Catholic Economic Theory

[amarkich]

As far as I understand it, distributism is the only name applicable. I, too, have noticed the problem in Microsoft Word, but I do not think he will mark points off for that. Anyway, if you right-click and Add the word to your dictionary, then it may not appear as a misspelled word when he reads it. Also, which two could your father not fulfill? I assume number 7, but which other one? My father scored a five as well. He could not fulfill number 1, either. He works for a corporation. God bless.

[Guest Aluigi]

nah, he got number 7. he owns his own business, built it from the ground up through tons of toil and such, he can and does take time off whenever he wants (though of course if he did that too much he'd probably run the business down, but he still makes his own schedule)

i'd say #2 cuz who in america nowadays doesn't pay debt for their house? though i think they already paid off one of the mortgages, they have another though i think. then #5, i go to public school. i guess depending on how you interpret that, cuz i mean he does teach me stuff, but not like school teaches me stuff... i learn from him sittin around watchin fox news and havin political discussions and what not.

<adding it to your own dictionary only makes it not mispelled on your computer, but after emailing it it will still come out as mispelled on his computer>

Edited November 16, 2004 by Aluigi

[God Conquers]

Wow, I like the test....

Socrates:

My information surrounds actual food consumption, not total material goods, howver, a society which has its needs fulfilled in this area might be presumed to be comfortable materially according to its technological capabilities.

For scholarly studies on food consumption int he Middle Ages, which show we have misconcieved and projected our own ideology and world onto the middle ages see:

Russell, J.C. "Population in Europe, 500-1500" In [i]The Fontana Economic History of Europe: The Middle Ages[/i], ed. CM Cipolla 25-70. London, 1972

There are a number of Dutch and German authors as well who have treated the issue of famine and scarcity, such as Montanari, Blockmans and Werveke.... none of their works are translated into English.

Together they paint a picture of the middle ages vastly different than our popular notions. 3rd World famine like we see today did not exist in the middle ages, and most scarcity was attributed to "usury" rather than lack of agricultural or economic output.

I can provide more info if you'd like...

[Balthazor]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 16 2004, 10:51 AM'] Hello all. I voted for distributism simply because it was the best of the three, but feudalism under a Catholic kingship is the ideal. In fact, Don John of Austria has essentially already named this system in similar words earlier in the thread. In any event, I went to the distributism website just to see what it was about, and I was glad to see it was a Catholic site. Also, for anyone who is ignorant of the actual conditions of the Middle Ages, please read their Wage Slave test. Here it is:

Place a check by each of the following if you currently are or if you are able to fulfill the question below:

1. Can you be the sole or principal owner in the business in which you work?

2. Can you own your own home, without burden of usurious debt?

3. Can you have daily leisure to spend time with your family?

4. Can you be the sole 'breadwinner' of the family, so that your wife is able to devote all of her love, talents and energy into your & her home and hearth? (if you are a woman, answer for your husband)

5. Are you able to school your own children?

6. Are you able to afford basic necessities for civilized living, such as [b]good musical instruments[/b] for your children? (emphasis added)

7. Can you schedule out most of the activities of the day, or are they directed for you, either by bosses or clients?




Now, if you were not able to answer Yes to all of the above questions, you are a wage slave. Further, you have less freedom than the so-called peasants of the Middle Ages, who were able to provide all of these for themselves and their families.


I like the test, and I think it is important to recognize how much worse off things are in capitalism, especially number 7. It is the same as socialism in this regard: the individual becomes a machine whose only goal is production. Further, he is not able to schedule his own life, as number 7 indicates. Feudalism is ideal, but distributism is close. It wins out of the three choices. [/quote]
Not to brag or anything but I was able to answer yes to all of these.....

However I live on a farm, I have worked on the farm from a very young age. My parents get up at 1:30am and 2:30 am to work on the farm. To milk cows.
They work all week, they pay a fortune for health insurance, they have to be able to be everything, mechanic, carpentar, vet, for the farm to work. They do not get holidays, vacations, weekends.

And if you think it is easy think again, it isn't not everyone has good land like we do, we are incredibly lucky. Also I can not remember a Christmas eve when there hasn't been a cow freshening and everyone had to really rush to get to church.

Don't get me wrong, I would not trade my lifestyle or my childhood for anything, but this distributism thing glorifys a hard way of life, It is not for everyone.

Even owning your own means of production is not for everyone, not everyone wants that responsibility. Some people just want to work, get paid and go home.

Theoretically this type of economy could work, but I know too many people that just wouldn't be able to make it and I can not conceive of a government or system that could keep a distributist economy in place.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 16 2004, 11:55 AM'] Wow, I like the test....

Socrates:

My information surrounds actual food consumption, not total material goods, howver, a society which has its needs fulfilled in this area might be presumed to be comfortable materially according to its technological capabilities.

For scholarly studies on food consumption int he Middle Ages, which show we have misconcieved and projected our own ideology and world onto the middle ages see:

Russell, J.C. "Population in Europe, 500-1500" In [i]The Fontana Economic History of Europe: The Middle Ages[/i], ed. CM Cipolla 25-70. London, 1972

There are a number of Dutch and German authors as well who have treated the issue of famine and scarcity, such as Montanari, Blockmans and Werveke.... none of their works are translated into English.

Together they paint a picture of the middle ages vastly different than our popular notions. 3rd World famine like we see today did not exist in the middle ages, and most scarcity was attributed to "usury" rather than lack of agricultural or economic output.

I can provide more info if you'd like... [/quote]
Thanks.

[Don John of Austria]

Try a Historical Geography of Europe such as the one by that name. it is a multi author work and I don't have it in front of me for the Publisher info but it shouldn't be to hard to find.


For a good General treatment on the subject of the middle ages take a look at Those Terrible Middle Ages by Regine Pernoud

[Don John of Austria]

[url="http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-874179-0"]here[/url] I am pretty sure this is the one.

[God Conquers]

beaver dam that Oxford Uni Press...... so expensive.... trying to bleed us students dry.

That book has some good contributers.

For a good social history I'd suggest Medieval Callings, ed. by Jaques Le Goff... it's excellent.

[conservativecatholic]

Capitalism is the only fair economic system. No government interference!!!!!

[God Conquers]

The results of a non-interventionist no-holds barred capitalism are decried in Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum.

You may want to rethink that position.

No government interference means no limits on what you can acquire and no consideration of who's expense that is at.

No government interference would lead ultimately in pure capitalism to one person owning everything.

Unrestrained competition means nothing if no one is able to compete and the big just gets bigger.