Government Intervention

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah, hte quoted stuff about the poor is a little misplaced.... but i think you could frame it in a helping hte poor arguement, to a degree. i mostly posted it to give notice against teh fundamentalist free marketers, much like why i quote this materail here, that free market isn't always the right solution, even as a catho perspective:


[quote]there's a reason why people equate catholic social teaching with the modern day "liberal" economic mindset. it's not just because people confuse "be nice" with "government intervention" as conservatives would have you believe (though that's part of it)



From the pope, in populorum progression, amoung others:
QUOTE
QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

notice he equates "liberalism" with "free market" (or more specifically free market fundamentalism)
QUOTE
In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results. One must recognize that it is the fundamental principle of liberalism, as the rule for commercial exchange, which is questioned here.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.


here is some by sollicitudo rei socialis
QUOTE
QUOTE
Once again it is evident that development, the planning which governs it, and the way in which resources are used must include respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to "use and misuse," or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to "eat of the fruit of the tree" (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.

QUOTE
In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.[/quote]

[quote]cath social teaching also has the principle of solidarity. that there can be no one who lacks a basic cut of the earth's bounty if they're willing to work beyond mere beans and staggering to get by, and that everyone has an an actual opportuinty beyond mere theoretical opportuinties.

this is not debatable:

QUOTE
We are one human family. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Pope John Paul II insists, "We are all really responsible for all". Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice." The Gospel calls us to be "peacemakers." Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we be "sentinels of peace" in a world wounded by violence and conflict.

[url="http://www.ccctx.org/fc_cst_solidarity.php"]http://www.ccctx.org/fc_cst_solidarity.php[/url]

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences. (#39)

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Catholic_Theology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Catholic_Theology)[/url]

QUOTE
III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY
1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.45
An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."46
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods. In spreading the spiritual goods of the faith, the Church has promoted, and often opened new paths for, the development of temporal goods as well. And so throughout the centuries has the Lord's saying been verified: "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well":47
For two thousand years this sentiment has lived and endured in the soul of the Church, impelling souls then and now to the heroic charity of monastic farmers, liberators of slaves, healers of the sick, and messengers of faith, civilization, and science to all generations and all peoples for the sake of creating the social conditions capable of offering to everyone possible a life worthy of man and of a Christian.48

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm[/url]

subsidiarity is known for its vagueness..... you only go up the governmental notch when the lower one isn't "incompetent", which really can mean lots of things. if hte lowr government isn't doing it even if it could, there's a good chance you should move up. Al talks about how we'd not like the UN to do something gloablly... but in fact it should do something for somethings being the highest level there is.
of course, the further you get away from the local the worse you are so you sholdn't if you can help it move up.

solidarity is vague too... teaches the government can help, though admittedly that doesn't say much.
if you read about all this stuff about solidarity, you can't help but realize that all the world's ills isn't properly placed in the hands of charity alone, which from my experience and opinion seems like a cop out from money hard core conservatives. charity can do somethings and should, and gov should't get involved. charity shouldn't do something, as a matter of justice, but oftne as a matter of practicality.
it's okay to be libertarian and generally a capitalist, but there comes a point where that has to stop- depending on the real situation happening on the ground.

there's a tension between the two doctrines, and to make it seem like there's not and to disregard solidarity is not sound by catholic teachings.

subsidiarity means somethings are good in the centralized government.
solidarity means somethings are good in the localized government, most things even i'd agree.

the cynic in me says these teachings are too vague to mean anything, but i do always come away thinking about how the localized government should be the focus... mostly cause for most things the localized government "CAN" do it, so "SHOULD".[/quote]

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah i just realized something.... laissez faire economics and free market economic theory are not really the same thing.

really.. i know i'd tend to call it socialistic components subduing capitalism. but, if you take basic econ theory of friedman etc, which assumes rational people and perfect information.... the government can actually increase efficiency if it's able to fix what people irratinoally do, or determine the perfect information.

so if you equate capitalism with free market econ theory, the socialistic components are merely facilitating the market and capitalism along.

if you look to lasizzez faire as the proper approach, then this argument doesn't work as well.
it does beg some interesting questions, like why the gov can intervene with the fed rates and other things to prevent market crashes etc. most conservative econs would say these free market econ exceptions are known but are rare and shouldn't extend us to things like intervening with alt fuel. but, if you do intervene iwth the markets there, why not here? it is more proactive, but why is that so inherently wrong, if the market is struggling so much?
i'd rather look at it as facilitating capitalism along.

so laiss faire would mean a crumbling economy, whereas interventionism does not mean that. and if interventionism happens to facilitate free market theory to help the system be rational and the knowledge be closer to perfect, then it's not the same as lass faire as intervention's occuring, yet capitalism is being facilitated, arguably... well are least the free market theory is being facilitated.

i suppose if you interject gov then it's more socilistic. but the irony then is that interventionism facilitates free market theory more than lassiz faire does.... at least some times.

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't it ironic, that popes denounce extremely free markets as "liberal".
and classically... free market econ this is called liberal econ theory...
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism[/url]

yet conservatives of modern day cling to it.
now, i think they have some valid arguments as to why they can, and are not violating the church teaching.
the irony is that the CC teaches about too much capitialism as potentially bad (well, this is a complicated statement), and too little as definition bad. so both sides could validly say the other is teetering on the edge of sound econ.

so why isn't socialism considered liberal econ theory, classically? and if not, then is both as per the CC considered liberal, as they're both the extremes and contra its teaching? (ie anything not CC is liberal.... instead of saying that the CC has liberal and conservative qualities using modern parlance)

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1454920' date='Feb 3 2008, 02:12 PM']just cause i think this phorum needs a healthy dose of reality from time to time...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F[/url][/quote]

really, much of what i have been saying can be summed up with the following......

"You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor, but you are giving them back what is theirs… the earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." St Ambrose

except he says "gift" which might be construed as charity, i suppose. the substance is still there though that what teh rich have is not necessarily their's.

Edited February 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

but, to balance out that liberal rhetoric from the saint...

here is an inspiring quote from, not a saint but an actor, arnold schwarzenegger:
(i'm not joking about it being inspiring)

[quote]I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.

But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air. I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican." And I have been a Republican ever since.[/quote]

(inspiring in some of the truths it states... not in the perceivable way it divvies up the world in terms of socialism v. capitalism, as if it must be either/or)