Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' in manifesto for papacy

[LuisDantas]

But one of the things we are dismal at is by not really doing much to help people with retraining if they're unemployed or underemployed. In the Scandinavian counties and Germany, for examples, they put much effort into retraining/re-education, and that makes sense, especially if we want to keep people off the dole.

You know, this makes a whole boatload of sense.

 

[metis]

I think you're missing the point. If I were financially able I would set up a free hospital with the best of doctors and equipment. I would have treatment queues that would rival early Ford assembly lines. I would do this anonymously with no thought of reward. I would also do this with a glad heart--unless you told me I have to do this with money I have earned. Rather you want to accept it or not, you are owed nothing in this life.

There are free clinics, but there's not enough of them plus they all too often can't keep up with the demand, such as what we saw happening in L.A. not that long ago. Secondly, these free clinics do not deal with many of the health-care problems, such as long-term care and prescription medication.

Also, I would suggest that a person living in a civilized society is owed something, which even shows up in our Preamble. However, besides being "owed something", we also owe back, so I'm not advocating free rides.

In a democracy, the majority should rule, and if people want to pay for X through their taxes, that is something they can choose to do. In the process of deciding which systems we should create, "libertarianism" is pretty much a wolf in sheep's clothing-- it looks nice at the surface, but it's rotten underneath.

We should remember that we pretty much operated under "libertarianism" in the west throughout especially the late 1700's through to the early 1900's, and it was all too often a living nightmare. And out of this nightmare arose socialism to try and correct the ills that unbridled capitalism created, and history clearly shows that.

As Alan Greenspan said, who used to call himself a "Ayn Rand economist", this increasing disparity of wealth now overtaking the U.S. is the single greatest threat to our country, because that approach tends to accumulate an increasing amount of wealth at the top, leaving less and less in the middle and at the bottom. And "libertarianism" will not reverse this process in a society whereas the resource level per capita is declining. Instead, we are increasingly going in the direction of the banana republics, while those at the top try to convince people that this is really good for society and, unfortunately, many fall victim to their propaganda.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are free clinics, but there's not enough of them plus they all too often can't keep up with the demand, such as what we saw happening in L.A. not that long ago. Secondly, these free clinics do not deal with many of the health-care problems, such as long-term care and prescription medication.

Also, I would suggest that a person living in a civilized society is owed something, which even shows up in our Preamble. However, besides being "owed something", we also owe back, so I'm not advocating free rides.

In a democracy, the majority should rule, and if people want to pay for X through their taxes, that is something they can choose to do. In the process of deciding which systems we should create, "libertarianism" is pretty much a wolf in sheep's clothing-- it looks nice at the surface, but it's rotten underneath.

We should remember that we pretty much operated under "libertarianism" in the west throughout especially the late 1700's through to the early 1900's, and it was all too often a living nightmare. And out of this nightmare arose socialism to try and correct the ills that unbridled capitalism created, and history clearly shows that.

As Alan Greenspan said, who used to call himself a "Ayn Rand economist", this increasing disparity of wealth now overtaking the U.S. is the single greatest threat to our country, because that approach tends to accumulate an increasing amount of wealth at the top, leaving less and less in the middle and at the bottom. And "libertarianism" will not reverse this process in a society whereas the resource level per capita is declining. Instead, we are increasingly going in the direction of the banana republics, while those at the top try to convince people that this is really good for society and, unfortunately, many fall victim to their propaganda.

You have everything backwards. We libertarians are sheep in wolves' clothing.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm a kind of libertarian, but have issues with capitalism. Namely, that it defines human relationships in shallow, materialistic terms of profit. Is it any surprise that people seek to take advantage of one another and mindlessly compete for "success"? Human relations just become resources to be exploited.

Big Papa Frank may make some good points, but he can't or won't go far enough because of his position. It won't matter much unless he triggers a decentralization of power. Otherwise, his followers will just perpetuate the cult of personality, rather than seek genuine liberation.

 

[Vouthon]

I'm a kind of libertarian, but have issues with capitalism. Namely, that it defines human relationships in shallow, materialistic terms of profit. Is it any surprise that people seek to take advantage of one another and mindlessly compete for "success"? Human relations just become resources to be exploited.

Big Papa Frank may make some good points, but he can't or won't go far enough because of his position. It won't matter much unless he triggers a decentralization of power. Otherwise, his followers will just perpetuate the cult of personality, rather than seek genuine liberation.

Actually Straw, that is precisely what Big Papa Frank was saying in the document

"...Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”...The papacy and the central structure of the universal church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion...Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the church’s life and her missionary outreach..."

- Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 16

Looks like the pope is one step ahead of you!

 

[Sunstone]

There are free clinics, but there's not enough of them plus they all too often can't keep up with the demand, such as what we saw happening in L.A. not that long ago. Secondly, these free clinics do not deal with many of the health-care problems, such as long-term care and prescription medication.

Also, I would suggest that a person living in a civilized society is owed something, which even shows up in our Preamble. However, besides being "owed something", we also owe back, so I'm not advocating free rides.

In a democracy, the majority should rule, and if people want to pay for X through their taxes, that is something they can choose to do. In the process of deciding which systems we should create, "libertarianism" is pretty much a wolf in sheep's clothing-- it looks nice at the surface, but it's rotten underneath.

We should remember that we pretty much operated under "libertarianism" in the west throughout especially the late 1700's through to the early 1900's, and it was all too often a living nightmare. And out of this nightmare arose socialism to try and correct the ills that unbridled capitalism created, and history clearly shows that.

As Alan Greenspan said, who used to call himself a "Ayn Rand economist", this increasing disparity of wealth now overtaking the U.S. is the single greatest threat to our country, because that approach tends to accumulate an increasing amount of wealth at the top, leaving less and less in the middle and at the bottom. And "libertarianism" will not reverse this process in a society whereas the resource level per capita is declining. Instead, we are increasingly going in the direction of the banana republics, while those at the top try to convince people that this is really good for society and, unfortunately, many fall victim to their propaganda.

Well said!

 

[BSM1]

There are free clinics, but there's not enough of them plus they all too often can't keep up with the demand, such as what we saw happening in L.A. not that long ago. Secondly, these free clinics do not deal with many of the health-care problems, such as long-term care and prescription medication.

Also, I would suggest that a person living in a civilized society is owed something, which even shows up in our Preamble. However, besides being "owed something", we also owe back, so I'm not advocating free rides.

In a democracy, the majority should rule, and if people want to pay for X through their taxes, that is something they can choose to do. In the process of deciding which systems we should create, "libertarianism" is pretty much a wolf in sheep's clothing-- it looks nice at the surface, but it's rotten underneath.

We should remember that we pretty much operated under "libertarianism" in the west throughout especially the late 1700's through to the early 1900's, and it was all too often a living nightmare. And out of this nightmare arose socialism to try and correct the ills that unbridled capitalism created, and history clearly shows that.

As Alan Greenspan said, who used to call himself a "Ayn Rand economist", this increasing disparity of wealth now overtaking the U.S. is the single greatest threat to our country, because that approach tends to accumulate an increasing amount of wealth at the top, leaving less and less in the middle and at the bottom. And "libertarianism" will not reverse this process in a society whereas the resource level per capita is declining. Instead, we are increasingly going in the direction of the banana republics, while those at the top try to convince people that this is really good for society and, unfortunately, many fall victim to their propaganda.

It seems your glasses are rose-tinted. 1. I feel you are still missing the point. 2. Not only are you not owed no more in this life than you earn, you do not "owe back" any more than you borrowed. 3. Thankfully we do not live in a true Democracy, we live under the rule of a Representative Republic. For a couple hundred of years the "majority" in this country felt it was okay to enslave another person. After that the "majority" felt that a dark-skinned child could never be in the same classroom as a light-skinned child. It's been pointed out that majority rule is basically mob rule. Be careful what you wish for. (BTW the majority do not want Obamacare now that they are getting a taste of it.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a kind of libertarian, but have issues with capitalism. Namely, that it defines human relationships in shallow, materialistic terms of profit. Is it any surprise that people seek to take advantage of one another and mindlessly compete for "success"? Human relations just become resources to be exploited.

I'm reminded of an apocryphal quote from an eastern European denizen about the transition from socialism to
capitalism, & what it's like to be exploited by capitalists. His response was that it beat being exploited by socialists.

 

[Ablaze]

Also, I would suggest that a person living in a civilized society is owed something, which even shows up in our Preamble. However, besides being "owed something", we also owe back, so I'm not advocating free rides.

Delayed gratification is often in order. Not everyone has anything to give back right away. To expect some type of immediate compensation (whether in money or skilled labor) is the equivalent of an unwarranted "entrance fee" and is a major obstacle to upward mobility.

For instance, the mandate that one must pay for one's own background check as a pre-requisite for employment, despite having no criminal record, is akin to (intentionally or unintentionally) weeding out prospective employees who can't afford to finance this and other pre-employment expenses themselves. Even the inability to afford purchasing a suit for an interview can be an obstacle to upward mobility. To expect those without any income whatsoever to be able to invest in these things without promise of reimbursement is ridiculous. Often, they may do everything within their ability to earn employment, but the position in question is quickly filled by a more "qualified" applicant, meaning the $100 they just invested in paying for a criminal background check is gone for good. This process repeats itself time and time again, and before you know it, they are hundreds of dollars in debt at no fault of their own with no means of repaying it. The same obstacles to "upward mobility" exist in college entrance exam fees and the excessive costs that can be incurred simply in order to have one's application considered. Even if rejected, there is no re-compensation for the hundreds to thousands of dollars just invested, even for many of those who are unable to pay and desperately need that money for basic survival.

It reminds me of when African Americans were superficially given the "right to vote" yet still faced strategically placed obstacles to participatory democracy such as literacy tests designed for educated whites. This "right to vote" was only in letter, not in practice, much like the supposed "socialist" tendencies of the excessively profit-driven U.S. economy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't believe that the problem is with Capitalism...the problem is people. There is no system whether it be capitalism, socialism or any other "ism" that isn't corruptible by man. The fact is that there is enough in this world to go around but people are selfish and greedy. I sit here typing on my $1,000+ laptop in my $200K+ home while thousands of people within a 50 mile radius of me will be lined up at a soup kitchen to get a Thanksgiving meal. It makes no sense but that's the way we Americans have been trained to live in our consumerist society.

As far as the pope is concerned. I believe the Catholic church, if it is truly concerned about the poor, should shut down the Vatican, sell all of its assets and make all of their leaders live as Jesus did; poor and among the people.

I agree.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It seems that the Pope is going back to the roots of the message of Jesus which is purely Socialism/Communism at the world wide level

 

[Straw Dog]

Looks like the pope is one step ahead of you!

Touche!

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm reminded of an apocryphal quote from an eastern European denizen about the transition from socialism to
capitalism, & what it's like to be exploited by capitalists. His response was that it beat being exploited by socialists.

State socialism perhaps.

 

[Vouthon]

BBC - Pope Francis: Liberals love his 'trickle-down' takedown

Pope Francis made headlines on Tuesday when he called on the Catholic Church to be more decentralised and to focus on missionary outreach and helping the poor - a recurring theme of his first eight months as pope. Few probably expected the pontiff to take a shot at supply-side economics and "trickle-down theories" by name, however.

In his "apostolic exhortation", Pope Francis wrote:

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 naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

Needless to say, this has liberal commentators buzzing. An anti-supply-side pope? What would Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher think?

Writes Emma Green in the Atlantic:

The Pope has taken a firm political stance against right-leaning, pro-free-market economic policies, and his condemnation appears to be largely pointed at Europe and the United States. … In pitting the Church against the freemarket, the Pope has added significant heft and legitimacy to progressive, pro-government groups on the left. If it wasn't already clear, the pronouncements confirm that the Church's 20th-century specters are fading, at least in the Vatican. The Pope has officially declared a new enemy.

Heidi Moore of the Guardian contends that Pope Francis is building on the foundation set by the anti-capitalist critics who took to the streets in the days after the recent economic collapse.

"Francis gives form to the emotion and injustice of post-financial-crisis outrage in a way that has been rare since Occupy Wall Street disbanded," she writes. "It's not about discarding capitalism, or hating money or profit; it's about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the premise that exploitation is at the centre of profit."

The Los Angeles Times' Michael McGough writes that while Pope Francis's economic exhortations may be attracting attention, it's not the first time a pontiff has taken shots at the economic status quo:

Popes have been irritating Catholic conservatives and free-market enthusiasts since 1891, when Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum Novarum in which he praised "workingmen's unions". As a childhood political junkie (and a Catholic), I was aware that some of Pope John XXIII's economic and political pronouncements sat poorly with conservative Catholics such as William F. Buckley Jr.

This time, writes Katie McDonough for Salon, a pope is being moving beyond platitudes, however:

The document is incredibly direct in its call for specific, policy-level action to fight institutional inequality rather than speaking broadly and loftily about poverty as some kind of abstraction or something to be addressed exclusively by charitable giving at the community level, as some of his predecessors have been content to do.

BBC News - Pope Francis: Liberals love his 'trickle-down' takedown

 

[metis]

It seems your glasses are rose-tinted.

Sorry but I don't wear glasses.

1. I feel you are still missing the point. 2. Not only are you not owed no more in this life than you earn, you do not "owe back" any more than you borrowed.

If one wants to play that game, exactly where does it say that we are even owed back what we earned? And, generally speaking, pretty much all of us pay into the social network that each of us come to use one way or another, and the poor and uninsured are no exception.

3. Thankfully we do not live in a true Democracy, we live under the rule of a Representative Republic.

"Democracy" is the general heading with various forms of it found underneath, such as direct democracy and representative government.

For a couple hundred of years the "majority" in this country felt it was okay to enslave another person. After that the "majority" felt that a dark-skinned child could never be in the same classroom as a light-skinned child.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

It's been pointed out that majority rule is basically mob rule.

"Mob rule" implies that it's a minority whereas one segment has taken the law into their own hands.

Be careful what you wish for. (BTW the majority do not want Obamacare now that they are getting a taste of it.)

If we include the roughly 15% who oppose the ACA only because they feel it didn't go far enough, then the majority actually do support either the ACA or a program that goes beyond the ACA.

What I can't figure out is why is it that so many Americans are so willing to back a proposal that helps roughly 30 million Americans to get coverage that benefits both them and the rest of us in the long run? And exactly what does the opposition party recommend we do besides them just saying "No!"?

Like with "Romneycare", if we can successfully get the ACA through the first year, it will probably become impossible for the Party of No to get rid of it, much like Cruz said.

 

[Revoltingest]

State socialism perhaps.

That's the kind I want to avoid.
I've no problem with people banding together voluntarily to share the wealth among themselves.
This happens in capitalistic economies, & works well on a small scale.
Problems arise when they want to force it upon others.

 

[BSM1]

It seems that the Pope is going back to the roots of the message of Jesus which is purely Socialism/Communism at the world wide level

Could you cite a few verses where Jesus embrace any governmental form, let alone Socialism and/or Communism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems that the Pope is going back to the roots of the message of Jesus which is purely Socialism/Communism at the world wide level

How do you figure?

I'd agree that Jesus of the Bible hints at socialism for Christians, but I think he also expresses the assumption that Christianity will never be in power. He seems to believe that Christianity will never achieve wide acceptance ("narrow is the way..." etc.) and will always be on the fringes of society.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the kind I want to avoid.
I've no problem with people banding together voluntarily to share the wealth among themselves.
This happens in capitalistic economies, & works well on a small scale.
Problems arise when they want to force it upon others.

I basically agree, but I also think you may be focusing on the accessory part of the problem.

Socialism is not the problem here. Nor is it even State Socialism properly.

It is rather, as you correctly point out, that such a basic part of people's life might be forced upon them.

That is not really a necessary part of State Socialism, although we have largely grown too distant from our own supposed political representatives to easily realize that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the kind I want to avoid.
I've no problem with people banding together voluntarily to share the wealth among themselves.
This happens in capitalistic economies, & works well on a small scale.
Problems arise when they want to force it upon others.

... or when economic quirks (natural monopolies, for instance) allow one person to use market forces to force a particular wealth distribution on others.