Pope Francis Understands Economics Better Than Most Politicians
Inequality is the biggest economic issue of our time. It's only surprising it took so long for a globally prominent figure to say it By Heidi Moore November 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "The Guardian" - Pope Francis is a pontiff who has constructively broken all the rules of popery – so far to widespread acclaim. He's faulted the Catholic church for its negative obsession with gays and birth control, and now he has expanded his mandate to economics with a groundbreaking screed denouncing "the new idolatry of money". As the Pope wrote in his "apostolic exhortation": 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 worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings. His thoughts on income inequality are searing: 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. The pope's screed on "the economy of exclusion and inequality" will disappoint those who considers themselves free-market capitalists, but they would do well to listen to the message. Francis gives form to the emotion and injustice of post-financial-crisis outrage in a way that has been rare since Occupy Wall Street disbanded. There has been a growing chorus of financial insiders – from the late Merrill Lynch executive Herb Allison to organizations like Better Markets – it's time for a change in how we approach capitalism. It's not about discarding capitalism, or hating money or profit; it's about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the premise that exploitation is at the center of profit. When 53% of financial executives say they can't get ahead without some cheating, even though they want to work for ethical organizations, there's a real problem. Unlike Occupy, which turned its rage outward, Pope Francis bolstered his anger with two inward-facing emotions familiar to any Catholic-school graduate: shame and guilt, to make the economy a matter of personal responsibility. This is important. Income inequality is not someone else's problem. Nearly all of us are likely to experience it. Inequality has been growing in the US since the 1970s. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the incomes of the top 1% grew by 31.4% in the three years after the financial crisis, while the majority of people struggled with a disappointing economy. The other 99% of the population grew their incomes 0.4% during the same period. As a result, federal and state spending on social welfare programs has been forced to grow to $1tn just to handle the volume of US households in trouble. Yet income inequality has been locked out of of the mainstream economic conversation, where it is seen largely as a sideshow for progressive bleeding hearts. In the discussions of why the US is not recovering, economists often mention metrics like economic growth and housing. They rarely mention the metrics that directly tell us we are failing our economic goals, like poverty and starvation. Those metrics of income inequality tell an accurate story of the depth of our economic malaise that new-home sales can't. One-fifth of Americans, or 47 million people, are on food stamps; 50% of children born to single mothers live in poverty; and over 13 million people are out of work. Children are now not likely to do as well as their parents did as downward mobility takes hold for the first time in generations. The bottom line, which Pope Francis correctly identifies, is that inequality is the biggest economic issue of our time – for everyone, not just the poor. Nearly any major economic metric – unemployment, growth, consumer confidence – comes down to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are struggling in some way. You don't have to begrudge the rich their fortunes or ask for redistribution. It's just hard to justify ignoring the financial problems of 47 million people who don't have enough to eat. Until they have enough money to fill their pantries, we won't have a widespread economic recovery. You can't have a recovery if one-sixth of the world's economically leading country is eating on $1.50 a day. It's only surprising that it took so long for anyone – in this case, Pope Francis – to become the first globally prominent figure to figure this out and bring attention to income inequality. Income inequality is the issue that will govern whether we ever emerge from the struggling economy recovery and it determine elections in 2014. The support for Elizabeth Warren to rise above her seat in the US Senate, for instance, largely centers on her crusade against inequality. The White House's chirpy protestations that the economy is improving are not fooling anyone. Into this morass of economic confusion steps Francis with clarifying force: 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. It's a historic and bold statement, mainly because it's rarely heard from clergy. Money has always been at odds with religion, going back to the times when God had a fighting chance against Mammon. Moses grew enraged by the golden calf, Jesus by moneychangers in the temple, Muhammad by lending money at interest, or usury. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, the Bible tells us. There have been criticisms from prominent men of religion before, but they didn't stick. in 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed Marx against the forces of "unbridled capitalism", and the Archbishop of York disdained traders as "bank robbers and asset strippers", but those cries went unheeded in the subsequent flood of corporate profits. At the time, those criticisms seemed extreme, throwing pitchforks into frozen ground. Francis is speaking at a when the ground has been thawed. Outrage against the financial sector is lurking so close to the surface that the US government can extract a $13bn fine from the nation's largest bank, throwing it into its first financial loss in nine years, and find significant approval. Still, popes have been largely content to leave these particular issues of economic inequality behind in favor of focusing on social issues. There was, after all, a problem of throwing stones. The church's rich trappings and vast wealth, as well as its scandal-plagued Vatican bank, made an ill fit to preach too loudly about austerity. Pope Francis, in his simple black shoes and unassuming car and house, is the first pontiff in a long time to reject flashy shows of power and live by the principle of simplicity. That makes him uniquely qualified to make the Vatican an outpost of Occupy Wall Street. His message about spiritual salvation applies mainly to Catholics but it would be sensible for economists and lawmakers to recognize his core message about the importance of income inequality applies to those even those who have no belief in religion. Capitalism has always seen itself as an amoral pursuit, where the guiding stars were not "good" or "bad", but only "profit" and "loss". It's going to be harder to sustain that belief over the next few years. Heidi Moore is the Guardian's US finance and economics editor. Formerly, she was New York bureau chief and Wall Street correspondent for Marketplace, from American Public Media © 2013 Guardian News and Media What's your response? - Scroll down to add / read comments  Support Information Clearing House  Flummoxed· 4 hours ago Good points from the writer. It makes me nervous though that the old Pope is still hanging out in his old digs.....what? Is he going to lead an overthrow of the new Pope? I like this guy because there have been a lot of weird Popes but he sounds like a real person and he has apparently read the BEATITUDES, and so many priests and church officials seem not to have done that. : ) I'm still a RUMI fan though, but keep the good ideas, but geezz, Catholic church, do you really need all that money? You have your own private city ,and bank and airport............spend the $ down,; the world needs secuirty not austerity. And hey, don't forget the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Haiti... for probaly one item of your art treasures, the chuch could probably save a lot of the world, with or without counting up souls.  MidaFo· 3 hours ago "It's not about discarding capitalism, or hating money or profit; it's about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the premise that exploitation is at the center of profit." Yes indeed. In the beginning is the word. It works like this: A group of people joined only by greed decided to name themselves Capitalist. In this way they claimed ownership of the word and effectively laid claim to all capital. But capital is for all in the world because it is of the world. After all we are all capitalists, whether Marxist, Maoist or otherwise. Even our language is that capital without which there can be no other capital. Let us be capitalists! Let us put the most prominent Capitalist thieves in jail and send the many others for re-education. This would best consist of the physical work required to save our planet from the effects of their past greed. We should have done this a long time ago.  Andre· 3 hours ago It is somewhat shocking and newsworthy when a religious leader seems to want to help humanity.  DrS· 1 hour ago There are many authentic Christians who are working to implement Christ's message of love. They are caring, concerned, compassionate and loving towards the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable in our communities. There has been commitment from the beginning. It is government that lacks these qualities. It is our leaders who are FAILING US.  Jamie· 2 hours ago It is funniest how little press the pope is getting for his comments about the economic inequality across the world. Now if he were to comment on abortion, I wonder if the MMS would be as silent. I like somebody posted already, I like this pope. He seems to be more of a thinker and open to reality.  neville· 1 hour ago That's an absolute given.There is NOT a single politician that knows diddly squat about economics.They wouldn't even know what a pint of beer costs,yet they dabble in the murky waters of QE ,currencies on crack,Economics is only one of their weak subjects the rest are also up for scrutiny. |
23 Comments
But it was not a joke at all. The Troubles was only the latest round of fighting between the two communities. In 1921 the British state of Northern Ireland came into being. Its leaders proclaimed it a Protestant state for a Protestant people, despite having a large Catholic minority.
The recent round of troubles began in the late 1960s when Catholics began demonstrating against discrimination in employment, housing and gerrymandered districts of Northern Ireland.
England may have been able to prevent the Troubles if it had constrained the Protestant police force and militias from attacking Catholic demonstrations. But they did not.
In 1970 Catholics were forming defense forces the protect their neighborhoods. But due to the heavy-handed tactics the British army used against the Catholic community the defense forces morphed into the IRA.
But the IRA was not the only paramilitary involved in terrorism. Protestant paramilitaries and their death-squads included the Ulster Defence Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters. These organizations worked hand-in-hand with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army.
Well I won't take a liking to Larkin.....
Not now, maybe never.
The best example of that is, of course, South Africa. Mandela is a universally loved figure because the commission granted amnesty and he was willing to forgive. That was the right thing to do, and it's also the right thing to try in other places.
You are a perfect example of the mindless secretarian hatemonger that caused the troubles to drag on so long.
Justice ignored, for whatever reason, is unworthy of a civilized society.
Friends and survivors of the thousands of victims deserve their due.
Justice will not return their loved ones but it just might restore their faith in humanitarian ideals.
No truth nor reconciliation. Instead denial and delusion.
"We did not land on Plymouth Rock. It landed on us." Malcolm X
For many who observe their power as compromised, such as your remarks on the Union Jack and Public Marches, the past never ended and the Good Friday Agreement is frankly viewed as a betrayal. The Irish, all sides, do not appreciate betrayal.
The Irish Times has a column on Gerry Adams, now a member of the Dail, the Parliament of the Republic, which illustrates how he, reputedly a leader of the IRA who fought the British to a standstill, is viewed today, and some of the comments give a flavor of how the public view him and the period under discussion.
That Ireland has, despite serious economic issues, managed to begin to mature and has successfully accepted the reality of a two state solution now by the vast majority of voters is progress. The hope that the island will be reunited remains in certain circles though is hardly a serious issue today. That justice is seen to be done remains the quarrel and has opened up old wounds.
Article 1 of the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations, the European Convention in Article 1 of the 1974 European Convention and in Article 2 of the same Convention, and the International Criminal Court, article 29 of the 1998 ICC all rule that there's no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Mr. Larkin may be well intentioned in suggesting that the people of Ulster "move on."
But it should be the citizens of Ulster who make that decision, and in particular the victims of all entities and individuals who terrorized them in "The Troubles."
I hope that Mr. Larkin isn't simply presenting the case of some who may be criminal parties, but outside criminal courts and the court of public opinion which may have serious, cogent reasons to see this matter very differently than Mr. Larkin.
In my admittedly distant opinion, moving on in Ulster makes as much sense as would to quit looking for those who tortured, persecuted and murdered Jews and many others across Europe in 1930s and 1940s or for Americans to have quit looking for murderers of Blacks, and other minorities during our Civil Rights era.
There's good reason for having no statute of limitations on murder. It should be up to victims to decide otherwise.
.
There is always a call for an end to the examination of the facts, an end to the discovery of who committed the atrocities. This is always pitched as necessary to reconciliation, "that it is time to move on." Too often this is just a thin cover for the fact that those who committed the acts remain in circulation and power; their factions must be appeased to keep a facade of civility.
From the legal perspective it may indeed be increasingly difficult to prosecute successfully, but this is no reason to hide the truth. The two issues are separate, and the truth should never be suppressed.