In defense of capitalism
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:that doesn't prevent my having a right to own the house I've paid for!

You would own your house in distributism, though, that's the point.

In capitalism, on the other hand, people dont usually own their houses. Bankers who do nothing productive own the houses through a usurious "mortgage" and their control of the debt-money.

A one time redistribution might be necessary to start with a blank-slate, but after that there would be nothing socialistic. Socialism, as I described earlier, would attempt to keep the capitalist wealth-generating mechanisms, and then just keep re-distributing that wealth when the gap got too big. It would keep using supply-and-demand to drive the economy, and then take all the money created and give it away (though that probably wouldnt work for long given that competition/incentive in an S&D system would be affected greatly by the knowledge that it was all going to be taken away anyway) and people who truly worked harder and deserved more (in an absolute valuation) would be basically stolen from unjustly.

Distributism and other aspects of an economy based on applied Catholic social teaching...however, would simply get rid of even the underlying mechanisms (such as usury, relativistic "supply-and-demand" valuation, debt money, etc) that create the gap in the first place, while still allowing true hard work or value to be rewarded proportionately (as opposed to just cunningly positioning yourself at the right place along the capital curve, at the right node on the network).

But since capitalism has already done such damage, it may be necessary to do a one-time-only re-leveling of wealth to undo what capitalists have done (and punish them) over the centuries. The money that the bankers and their oligarch partners have is essentially stolen anyway, gained through illicit means, so this is just restoring to people what has been stolen from them.

Cancelling all mortgages is probably the best thing the government could do right now, and then forbid the usury that creates new ones. And people who have already paid theirs shouldnt get mad, workers in the vineyard afterall (though maybe they'd get some kind of bonus credit). But we must tell Shylock he can have his pound of flesh only if he spills not one drop of Christian blood.

isnt it interesting the capitalists funded Marx and Russian revolution, via Wall Street, etc.both are into control by a few. Rockafeller stating that "competition is a sin"

Distributism supports wide distribution and ownership-not by Govt or a fw, but by many.......
voxpopulisuxx Wrote:has anyone here thought of distributing something to Vox and Quis for FE? (I know some of you have)

Would love to, bu the capitalists Dems and Repubs have already sapped my wealth into bailouts, pet projects, builders (Kelo decision),e deflating dollar and rising cost of purchasing power.......

And lets not forget those die hard Capitalists that gave us the Federal Reserve......!
Towards an Evolved CapitalismShort of a revolution, can the capitalist system be saved? Only if it can evolve.
Michael Novak and The Spirit of Democratic CapitalismThere are only two problems with neo-conservatism: it is not new, and it is not conservative
Anastasia Wrote:Right, but there are some variations on Capitalism, such as monopoly capitalism, or what we have at at the moment, where the government uses its power to support larger corporations over small ones. Technically, it's not really capitalism, but it's referred to as such.

Old don't blame us, that is not really capitalism......Belloc, Chesterton, et al defined differently then most Americans do, then or now...
Is it as old as "don't blame us, taking property away and redistributing it isn't really distributism"?
Belloc Wrote:There are only two problems with neo-conservatism: it is not new, and it is not conservative

And on top of that, the pretend "conservatives" are active agents of the other side. Michael Novak whom you reference, for example, pretends to be a conservative Catholic, but actually he was working for the Rockefeller Foundation when he experienced his epiphany and decided to join the Reagan Revolution. This article tells you a lot about Michael Novak (and I'm afraid the other neo-conservative defenders of capitalism are just as bad or worse):

Ambition and Lust: Michael Novak and the Fall of Catholic Theology

Tom Woods, unfortunately, is an Austrian first and a Catholic second. Below is a link to an article where Woods explicitly states that he believes economic principles trump Catholic principles, and that the popes should keep their noses out of economic theory:

Morality and Economic Law: Toward a Reconciliation

Wood's former friend Chris Ferrara wrote an excellent series of articles exposing the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between Austrian economics and Catholic teaching (links to the original articles don't seem to be working, but here is one of them posted on a discussion board):

Opposing the Austrian Heresy

Anastasia Wrote:Is it as old as "don't blame us, taking property away and redistributing it isn't really distributism"?

Perhaps it's simply the name "Distributism" which is troubling you? It's true that the word does seem to contain an implication of "re-distribution," but note that there is no "re-" in distributism. The name was chosen to indicate that they were striving for an economy in which property ownership was widely distributed. Every householder should own some property, as Pope Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum.

Their method to achieve this goal of having property ownership widely distributed did NOT include theft and re-distribution. They were trying to implement the policy prescriptions of Rerum Novarum, and those prescriptions certainly did not include socialism.

I am not a particular supporter of the Distributist movement per se, but I do give them credit for making an attempt to follow obediently the program that Pope Leo XIII wanted Catholics to undertake. One may disagree on whether they failed or they succeeded, but few others made much of an attempt at all.
Great video.  I am a capitalist (for lack of a better word) because I am Catholic.  Man is a fallen race.  Therefore giving power to government (or a guild or union) will always end badly.  The brilliance of our Constitution is the Tenth Amendment.  By voting with your feet, you can keep the Utopians in check.  That is why we ended up with the Fed (paper money) and the national income tax.  That is the only way for the Utopians to enslave us and destroy the tenth amendment.

The key is competition.  That is the only known economic system that protects you from the Original Sin of others. 

7cats Wrote:In capitalism, on the other hand, people dont usually own their houses. Bankers who do nothing productive own the houses through a usurious "mortgage" and their control of the debt-money.

A problem with definition.  Capitalism does not equate to usury.  I am wholly opposed to usury, which is charging interest on a non-productive loan.  In a fiat currency system, a mortgage can or can not be usurious.  It is kind of strange.  However in a gold back economy, mortgages are usury. 

You don't need a bank to have a capitalist system.  You don't need a Federal Reserve, and you don't need usury.  Having debt-money does not define capitalism.  In socialist Europe you have banks and you have debt money.  They are not capitalist.

This kind of sloppy argument causes a lot of confusion.

Also, to be precise, the USA is not capitalist.  It is more correct to call it fascist, that is, private property strongly directed by the government.

On Austrian Economics, it is important to distinguish what is meant.  Austrian Economics, where it concerns the business cycle theory, the problems with socialism, and the problems of fiat currency, is absolutely correct.  When they become  advocates of anarcho-capitalism, they run afoul of Catholic teaching.

The Austians have proven themselves 100% correct in recent years and if you have been following them, you were well prepared for this current depression.

When they venture into social libertarianism, such as on abortion and queers, they are incorrect.  Again, it comes down to Original Sin.


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)