Pope condemns Capitalism

[eyeball]

So, basically people need to be forced to be ethical. They will not be ethical any other way.

I disagree, people can be persuaded to be ethical by giving them better examples to follow.

I would say that things like political parties, state institutions and private corporations need to be forced to be ethical.

[benny]

The Pope may not be a Marxist but everyone's a socialist, to some extent, even Pliny.

Yes. Only someone able to sell his mother can be called a pure capitalist (i.e. with no trace of socialism).

[kuzadd]

Pliny: governments don't manufacture money, the simple truth is money is manufactured by banks, conjured out of thin air.

Think about how many mortgages and credit cards and lines of credit, all in dollar value, that is not made by governments, that is CREATED by banks.

Private banks create the lions share of the 'money' circulating in the economy.

They do this in the most simplest book-keeping you can imagine.

simple example:

You want a 100,000 mortgage?

They create 100,000 credit and on the other side a 100,000 dollar debit.

Balanced books!

Then sit back and earn all the interest they can, along with service fees, late fees and of course, if you don't pay, they get your house, sweet deal.

Governments have nothing to do with this

RE: government debt:

If governments could "borrow" money interest free, wouldn't this reduce taxes.Of course it would, it is so obvious and would make life better and easier over all for the taxpayer.

And they could do this if in fact they were not using the "central bank system"

But why does the government just not do that????

Cause the banks run the show, and that if not obvious to you yet, soon should be.

As for regulation.

It was in place for a reason, and needed to be enforced, but when the enforcers have their hands in the till, you will get no enforcement regardless of the regulations.

What was going on with the banks was the wolves were guarding the hen house!

Then you run off into this talk on morals??

We are talking about banking here.

Morals and banking have nothing in common.

If bankers were so moral and ethical they would not have done what they did with kind of loans they gave out, the kind of speculation they engaged in. But it was highly profitable!

They should or could have actually followed the regulations, however flimsy that were in place!

What did the banks do?

Nothing that could be considered moral or ethical.

Instead they engaged in rampant fraud.

On top of that the banks and insurance giants lobbied to have even less regulation. The lobbied the government, who granted them their wants.

Not their needs, not what was good for the economy, not what was right for average joe, but what was good for the banks.

The banks had nothing to lose, because then they would just run to their lackey governments, who would force the taxpayer to bail them out "cause their just to big to fail"

You seem to lay this at the governments feet, entirely, specifically Obama administration.

This problem has it's roots going way back, before Obama.

Black makes that clear in his interview.

This ethics and morals nonsense, you have got to get it out of your head.

It is a delusion.

Is the 10 percent relevant to the size of the banks today (citing the figure from the S & L scandal)??

If only 10% percent of todays banks engaged in fraudulent banking schemes, along with help from ratings companies and insurance brokers, but that 10% of the banks involved included the largest players such as citi or goldman sachs, would or could that account for possibly 50 percent, 60 percent, of the mess the market is in???

Easily when you look at the size of these banks.

What Black says about Geithner regarding regulation, is when he (TG) makes the claim this mess happened even though regulation was in place, he is only truthful in that geithner never met a regulation he cared to enforce.

This was going on under Bush's watch, and Geithner needs to stay on to keep the lies going as long as possible, this is a clear continuation of Bush policies.

To muddy the waters, to lie and hide the truth.

Black makes it clear his disappointment with the Obama administration is that they are playing the same game.

And are using the same people. Really they have no choice, to keep the house of cards intact for as long as they can.

You are wholly naive to think of this as integrity and moral.

This is business, banking and major profiteering, this is gambling.

The taxpayer is left holding the bank, and the criminals are taking bonus's home.

It is insanity.

I don't agree with mainstream concepts, I am afraid that is far more you, then you realize.

[benny]

Pliny: governments don't manufacture money, the simple truth is money is manufactured by banks, conjured out of thin air.

Think about how many mortgages and credit cards and lines of credit, all in dollar value, that is not made by governments, that is CREATED by banks.

Private banks create the lions share of the 'money' circulating in the economy.

Government manufactures money in the sense that it decides of everything starting with the monetary base up to the money multiplier (reserve requirement).

[kuzadd]

Government manufactures money in the sense that it decides of everything starting with the monetary base up to the money multiplier (reserve requirement).

and when the gov ups the reserve requirement, at whose behest is that done?

[kuzadd]

these fellows says well, what it is I am trying to say....

SIR. REGINALD MCKENNA (former President of the Midland Bank of England)

"Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

or this fellow

THE RT. HON. REGINALD MCKENNA (one-time British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Chairman of the Midland Bank)

"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of finance in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. We know how this is effected. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit." "And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

[benny]

and when the gov ups the reserve requirement, at whose behest is that done?

Upping reserve requirement is done usually to prevent bankruptcies.

[kuzadd]

Upping reserve requirement is done usually to prevent bankruptcies.

didn't ask why it was done,asked at who's bequest it was done.

[Machjo]

Pope blasts capitalism ahead of G-8 meeting

Pope Benedict XVI, on the eve of a global economic summit, lashed out at modern capitalism for being shortsighted and short on ethics.

"Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise," the pontiff said in his third encyclical letter, "Charity in Truth," which was released Tuesday.

"Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods," Benedict said. "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers."

The world financial crisis and the downturn in markets took a big chunk out of the retirement savings of millions of people.

What a novel idea, ethical banking and investing.

Hey Mr. Pope man, can I get a loan from the Vatican Bank...

I see nothing in here in favour of any particular economic system, be it capitalist, socialist, or whatever. He sems to be makins a simple ethical comment that could apply within the context of any economic framework.

[Sir Bandelot]

This article offers some kind of an explanation of what his Popeliessness is talking about:

God's economics: What the Pope knows

The Pope's timing is immaculate. Two years ago when the Vatican began preparing this economic letter, most of the world would have hooted at the suggestion that greed was bad. In those days, unethical markets were the engines of growing wealth. The market advocates pointed at moral versions of capitalism like the high-minded high-tax Nordic countries and sneered. But now, after the crash of all those greed-driven banks and hedge funds, the Pope has an audience primed to listen. Those Nordics, with their well-funded social programs, remain healthy capitalist economies. Moral. Sharing.

They also repeatedly score highest in all measures of well-being. They have high levels of universal education. Nordic businesses, from Ericsson and Nokia to the folks who created those Metro free tabloids that millions around the world read on public transit, are innovative and competitive. Their logging companies continue to make money. Their energy fund continues to dole out money to the public purse.

It may be that being ethical, cooperative, and helping others to succeed does not make businesses fail. It just makes the world more efficient and a little bit nicer place to live.

----------

"We are the world... we are the children... we are the ones who make a brighter day, so lets start givin..."

Edited July 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[benny]

didn't ask why it was done,asked at who's bequest it was done.

You seem to know the answer!

[kuzadd]

This article offers some kind of an explanation of what his Popeliessness is talking about:

God's economics: What the Pope knows

The Pope's timing is immaculate. Two years ago when the Vatican began preparing this economic letter, most of the world would have hooted at the suggestion that greed was bad. In those days, unethical markets were the engines of growing wealth. The market advocates pointed at moral versions of capitalism like the high-minded high-tax Nordic countries and sneered. But now, after the crash of all those greed-driven banks and hedge funds, the Pope has an audience primed to listen. Those Nordics, with their well-funded social programs, remain healthy capitalist economies. Moral. Sharing.

They also repeatedly score highest in all measures of well-being. They have high levels of universal education. Nordic businesses, from Ericsson and Nokia to the folks who created those Metro free tabloids that millions around the world read on public transit, are innovative and competitive. Their logging companies continue to make money. Their energy fund continues to dole out money to the public purse.

It may be that being ethical, cooperative, and helping others to succeed does not make businesses fail. It just makes the world more efficient and a little bit nicer place to live.

----------

"We are the world... we are the children... we are the ones who make a brighter day, so lets start givin..."

went to read the article, oddly enough it mentions game theory.

Game theory has been pitched as one way, when it really was something else, and this article does touch more on that fact.

But cooperation as a means to survival and growth is nothing new. But it really doesn't serve an elite segment of population.

The advantage of elite's is that the masses are divided, right vs left, welfare recepients vs working class, etc.,

While divided and diverted the elites be they politicians or banksters, can run amok unhindered.

Rather like this latest episode the populace at large finds itself in.

While you imagined you were getting wealthy, and you were thusly out shopping, you weren't paying attention to the rampant fraud being committed by the banks.

[kuzadd]

You seem to know the answer!

hey it was a response to a question that wasn't asked, and I will still wait for your reply

[Pliny]

The Pope is not a Marxist.

The State has divorced itself from Catholicism, as it should. Environmentalism is the State's new mistress.

The Pope is running a Church not a State but it slavers at the powers of the State. Islam still holds theocratic powers - the power to initiate force.

The Pope only has power in it's people to influence the State. The Catholic Church is very rich in it's people, their numbers, and it's wealth. It does still have influence in the west.

The Pope is not a Marxist in that Marxism is atheistic and desires to replace all religions with idolatry of the State.

[Pliny]

The Pope may not be a Marxist but everyone's a socialist, to some extent, even Pliny.

Yes. That is true. As long as socialism is understood there shouldn't be a problem. All organizations have a socialistic structure. It is when the organization as a government makes itself a monopoly through law that it becomes a problem.

Even the nuclear family is socialistic in structure. The paternal head of the family as dictator.

Does democracy really work in a family? Would the children vote themselves cake and ice cream?

Would they set their own bedtimes?

Adults are supposed to be autonomous as individuals. They are allowed the freedom to run their own lives and form their own organizations, businesses and alliances. Does there need to be the paternal State? Does the State have to oversee the policies of business beyond that they are not fraudulent or criminal. Does it have the right to dictate to all businesses how they should be run? Does it have the right to say how all families should be structured and itself set the bedtimes of the children?

I think we can all agree that there are some problems with our healthcare system. It is expensive and there are waiting lines but because it is monopolistically run by the State we have to live with it. We can try and fix it but will it ever evolve into the best system we can possibly devise? I daresay it won't. What monopoly wants change? A monopoly must crumble in order to bring change and what is change to monopoly but "competition". In order for monopoly to sustain itself it must be the best option above all options. Eliminating options by law, as the State does, does not make it the best option - it makes it the only one.

The United States has a rather costly health care system as well. The State tries to get it to serve all it's citizens. The advantage to the American system is that there are still options as to which direction it can go. HMO's form a monopolistic cartel and there is a semblance of competition between them, to improve themselves and keep themselves open to changes the medical profession may present, i.e, new technologies, new drugs. The consumer though, is left with few options. And the insurance companies have their hands tied as to costs which are determined by the medical profession and the suppliers of medical goods and services. It is not in the interests of the consumers for the government to become the sole provider of health care. This responsibility taken over by the State will result in rationing and wait lines as it has in Canada. Not so much in Europe because it is not illegal for the consumer to purchase health care - which is at least an option for some of them.

What is the best health care system? We will never know if the State runs a monopoly?

I don't wish to imply a monopoly is a terrible thing. Only when it is legislated is it a terrible thing.

A monopoly occurring in the market, such as say Microsoft, always has to cater to the consumer or risk losing it's monopoly. People can and will go to Apple. A State legislated monopoly does not have to cater to the consumer, it must only claim to and often blames the consumer for it's own failures; the consumer who, it claims, abuses the privilege or takes advantage of the system. The State does not tolerate disruption to the status quo very well and legislated monopolies are generally bureaucratic empires resistive to anything but nominal change or tinkering with change in order to appear sensitive to demand.

So socialism, social engineering from a central authority only offers one option - no choice, and more often than not, not the best option.

[Sir Bandelot]

We cannot use the competitive business model for all things. Certain things should not be driven by profit. Like those things which are the core part or the very fabric of our society. The government itself, or the legal system, for example, are authoritarian and in some sense, monopolies. Whatever applies to the health and safety of human beings, should be run by the state to ensure that greed cannot take advantage of it. As we see with insurance companies... it comes down to, who do you want to make the decision as to the health care you get? An insurance company, which will seek to minimize the amount of health services their customers get, to keep their profit margins high? Or the doctors themselves.

The government does not really "run" the health care system, it provides the overall funding. It makes broad decisions on providing services, such as number of hospitals or MRI machines per popula but does not micro-manage the cases of patients. When there is no net gain or profit to be made in providing care then the important issue becomes the well being of the patient. This should be left to medical professionals, not bureaucrats or corporate agents.

[M.Dancer]

We cannot use the competitive business model for all things. Certain things should not be driven by profit. Like those things which are the core part or the very fabric of our society. The government itself, or the legal system, for example, are authoritarian and in some sense, monopolies. Whatever applies to the health and safety of human beings, should be run by the state to ensure that greed cannot take advantage of it. .

I agree that services such as education, health etc etc should not be driven by profit but they should also avoid loss. They have to rationalize their efficiancies.

[benny]

The State has divorced itself from Catholicism, as it should. Environmentalism is the State's new mistress.

The Pope is running a Church not a State but it slavers at the powers of the State. Islam still holds theocratic powers - the power to initiate force.

The Pope only has power in it's people to influence the State. The Catholic Church is very rich in it's people, their numbers, and it's wealth. It does still have influence in the west.

The Pope is not a Marxist in that Marxism is atheistic and desires to replace all religions with idolatry of the State.

The Pope is running a religious state (Vatican) with universal ambitions just like Hugo Chavez is running a proletarian state (Venezuela) with universal ambitions. The only difference in between Catholicism and Marxism is not so much about believing in God or not but about believing in big Other or little other.

http://nosubject.com/Other

[Pliny]

I disagree, people can be persuaded to be ethical by giving them better examples to follow.

I would say that things like political parties, state institutions and private corporations need to be forced to be ethical.

Political parties, State institutions and private corporations could set better examples.

The problem lies in the State's inability to apply justice because it is too busy making all things equal.

Justice is merely punishment and has nothing to do with fairness or equality except in quantity. The maintenance of equality is it's prime concern. The deliverance of human rights to all equally takes precedence over justice. It becomes the protector of the criminal, it caters to special interests to ensure their equal rights, granting them benefit and privilege and access to the public coffers.

[Pliny]

The Pope is running a religious state (Vatican) with universal ambitions just like Hugo Chavez is running a proletarian state (Venezuela) with universal ambitions. The only difference in between Catholicism and Marxism is not so much about believing in God or not but about believing in big Other or little other.

http://nosubject.com/Other

Sorry the biggest difference is in the ability to use force. The State is the sole agency that can legally use force or designate the use of force. All others that claim that power of the State are persecuted to maintain that monopoly for the State.

Believing in God or not is simply their offering to the consumer similar to Ford offering cars. The Pope dreams of a monopoly as does the Marxist and the CEO of Ford.

I would say that most organizations at their inception have universal ambitions and all would prefer monopoly over competition, I'm sure.

[benny]

Sorry the biggest difference is in the ability to use force.

The biggest difference in between Catholicism and Marxism is in the ability to use force!?

[benny]

Justice is merely punishment and has nothing to do with fairness or equality except in quantity.

Learn more about Justice as fairness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

[Sir Bandelot]

What does marxism have to do with it? Marxism primarily means constant revolution, to remove power from the elite so they cannot gain a foothold. Marxism does include socialism as its economic principle but it goes further beyond that, such as removing powers of ownership. Socialism does not require these things. People who confuse socialism with marxism and communism are simply confused.

The rich elite want to make socialism a dirty word. Yet now ironically that the capitalist system has collapsed, of its own accord, we see the ideas of socialism raise again. Much to the horror and confusion of the misled capitalist public, no doubt.

Yet the evidence remains that those northern European countries, and to some extent Canada have shown themselves better able to weather the economic storm. The problem is that our economies are tied to the US in many ways. When the big one goes down, we all get pulled down with it. The wise thing to do, is start to disconnect. Somebody cut the cord

[benny]

What does marxism have to do with it?

Much like the Catholic faith, Marxism is a condemnation of capitalism.

[Pliny]

We cannot use the competitive business model for all things. Certain things should not be driven by profit. Like those things which are the core part or the very fabric of our society. The government itself, or the legal system, for example, are authoritarian and in some sense, monopolies. Whatever applies to the health and safety of human beings, should be run by the state to ensure that greed cannot take advantage of it. As we see with insurance companies... it comes down to, who do you want to make the decision as to the health care you get? An insurance company, which will seek to minimize the amount of health services their customers get, to keep their profit margins high? Or the doctors themselves.

The government does not really "run" the health care system, it provides the overall funding. It makes broad decisions on providing services, such as number of hospitals or MRI machines per popula but does not micro-manage the cases of patients. When there is no net gain or profit to be made in providing care then the important issue becomes the well being of the patient. This should be left to medical professionals, not bureaucrats or corporate agents.

You see Sir Bandelot, you have the idea that something is driven by profit. Believe me if something is driven by profit the people will run it out of town. the only reason it won't be is if government protects it. Otherwise people will use it's services. Anything that is driven by profit will fail. There must be a product or service supplied to society in order fo rit to sustain itself.

It is only accountants and investors that are concerned about profit. But profit is only a measure of performance in the organizations delivery of it's goods and/or services in the satisfaction of consumers. If you want a business to die you must boycott it. The consumer determines it's profit.

You are correct, the government does not run the health care system. It is the single payer to the health care system. It only redistributes the wealth. it balances cost with the taxpayers ability to pay. It is already attempting to restrict treatment. Doctors are calling for not treating those who engage in unhealthy lifestyles as some sort of solution to shortage of funds and lineups. Individual doctors should be able to determine who they will treat preferentially but in Canada they only have one payer so they cannot take this into their own hands. The government may legislate it.

Did I say that the government micromanages healthcare? It has devised and legislated the structure and the financial monopoly of it. The Provincial governments do more of the managing of it than does the federal government. The point is that lack of any options precludes any concern for excellence because excellence cannot be determined without comparison. Those advocates of our healthcare system claim excellence but their concerns are obviously not about health care delivery but the system itself, and in comparison to other countries it fares rather poorly.