Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[mfbukowski]

Yes, Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues did come to that realization.  But that was "communism" so-called.  It was never practiced by them.  Instead, they instituted state capitalism and called it "building socialism," pending the frabjous and inevitable day when the state would wither away and there would be automatic harmony.  The communist theoreticians said that the theory was "scientific," but it was really quite religious and was actually just another version of the Christian Millennium.

Indeed. 

 

All that I have known (including myself for a period in my life) think true communism has never been practiced anywhere.

 

That to me is just a convenient way for ignoring the fact that it is primarily like a religious position- we all have our idea of what an "ideal" is, but to make it such, it cannot be "real" almost by definition.

 

The word "ideal" loses its meaning if it means the same as "real".

[mfbukowski]

Depending on the part of the country there might be a waiting period plus there might be somethings that are better down here just like there are somethings better up there.  While we were there, Calgary was the top place for sleep apnea for example.  Wasn't impressed with their RLS treatment though.

Makes sense.

[Tacenda]

I was wondering....big points to you for passing it on to your SP.

Up in Canada, once a month our ward members would assemblies sandwiches in our kitchen, my memory is now dim so I can't remember if they rotated through the wards each week or if the Interfaith guys in charge just had us do it once a month, I just remember the announcements for "next Sunday morning, be at...." and such things. Some places made sure the Mormons were in the back so they couldn't preach to the people coming in, but most either didn't have a problem or just took our word that we wouldn't proselyte at all. I am glad to see that more publicity is being given to these kinds of actions so that it will spread even further throughout the Church. I feel bad when members think they have to wait for something official to come down or something has to be "Mormon" before going out and getting involved in their community.

This made me think back to when I was in the RS Presidency. The President was phenomenal. She wanted us to come up with service projects, we had just finished with making 50 quilts. Someone mentioned a homeless shelter so she contacted St. Ann's in Ogden and for several weeks the RS ladies came during the week helping. We put together tons of hygiene kits geared for the homeless, gathering supplies where ever we could find them, one organization donated. We came and helped prepare and serve meals. Sorted dozens & dozens donated clothing. Cleaned and organized 2 large storage rooms filled with donations, that was overwhelming for the staff.

And at the end of the year got the whole ward involved in a Santa's Helper, my ward is extremely generous. And for a few weeks the youth and some families would sign up to serve meals and cleanup. Everyone was blessed in that they interacted, made friends, and did things for the less fortunate that you never know what it might lead to.

One problem, our RS president was maybe a little too on the ball, I think the director was intimitated with the effeciency, and maybe thought we were trying to run the place, she soon started acting strangely when we wanted to help. I don't know if it was because we were LDS or not. But we soon took the hint. I was so impressed with my RS president, I don't know too many like this woman.

ETA: Last year my neighbor and I were in charge of decorating for the ward Christmas party. I asked if we could have an Angel Tree. When I got approval I called around and found a local food bank that was sponsoring a Santa's Helper to those that came in to the food bank.

Well, our ward was given several families, and received paperwork for each child: names, ages, photos & wishlists. I contacted the families to see how they'd like the gifts dropped off. Would they want to meet the giver etc. Then put the information down on the Angel.

The night of our party, one of the bishopric announced the project with all the Angels attached to a tree. They were invited to help by taking an Angel. Luckily I got some before they were all gone, my ward is incredible. Many were able to deliver and meet the families. Or I was able to drop several off. In return were some wonderful "thank you" cards.

So not to toot my own horn, but the spirit of service, was probably leaked on me by the RS President. Wards can do amazing things once we put our minds to it.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[saemo]

Yes, it's true.

 

I actually gave you a rep point for that one. Hell has just frozen over. 

Bukowski, generally I think our butting heads falls under "too much alike".

But yes, the damned need parkas.

(I have points!)

[CV75]

Okay, so Pope Francis is at it again.  Fairly sure the Vatican is avidly searching for more erasers.  Exactly what did the Pope mean in his recent broadside against capitalism?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/26/pope-francis-rips-capitalism-and-trickle-down-economics-to-shreds-in-new-policy-statement/

I don't think he meant much more than this good brother did in 2010 (from this months' Ensign):

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/12/making-a-living-making-a-life?lang=eng

 

[Stone holm]

I don't think he meant much more than this good brother did in 2010 (from this months' Ensign):

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/12/making-a-living-making-a-life?lang=eng

 

 

I think what some have said here about subsidiarity plays a role in what he was saying, the human element that good brother was pointing at gets leached away as the distance between production and consumption grows, in other words once a business organization grows too large then the mediating factors mentioned in the article tend to slide away as human labor just becomes a figure on a net earnings sheet and the people performing the labor become dehumanized.  So its nothing personal, just business.  Corporations are amoral entities, their only morality comes in two forms: legislative regulation and restraints, and the fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders.  So, no, I believe the Pope was specifically attacking the economic system unlike the good brother.

[CV75]

I believe the Pope was specifically attacking the economic system unlike the good brother.

Maybe so. But that wasn't my take-away.

What do you see as the ramifications of the Pope attacking an economic system?

[Stone holm]

Maybe so. But that wasn't my take-away.

What do you see as the ramifications of the Pope attacking an economic system?

 

He specifically attacked the "trickle down" theory and concentration of wealth.  I think what he was saying was pretty close to the statement on economics that published in a brochure under the signature of First Presidency during Brigham Young's time and was pretty much the economic thinking of our Church throughout the 19th Century...but is no longer the view of the majority of members.  Capitalism is fine so long as wealth does not become too concentrated.  When wealth becomes too concentrated, then the markets become warped for lack of appropriate input.  I think if the Catholics can tackle that problem through the doctrine of subsidiarity it would be very enlightening.  There needs to be an understanding that in today's world that the concentration of wealth made possible by corporations is a very mixed blessing -- and that if you shrink government, that does not necessarily mean you reduce the amount of governance, it just means that you shift the control of governance from elected officials to corporate boardrooms.  So you have society being run by a handful of private but very large corporations.  So you have to have something which limits the power of the large corporations and forces power back to the local level.  Subsidiarily, the more I have read about it makes sense, provided that it is applied not only to government, but also to business.  The "unseen hand" of the markets has to remain that, namely "unseen" -- by that we mean we have to have a lot of people making bets with their money -- which in turn requires a lot of people having money to bet with.

[CV75]

Subsidiarily, the more I have read about it makes sense, provided that it is applied not only to government, but also to business.

My take on subsidiarity is that it is part and parcel of the U. S. Constitution, and that any economic (political) system supported by (as well as supporting) the Constitution would be informed by this same principle. People have to adopt it on a personal level to make it actually work, however. Which is where I think the good brother was going (taking personal responsibility).

[BCSpace]

What happens when such collection, and distribution is supported by the public, even those with substantial wealth? Is it a loss of agency when the populace chooses government as the means whereby the welfare (well being) of all is accomplished?

 

Yes.  It is also a loss of charity.  One is not exercising charity unless one is involved in the personal decision as to when and how much and to whom to give.

[EllenMaksoud]

 Okay, so Pope Francis is at it again.  Fairly sure the Vatican is avidly searching for more erasers.  Exactly what did the Pope mean in his recent broadside against capitalism?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/26/pope-francis-rips-capitalism-and-trickle-down-economics-to-shreds-in-new-policy-statement/

Capitalism is OK as long as ruthless despots do not misuse it like they are. I notice that Rush Limbaug was throwing a fit as usual.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes.  It is also a loss of charity.  One is not exercising charity unless one is involved in the personal decision as to when and how much and to whom to give.

Not a loss of agency. Lets apply it to something else shall we. Is it a loss of agency when the populace agrees to fund and carry all the army force needed to help rebuild cities after major catastrophes? What about road building- is that a loss of agency when pretty much all public roads are funded by taxes? There is no loss of agency in any of these matters including a welfare system ran by the government

[thesometimesaint]

I would say that a deliberate misreading of the Interstate Commerce Clause has enabled some power brokers to arrogate to the central government powers over the economy the

Founding Fathers never intended for it to have. By a strained interpretation of that

little clause, the Founding Fathers' obvious intent to bequeath to the central government only specifically enumerated, clearly limited powers, the originally conceived idealof their Constitutional Republic has been relegated to the scrapheap of history. The

founders' clear intent of a limited role for the central government in the nations'

economy has been brazenly overthrown by ignoring their voluminous contemporary writingson subject of interstate commerce in favor of twisting the meaning of a single clause

of their words.

 

Not true. See Federalist vs Anti-federalist debates, and 10th Amendment arguments

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federalists+versus+anti+-Federalists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Alan]

It does trouble me sometimes when I hear/read statements by US based LDS on the subject of capitalism/wealth/healthcare/trickle down economics. The reason is that the assumption appears to be that the US system (which is assumed to be the best) and the Church philosophy are more or less the same. You can't be a TBM if you're not a TBC!

But the fact is there are more non US Mormons in this world and many of us see capitalism as divisive and down right wicked, social healthcare as a very good thing, and welfare programmes as the means to provide for those less fortunate in our societies. Social welfare may not be perfect, but it does ensure that no child goes hungry, no family remains homeless, and no human being in need of medical care goes without based on their ability to pay. These are laudible in my view and are fulfilling a great need which will be with us until the establishment of Zion in it's fulness. And when Zion is a reality and the devil is bound, capitalism will be consigned to the history books along with other lamentable human behaviour.

[teddyaware]

Not true. See Federalist vs Anti-federalist debates, and 10th Amendment arguments

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federalists+versus+anti+-Federalists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The fact that the clause is in the Constitution indicates there is a role for the central government

in regulating interstate commerce. But as I understand the facts, it wasn't until the 1930's that a

radical interpretation of the clause (i.e. going far beyond simply assuring free trade between the states) was used as justification for a massive federal government to begin meddling and intervening in the economy in radical new ways that didn't exist for the pervious 140 years of the nations history. From

all their writings, it's obvious the founders wanted a proscribed and clearly limited role for the

central government and the expanded view of the clause does violence to their clear intentions. The founders were not advocates of a massive, constantly meddling central government. There are many

Constitutional scholars who agree with this. What we have here is just a difference of opinion.

Edited December 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Uhm, I think you would have to look very, very hard to see the doctrine of subsidiarity embedded in the Constitution.  The Interstate Commerce clause gives the Federal Government pretty vast powers over the economy.

Huh? The idea of subsidiarity is that nothing should be done by the larger government that individuals and local/state governments can do themselves / anything that can be done “decentrally” should be. This is consistent with the LDS thought that Christ does only that which we cannot do for ourselves (which is a lot), and that by His grace we are saved after all we can do (which isn’t much). Plus the U.S. Constitution was inspired in its conceptualization.

The thing about subsidiarity (you brought that up!) is that each degree of centralization/decentralization, including the individual, has to take moral responsibility for its proper application.

I don't see that the Pope is condemning the system but abuses taken in the system. “Turning away the beggar” is an example of improper application of subsidiarity; ensuring personal freedom is an example of proper application. The concentration of wealth by some to the detriment of others is the problem, not the concentration of wealth per se (in Zion, all the wealth is concentrated for the saints to enjoy). This is what the Ensign article speaks to.

[Calm]

the LDS thought that Christ does only that which we cannot do for ourselves

 

CFR please.

 

I believe there are a lot of blessings that God could just let us get on our own, but still gives us.

Edited December 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

The fact that the clause is in the Constitution indicates there is a role for the central government

in regulating interstate commerce. But as I understand the facts, it wasn't until the 1930's that a

radical interpretation of the clause (i.e. going far beyond simply assuring free trade between the states) was used as justification for a massive federal government to begin meddling and intervening in the economy in radical new ways that didn't exist for the pervious 140 years of the nations history. From

all their writings, it's obvious the founders wanted a proscribed and clearly limited role for the

central government and the expanded view of the clause does violence to their clear intentions. The founders were not advocates of a massive, constantly meddling central government. There are many

Constitutional scholars who agree with this. What we have here is just a difference of opinion.

 

No, they did NOT. The Federalists won that argument. Hamilton, writer of the US Constitution, argued quite vociferously for the expansive use of the Commerce Clause to force states to do Federal bidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

[CV75]

CFR please.

 

I believe there are a lot of blessings that God could just let us get on our own, but still gives us.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/07/i-have-a-question

“Grace is God’s love in action. It is his doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/personal-preparation-for-temple-blessings?lang=eng

“By doing for others what they cannot do for themselves, we emulate the pattern of the Savior, who wrought the Atonement to bless the lives of other people.”

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/the-atonement

“President Joseph F. Smith taught: “Men cannot forgive their own sins; they cannot cleanse themselves from the consequences of their sins. Men can stop sinning and can do right in the future, and so far [as] their acts are acceptable before the Lord [become] worthy of consideration. But who shall repair the wrongs they have done to themselves and to others, which it seems impossible for them to repair themselves? By the atonement of Jesus Christ the sins of the repentant shall be washed away; though they be crimson they shall be made white as wool [see Isaiah 1:18]. This is the promise given to you.”

 

Do you have a reference for the teaching that God gives us blessings that we could otherwise just get on our own? I would think such a thing would be something other than a "tender mercy," and that any blessing, however administered, comes only by the merits of the Lord's Atonement, which we could not do.

[Duncan]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/07/i-have-a-question

“Grace is God’s love in action. It is his doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/personal-preparation-for-temple-blessings?lang=eng

“By doing for others what they cannot do for themselves, we emulate the pattern of the Savior, who wrought the Atonement to bless the lives of other people.”

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/the-atonement

“President Joseph F. Smith taught: “Men cannot forgive their own sins; they cannot cleanse themselves from the consequences of their sins. Men can stop sinning and can do right in the future, and so far [as] their acts are acceptable before the Lord [become] worthy of consideration. But who shall repair the wrongs they have done to themselves and to others, which it seems impossible for them to repair themselves? By the atonement of Jesus Christ the sins of the repentant shall be washed away; though they be crimson they shall be made white as wool [see Isaiah 1:18]. This is the promise given to you.”

 

Do you have a reference for the teaching that God gives us blessings that we could otherwise just get on our own? I would think such a thing would be something other than a "tender mercy," and that any blessing, however administered, comes only by the merits of the Lord's Atonement, which we could not do.

 

I think you're both right, God helped out the man who was beaten and left for dead and helped by the certain Samaritan-he did for someone else who couldn't help themselves

[Calm]

 

 

Do you have a reference for the teaching that God gives us blessings that we could otherwise just get on our own? I would think such a thing would be something other than a "tender mercy," and that any blessing, however administered, comes only by the merits of the Lord's Atonement, which we could not do.

One obvious example to me is when God gives blessings of financial stability and even luxuries that can also come about through hard work on the part of an individual.  God at times sends rain to water crops that could also be watered by the effort to irrigate.  The Spirit can help illuminate our intelligence to increase our knowledge...but we can do the same through personal study.  Ultimately all things comes from God, but I don't see how the teaching that the Atonement is something God does for us that we can't do for ourselves means that God doesn't ever do anything for us that we can do for ourselves, instead supposedly limiting his 'interference' in our lives in ways that only he can make a difference.

 

God once sent someone my way with a possession that I desired.  I could have achieved the same thing by calling and asking them to bring it.

 

It is a logical assumption on my part from the observations of blessings and such that I've seen in the lives of myself and those around me.

Edited December 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

The fact that the clause is in the Constitution indicates there is a role for the central government

in regulating interstate commerce. But as I understand the facts, it wasn't until the 1930's that a

radical interpretation of the clause (i.e. going far beyond simply assuring free trade between the states) was used as justification for a massive federal government to begin meddling and intervening in the economy in radical new ways that didn't exist for the pervious 140 years of the nations history. From

all their writings, it's obvious the founders wanted a proscribed and clearly limited role for the

central government and the expanded view of the clause does violence to their clear intentions. The founders were not advocates of a massive, constantly meddling central government. There are many

Constitutional scholars who agree with this. What we have here is just a difference of opinion.

 

10th Amendment was dismissed by Madison who wrote much of the Constitution as a tautology.  The Federal government started meddling with the economy fairly early on as they were authorized to do under the interstate commerce clause.  From time to time, mainly from the South, you see a push for State's rights the most violent of course being the Civil War.  The Civil War Amendments further extended the power of the Federal Government by making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.  Still there is much that should be handled by the States and the Courts have been kind of refereeing between the two poles of political opinion.  Normally whichever party feels that it has lost clout with the Federal Government starts pushing for State's rights.

[CV75]

One obvious example to me is when God gives blessings of financial stability and even luxuries that can also come about through hard work on the part of an individual.  God at times sends rain to water crops that could also be watered by the effort to irrigate.  The Spirit can help illuminate our intelligence to increase our knowledge...but we can do the same through personal study.  Ultimately all things comes from God, but I don't see how the teaching that the Atonement is something God does for us that we can't do for ourselves means that God doesn't ever do anything for us that we can do for ourselves, instead supposedly limiting his 'interference' in our lives in ways that only he can make a difference.

 

God once sent someone my way with a possession that I desired.  I could have achieved the same thing by calling and asking them to bring it.

 

It is a logical assumption on my part from the observations of blessings and such that I've seen in the lives of myself and those around me.

OK—clearly it depends on how we look at the Atonement; I cited a couple of references supporting the view you asked about.

I think that when God blesses someone that could otherwise bless himself with the exact same thing, He is only doing it because He’d rather the person spend his time on something better. It is an opportunity for the person to serve God as God has served him. Pity the man that the Lord gives $100 to stabilize his household, and then he goes out to earn the same $100 anyway instead of ministering to his family or the widowed and fatherless as the Lord intended. The same goes for rain, intelligence, favors, and “coincidences”—all opportunities created by the Lord for us to put the spiritual before the temporal.

The “tender mercies” that appear to be the immediate, temporal substitution of God’s effort for ours also have their own higher purpose. In these unexpected instances, God raises our understanding and appreciation of His love for us while we are engaged in providing for ourselves or others at our own customary level and in our own way.

In both types of blessing, He is making a difference (His work and glory) and hopefully we recognize it when it happens.

I do think that God never does anything for us that we can do for ourselves because He always has a higher purpose when He does whatever He does for us, which purpose we cannot share without His involvement. I do not think God would limit His involvement (either to the level of too much or too little) in our lives at the expense of our agency, and so I do not consider His self-regulating His involvement as interference.

[Storm Rider]

It does trouble me sometimes when I hear/read statements by US based LDS on the subject of capitalism/wealth/healthcare/trickle down economics. The reason is that the assumption appears to be that the US system (which is assumed to be the best) and the Church philosophy are more or less the same. You can't be a TBM if you're not a TBC!

But the fact is there are more non US Mormons in this world and many of us see capitalism as divisive and down right wicked, social healthcare as a very good thing, and welfare programmes as the means to provide for those less fortunate in our societies. Social welfare may not be perfect, but it does ensure that no child goes hungry, no family remains homeless, and no human being in need of medical care goes without based on their ability to pay. These are laudible in my view and are fulfilling a great need which will be with us until the establishment of Zion in it's fulness. And when Zion is a reality and the devil is bound, capitalism will be consigned to the history books along with other lamentable human behaviour.

 

I appreciate your comment, Alan. At times we Americans can be a bit too focused in our view of what is acceptable forms of government and which are not. I support the concept of a national health policy, but I struggle with how it is implemented and how to maintain a high degree of service and availability. I like social safety nets, but abhor citizens who turn a safety net into a way of life and I abhor governments who enable this behavior. I like consequences for actions,  but with reprieves and helping hands from others.  I don't like the concept of looking toward government as the answer for everything and appreciate when people, fellow citizens, are in the vanguard of serving others. 

 

I don't like hunger, but I reject stupidity and the concept that I am responsible for "your" repeated poor decisions or behaviors. 

 

I suspect that we have many similar views, but may differ in application of the same principles. I also don't think there is one way to do things and can appreciate how other governments succeed where the US fails.  Helsinki was a eye-opener for me.  What a wonderful people and a great way of living life.  

[thesometimesaint]

I want the health care of France. The education of Norway. The banking of Iceland.