Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Pope Francis: Free Market-Hater

The ignorance of basic economics that Pope Francis displays is truly stunning. He seems unable to differentiate between free markets and crony capitalism (Please someone send him Lew Rockwell's new book, Fascism vs. Capitalism: The Central Ideological Conflict of Our Times). The Pope seems unaware that free markets reflect the choices and valuations of people and that if people rank spiritual acts and goods highly than those would be so reflected in the free market.

In the first lengthy writing of his papacy — also known as an "apostolic exhortation," the confusion just doesn't seem to stop. He writes:
How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

RW comment: The powerful feed upon the powerless only when there is a government to protect the operations of the powerful. Under a free market system, businesses that do not provide goods consumers desire will fail.

In this context, 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 naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

RW comment: Free markets are not about "trickle down" economics. It is about businesses providing products that consumers desire. The Pope is deeply confused about the difference between free markets and fascist economics. He has a very pedestrian view, not supported by analysis. Further, when he speaks of his theory "confirmed by the facts." It indicates a confusion about the underlying correct methodology of economics, which is a deductive science, not an anecdotal or empirical science. 

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.

RW comment: Incredibly, the Pope does not understand that it is government regulations that protect the major corporations from start ups and suffocate the process of growth and innovation. Calling for government to  exercise more control is not much different than inviting the devil to deliver the Sunday sermon. 
Bottom line: LewRockwell's book could not come at a more important time. It turns out to be an important response to the Pope's many confusions. Let us hope that the Pope's apostolic exhortation serves as a catalyst for great sales for the book, purchased by those who desire to understand how deep analysis of government and free markets points to conclusion that are far different than those of the Pope.

22 comments:

  1. The position that Pope Francis has consistently taken since becoming Pope is nothing short of dangerous. Unlike the two previous Popes who were all but dismissed by the media for their socially conservative stances, Francis has been widely embraced, and this message will now be exploited in the war against free market economics and could produce devastating results as it is absorbed by the average run-of-the-mill person who will not question such nonsense when it comes from a person of supposed moral authority. I think this needs to be rebuked loudly by the Catholic free-market intellectual heavy weights (like Rockwell, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, or Jeff Tucker--to name just a few).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s a Jesuit. Jesuits tend to be arrogant and they tend to be especially so in areas of which they know little to nothing. A Jesuit is Pope. Be assured, I'm praying.

      Delete
    2. That's right, Jonathan. It's dangerous nonsense that the Pope values the pursuit of charity and compassion over the pursuit of money. I assume you'll enlist some of your fellow lightweights, er, sorry, heavyweights, to rebuke him. Assuming that you and Brother Thomas are actually Catholic, I suspect you're both familiar with Jesus' views about wealth. I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the message of the Gospel with the amoral (i.e., value neutral) philosophy of free-market economics. I have no problem with your being a capitalist apologist, but please don't pretend to be a follower of Jesus at the same time.

      Delete
    3. Phil, when did Jesus say we should steal from the rich and give it to the poor?

      Delete
    4. Mic

      You obviously missed the “Sermon on the Mount Rushmore.” Phil has this one nailed.

      This is where Jesus said that his followers should give all of their money to Herod so Herod will feed the poor, or whatever. And then join Caesar’s army in order to conquer other people so that they too can have the blessings of giving all of their money to the poor…yeah, to poor Caesar.

      “Blessed are those who pledge allegiance to the flag, for they shall disinherit their offspring.”

      Boy, I always liked that one.

      How about “The meek shall inherit the earth, at which time they must turn it over to the leader of the free world”?

      Yeah, I don’t know how you missed it.

      “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the central bank.”

      Another one of my favorites.

      You don’t remember the story of the poor woman who gave her last dinar to the Praetorian Guard? She said “I trust you will do the right thing with this.” At which point he replied, “Thanks for the pearls, you swine.” She felt forever blessed while standing in the Coliseum….wait, what was that roar?

      Come one Mic, it’s all there in the good book.

      Delete
    5. And I suppose you both subscribe to the school of thought that Jesus didn't really mean it when he said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The capacity of people to rationalize away inconvenient truths
      never ceases to amaze me.

      Delete
    6. Come on, Phil - I am agreeing with you and you are grouping me with the unbeliever. What's the deal?

      By the way, you don't quite have the entire verse. Let me help: he said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; so I authorize Caesar to take the money from those he doesn’t like and give it to those he does.

      Phil, if you are going to represent the good book, please get it right. Guys like Mic will pick on every little mis-quote – they can be vicious. You can't afford to be sloppy when doing the lord's work.

      Let me offer a little more help: when it is your turn for the glorious judgment day, be sure and tell god that you did everything you could to support charity by force and coercion – exactly in the christian spirit. You will be certain to receive your just rewards.

      Here is scripture from the new democracy version (ndv) of the good book. Use this whenever guys like Mic go off the rails:

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23%20&version=NIV

      Galatians 5: 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. For such things, Caesar must make a law and enforce it by threat of imprisonment and death – because god is not capable of producing such fruits in man without Caesar’s help. After all, creating the entire universe and all that is within it in six days was nothing compared to putting the faith of a mustard seed in humans. Thank god for Caesar (oh, wait…how can I thank myself?).

      There you have it, Phil. Keep that one in your hip pocket next time a guy like Mic pops off.

      Glad I can help. No need to thank me.

      Delete
    7. Phil, Jesus was counseling us to be charitable, not to force others to be charitable. Forced charity is immoral. Bionic, your words are always music to my ears! You are my Soul Brother!

      Delete
    8. Phil, Jesus never said that entering the kingdom of heaven was _harder_ for the rich. In fact, it's just as difficult as going through the eye of a needle for anybody: It's impossible. But nothing is impossible with God. What Jesus was saying with the camel analogy was simply that wealth was not the ticket to heaven that the Jews of that day thought it was.

      Delete
  2. "Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control."

    This is f**king frightening! He doesn't admonish people for not following in the path of Jesus but instead for not conforming to the wishes of the "benevolent state". Does he not know that every evil regime that has come to power in the last 100 or more years has done so as a purveyor of social justice for the suffering masses? The only way a government can make anyone conform to its laws is through the threat of violence and the use of force which seems to go against the most basic axiom of Christianity which is that you cannot do good by doing evil. It would appear that this Pope either does not understand how Governments get their sovereignty or that he actually has no problem bringing about his idea of social justice by any means necessary, including putting a gun to the head of every individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they probably know that and have talked about it up down left, right and sideways. But a bureaucracy will heave anything over the side to stay in existence.

      Delete
    2. A bureaucracy will heave anything overboard to stay in existence.

      Delete
    3. Heath's Law: "A bureaucracy will heave anything overboard to stay in existence."

      Delete
  3. In this context, some people continue to collectivist theories which assume that redistribution, encouraged by central planning, 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 naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding political power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "..... they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

    Yeah, not enough control, that's it. These people never understand that they always end up as the tools of the people who they think they're regulating. Always.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is it so hard to remember we're talking about a Jesuit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesuits are complete morons when it comes to economics. Francis needs to keep his mouth shut about things he knows ZILCH about. Instead he needs to study.

      Delete
  6. Mic, If God commands us to be charitable (and he does, despite your euphemistic reference to "counseling"), then clearly that's a moral imperative, as Pope Francis has stated. If that moral imperative is applicable to you and me, then why isn't it applicable to the forms of governance that we create? Surely you're not suggesting that the moral rules that apply to individuals don't apply to society as well. If they don't, then there's no logical basis for making any broad-based ethical judgments at all. You and your friends are absolutely right that the Pope's thinking is dangerous and, if it shakes you out of your self-serving complacency, that;s even more reason to welcome it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil, you're confusing society with government. Of course every individual has a moral imperative to be charitable and care for the poor. But moral imperatives are not supposed to be enforced at the point of a gun. We are compelled to follow through on God's commands, but we are not to be enslaved and forced to follow through. Government's weapon in "compelling" people is force.

      You're not only mistaking society for government, you're also mistaking moral imperatives for forced obligations.

      Delete
    2. You are my friend too, Phil! If we apply the moral rules to government that apply to individuals, then taxes would be called theft. How does believing that charity is my responsibility make me complacent? Wouldn't it be more self-serving to pass that responsibility off to government? Ever wonder how much money Bank of America makes processing food stamps?

      Delete
    3. Mic and Andrew: To the extent that they impose limitations on individual autonomy, laws -- any laws -- are by definition coercive. So characterizing taxation as theft (or coercion) is painting with a very broad, and not very discriminating, brush. It's a nice sound bite but it doesn't really move the conversation forward. Interestingly, it's also committing the same logical "mistake" that you accuse me of, i.e., mixing law and morality. If a law's soundness is measured by whether it strikes the most appropriate balance between the public good and individual rights (as most utilitarians believe), then it's impossible to draw a neat distinction between moral imperatives and forced obligations. The issue isn't whether taxation is theft (all laws are coercive) or whether morality and law are separate spheres (they aren't, in any society), but rather what, if anything, makes the freedom to pursue wealth so important that society (or government) shouldn't regulate it the way it does other activities. That's the real issue, so perhaps we can skip the generalizations and focus on it.

      Delete
    4. Still waiting for a response from you self-proclaimed intellectual heavyweights. No mas?

      Delete