The New Pope on Poverty...

[Publius1787]

The Pope was not attacking capitalism. What we have now is not capitalism. It is oligarchism.

No you cannot get rid of capitalism. The only question is who holds the capital and under what circumstances does that capital produce the best results.

Really? That is still a question? How can that be? Capitalism itself is "the solution".

Blowhard.

Wherever you have the largest amounts of freedom you have capitalism. Capitalism is indeed a necessary condition of freedom. However, you can still have capitalism with minimal amounts of freedom. Nevertheless, and no matter how much freedom is possessed, capitalism still lifted the masses out of the historical rut of poverty in every place it has touched. there is not a place on earth where people have been less well off because of capitalism as they were historically before it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"capitalism still lifted the masses out of the historical rut of poverty" only after government regulation began during the age of social market democracy.

 

[Publius1787]

"capitalism still lifted the masses out of the historical rut of poverty" only after government regulation began during the age of social market democracy.

The industrial revolution which brought forth the maturity of capitalism increased the demand for labor and lowered unemployment. It was the path to full employment that you speak of. You look to the poor who worked for low wages in horrible conditions and point to the regulatory laws that followed as the reason for the betterment of the population. That's bull hockey. It was the increased demand for labor brought forth by low unemployment that forced businesses to compete for labor that created the higher wage and sounder work environment. Ever non-industrialized economy goes through this transition period and upon maturity it matters not whether you preach the merits of social market democracy or regulations. Indeed, I can think of no regulation that did not help the established businesses keep out competition and maintain/increase their grip on their market share.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Its not the only variable, but, it is the dominant variable. Every economist from Milton Freidman to Karl Marx agreed that capitalism has done more than any other object to life the masses out of the binds of poverty. To disagree would put you in a very small group of historic and economic illiterates. I doubt that any one among us can find an free market economist, socialist economist, Fabian economist, communist economist, etc. who disagrees that capitalism is the dominant reason we have grown in health, wealth, and population.

The link didn't mention any cause for the statistical data posted in the video yet you concluded (at least suggested) in the OP it was Capitalism alone. Now that you've acknowledge that is not so, might you elaborate on other factors - both dependent and independent of capitalism?

I can think and posit a number, but I think it's best that others hear it from you. Otherwise my comments will be co-opted by idiots who call me a "leftist".

Private Property rights, rule of law, liberalization of trade, the philosophy of the enlightenment being codified in law, a maturing economy brought forth by the industrial revolution, advancements in technology (Trains, the internal combustion engine, electricity, the telegraph, the telephone &c.), the demise of feudalism, public education, and yes, imperialism, among a whole host of other factors lead to what you saw on the chart. how much of that can be attributed to capitalism? Nearly all of it.

"Nearly all of it"? I'd attribute most of these elements ^^^ to the liberal paradigm embraced by the American Revolutionaries. Freedom and law are necessary conditions for capitalism to flourish, unlimited freedom - a lack of regulation - corrupts capitalism, is not compatible with a democratic republic and leads to an oligarchy (which exists in our nation today).

 

[Vox]

Some want $11 some want $15 but one thing is consistent tho. Liberals cant agree on shit

Evidently the Pope has been asleep for the past 200 years where capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any church could ever dream of. I will never understand why people blame the proven solution for the "problem."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

Wherein is the evidence that Capitalism was the one and only variable? This maybe the best example of what Mark Twain meant when he wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics".

In the world around.
it was, is and will be the ONLY viable.

 

[Publius1787]

The link didn't mention any cause for the statistical data posted in the video yet you concluded (at least suggested) in the OP it was Capitalism alone. Now that you've acknowledge that is not so, might you elaborate on other factors - both dependent and independent of capitalism?

I can think and posit a number, but I think it's best that others hear it from you. Otherwise my comments will be co-opted by idiots who call me a "leftist".

Private Property rights, rule of law, liberalization of trade, the philosophy of the enlightenment being codified in law, a maturing economy brought forth by the industrial revolution, advancements in technology (Trains, the internal combustion engine, electricity, the telegraph, the telephone &c.), the demise of feudalism, public education, and yes, imperialism, among a whole host of other factors lead to what you saw on the chart. how much of that can be attributed to capitalism? Nearly all of it.

"Nearly all of it"? I'd attribute most of these elements ^^^ to the liberal paradigm embraced by the American Revolutionaries. Freedom and law are necessary conditions for capitalism to flourish, unlimited freedom - a lack of regulation - corrupts capitalism, is not compatible with a democratic republic and leads to an oligarchy (which exists in our nation today).

I can think of no regulation that did not help the established "oligarchy" maintain or increase its grip of the market share. Can you?

 

[Vox]

"capitalism still lifted the masses out of the historical rut of poverty" only after government regulation began during the age of social market democracy.

nope. when the government regulation began - the masses started to be shifted back into poverty.

it is not the poverty of the third world standards, so it is not painful.

YET.

but it is still poverty and if the process is not reversed, the overwhelming poverty will become painful.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Private Property rights, rule of law, liberalization of trade, the philosophy of the enlightenment being codified in law, a maturing economy brought forth by the industrial revolution, advancements in technology (Trains, the internal combustion engine, electricity, the telegraph, the telephone &c.), the demise of feudalism, public education, and yes, imperialism, among a whole host of other factors lead to what you saw on the chart. how much of that can be attributed to capitalism? Nearly all of it.

"Nearly all of it"? I'd attribute most of these elements ^^^ to the liberal paradigm embraced by the American Revolutionaries. Freedom and law are necessary conditions for capitalism to flourish, unlimited freedom - a lack of regulation - corrupts capitalism, is not compatible with a democratic republic and leads to an oligarchy (which exists in our nation today).

I can think of no regulation that did not help the established "oligarchy" maintain or increase its grip of the market share. Can you?

The only one which kept a Plutocracy at bay was the progressive income tax.

 

[Flopper]

So the Pope is concerned about the poor, yet he lives at the Vatican with chauffeurs & servants at his beckon call, dressed in silks and eating the finest foods prepared by his on-site cooks.
Add to that his organization pay no income taxes and have holdings estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Curious.

Pope Francis has decided not to move into the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace, but to live in a suite in the Vatican guesthouse where he has been since the beginning of the conclave that elected him, said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman.

He will be the first pope in 110 years not to live in the papal apartments.

 

[Publius1787]

"Nearly all of it"? I'd attribute most of these elements ^^^ to the liberal paradigm embraced by the American Revolutionaries. Freedom and law are necessary conditions for capitalism to flourish, unlimited freedom - a lack of regulation - corrupts capitalism, is not compatible with a democratic republic and leads to an oligarchy (which exists in our nation today).

I can think of no regulation that did not help the established "oligarchy" maintain or increase its grip of the market share. Can you?

The only one which kept a Plutocracy at bay was the progressive income tax.

Along with everyone who attempted to achieve their status.

 

[Flopper]

Did you expect the pope to come out and not advocate for the poor? The bible I read has never spoken about being rich. But I have read numerous passages about helping the poor and destitute. What did you expect? Was the pope supposed to praise the uber wealthy? Think for a second.

Actually the Bible did speak out about the rich at least once, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25. Of course, conservatives prefer to ignore this verse or ascribe their own interpretation to it.

 

[Publius1787]

Did you expect the pope to come out and not advocate for the poor? The bible I read has never spoken about being rich. But I have read numerous passages about helping the poor and destitute. What did you expect? Was the pope supposed to praise the uber wealthy? Think for a second.

Actually the Bible did speak out about the rich at least once, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25. Of course, conservatives prefer to ignore this verse or ascribe their own interpretation to it.

And how exactly did the majority of the rich achieve their wealth in those days? Would it be a fair comparison to equate that to modern times?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can think of no regulation that did not help the established "oligarchy" maintain or increase its grip of the market share. Can you?

The only one which kept a Plutocracy at bay was the progressive income tax.

Along with everyone who attempted to achieve their status.

That's not true.

 

[Publius1787]

The only one which kept a Plutocracy at bay was the progressive income tax.

Along with everyone who attempted to achieve their status.

That's not true.

Watch this video. Learn. Revise and respond. The difference between contradiction and argument.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y]Argument Clinic - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Along with everyone who attempted to achieve their status.

That's not true.

Watch this video. Learn. Revise and respond. The difference between contradiction and argument.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y]Argument Clinic - YouTube[/ame]

There is no difference between contradiction and argument! None, no difference. Period!

 

[Publius1787]

That's not true.

Watch this video. Learn. Revise and respond. The difference between contradiction and argument.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y]Argument Clinic - YouTube[/ame]

There is no difference between contradiction and argument! None, no difference. Period!

I blame public education for the above statement.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do Popes wear dresses for the same reason Scotsmen wear kilts?

 

[Flopper]

Did you expect the pope to come out and not advocate for the poor? The bible I read has never spoken about being rich. But I have read numerous passages about helping the poor and destitute. What did you expect? Was the pope supposed to praise the uber wealthy? Think for a second.

Actually the Bible did speak out about the rich at least once, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25. Of course, conservatives prefer to ignore this verse or ascribe their own interpretation to it.

And how exactly did the majority of the rich achieve their wealth in those days? Would it be a fair comparison to equate that to modern times?

In much the same way as people do today, work your ass off putting the accumulation of wealth above all other things.