Dehumanized Economics

[JohnnyFianna]

Uh, yeah, that's pretty lousy. Its common sense that people can't consume more than they produce. Anyway, I decided to check the encyclicals: Quadragesimo Anno- doesn't even address free trade. Populorum Progressio - calls for free trade between industrialized nations and fairer *terms of trade*.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis specifically calls for international trade against the mortgage of "bilateralism" and protection.

[paleocrat]

Sorry, Quadragesimo Anno 54 (not 52) deals with Manchester Liberals. Google those fellows. It was the "false ideas" and "erroneous suppositions" that are the problem. As for QA 88, this is without question dealing with economic life, domestic or trade, being left to free competition. In fact, it goes so far as to say that economic life must not be independent of public authority's intervention and guidance. QA 110 reiterates this point...

[paleocrat]

PP 50 deals with the need for central planning, not scattered efforts or competition to provide for the needs of underdeveloped peoples. How you miss 58 and 59 is beyond me. Paul Craig Roberts spoke to the Mises Institute and said fundamentally the same.

SRS has, in harmony with the rest of CST, defined protectionism as synonymous with economic isolation. But the 3rd paragraph is key. He tackles the exploitation of markets with sub-par labor laws and transnationals...

[paleocrat]

Centisimus Annus 48.1-2 specifically declares that "Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector." The pope goes on to say that the State has the responsibility, along with individuals and associations (unions or guilds), to create market conditions profitable for labor, to stimulate various activities, and to support sectors in times of crisis...

[JohnnyFianna]

Which is the classical liberal position. That is, the (mostly) free market will create conditions amenable to labor. Again, notice that the Vatican has not mentioned tariffs anywhere, all they've said is A. free trade and competition is not necessarily the optimal solution if the terms of trade are not fair, which is true.

[paleocrat]

Your error is to presume that the direct mention of tariffs is necessary. The underlying principle of your argument would make the Trinity an unbiblical argument.

Once again, how many times does the Church have to censure the fundamental tenets of classical liberalism (and one group by name!) before you realize you aren't following the Magisterium?

Secondly, they have gone much further and said that it must not be left to free competition and mere market forces. Once again, you're selective.

[JohnnyFianna]

The Trinity IS rejected by many churches going by Solo Scriptura.

Uh, I'm mostly a classical liberal, but definitely not a distributionist. Anyway, just because the Church condemns one particular branch of an ideology doesn't mean that EVERY single idea held by the philosophy is wrong. Again, we aren't even talking about market forces and free competition. Increased competition is just one of many, many advantages of free trade.

[paleocrat]

So you fell into the same error. Ok.

Pope John Paul II admitted that the Church has been hostile to classical liberalism. He even attacks neo-liberalism in Ecclesia in America #56.

The Church is opposed to:

1. Most all tenets of classical liberalism

The Church supports:

1. Corporate ownership of means of production

2. Equitable distribution of land

3. An equilibrium of the economic sectors

4. Universal destination of Earth's goods

5. Just Wage, Family Wage, etc.

[paleocrat]

The mostly free market? I almost missed that! What is "mostly" free? The popes emphatically propose Just Wages and an Ownership Society. This would include, but is not limited to, a Family Wage, Sunday rest, equitable land distribution, participation in the ownership of the means of production (i.e., Unions, Guilds, etc.), health care benefits, and other "rights to life." And in what areas has the Church said the State has a right or duty to intervene? Do you know? Or do you presume?

[paleocrat]

If you want free trade between nations with similar or identical laws concerning Just Wage, Family Wage, Union rights, health benefits, etc., then go for it. Slim pickings. Not even America would qualify! Disqualify China, India, Philippines, and Mexico... bye-bye Wal-Mart. If you wish then to trade with people equally as sub-par or worse, then keep promoting free trade as it stands today.

[JohnnyFianna]

No, and this is definitely your interpretation, similar laws or whatever are not necessary, just a fair set of trade terms, which is, again, the classical liberal position. Again, on free trade, the Vatican's position could not be more clear. It is A. basically good and that's why countries do it, even comparative advantage is implied and B. bad if it is done by countries with differing terms of trade. Vatican does endorse central planning, which does not conflict with free trade.

[paleocrat]

The pope isn't concerned with fair contracts (his reference to Rerum in regards to Just conditions for contractual agreements is telling), but with the "economic conditions differing too widely" between the countries involved. Better yet, the last sentence of 58 admits he is calling into question "the fundamental principle of liberalism."

59 states that if "conditions" of the parties are unequal, by which 58 indicates are internal economic conditions, then it is unjust, even with consent.

[JohnnyFianna]

You keep attacking liberalism as if attacking liberalism will somehow make protectionism, which the Vatican also condemns a viable economic philosophy. If you combine protectionism and anti-trust laws you have a viable disaster on your hands, as occurred in Latin America for the last fifty years while SE Asia was leaps and bounds ahead with a similar anti-monopoly economic philosophy. The difference between the two? Free trade!

[paleocrat]

Going golfing. I may do a video on this issue.

[JohnnyFianna]

Well, given that tariffs cause unemployment and totally destroy industrial labor while reducing "real" wages across the board (keyword: real), I don't see how you can still support tariffs. Tariffs lower wages, cause unemployment and ruin healthcare in most of the countries that practice them.

I am aware of the Church condemning Mises, but probably not Hayek, who I see as more reasonable overall.

[paleocrat]

If you wish to reconfigure free-trade in a way that is acceptable to the popes, regardless of the fact that they have said that it is unacceptable, then go for it. But know that you are in disagreement with the Magisterium.

The Church didn't condemn Mises individually. They condemned, numerous times over, classical liberalism. It was their ideas and policies, also advocated by modern capitalists and classical liberals.

[JohnnyFianna]

Centesimus annus calls for the abolition of the welfare state in the passage you've given. Again, as I suspected, the Catholic social teaching on free trade in and of itself would be A. minimal, vague and subject to interpretation, and B. ultimately defends distributivism on utilitarian grounds. Anyway, I really do not think economic nationalism should be the guiding economic philosophy of a universal Church.

[paleocrat]

Uh, look closer. It doesn't condemn assistance, programs, or even an economic framework wherein deprivation and poverty are alleviated. The pope said that "malfunctions and defects" were the result of the State lacking an understanding of subsidiarity. But this is a far cry from denouncing programs or systems with similar or even identical aims.

Economic philosophy? The Church has spoken, and the closest we have come to a system is Distributism. Perfect? No. Let's start working on it.

[paleocrat]

As for tariffs, we will have to disagree. If one does nothing to the internal situation of our domestic economy, leaving it as is, and only imposes tariffs, then you may have a case. Thankfully, Catholic Social Doctrine would have no such thing. It works inside and out. The Magisterium isn't stupid.

Distributism calls for various measures assuring vast employment in various sectors, not just wage-earning Proletarians serving the Capitalists. Small-scale self-sufficiency requires people... lots.

[JohnnyFianna]

Well, I am no supporter of laissez-faire, but I am a supporter of classical liberalism. One has an emphasis on doing nothing, the other is about fairness and justice. I was looking at the the top twenty google encyclicals, and they only seem to cover labor laws and the treatment of labor. Tariffs are not essential, and given how they destroy labor probably against the "gist" of Catholic social teaching. The only piece of social teaching I can think of that outright supports tariffs is lib theo

[paleocrat]

The liberalism advanced by Mises, those like the Manchester Liberals and others, has been condemned.

Free trade has been dealt with both directly and indirectly. Directly in Quadragesimo Anno 52, 88, 110; Populorum Progressio 50, 58-59; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 43; Centisimus Annus 48.1-2, and elsewhere.

Indirectly in so far as the Church remarks on Just Wages, family wages, various "rights," the needed balance of various economic sectors, equitable land distribution, unions and guilds...

[paleocrat]

How can you separate what we do domestically and how that effects international trade? Take the Just Wage. For individuals it's enough for them to live, move, and have their being without need of more. A Family Wage requires more. Popes have declared that wages can't be set by the market, either domestic or global, but by Justice and a full understanding of human dignity and dominion.

This isn't even touching on health, unemployment, and their condemnation of the reason for 99% of outsourcing.

[JohnnyFianna]

I think the Catholic social teaching doesn't support protectionism so much as social justice. Given when they were written, I suspect that the Papal encyclicals are outdated, given that we have more effective ways of accomplishing the same things without unnecessarily hurting and dividing people as tariffs do (tax cuts/labor regulation/welfare/charity/sub­sidies).

[paleocrat]

I would tip-toe here, brother. The encyclicals are part of the "corpus" of Catholic moral doctrine. The recommendations, requirements, and condemnations are just as valid today as they were yesterday. Furthermore, we have no right to question the Magisterium on the authority of its Social Doctrine. The popes decry those who do with the most grave warnings and admonitions.

They oppose strict isolationism and laissez faire, though they have been outright hostile to the latter.

[JohnnyFianna]

Furthermore, I think the consequences of protectionism need to be looked at more closely. Every job "protected" means the destruction of a job in another country. Attempting to pigeon hole economics into a value system and then interpreting it within the confines of that system diminishes the somewhat scientific credibility of economics in general. You might reply that that means that the default is utilitarianism, but ultimately distributionism must also be defended on utilitarian grounds.

[paleocrat]

I disagree, and hope to deal with these remarks soon, but I am preparing a lecture for 1500. Nothing like procrastination! haha Talk to you later.

Question: Are you a Catholic?

[JohnnyFianna]

Yeah, I'm most definitely a Catholic. I sent you a PM I think you should look at.

[paleocrat]

A PM? On what? YouTube? AIM? Yahoo IM? If you sent one on YouTube, I am unable to find it.

Let me say, though, that I do not believe that classical liberalism is compatible with Catholicism. This is, in my opinion, evident upon a reading of papal encyclicals on Catholic Social Theory. The only way people get around it is to claim the Church has no competency; this is also contrary to the Magisterium. Puts Catholics of your persuasion between a rock and a hard place.

[JohnnyFianna]

Well, I think a side-by-side comparison of more capitalist countries (Hong Kong, West Germany,Brazil) v. similar but slightly more socialist countries (Singapore, France, Peru) would reveal that more innovation comes from the the latter. I really disagree with the nationality and patriotism argument, remember, Google was developed by Swedes who came to the US. Skype is now owned by a US corporation. The more interdependent we are the less likely we are to go to war.

[paleocrat]

The problem is that you are placing a causal relationship in a place where there may be none at all. My argument also had less to do with modern innovation, though this could be debated, as it was with the history of innovation and how it has thrived, throughout history, under many different systems.

American war history would show your last remark to be in need of tweaking.

[JohnnyFianna]

Au contraire, American war history would only be one counter-example, and probably an invalid one at that because only recently has America become a super power. Rather, look at WW 1, WW 2, and capital markets. (capital markets are a function of freedom of investment). Your argument about how trade has somehow hurt American jobs is altogether more fallacious when you consider that the US is a net importer of capital (machines and investment for new machines) in the private sector.

[labulldog5]

Hi Paleo.

I'm still trying to decide what exactly the implications are of accepting this whole "economics dehumanizes humans" view. Really it seems a very subjective area that you could write and philosophize on for years. I remember you used this argument in part debating me about free vs fair trade. Since I'm hanging mccain out to dry this round, as you are, it will be interesting to see if Obama gets in and enacts huge trade barriers in one form or another.Give us something to talk about:)

[dataloreforever]

Well put.

[paleocrat]

He pisses off most economic nationalists. The reason for this is that most economic nationalists are opposed to big business and the military-industrial complex. They wish to see property, capital, and the means of production divided into as many hands as humanly possible. Small, small, small. The difference is that between putting a parental block on the TV and giving one of your children some porn.

[paleocrat]

I agree with you that the alliance between paleoconservatives and libertarians, both categories containing various schools of thought, is one of strange bedfellows. United for a common cause against a common enemy, but certainly not friends in the truest sense. Were Marxists and Neocons to vanish tomorrow, our schools would show their true colors as bitter enemies.

[paleocrat]

Reagan and Bush piss off both the free-traders and the protectionists, so to say that they are strictly one or the other is folly. Empirical evidence shows them to be a mixed bag rather than ideological purists for either of the aforementioned schools of thought.

[paleocrat]

Watch out, your prejudicial conjecture is showing.

A history major of your caliber ought to know that McKinley and TR were far worse than the last two you referenced. This isn't to say that Reagan or Bush are champions of classical liberalism, just that they don't have the honor of being in the top 5.

[paleocrat]

Have you ever heard of a straw man? If not, reference your comment.

Cut off trade only in those instances where the product being imported infringes upon domestic producers or harms the common good.

Will we pay more for various products? Yes. But your presumption that the tax burden would be greater overall than it is now is premised on the faulty notion that we endorse the government (and taxes) remaining the same as they are now.

Subsidize bis business? You obviously ignored my comment.

[paleocrat]

That would only be the case in an economic framework wherein monopoly and hording of land and means of production isn't prevented through the distribution of property and the means of production into as many hands as possible.

To imply that protectionism would put up an impenetrable wall is absurd. One can strive to be as internally self-sufficient as possible without entirely cutting off the rest of the world. Emphasize self-sufficiency, import when necessary.

Educate yourself: Distributism.

[Tony63efc]

I just replied to a comment on my "Was Jesus a Conservative or a Liberal?" video so I am compelled to say that it is immoral to protect agricultural jobs by subsidising exports to Africa. This condemns African farmers to a $1 a day existence.

[Kapellmeister177]

But are we really responsible for those farmers?

[Tony63efc]

Definitely; the poverty of African farmers is a direct consequence of subsidies derived from the US Farm Bill and the European Common Agricultural Policy

[FIDESetRATIOihtys]

I agree with you. Actually, it's very sad.

[napalmtube]

Fantastic Jeremiah..absolutly fantastic.. If you don't remember when I was brainwashed into the "free-market" school of thought I stood up for your position..now I agree with it..I guess I never had faith in the "invisible hand" to begin with.