Capitalism and Morality: Walter Williams vs. Pope Francis

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,489
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,788
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Capitalism and Morality: Walter Williams vs. Pope Francis
By DANIEL J. MITCHELL
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 3:07PM


The biggest mistake of well-meaning leftists is that they place too much value on good intentions and don’t seem to care nearly as much about good results.

Pope Francis is an example of this unfortunate tendency. His concern for the poor presumably is genuine, but he puts ideology above evidence when he argues against capitalism and in favor of coercive government.

Here are some passages from a CNN report on the Pope’s bias.

Pope Francis makes his first official visit to the United States this week. There’s a lot of angst about what he might say, especially when he addresses Congress Thursday morning. …He’ll probably discuss American capitalism’s flaws, a theme he has hit on since the 1990s. Pope Francis wrote a book in 1998 with an entire chapter focused on “the limits of capitalism.” …Francis argued that…capitalism lacks morals and promotes selfish behavior. …He has been especially critical of how capitalism has increased inequality… He’s tweeted: “inequality is the root of all evil.” …he’s a major critic of greed and excessive wealth. …”Capitalism has been the cause of many sufferings…”

Wow, I almost don’t know how to respond. So many bad ideas crammed in so few words.

If you want to know why Pope Francis is wrong about capitalism and human well-being, these videos narrated by Don Boudreaux and Deirdre McCloskey will explain how free markets have generated unimaginable prosperity for ordinary people.

But the Pope isn’t just wrong on facts. He’s also wrong on morality. This video by Walter Williams explains why voluntary exchange in a free-market system is far more ethical than a regime based on government coercion.



Very well stated. And I especially like how Walter explains that markets are a positive-sum game, whereas government-coerced redistribution is a zero-sum game (actually a negative-sum game when you include the negative economic impact of taxes and spending).
 

Truth200

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
16,449
Reputation
2,599
Daps
32,392
stephen-a-smith-sipping-coffee-o.gif
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,489
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,788
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Capitalism has no moral basis :pachaha:

Let's hear it Gary
Markets are amoral:dame:










Markets are amoral in the sense that a building is amoral. Only people have morals. But whether anyone intends to act morally, or ethically, with respect to helping one's fellow man, or if one simply wishes to pursue one's self-interest, the results of that process do nevertheless create wealth in greater abundance than previously existed, and that is the only real way any group of people has ever risen out of poverty. Income inequality per se is neither good nor bad, unless someone just holds very firmly the belief that fairness trumps all other considerations.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,489
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,788
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
:dame:
Psychologists have shown that people, when faced with the option of being on the little end of a lopsided gift, would rather get nothing at all than get something for nothing, because their personal sense of fairness has been impinged. So if people would understand full well that under capitalism they will enjoy a far greater standard of living than that for which they could otherwise hope, but the prosperity will be "distributed" unevenly, and they would prefer a system under which all will have less but the misery will be shared more equally, then they should be free to pursue such a system by democratic means insofar as they act in accordance with the rule of law and do not infringe upon the rights of others.
 

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,793
Markets are amoral in the sense that a building is amoral. Only people have morals. But whether anyone intends to act morally, or ethically, with respect to helping one's fellow man, or if one simply wishes to pursue one's self-interest, the results of that process do nevertheless create wealth in greater abundance than previously existed, and that is the only real way any group of people has ever risen out of poverty. Income inequality per se is neither good nor bad, unless someone just holds very firmly the belief that fairness trumps all other considerations.
this is incoherent and illogical
 

Tate

Kae☭ernick Loyalist
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
4,274
Reputation
795
Daps
15,042
:dame:
Psychologists have shown that people, when faced with the option of being on the little end of a lopsided gift, would rather get nothing at all than get something for nothing, because their personal sense of fairness has been impinged. So if people would understand full well that under capitalism they will enjoy a far greater standard of living than that for which they could otherwise hope, but the prosperity will be "distributed" unevenly, and they would prefer a system under which all will have less but the misery will be shared more equally, then they should be free to pursue such a system by democratic means insofar as they act in accordance with the rule of law and do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Where has free market capitalism produced wealth for a previously impoverished population? Why have the freest of markets produced abject misery when implemented?

Why have socialistic systems raised the standard of living in Cuba? Why did neoliberalism fail in post-soviet Russia?
 

AyahuascaSippin

Good Vibrations
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
555
Reputation
160
Daps
856
Capitalism has no moral basis :pachaha:

Let's hear it Gary
It COULD have a moral basis if the people in control exercised more stringent regulations in regards to agribusiness and the energy sector, but unfortunately you think producing severely low standards of nutrition, pricing honest people and families out of food or shelter, allowing famine to develop and ravage 3/4ths of the planet, destroying the rainforest, displacing/destroying communities for resource extraction, polluting the seas and oceans, adding tonnes of marine life to the extinct list, and crippling national economies through debt, ultimately robbing them of their geographically inhereted resources is extremely moral right. Then again you did descend from a group of cacs SO vile that they had to be shipped half way around the world, and when allowed to fester ended up destroying entire indeginous populations.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,489
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,788
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Where has free market capitalism produced wealth for a previously impoverished population? Why have the freest of markets produced abject misery when implemented?

Why have socialistic systems raised the standard of living in Cuba? Why did neoliberalism fail in post-soviet Russia?
:damn:Please tell me you are :troll:ing
 
Top