One does wonder why previous Popes going back decades did not similarly emphasize these glaringly-important issues. Perhaps all their energy was taken up protecting child molesters. I suspect what's different about Francis is that he's from Latin America, a region where the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is much more extreme than in Europe, where most Popes have come from. Every person's thinking is shaped by his environment -- as was John Paul II's, for example, by his experience of Communist oppression in Poland.
Still, much of what Francis says here is right on the money, and it's enjoyable watching the righties squirm.
Pope calling for worldwide denunciation of capitalism, massive redistribution of wealth which ultimately means state control of the means of production, crushing taxation, relinquishing all property rights, and essentially relinquishing your individualism.
ADVOCATING COMMUNISM, aka Marxism.
Reasoning minds have heard it before, and, soundly rejected it. It will be rejected again. Emotional arguments lacking sound economic judgement are short lived. And, they are always made by those seeking control and or power over the individual.
Wondering when the phenomenal wealth of the Church will be nationalized by a global governing body and redistributed as the Pope advocates.
The Pope has been right on many things. On this he is way off the mark. But what the Hell, it makes for lively conversation. And it really will rally the socialists. Whether atheist or Christian.
In America we talk about capitalism as the end all be all that has no negative side effects. The Pope is voicing religious ideology as old as the scriptures. Nothing new here except the Pope is being listened to and his words printed in worldwide media. Poverty has risen in capitalist countries. The negative aspects the Pope talks about, are clearly evident. There are only so many seats in the 1-3% and capitalism is not serving the majority of people, only a minority of the people. If the financial disparity of people continues, it proves capitalism a failure to improve the lives of any but the smallest minority. Given the obscene profits posted by most companies, there is certainly room for paying employees higher, living wages.
Infidel... much of what Frances said was also standard doctrine for Benedict and John Paul II.
The difference is that he seems willing to back it up with actions.
When he was chosen, I knew he was going to be a problem for conservative Christians here in the US. A staunch ally in the right to life battles is not usually so vocal in his support for the poor and marginalized people of society.
Sure enough, the right wing church s now trying demonize him for his beliefs.
Interesting that Rush Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, and the majority of bloggers and commenters, know nothing at all about theology and very little about the bible, yet somehow feel they are qualified to opine intelligently on this so far, transformational pope.
What created America's middle class, Communism? What economic system has created the greatest wealth worldwide, Communism?
Capitalism is certainly not flawless, few things are. I agree the income gap is getting close to 1929 and so the effort should be to tweak, as hard as needed, those things that would get capitalism back to the days of growing the middle class through creating opportunity. Offshoring needs to be curtailed and government, if it to do anything should help by creating incentives for business to remain in and grow U.S. holdings. Maybe tax breaks for employing higher paid U.S. workers rather than moving operations offshore. Capitalism and private property remain the best avenue to creating wealth.
I'm just a blogger Dave, I like this Pope and in many things he provides a breathe of fresh air. I have read the entire Bible, was baptised Episcopalian, I have been an atheist for years.
I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, I get the dangers inherent in society when it is as divided and so many are marginalized, and I'm talking just the U.S. But I don't think the answer lies in the snippets the obviously biased reader was reading. Perhaps reading the entirety of the Papal Document might give me reason to rethink my position.
What created the middle class in the U.S. is good question with no simple answer. It's interesting that the growth of the middle class is historically coincident with the advent of the Great Society. So it was arguably not laissez faire capitalism that created it.
I'm not very sympathetic to apocalyptic or catastrophic thinking. A blistering and perhaps well-deserved critique of capitalism in it's current form does not necessarily imply a descent into 20th century totalitarianism. And I think it is worth asking the question "Is what we have now in the U.S. really capitalism?". My opinion: Crony capitalism, at best. Is that really the best we can do?
"Every once in a while socialism has to step in to save capitalism." An old saying with a lot of truth. Exactly what happened in the 1930's. Capitalism's flaw, is greed. Unless that greed is checked, it fails. The great middle class was created by checks on greed. Including unions and negotiations for living wage and benefit packages. Laws against child labor, better wages for women, etc.. Capitalists need to remember unless they pay living wages, capitalism fails. Any system that does not provide for the majority of the people, is a failure.
Ducky, not a thing you said surprises me. It fits you to a tee.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal, and properly pursued would be without a doubt AWESOME. I think of it as then being A Benevolent Laissez-faire capitalism.
Instead of CEO salaries being 500 times that of their average employees earnings 50 times is sufficient.
Instead of their bonuses being in the multimillion dollar range 25% of their salary should suffice nicely.
Instead of insurance subsidies a matching 401K and modest profit sharing plan based would be appropriate.
Instead of employees feeling they need representation via crap unionization treat them as important respected and valued contributors to the business and treat them as you would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.
View profit as important not only to the company but EQUALLY as important to your company's employees (remember I tout profit sharing). Because if you do employes will recognize the benefits of innovation, creativity, conscientious effort, hard work, long hours every bit as much as you do.
After 36 years in management I could say more. But with the exception of a very few not many thought like me. But my people understood me and I was therefore fortunate to always have one of the top performing teams as well as plants when I became a plant manager. Of course I remained the oddity and could never convince the really big shots I was right.
But I digress. Capitalism can, it has, and it could rebuild America's industrial per-eminence. If only cor prate America and the the government would allow it.
RN Don’t confuse capitalism with feudalism. What we have in America today is feudalism masquerading as capitalism; and the money people – and their K Street lobbyists - intend to keep it that way. The middle class is barely on life support.
In the current climate, any denunciation of inequality and injustice (regardless of tone) will be regarded as a far worse character flaw than the perpetuation of inequality and injustice.
As the public debate on economic inequality heats up, you may feel swayed by the polemics and rhetoric emanating from K Street. Please consider carefully the underlying data before you react.
Leslie P, My jockeys are far from being in a wad or a twist I assure you.
But if it gives you a perverse sense of pleasure by all means, pleasure yourself.
I politely suggest you read my previous comment closely. Then I would be most interested in reading your critique OF my admittedly rather lengthy part on Benevolent Laissez-faire capitalism.
Awaiting your reasoned response in anxious anticipation.
RN said: "Leslie P, My jockeys are far from being in a wad or a twist I assure you."
Perhaps because, even if you get classified as a "conservative", you aren't a typical one by any means, and lack the strings someone might expect to pull..
20 comments:
One does wonder why previous Popes going back decades did not similarly emphasize these glaringly-important issues. Perhaps all their energy was taken up protecting child molesters. I suspect what's different about Francis is that he's from Latin America, a region where the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is much more extreme than in Europe, where most Popes have come from. Every person's thinking is shaped by his environment -- as was John Paul II's, for example, by his experience of Communist oppression in Poland.
Still, much of what Francis says here is right on the money, and it's enjoyable watching the righties squirm.
Pope calling for worldwide denunciation of capitalism, massive redistribution of wealth which ultimately means state control of the means of production, crushing taxation, relinquishing all property rights, and essentially relinquishing your individualism.
ADVOCATING COMMUNISM, aka Marxism.
Reasoning minds have heard it before, and, soundly rejected it. It will be rejected again. Emotional arguments lacking sound economic judgement are short lived. And, they are always made by those seeking control and or power over the individual.
Wondering when the phenomenal wealth of the Church will be nationalized by a global governing body and redistributed as the Pope advocates.
The Pope has been right on many things. On this he is way off the mark. But what the Hell, it makes for lively conversation. And it really will rally the socialists. Whether atheist or Christian.
In America we talk about capitalism as the end all be all that has no negative side effects.
The Pope is voicing religious ideology as old as the scriptures.
Nothing new here except the Pope is being listened to and his words printed in worldwide media.
Poverty has risen in capitalist countries. The negative aspects the Pope talks about, are clearly evident.
There are only so many seats in the 1-3% and capitalism is not serving the majority of people, only a minority of the people. If the financial disparity of people continues, it proves capitalism a failure to improve the lives of any but the smallest minority.
Given the obscene profits posted by most companies, there is certainly room for paying employees higher, living wages.
Infidel... much of what Frances said was also standard doctrine for Benedict and John Paul II.
The difference is that he seems willing to back it up with actions.
When he was chosen, I knew he was going to be a problem for conservative Christians here in the US. A staunch ally in the right to life battles is not usually so vocal in his support for the poor and marginalized people of society.
Sure enough, the right wing church s now trying demonize him for his beliefs.
Interesting that Rush Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, and the majority of bloggers and commenters, know nothing at all about theology and very little about the bible, yet somehow feel they are qualified to opine intelligently on this so far, transformational pope.
What created America's middle class, Communism? What economic system has created the greatest wealth worldwide, Communism?
Capitalism is certainly not flawless, few things are. I agree the income gap is getting close to 1929 and so the effort should be to tweak, as hard as needed, those things that would get capitalism back to the days of growing the middle class through creating opportunity. Offshoring needs to be curtailed and government, if it to do anything should help by creating incentives for business to remain in and grow U.S. holdings. Maybe tax breaks for employing higher paid U.S. workers rather than moving operations offshore. Capitalism and private property remain the best avenue to creating wealth.
I'm just a blogger Dave, I like this Pope and in many things he provides a breathe of fresh air.
I have read the entire Bible, was baptised Episcopalian, I have been an atheist for years.
I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, I get the dangers inherent in society when it is as divided and so many are marginalized, and I'm talking just the U.S. But I don't think the answer lies in the snippets the obviously biased reader was reading. Perhaps reading the entirety of the Papal Document might give me reason to rethink my position.
What created the middle class in the U.S. is good question with no simple answer. It's interesting that the growth of the middle class is historically coincident with the advent of the Great Society. So it was arguably not laissez faire capitalism that created it.
I'm not very sympathetic to apocalyptic or catastrophic thinking. A blistering and perhaps well-deserved critique of capitalism in it's current form does not necessarily imply a descent into 20th century totalitarianism. And I think it is worth asking the question "Is what we have now in the U.S. really capitalism?". My opinion: Crony capitalism, at best. Is that really the best we can do?
"Every once in a while socialism has to step in to save capitalism."
An old saying with a lot of truth. Exactly what happened in the 1930's.
Capitalism's flaw, is greed. Unless that greed is checked, it fails.
The great middle class was created by checks on greed. Including unions and negotiations for living wage and benefit packages. Laws against child labor, better wages for women, etc.. Capitalists need to remember unless they pay living wages, capitalism fails. Any system that does not provide for the majority of the people, is a failure.
And what system is going to destroy he middle class, RN? Laissez-faire capitalism.
Also, you apparently try to rule out the left in America's economic history. Sheer folly.
I'm becoming more and more grateful for Pope Francis. Now if the church could get sensible about birth control and the role of women ...
I love anyone who gets conservatives' panties in a wad, whether it's Archbishop Dolan, Limbaugh, Palin or RN. Heh heh heh.
Ducky, not a thing you said surprises me. It fits you to a tee.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal, and properly pursued would be without a doubt AWESOME. I think of it as then being A Benevolent Laissez-faire capitalism.
Instead of CEO salaries being 500 times that of their average employees earnings 50 times is sufficient.
Instead of their bonuses being in the multimillion dollar range 25% of their salary should suffice nicely.
Instead of insurance subsidies a matching 401K and modest profit sharing plan based would be appropriate.
Instead of employees feeling they need representation via crap unionization treat them as important respected and valued contributors to the business and treat them as you would want to be treated if the roles were reversed.
View profit as important not only to the company but EQUALLY as important to your company's employees (remember I tout profit sharing). Because if you do employes will recognize the benefits of innovation, creativity, conscientious effort, hard work, long hours every bit as much as you do.
After 36 years in management I could say more. But with the exception of a very few not many thought like me. But my people understood me and I was therefore fortunate to always have one of the top performing teams as well as plants when I became a plant manager. Of course I remained the oddity and could never convince the really big shots I was right.
But I digress. Capitalism can, it has, and it could rebuild America's industrial per-eminence. If only cor prate America and the the government would allow it.
RN
Don’t confuse capitalism with feudalism. What we have in America today is feudalism masquerading as capitalism; and the money people – and their K Street lobbyists - intend to keep it that way. The middle class is barely on life support.
In the current climate, any denunciation of inequality and injustice (regardless of tone) will be regarded as a far worse character flaw than the perpetuation of inequality and injustice.
As the public debate on economic inequality heats up, you may feel swayed by the polemics and rhetoric emanating from K Street. Please consider carefully the underlying data before you react.
Leslie P, My jockeys are far from being in a wad or a twist I assure you.
But if it gives you a perverse sense of pleasure by all means, pleasure yourself.
I politely suggest you read my previous comment closely. Then I would be most interested in reading your critique OF my admittedly rather lengthy part on Benevolent Laissez-faire capitalism.
Awaiting your reasoned response in anxious anticipation.
I assure you (O)CT(O)PUS I am not now confused nor will I become confused.
O'Reilly checks in on this
"Bill O’Reilly insists that Jesus Christ wouldn’t feed hungry people and their children, because it’s their fault for being poor."
Nice of Bill to educate the Pope on the acts of mercy.
Ducky said: "And what system is going to destroy the middle class, RN? Laissez-faire capitalism."
Perhaps, but nothing like laissez-faire is being proposed by anyone with any lick of power.
RN said: "Leslie P, My jockeys are far from being in a wad or a twist I assure you."
Perhaps because, even if you get classified as a "conservative", you aren't a typical one by any means, and lack the strings someone might expect to pull..
Bill O'Reilly is a pompous ass.
Why would anyone listen to him on anything to do with kindness and decency.
He's knows nothing about either.
Why doesn'r somebody beat up on Hannity. He's as whacked as O'Reily. Oh, that's right, Will Hart of Contra O'Reilly does every now and then.
Shaw said: "Bill O'Reilly is a pompous ass."
The king of falafel sex is looking out for YOU!
I admit, I was on his bandwagon, but am happy I jumped off many years ago.
Post a Comment