Pope Francis does not like Reaganomics

[Dalton]

This just in: Pope Francis has denounced trickle-down economics:

Pope Francis has released a sharply worded take on capitalism and the world's treatment of its poor, criticizing "trickle-down" economic policies in no uncertain terms.
In the first lengthy writing of his papacy — also known as an "apostolic exhortation" — Francis says such economic theories naively rely on the goodness of those in charge and create a "tyranny" of the markets.
"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," the pope wrote. "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. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
While popes have often warned against the negative impact of the markets, Francis's verbiage is note-worthy because of its use of the phrase "trickle-down" -- a term that came into popular usage as a description for former president Ronald Reagan's economic policies. While the term is often used pejoratively, it describes an economic theory that remains popular with conservatives in the United States today.
The theory holds that policies benefiting the wealthiest segment of society will also help the poor, by allowing money to “trickle down” from the top income levels into the lower ones. Critics, including President Obama, say the policies, usually focused on tax cuts and credits that primarily benefit upper-income Americans, concentrate wealth in the highest income levels and that the benefits rarely trickle down to the extent proponents suggest.
In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with the Ten Commandments — specifically the prohibition on killing.
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality," the pope wrote. "Such an economy kills."
The pope also likened the worship of money to the biblical golden calf.
"We have created new idols," Francis wrote. "The worship of the ancient golden calf ... has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose."
The pope also attacks "consumerism": "It is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric."

Full text of his speech after the jump.

[Crown]

Want to buy a 'thumbs up' function!

[Mr. Coffee]

Holyshit, I think for once we have a Pope that might actually be Christian. Canonize this man RTFN.

[Crown]

I can't wait for someone to be on Bill'O and just roast him about being anti-Catholic and not following the holy Father next time economics comes up

[Flagg]

I can't wait for someone to be on Bill'O and just roast him about being anti-Catholic and not following the holy Father next time economics comes up

Sarah "please poop in my mouth" Palin already has.

[wautd]

I can't wait for someone to be on Bill'O and just roast him about being anti-Catholic and not following the holy Father next time economics comes up

Sarah "please poop in my mouth" Palin already has.

"He's had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me," Palin said in an interview with CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper." But "unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media."

Just don't hurt your dumb little brain while doing it you stupid bitch

[Ralin]

Sarah "please poop in my mouth" Palin

Is that a reference to something stupid she said or...?

[Flagg]

Sarah "please poop in my mouth" Palin

Is that a reference to something stupid she said or...?

Wikipedia

Sarah Palin comments

On November 15, 2013, Bashir attacked former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin for comments that she made comparing the Federal debt to slavery.[11] Bashir attempted to counter Palin's comparison by referencing the cruel and barbaric punishment of slaves described by slave overseer Thomas Thistlewood, specifically a punishment called "Derby's dose" which involved forcing slaves to defecate or urinate into the mouth of another slave as punishment. Bashir then concluded by saying "When Mrs. Palin invokes slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate."[12] After many complaints were made against his comments, Bashir apologized on November 18, 2013, stating among other things: "My words were wholly unacceptable. They were neither accurate, nor fair. They were unworthy of anyone who would claim to have an interest in politics."[13]

I agree with everything Bashir said before the whole "sorry" part.

[Ralin]

Oh, wow.

Yeah it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

[Grumman]

Isn't the Catholic Church built on trickle-down economics? Tithe money to the wealthiest institution in the world so that the rewards seep down to the laypeople?

[Broomstick]

The difference is that the Catholic church at least sometimes does do things to benefit the poor. Like, the occasion I was seriously ill from the flu, dangerously so, and also poor and without health insurance and the local Catholic hospital provided treatment to me at no cost (charity, ya know?), providing basic education to poor children, soup kitchens, shelter, etc.

Granted not perfectly done and somewhat spotty, but more than many wealthy so-called Christians have ever done.

[Kitsune]

I hear the gnashing of teeth by libertarian Catholics

[Forgothrax]

I'll back what Broomy said. I work for a Catholic hospital; we have two in town, mine and a for-profit one, and we tend to get more of the indigent mostly because they know that their medical bills will be reduced or written off because we do charity.

It's not a good system by any means, but in comparison to most of American healthcare, it's better than most of what exists.

[Tiriol]

Isn't the Catholic Church built on trickle-down economics? Tithe money to the wealthiest institution in the world so that the rewards seep down to the laypeople?

At least one Finnish news source reported that the current Pope is in favour of de-centralizing the Church at least somewhat. I presume this would also mean that the flow of money to the Vatican would lessen and the money would stay in local church organizations, where it could be used for (as some have commented) charity etc.

The Pope has said that he chose his papal name based on what a Cardinal colleague of his said after he was elected: don't forget the poor. It does appear that he intends to keep that promise not only in his name and apartment (Francis doesn't live in the Papal Palace, as I understand, but rather in a guest apartment), which has also given some concern that Italian mafia might intend to eliminate him, since he also speaks against corruption and has started to re-organize the Bank of Vatican (rumoured to be a favourite bank of the Mafia due to its high level of secrecy).

[Siege]

At least one Finnish news source reported that the current Pope is in favour of de-centralizing the Church at least somewhat.

He did.

"Pastoral ministry in a missionary key seeks to abandon the complacent attitude that says: “We have always done it this way”. I invite everyone to be bold and creative in this task of rethinking the goals, structures, style and methods of evangelization in their respective communities."

For those who don't like to punish themselves by reading the entire exhortation, it's full of talk about missionary zeal and rejections of stratification and ossification.

I presume this would also mean that the flow of money to the Vatican would lessen and the money would stay in local church organizations, where it could be used for (as some have commented) charity etc.

This is already the case. In terms of its yearly cash-flow the Vatican isn't rich. John Allen wrote about this a bunch, and one brief article of his on this subject you can read here. The Vatican has an annual operating budget of about $260 million which given all the stuff they have to run isn't much at all. The Catholic Church as a whole controls a lot more money of course but as Allen points out "most of that isn't the Vatican's money. It belongs to religious orders, dioceses, movements and other Catholic organizations". Pretty much all the money generated by local dioceses stays local, it doesn't go into one big papal bank account.

[Kitsune]

Reading claims on a conservative board that he has been mistranslated

[Thanas]

It is pretty hard to mistranslate the official translation of the Vatican itself:

No to an economy of exclusion
53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. 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.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. 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. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. 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. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

[Dominus Atheos]

Reading claims on a conservative board that he has been mistranslated

It's available on the Vaticans website, trickle down and all:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/franc ... um_en.html

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit:
Even if you think only Italian is the true valid source, he mentions "le teorie della “ricaduta favorevole”” which is nothing but trickle down economics in italian.

[Kitsune]

You know how conservatives are?
I figured it was bullshit but thought people would want to know the spin that they are putting on it.

[amigocabal]

This just in: Pope Francis has denounced trickle-down economics:

Pope Francis has released a sharply worded take on capitalism and the world's treatment of its poor, criticizing "trickle-down" economic policies in no uncertain terms.
In the first lengthy writing of his papacy — also known as an "apostolic exhortation" — Francis says such economic theories naively rely on the goodness of those in charge and create a "tyranny" of the markets.
"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," the pope wrote. "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. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
While popes have often warned against the negative impact of the markets, Francis's verbiage is note-worthy because of its use of the phrase "trickle-down" -- a term that came into popular usage as a description for former president Ronald Reagan's economic policies. While the term is often used pejoratively, it describes an economic theory that remains popular with conservatives in the United States today.
The theory holds that policies benefiting the wealthiest segment of society will also help the poor, by allowing money to “trickle down” from the top income levels into the lower ones. Critics, including President Obama, say the policies, usually focused on tax cuts and credits that primarily benefit upper-income Americans, concentrate wealth in the highest income levels and that the benefits rarely trickle down to the extent proponents suggest.
In his exhortation, the pope also attacked economic inequality, suggesting Christians have a duty to combat it to comply with the Ten Commandments — specifically the prohibition on killing.
"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality," the pope wrote. "Such an economy kills."
The pope also likened the worship of money to the biblical golden calf.
"We have created new idols," Francis wrote. "The worship of the ancient golden calf ... has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose."
The pope also attacks "consumerism": "It is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric."

Full text of his speech after the jump.

I can sort of understand where he is coming from. After all, the antics of Bernie Madoff and Lance Armstrong clearly resulted from an "idolatry of money". And, according to this list, Oprah Winfrey makes $260 million a year, and Johnny Depp makes "only" $92 million a year. I fail to see how that brings about about "greater justice and inclusiveness in the world".

Having established the above, I also fail to see how Oprah Winfrey and Johnny Depp are tyrannizing anyone merely because they make a whole lot of money. More importantly, I fail to see how inequality is a problem per se. I quote from this very site.

For those without knowledge of basic economics, poverty is not defined
in terms of absolutes. It has nothing to do with absolute measures of subsistence, or health, or quality of clothing or standards of living. It is simply based on income percentiles; if you rank financially in the bottom third of the population, then you are below the poverty line (the exact placement of the poverty line may vary from country tocountry).

To put this concept in stark relief, consider this: if everybody in North America experiences a tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days, the number of people living below the poverty line won't change one iota. The "poor" grocery store clerks might have 6000 square foot homes and Porsches, but the "rich" people would have 30,000 square foot homes and McLarens (insert whatever ostentatious displays of wealth you prefer, if you're not into cars).

In other words, a
general increase in the standard of living cannot possibly eliminate
poverty, no matter how high that increase is.

If the hypothetical "tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days" happened, would we really care about the difference between the haves and the have-mores? Or just those who would starve to death on the streets without assistance?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Thanks for missing the point? As a Christian, the Pope is pretty much obligated to believe that any kind of economic inequality is unacceptable. This particular level of reading comprehension isn't so hard, but apparently some people cannot grasp the idea of not failing.

[amigocabal]

Thanks for missing the point? As a Christian, the Pope is pretty much obligated to believe that any kind of economic inequality is unacceptable. This particular level of reading comprehension isn't so hard, but apparently some people cannot grasp the idea of not failing.

Here is a short compilation of Bible verses on almsgiving.

Is there any evidence that the Biblical definition of poor could ever include people who could afford "6000 square foot homes and Porsches"? Does Deuteronomy 15:7-8 require people to give free McLarens to "poor" people who can afford Porsches?

[Kitsune]

Thanks for missing the point? As a Christian, the Pope is pretty much obligated to believe that any kind of economic inequality is unacceptable. This particular level of reading comprehension isn't so hard, but apparently some people cannot grasp the idea of not failing.

Obviously you have not dealt with religious conservatives much. . . .
Need to read some of the apologetics they try with the "Eye of the Needle" passage

[Irbis]

I can't wait for someone to be on Bill'O and just roast him about being anti-Catholic and not following the holy Father next time economics comes up

Why are you a follower of degenerate western cult of death and lie what Holy Father really said?

Note - the above had been uttered by at least five different catholic bishops in Poland. Seriously. Each time someone tries to quote Francis. Oh, and pedophiles are actually 'victims of wicked children'. Yes, it's that bad.

I'll back what Broomy said. I work for a Catholic hospital; we have two in town, mine and a for-profit one, and we tend to get more of the indigent mostly because they know that their medical bills will be reduced or written off because we do charity.

Wish we had that kind of catholicism here. Assholes that run things here would be more likely (and did) to destroy hospital or school to line their pockets...