Pope Francis says "Libertarian Economics Sucks!"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**streamdragon**

A Papal Manifesto is not exactly "off hand comments".

edit: er, you edited and now my top page comment remains here, making no sense, for all to see.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?

respectfully, I won't want to know about his personal life thank you very much...

Dirty... dirty mind.

Carry ON!

Here's that info: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/vatican-suspends-german-bishop-known-for-spending.html

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?

respectfully, I won't want to know about his personal life thank you very much...

Dirty... dirty mind.

Carry ON!

Here's that info: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/vatican-suspends-german-bishop-known-for-spending.html

I think part of the issue that will seem odd to Americans, is that the German government collects taxes for the Catholic Church. So not only was he living an insanely lavish lifestyle, he was doing so at tax payer expense.

**Alfndrate**

streamdragon wrote:
A Papal Manifesto is not exactly "off hand comments".

edit: er, you edited and now my top page comment remains here, making no sense, for all to see.

I was referring to the comments about being slightly more okay with gay people than previous popes. If I recall his original comments on ( were made on an airplane and not originally a part of his manifesto, was something like, "Who am I to judge?").

But the article you linked does point out that he's not seeking to change the Church's stance on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc..., just that the Church shouldn't focus on them so much.

**streamdragon**

Alfndrate wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
A Papal Manifesto is not exactly "off hand comments".

edit: er, you edited and now my top page comment remains here, making no sense, for all to see.

I was referring to the comments about being slightly more okay with gay people than previous popes. If I recall his original comments on ( were made on an airplane and not originally a part of his manifesto, was something like, "Who am I to judge?").

But the article you linked does point out that he's not seeking to change the Church's stance on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc..., just that the Church shouldn't focus on them so much.

Correct, which I cleared up in my other post. Again, I really want to like Pope Francis. I feel like he's a good first step in bringing the Catholic Church up to date with reality. Because prior to Francis, Catholic Charities threatened to stop helping the poor if DC passed Gay Marriage. They actually hated gays more than they loved the poor. And while Pope Francis claims to want to change that, actual reality conflicts with his wants.

**Alfndrate**

streamdragon wrote:
Correct, which I cleared up in my other post. Again, I really want to like Pope Francis. I feel like he's a good first step in bringing the Catholic Church up to date with reality. Because prior to Francis, Catholic Charities threatened to stop helping the poor if DC passed Gay Marriage. They actually hated gays more than they loved the poor. And while Pope Francis claims to want to change that, actual reality conflicts with his wants.

Alternatively, by saying that the Church needs to focus less on those things he's shifting attention away from them. If the Church truly follows what he says in papal manifestos, they will (hopefully) be focused on other things allowing this stuff to be ignored by the Church at large. And it will remain to fringe groups to be loud and boisterous about such things.

**Minx**

Alfndrate wrote:
Also Frazz, he suspended a German Bishop for his lavious lifestyle.

He was suspended for creating negative publicity and will most likely find someplace else in the church to continue his lifestyle.

**AgeOfEgos**

streamdragon wrote:

I suppose it makes calling him a hypocrite a little out of order, since it's not him actually going against what he himself said. The institution remains hypocritical though, as the new face it is presenting is 100% at odds with its actions.

His words when Argentina was considering homosexual unions;

In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.

From what I can understand of him, given the above quote and his recent statement, I would guess he's most assuredly against homosexual marriage--but understands the times (and seeks to grow the Church). If I were a Pope trying to grow Catholicism, I would not pick homosexual marriage as my line in the sand. That fight is pretty much over and on its way out.

**schadenfreude**

As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.

Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.

Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.

The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.

**Frazzled**

schadenfreude wrote:
As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.

Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.

Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.

The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.

YES

**Easy E**

schadenfreude wrote:
As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.

Libertarianism can not fail! It can only BE failed.

**d-usa**

More pope stories:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4373884

A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the "Almoner of His Holiness," raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true. A knowledgable source in Rome told The Huffington Post that "Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women."

Krajewski earlier said, “When I say to him ‘I’m going out into the city this evening’, there’s the constant risk that he will come with me," and he merely smiled and ducked the question when reporters asked him point-blank whether the Pope accompanied him into the city.

He's not the only Pope known for nocturnal wanderings. There are stories of Pope John XIII sneaking out to enjoy the beauty of Rome in the evenings, and reports tell of Pope Pius XII dressing as a Franciscan during WWII to help smuggle Rome's Jewish population to safety. More recently, Pope Benedict XVI popped out unannounced to visit an art exhibit.

When Pope Francis was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, he was known to sneak out at night to break bread with the homeless, sitting with them on the street and eating with them to show that they were loved.

And we love him for doing it now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

So clearly he has to eat babies or something. Too good a pope to be true.

**Frazzled**

Babies! The other other white meat! Get in mah belly!

**Co'tor Shas**

schadenfreude wrote:
As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.

Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs. We don't need to protect capitol gains taxes, and it should be treated as normal incom. Corporate tax rates are also too high for corporations that pay their taxes, while ones that buy the government get huge breaks and subsidies. . A government shouldn't be large and powerful enough to redistribute wealth from the middle class to select corporations.

Lowering taxes on the middle class helps the economy more than lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Actual small government means cutting military spending and eliminating the prison industrial complex by ending prohibition.

The list goes on. I like this pope I'm just dissapointed he is holding libertarians accountable for Republican mistakes when the only 2 things libertarians have been in charge of over the past 100 years is jack and gak.

I like this. I don't agree with some points, but you put your point elequently yet easy to understand.

**streamdragon**

schadenfreude wrote:
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.

Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups. So that's not quite true.

Edit: Sounded way meaner than I meant it to be.

Also: I agree with the many parts of your post, though I think the "protect corporations" thing is wrong. Corporate taxes are at almost historically low rates in the US right now.

**Co'tor Shas**

streamdragon wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups.

So your statement is a flat out lie.

This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.

**streamdragon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
Protecting job creators means protecting corporations not the ultra wealthy. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are not job creators, Microsoft and Apple create jobs.
Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started with Bill Gates's own money (and obviously that of donors), hundreds to thousands of jobs are created in the fields of malaria research and health care in third world nations. This is not only jobs with the Gates Foundation itself, but through grants to private citizens and groups.

So your statement is a flat out lie.

This is what Adam Smith had in mind. He thought laissez-faire capitalism would work because he thought people were like him (he gave much of his money to charity). The problem is, all the super-rich people who just hoard their money.

There are multiple problems, but yes, the fact that .1% of the US population controls trillions in offshore accounts for the sole purpose of some schwanz measuring contest is an issue.

Also, frankly, the idea that "the market will correct" is just beyond naive.

**Kilkrazy**

Given that the system is set up to return the most money to the people with the most money to invest, it would be silly to think the market will correct itself.

**Kovnik Obama**

streamdragon wrote:
Also, frankly, the idea that "the market will correct" is just beyond naive.

Andrew Ryan wrote:"I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky. But there is something more powerful than each of us, a combination of our efforts, a Great Chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you different either has his hand in your pocket, or a pistol to your neck."

**AgeOfEgos**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that the system is set up to return the most money to the people with the most money to invest, it would be silly to think the market will correct itself.

Agreed. Also, even if a self correcting market were found to be true, would we really want it? I don't see anything advantageous about making an entire generation suffer while the market self corrects--if a government can help ease the pain in the interim.

**Kilkrazy**

Indeed, we saw during the "Triumph of Capitalism", or Global Economic Crisis as some people call it, what is the effect on the rich of serious economic turmoil.

For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who in a few years turned the Royal Bank of Scotland from one of the UK's most successful banks, into a smoking hole in the ground, was punished with a 7 million pound retirement fund while 80% of the bank's debts were assumed by the UK taxpayer.

**Kovnik Obama**

Easy E wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
As a libertarian I agree with the pope that our policies are not working, but can defend them because they are not being implemented.

Libertarianism can not fail! It can only BE failed.

Well, before spewing ideological nonsense, perhaps you should take a look at the different libertarian policies, you know.

Education :
1a)

The party's official platform states that education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of school choice. Oh come on, can you please try harder? One excellent school exist. We open a new terrible one. Diversity went up, overall quality of the student body went down. Even if there was a consumer's choice to the same extent as there is in goods, it still wouldn't have an influence on the first school's teaching quality.

1b)

Seeing the education of children as a parental responsibility, the party would give authority to parents to determine the education of their children at their expense without interference from government. Therefore making children even more at the mercy of their parents. You know that most parents are, like most people, of mediocre intelligence, right?

1c)

Libertarians have expressed that parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. Huh, do you mean that parents should provide all funds? Because that just straight up screw the poor. Or do you mean that all funds expended in school should be approved and veted by each and every parents? Because that's just nuts.

Environment :
2a)

The Libertarian platform supports a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of natural resources, believing that private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining such natural resources. So, no thought at all toward the fact that most owners will chose an immediate benefit over long term ones?

2b)

The party has also expressed that "governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to the environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection."Well, given that humans have had a terrible track record regarding the environnment, yes. Still, this is at best a petition of principle.

2c)

The party contends that the environment is best protected when individual rights pertaining to natural resources are clearly defined and enforced. Huh, okay, like every one else? And why individual rights and not collective rights?

2d)

The party also contends that free markets and property rights (implicitly, without government intervention) will stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect the environment and ecosystem because environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. And why can't the government play the part of environmental advocates here?

Fiscal policies :
3a)

The Libertarian Party opposes all government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services Including drugs that have not been approved yet?

3b)

The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System. Now, there's a good argument to say that block grants are problematic, but seriously? Let's close the TANF because feth the poor.

3c)

The party does not feel that government should incur debt and supports the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced preferably by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. Yes, because liberals or cons get a boner every time they raise taxes.

3d)

Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Which could never ever lead to cartels or monopolies. Never.

3e)

While the party defends the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies, it opposes government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Therefore putting you at a terrible disadvantage in comparison to those countries that will subsidize their business, labor, etc. You'd think you'd have learned, after we canucks fethed you over with the softwood lumber dispute. But by all means, keep making your own industries more vulnerable to foreign exploitation

Health Care :
4a)

The Libertarian Party favors a free-market health care system, without government oversight, approval, regulation, and licensing. Like, you mean, no regulation on medical services, or just on the overarching system of payment for medical expenses? Because if its the former, that just monstrous. If it's the second, well, it's also pretty monstrous.

4b)

The party states that it "recognizes the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the amount of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."Again, with no regard to those drugs and medecine being pre-approved? That's nuts.

4c)

They support the repeal of all social insurance policies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. i.e. feth the poor. Once again.

Immigration and trade :
5a)

The Libertarian Party consistently lobbies for the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. This is because their platform states that "political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries". Huh. You realize most impediments to free trade won't come, in the case of the U.S, from your side of the border?

5b)

To promote economic freedom, they demand the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, the party encourages control over the entry into the country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. Something is either unrestricted or it isn't.

Employment :
6a)

The Libertarian Party supports the repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment while opposing government-fostered/forced retirement and heavy interference in the bargaining process.

6b)

The party supports the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and believes that employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. Therefore managing in both making unions useless and promoting a more volatile work environnment

Retirement :
7a)

The party believes that retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.

7b)

The Libertarians feel that the proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals, believing members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. Thus, putting the poor at the mercy of those organisations, and giving power to those institutions over the State.

Social Issues :
8a)

The Libertarian Party supports the legalization of all victimless crimes,[65] including drugs,[66][67][68][69] pornography,[66] prostitution,[66][67][68][69] polygamy,[70] gambling,[71] removal of restrictions on homosexuality,[68] opposes any kind of censorship and supports freedom of speech,[72] and supports the right to keep and bear arms [67] while opposing capital punishment.[73] Because it's impossible to say, for example, that pot shouldn't be illegal, but that crocodile should remain as such. No, such finer distinctions are just nonsense!

8b)

The Libertarian Party's platform states: "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."Including deontological laws? I thought you guys were against corruption?

Your policies are not being implemented because the vast majority of them boils down to ideological ramblings with not a single thought to the pragmatic aspect of things.

**easysauce**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Didn't he spank a German Bishop recently?

respectfully, I won't want to know about his personal life thank you very much...

Dirty... dirty mind.

Carry ON!

Here's that info: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/vatican-suspends-german-bishop-known-for-spending.html

thats kind of my point whembly,

even if the pope actually is meaning to be simply criticizing the excess or Èlegalized theftÈ that some would incorrectly label as capitalism,

the fact that a guy in the article you linked is only suspended instead of kicked out, is akin to how we fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100mill...

once the guy comes back from suspension, hes still got his opulence paid for on the tithers dime.

I dont get suspended for stealing... I get fired and go to jail... THATS the real problem with economics, be they in the church or white house or where ever.

Some pigs are more equal then others and can legally break the law

**streamdragon**

easysauce wrote:

the fact that a guy in the article you linked is only suspended instead of kicked out, is akin to how we fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100mill...

I think I agree with what you're saying in the rest of your post, but I think you might be missing a word or something here.

We most certainly do not fine a company 10 billion for stealing 100 million. More like the other way around...

Edit:

@Kovnik - Even if I mostly agree re: libertarian politics, I think Easy E was being sarcastic there. Unless you're talking to schadenfreude, in which case, carry on!

**Co'tor Shas**

Kovnik Obama
I take my hat off to you.

**streamdragon**

The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.

I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?

**Cheesecat**

I guess it depends if the libertarian is an anarchist or minarchist.

**Co'tor Shas**

streamdragon wrote:
The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.

I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?

What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!

And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System.

I have to ask, with this particular item, where does the Libertarian think the government will get the money to pay for things? Donations?

What are you talking about he private sector would pay for it!
And we don't need a military, we'll just let walmart buy tanks!

Because there's so much utility in the tank domestically.