Dehumanized Economics

This is a long overdue (and poorly organized) response to my free trade friend, Johnebii.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• free
• trade
• nafta
• cafta
• capitalism
• globalism
• agrarianism
• protectionism
• Johnebii
• Paleocrat
• Catholic
• Distributism

[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?

[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!

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.