicare is an extremely popular program. Problem is it kicks in when people have spent most of their life struggling with either no coverage or really crappy coverage and so their health is in a worse state, and you are worried about their gastronomic lifestyle if we get coverage to them before their health deteriorates?

[Stone holm]

Okay so you are for universal health care without exception because of the difficulties involved with discerning and agreeing upon what are good and bad health habits? I am open about it, but I tend to go the other way, where everyone is responsible for their own health care.

You mean like the opposite of what Christ taught in the Good Samaritan parable.

[Ahab]

Okay so you are for universal health care without exception because of the difficulties involved with discerning and agreeing upon what are good and bad health habits? I am open about it, but I tend to go the other way, where everyone is responsible for their own health care.

Not everyone is responsible for their own health, though.  And we're not responsible for the care we get for our health problems, either.  And the reason I'm for universal health care is not so much because it's hard to know who or what to fault for bad health problems but because I think health care providers should be focused on helping other people with their health problems than they are with getting paid with money for their services.  That's where the real problem is.  The fact that money is needed to get health care services, as if money is needed to get anything done.  And it's not just a problem in health care services, but in all other services people offer to other people on this planet.

 

If we're really going to make a new heaven on Earth, which will be the state of this planet someday, then we're going to need to stop focusing on the idea of needing to use money when we want someone else to do something for us.  And if anyone should be doing things for others based on the charity in their hearts then health care providers should rank near the top of the list.  Love for others is all we really need to be able to help somebody.

[3DOP]

So not understanding this. Medicare is an extremely popular program. Problem is it kicks in when people have spent most of their life struggling with either no coverage or really crappy coverage and so their health is in a worse state, and you are worried about their gastronomic lifestyle if we get coverage to them before their health deteriorates?

 

I misunderstood your statement about Medicare for everyone. I thought that meant you would be in favor of it for the young and the wealthy too. With regards to your next response, I am not pushing another agenda or against the Good Samaritan because I ask questions. I don't necessarily mind forfeiting the liberty to have an unhealthy lifestyle if it would allow me the privilege of less expensive health care premiums. I realize you are accustomed to people attacking your ideas. Please. I am not necessarily against them yet. I am trying to see how it would work according to what seems just. It seems unjust to me for those with healthy lifestyles to be forced to pay the health costs of those who abuse their bodies. But I am open to an explanation of why what seems just to me may be overlooked.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Looks like you drank the Ayn Rand kool-aid. Sadly the scriptures disagree with you. Read Jacob's comments about the wealthy or King Benjamin's address. The fruits of your labors are not yours. They belong to God who gave you the talents, position, intelligence, and good fortune to have enough to survive in. I also recommend the parable of the 10 Sons in the D&C which makes it very clear that wealth is not an indicator of virtue.

It is hard to carry on a conversation with you be cause so much of what you "know" just isn't so.

NOWHERE did ANY of the prophet teach that it was good to use the force of government to extort "charity" from the individual.

Here is a clue, if you are FORCED to pay it, THEN it is NOT CHARITY.

The Apostle Paul taught,

I Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

And the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. taught,

D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

So I am going to call CFR on your claims about what Jacob and King Benjamin said.

Edited to add,

Paul also taught,

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

I ask this question seriously. Would anyone have the right to fail to exercise, overeat, smoke, eat fast food? If everybody is responsible for my health care, am I not obliged to everybody to be healthy? Under Medicare for all, it seems like it would necessarily follow that failure to take care of our "temples" should result in some form of sanctions. Maybe those who choose to abuse alcohol could be exempted from the privilege of being in the otherwise universal health care system? I think that could work. Otherwise, it just makes those with good health pay for those with bad health. Universal healthcare seems okay except when bad health is directly linked to bad habits. The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

 

Of course we have the legal right to do those things, even it they are not good for us. The moral right to do those things is another question.

 

Yes everyone has a responsibility for everyone else's  health care. Just like everyone is responsible to see that children are educated. We get to set the standards for both.

 

A compassionate person(society) works to promote the general welfare. That can only be done to the individual. As a Social Worker me treating you for a mental illness probably won't be of much use to the next person whom walks through my office doors. Also If we build a hospital it is only compassionate to take all comers. No sane person wants to see people dropping dead on the streets and sidewalks.

 

That is a slippery slope argument that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people. Very few of us like to be sick ourselves and even less like to see our children sick. While as a LDS I askew drinking alcohol, I certainly have no desire to force anyone by law or refusal of medical care to any that are not teetotalers.

 

Sure preventive care is the cheapest and most effective way to prevent disease. However the simple fact is that bad things happen even to good people, and that ER care is five times more expensive than  regular visits to a regular doctor. People without health insurance must of necessity visit the ER.  The hospitals aren't there to loose money so the taxpayers must take up the slack.

[thesometimesaint]

It is hard to carry on a conversation with you be cause so much of what you "know" just isn't so.

NOWHERE did ANY of the prophet teach that it was good to use the force of government to extort "charity" from the individual.

Here is a clue, if you are FORCED to pay it, THEN it is NOT CHARITY.

The Apostle Paul taught,

I Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

And the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. taught,

D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

So I am going to call CFR on your claims about what Jacob and King Benjamin said.

Edited to add,

Paul also taught,

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

 

The problem with that argument is that yes as citizens we have agreed to be taxed. If all men were angels no government would be necessary, if all men were devils no government would be possible.