Short write-up at Opposing Views here.
Excerpt that caught my attention:
Since Pope Francis took office in March, he has asked Catholics to practice austerity and defend the poor. He believes the focus on materialism meant to help the financial sector means human suffering goes ignored. “In this way people are discarded as if they were garbage,” he said.Well I would say that he must be very pleased with the behavior of those currently occupying positions of authority in the west because that cohort is for sure "practicing austerity" unintermitingly and have been for some years now.
This type of religious admonition towards austerity as being somehow 'devout' or something is a BIG part of the problem in the west and has been for a long time.
What is Francis' proposed solution to this problem, more voluntary "charity" by our alleged free will?
Did the Apostle Paul go all around Greece and Rome opening up a chain of soup kitchens? If so, I missed that part.
32 comments:
I think this is being taken out of context. He is not talking about austerity as a government spending policy. He's talking about personal austerity as an alternative to wasteful overconsumption of the world's limited bounty, especially when that overconsumption by some individuals comes at the expense of the relative deprivation of others.
I would suggest that full employment, shared prosperity, human equality and solidarity, and active and responsible democratic government playing a role in solving large-scale challenges of fundamental organization and allocation of resources, are compatible with a more simple and austere approach to consumption.
Francis been reading Veblen along with the gospel? :)
Dan,
Would that not lead to a 'paradox of thrift' type situation that would then lead to even more of those made 'poor' among us?
And I understand that you can make this distinction between personal economic decisions and the other type of economic decisions that those in policymaking positions make, but I do not see that ability in practically all others... Rep. Paul Ryan comes to mind... Ron Paul, President Obama, etc...
I dont see any potential resultant actions in response to the admonitions of Francis' here, other than perhaps the establishment of 'more soup kitchens!' ... this is a disgrace.
This is the "same old same old" here Dan from the leadership of Christendom imo... it's pretty stale now going on 2,000 years...
I see no problem with him just instead scolding the political leadership and telling them to just "make it happen"...
If he thinks that the non-govt can just "cut back on consumption" and get some more free will soup kitchens cranked up and this will somehow make things more just he is sadly mistaken...
rsp,
Matt, I think the paradox of thrift has more to do with excessive saving of income, which is not the same as more restrained consumption.
"practice austerity and defend the poor"
matt -- individual hoarding isn't being advocated here (or if it is, i don't see it). personal austerity in favor of sharing with others is a change in the distribution of consumption, not a paradox of thrift.
I suspect that what Pope Francis is getting at is coordination based on unity of being, the manifestation of which is love.
However, I think "austerity" was a poor choice of works, given the present connotation. Probably "shard sacrifice" would have been better.
The pope would probably favor the MMT job guarantee program. He probably means too much of world GDP is spent on cheap, throw-away crap products instead of investing in the infrastructure and services that can ease suffering and raise standards of living in the world. I kinda like the moxie this pope has.
How come no is talking about the waste created by high unemployment and poverty?
Surely, the greatest kind of waste is that of people's most productive years.
From wiki on Paradox of thrift:
"The paradox states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of economic recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth."
Mathematically the same result.
If we decrease consumption, for what ever motivation, either to increase saving or because "Francis said so...", economic growth falls which makes more "poor" among us...
So Francis is advocating a policy that will get even more people thrown out of their jobs... GOOD JOB FRANCIS!
Perhaps he should just stick to fondling and kissing the feet of female prisoners (TIP OFF!) where he would do less damage...
I see no problem with him directly taking on these people in positions of authority, WHO CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (Helloooo!!!) .... who are responsible for delivering this travesty of an economy...
Instead he scolds the non-govt to "spend less and give more".... it simply can't work.
rsp,
There need be no real sacrifice; we don't lack material goods. The problem is ill-distribution of those goods and the reason for that is the unjust, unstable money/credit system.
So what we need is economic JUSTICE. We need a money system based on Equity, not debt. And if anyone says that money must be debt then I challenge them to show me any NECESSARY debt with the use of common stock as private money.
The RCC once opposed usury. If the RCC had truly respected the Bible wrt economics (or much of anything?), it could have found a better way long ago.
If we spend the same but quit outsourcing labor to slave-wage countries maybe the crap we are buying now will be too expensive to
compete against useful products and services.
Instead of buying useless plastic toys most kids lose interest in within a few days maybe buy them something that will stimulate their creative side.
Do kids have hobbies anymore? Or is the hobby now consumption for instant gratification?.
Franko,
I'm not defending the Pope but transferring purchasing power does not destroy it so the "paradox of thrift" does not apply to private charity.
That said, the RCC does have a history of promoting, contrary to Scripture, pointless self-sacrifice.
" transferring purchasing power does not destroy it so the "paradox of thrift" does not apply to private charity."
Businesses require more than existing purchasing power to succeed...the government MUST buy stuff if business is to profit (or even break even...because there will be saving).
In other words, private charity does nothing for an economy and merely delays the inevitable.
I'm not saying sharing with those that have less is not admirable but we have to play long-ball here or everyone will be worse off in the end.
F,
See what you mean as far as purchasing power, ie the stuff to make the soup at the soup kitchens will still have to be purchased, but I doubt this goes $4$, and again this isnt getting us anywhere and taxes/profits still have to be paid to the ultimate provisioners which results in leakages even around the soup kitchen operations... which is an infinite regress without govt injections like Paul says here imo...
A 'soup kitchen economy' is a far cry from as Dan describes above: "full employment, shared prosperity, human equality and solidarity, and active and responsible democratic government playing a role in solving large-scale challenges of fundamental organization and allocation of resources"
What Dan here writes sounds a lot better to me than going to a soup kitchen... whether to work there OR eat there...
rsp,
..the government MUST buy stuff if business is to profit (or even break even...because there will be saving). paul
More precisely, the economy needs government MONEY, not necessarily government BUYING. And that money is necessary because the government-backed credit cartel drives people into debt but does not provide the required interest (Interest is not 100% recycled and even if it were should we provide real goods and services to the banks for essentially nothing?!) except as even more debt.
In other words, private charity does nothing for an economy and merely delays the inevitable.
paul
It's called "buying time." And, btw, the need for so much public and private welfare should have tipped us off long ago that the system is inherently unjust.
but we have to play long-ball here or everyone will be worse off in the end. paul
To reach the long term we must survive the short term.
"More precisely, the economy needs government MONEY"
The only way I know of to get government MONEY into the system is for the government to buy stuff…
…or do you envision a money soup-kitchen?
"To reach the long term we must survive the short term."
Charity isn't going to help much except at the margins in the short term. A more likely scenario is crime or suicide.
38,000 suicides last year. Crime isn't really up yet so people must prefer the other option for now.
"the government-backed credit cartel drives people into debt…"
That particular cartel is at the end of the road…can't go any further without abandoning underwriting and/or public spending adding more support to the payment system.
First thing we have to do is stop bailing out banks that fail. Let someone else that hasn't failed try to provide the service.
"…but does not provide the required interest"
The interest is provided in the form of fiscal spending…liabilities are satisfied when payments are made.
BTW, this dynamic will be true with any credit system backed by the state, even if the stae provided it.
Credit must be used prudently, but in the end the top-end-of-town will end up with your money anyway, credit or no, because that is the default direction of flow.
Credit is like having a 4-wheel-drive vehicle…it just helps one get stuck in harder-to-get-out-of places.
The only way I know of to get government MONEY into the system is for the government to buy stuff… paul
The monetary sovereign can simply give away its money equally to the entire population. (Did that thought really not occur to you?)
And by banning further credit creation, at least until the banking system is completely depriviledged, that giveaway (restitution for theft, actually) can be metered to just replace existing credit as it is repaid for no net change in the total money supply.
"(Did that thought really not occur to you?)"
No, and it isn't ever going to happen…How would you suggest…money rain? Mark up everyones bank account?
Did GW Bush send out "stimulus checks" or did I dream that?
"Did GW Bush send out "stimulus checks" or did I dream that?"
Small-scale and it didn't solve any long-term problems…it was a band-aid.
You have been advocating large-scale handouts to everyone. That won't solve any long-term problems either.
Giving money to those that already have it makes no sense other than on moral grounds, and then those that already have it end up with a disproportionate share of the rest anyway because that's how the system is arranged. Universal handouts makes the problem worse.
The point you seem to be missing here is that the problem is with DISTRIBUTION more than quantity.
It's RELATIVE wealth that matters not absolute wealth in a system.
If we don't solve the distribution problem quantity will not make for a more just and equitable system…
…and you have not yet addressed the distribution problem, which stems from economic rents and loss of worker bargaining power which results in most gains accruing to a few.
So instead of a world where the range of incomes (ratio of the highest to average) is say 10 or 20 to 1 we are approaching 1000 to one or more.
If we don't solve that problem it doesn't matter how much money we print.
The only way I know of to get government MONEY into the system is for the government to buy stuff…
Two ways: spending and transfers.
"Two ways: spending and transfers."
I'm assuming you mean things like unemployment insurance, etc., yes, I overlooked those.
I meant to imply that there are no helicopter drops…sorry I wasn't more clear as F.Beard misunderstood also.
The larger point is that, as i outlined in my previous comment, our biggest problem is distribution, quantity alone does not solve the problem in the long run.
Which brings us to taxing of economic rents and workers sharing in the gains proportionately.
…and you have not yet addressed the distribution problem, which stems from economic rents and loss of worker bargaining power which results in most gains accruing to a few. paul
Excuse me but that's where I started - with the notion of common stock as a private money form.
But so many of you have bought the notion that money must be debt that you've failed to realize that private money, at least, can and should be, for the most part, EQUITY. For Heaven's sake, "Equity" is on the on the same side of the balance sheet as "Liabilities!" Both are backed by Assets" so why can only Liabilities be money? Hmmm? Who ordered that?
In other words, we can have a money system that justly "shares" rather than steals. And, of course, restitution for previous theft is called for too.
"In other words, we can have a money system that justly "shares" rather than steals. And, of course, restitution for previous theft is called for too."
EQUITY is not MONEY...it can be used as a proxy for money in some instances but it isn't money.
No one here has claimed that money must be debt. It can be just a government liability.
Only those that work for relatively large companies have a reasonable chance at accumulating the kind of you are talking about.
Companies fail, and the "pay" you worked hard for goes away with the company...I want my money up front...companies always find ways to break their promises to workers.
Equity is not nominal...the value is relative and can go down as well as up...
That's why 401k's and the like are poor substitutes for retirement compared to defined-benefit plans.
I've tried to get my head around your proposed solution...it isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Only those that work for relatively large companies have a reasonable chance at accumulating the kind of you are talking about. paul
An equal, one-time common stock redistribution as well as land redistribution every 50 years (see Leviticus 25) is morally justified.
Companies fail, and the "pay" you worked hard for goes away with the company... paul
Diversification is Scriptural too. Workers from different companies could trade shares with each other. And/or workers could be paid in the shares of a holding company that manages theirs and several others.
I want my money up front... paul
Then accept payment in fiat only.
companies always find ways to break their promises to workers. paul
Workers with common stock are CO-OWNERS.
Equity is not nominal...the value is relative and can go down as well as up... paul
The government-backed counterfeiting cartel destabilizes the entire economy.
I've tried to get my head around your proposed solution...it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. paul
Necessity is the mother of invention. Dismantle the counterfeiting cartel and business will quickly discover the virtue of "sharing."
"The government-backed counterfeiting cartel destabilizes the entire economy."
I disagree...it was poor underwriting that destabilized the economy...that and accounting fraud.
..it was poor underwriting that destabilized the economy... paul
"Prudent" theft is still theft. Was "redlining" prudent or did it lead to urban riots in the 1960s?
that and accounting fraud. paul
Banking is historically rooted in this fraud: "Your deposit is available on demand even though we lent it out."
Accounting fraud? Such as pretending that the instant creation of purchasing power for a 30 year mortgage can be properly balanced by the destruction of that purchasing power over the next ~10 years?
And inherent in that accounting sophistry is built-in deflation. And there is the root of the boom-bust cycle.
F.,
Banks dont "lend out the deposits"...
MMT 101.... ????
rsp,
F,
"Such as pretending that the instant creation of purchasing power for a 30 year mortgage can be properly balanced by the destruction of that purchasing power over the next ~10 years"
What "balance" are you looking for?
"Properly balanced"? what is this?
So somebody is given a loan for a home and then that has to be "balanced"? What is this?
rsp,
Post a Comment