According to a report from the Zenit News Service, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, recently insisted that the “logic” of the market be changed. He said that the logic “was till (sic) now that of maximum gain, and therefore the most investments possible directed toward obtaining maximum benefit. And this, according to the social doctrine of the Church, is immoral.” This is because, according to the Cardinal, the market “should be able to benefit not just those who invest capital, but those who participate in the step of making it grow, that is, those who work.”
The famous Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter, despaired for the future of the free market system. The reason for this despair was that the excess wealth of the system would create educated folks who would turn on the very system that created them. Their education would make them into anti-capitalist ideologues, who would then kill the goose that laid the golden egg. He did not think that those who participated in the creation of such enormous wealth would be in any position to fight back, and this for two reasons: firstly, business people do not tend to be men of letters, so they are unable to mount arguments defending the system; secondly, the job of the business executive is the survival of the company, and thus, he will concentrate on those things required to weather the storm, not be controversial.
So far, Karol Wojtyla has shown that human beings should have self-possession and self-governance. Without self-possession, a person is prey to every emotion, event or person coming his way. Without self-governance, he can not control his own actions and responses. If one has self-possession and self-governance, he then has self-determination. The individual can control his choices and therefore, his destiny. The proper use of the will is decisive here. The person says, “I will do this or refrain from that…,” or can distinguish among things the he “might or might not do” and those he “need not do.” The decisions made by the person are rational; they are related to the end he has in view, and the person is required to think about the hierarchy of ends, thus distinguishing between the necessary and important and arranging his choices according to the hierarchy. The self-possessed, self-governed decision maker does not confuse the lower ends, like food, clothing and shelter with higher ones like development of the intellect, and personal relations or real love (αγαπε—agape).
The other day I had what I consider a disturbing conversation with another man regarding a passage of Scripture. It was about the passage in St. Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus calls Matthew. Jesus saw Matthew at the tax collector’s table and said to him, “Follow me.” He did. In the next scene, Jesus is eating dinner with the much hated Matthew and his other despised cronies. The subject came up in our conversation as to where these people came from. My interlocutor felt that Jesus’ reputation was so great that Matthew probably invited him to come and invited his friends to a special dinner for the purpose of hearing Jesus’ words. While we really do not know how this dinner came about, I felt that this was highly unlikely. Folks like Matthew were despised by the Jewish authorities, and it shows when the Pharisees asked Jesus’ disciples why He was associating with these people. Matthew probably lived a less than admirable life and was not enthusiastic right away about Jesus, impressive as He was.
In the last entry, we wrote of self-possession, which meant that the fully human person expresses his character through his own actions, and that these actions ought to proceed from the authority he has over himself. Hence, the person is responsible for his own actions. It was also pointed out that talk, as opposed to action, does not reveal the person’s character, because many people say one thing and do another.
There is an old expression, "Talk is cheap." Coupled with another old expression, "Actions speak louder than words," we are introduced to a profound philosophical insight brought by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) in his The Acting Person. That insight is that people are understood through their actions, not their words. Metaphysically, that is, in the nature of every man, we say that man is a rational animal; he is an animal that can think, know and know that he knows. But in a sense, this truth is much too vague. Even though we all share this nature, each of us is very different in many respects. Wojtyla’s book is a phenomenological reflection on the actual lived experience of real human beings.
There is a big panic about the recent failures of Lehman Brothers, the bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and lastly about the bail out of AIG.
I am a great fan of “back to basics.” This is because the general population does not know what the educated person of my youth knew. Let’s take college education. The undergraduate university I attended had a heavy core curriculum. In philosophy alone there were five required courses in sequence. I would minor with 21 credits. In theology there were four, again in sequence. In history there were three—two in sequence and one of the student’s choice. In political science there were two in sequence, same each with math and science. There were five in English, again in sequence. Today it is very rare to find such a core. Nowadays, a typical student is usually required to take an English writing course and then maybe one or two courses in each major area, not in sequence, but of his own choosing. The result is that the student’s knowledge is a hodge-podge, rather than a sequential building from a foundation. So the foundations are missing or shoddy.
(Yes, this article has to do with economics)
Don’t take my word for the national debt problem. There is a new documentary I just went to see on the subject. It is entitled, “I.O.U.S.A.” The main force behind the movie is the former Controller of the United States, David Walker; essentially the chief accountant of the government. It does an exceptional job presenting the facts on the issue of the national debt.
This is an article I published in the Fall 2002 issue of "Markets and Morality", which you can find on the Acton Institute's website. I am posting it here in its entirety.
In the latest edition of an otherwise scholarly theological journal, a writer, who only ever writes about one subject, attacked the free market as usual. He wrote: “Neither can economics be satisfied with leaving human beings to the mercy of markets with their supposed ‘laws.’. . .” While there is certainly no space to take on his whole article, this part might just be the most serious error in it.
Many Catholic economists have wondered why so many Catholics are so ready to have the government take care of the neediest in society, while not stressing their own responsibilities. So many Catholics are supporting pro-abortion candidates, not necessarily because those Catholics are pro-abortion, but because they see abortion as just one issue in a panoply of issues, the most important of which have to do with helping the homeless, poor and underprivileged.
Dear Dr. Luckey, I am a well educated Catholic down in the economic trenches as it were, working for nearly twenty years in accounting. I received my BA from Thomas Aquinas College where I was first introduced to Catholic Social teaching on Economics. I have read a decently large scope on the subject over the last several years from Capitalism to Communism to Distributism. For the last several years I have been in Healthcare at a for-profit hospital that is part of a large hospital chain as one of the head bean counters, and I have been trying to figure out just how to solve the growing economic disaster that is looming in healthcare. What do you think could be done to improve the healthcare system in this country along the lines of Catholic social teaching?
After showing in the last article that the "greedy oil company executives" do not set oil prices, and to say they do is not only ignorant but calumnious, it is left to demonstrate that so-called speculators do not set the prices either. To understand the whole thing we must examine what's called the futures market. If you needed 1000 "pork bellies" today, you would have to pay what is called the spot price. That is the current, going price for pork bellies needed right away. Today one would have to pay 66.4 cents per pound of pork bellies. But supposed you needed the same amount of pork bellies in three months. You could purchase them now for delivery in three months using the futures price--63.5 cents per pound. The delivery might be for 10,00 pounds. Holding supply of pork bellies constant, i. e., there are no biblical plagues or miraculous increase in farm animals, you would pay a lower price for those future pork bellies, because it is a guaranteed sale for a pig farmer. So he would let these go at a discount. This is done by a contract, which means when the contract time is up, you get the pork bellies, which, if you are a butcher, you are glad to get. One may, however, purchase pork bellies in the futures market without ever intending to actually receive them. One can contract for the same amount of pork bellies at the futures price, set to deliver to the holder of the contract in three months. In this case, the contract purchaser wants to hold the contract, but sell it to someone else prior to delivery, hopefully at a price closer to the higher, spot price, thus making a profit. Holding supply constant, those who need pork bellies now will look to you to sell them your contract. If demand increases, they will be willing to pay more for your contract, than they otherwise would. If the supply is greater than expected, they can get a better deal elsewhere, and if you sell, it might be below the futures price you paid originally. It's the same with petroleum, but the market is in a situation where the demand is increasing and the supply is more or less constant. If I buy a futures contract for 1 million barrels of petroleum for a three month delivery, which I do not want, the likelihood is that the spot price offered prior to the delivery date will be higher than the futures price I paid today—due to the increased demand and constant supply. As a speculator, I will make a profit, not because I cause the price to increase, but because I correctly guessed that petroleum demand would be outstripping supply in the future. (This is not rocket science) Again, it is supply and demand, and the speculators are merely gamblers, although, for the time being, higher petroleum prices are almost a sure thing. So, our Catholic television commentator and the Congress are completely wrong headed in wanting to control speculators. They do not control the price of petroleum. If, suddenly, the supply increased noticeably, the speculators would lose money because the price would go down due to drastically increased supply.
The Church defines calumny as the imputation of false defects to another. It is considered a grave sin ex genere suo, which means it is grave depending on the damage done to a person’s reputation. While we may not ever consider committing such a sin against one we know, although, in truth, we may all have been victims of it at one time or another. In public discussion, it is done all the time.