1) Mischaracterize person I’m talking to.
2) Denounce mischaracterization as incompatible with Catholicism.

Naytheless, you are of course right that there is no single perfect economic system that would bring about justice and equity for all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. However, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to lay out concrete suggestions and guidelines for what would constitute an order or approach better than the current one that you’re citicizing. I would assume that there must be some sort of principles along these lines that causes you to label yourself an “anarchist” rather than a “whatever-seems-like-it-might-work-at-the-moment-ist”. Further, if you’re going to roundly denounce what others say about how economic betterment for the third world is likely to be possible to achieve, one would think that you must have _some_ idea of what things _ought_ to be like.

As for this “right to be selfish” allegation, perhaps you missed my point, but I specifically said that there is _not_ a “right to be selfish”. However, there is a right to private property (though not an absolute right) which is clearly acknowledged in Catholic social teaching as you know every well. And I was merely pointing out that so long as one acknowledges a right to private property (which would include the right to receive a just portion of the fruits of one’s labors — something I would assume from your comments in this thread you would be in favor of) one necessarily will leave people a certain amount of room to be selfish. How much room people should be left is, clearly, a question on which prudence must act, but if anyone owns anything, it’s obvious that he will have the opportunity to mis-use that ownership by behaving selfishly.

As for whether I’m a libertarian — all I can say is that few self-identifies libertarians would recognize me as being one. Though if it makes you happy, you’re certainly welcome to call me one. I don’t want to selfish about my designations…

We’ve discussed it it blog comments and via email. In brief, I’ve repeatedly explained to him why I won’t give him my blueprint suggestion for a “new economy.” There is no blueprint, no perfect economy or political system. Perfect justice is always beyond us. This doesn’t mean that we don’t changes systems to make them better, just that there is no perfect system. This should be obvious to any Catholic, and is indeed the argument made against socialist systems. Yet when capitalism is challenged, the response is often “well, there is nothing better.”

As for the “right to be selfish,” sadly, Darwin, the Roman Catholic Church does not share your libertarianism. As Catholics, we believe that our societies should be set up such that they encourage people to be good. Not this “must preserve the right to be selfish at all costs” mentality of you Catholic libertarians. Sorry, but that kind of thinking is foreign to authentic Catholic social teaching.

If you mean that you’ve already answered Zach’s question in writing elsewhere, perhaps you could provide a link?

I don’t think people are necessarily saying that people have the “right to be selfish” in the sense of selfishness being a positive good which one must not be prevented from exercising. However, just about any approach which involves respecting people’s right private property at all (and I would tend to see that as indeed being a natural right in the sense that one has it until it is taken away by someone else using coercion) necessarily involves leaving people some room to be selfish if they so choose.

I seem to forget the part of the gospel in which Jesus sends his disciples after the rich young man to beat him up and forcibly redistribute the goods which he’s just gone away sad rather than parting with voluntarily. (Though obviously as the story of the rich man and Lazarus points out, the results of ignoring the poor are rather grave in the long run.)

Michael I. says he is committed to the poor, but that commitment does not extend to trying to find out what does and does not help them.

Poli derided BA’s sources, then failed to provide any of his own. He did manage to sound like a high school principal talking to a student with an obviously forged parental absence excuse, though, so that’s something. Also, there appears to be a direct correlation between Krugman’s reliability and the extent to which he agrees with Poli.

“remotely realistic program for helping the poor.”

Ooo Ooo I know, I know !

Look at what the USA is doing, and do the opposite. In 2006 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold. General poverty rates also rank among the highest in the industrialized world.

Republicans don’t really care all that much to begin with. There’s always crumbs-of-our-table aka “trickle down economy”, a thoroughly insulting concept. Mind you, Democrats aren’t particularly effective either. Their projects, including “the projects” frequently achieve the opposite of what was intended.

“Orthodox” Catholics frequently don’t give a damn. There are “fags” to be banished. Christmas is under attack ! Reasons to support the war have to be found! “Peace and Justice Catholics” are ridiculed. (as opposed to “F you all Catholics”, I suppose). http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/poverty Catholic initiatives are being ridiculed, or, mass-emailed about if someone, god forbid, dispenses the pill somewhere. Or, god seriously forbid, has gay people adopt a child. Of course, that kind of crap, isn’t confined to god’s stormtroopers, it’s doctrine.

The American system is set up in very Darwinian manner. One can succeed more than in most other Western countries (as far as millions and billions $$ are concerned), but one can also fall way, way deeper than in most other Western countries. The only safety net is in the circus.

Employees get screwed in manners unimaginable in Europe, and Americans think they’re better off, ironically. Ah, four months fully paid for pregnant women/mothers while not being allowed to work. Paradise ! The US can barely alleviate poverty because its system is completely rigged. A fundamental change is impossible, the two party system and lifelong propaganda make sure of that. In essence, you’re own your own. Health insurance tied to a job, that by itself is madness.

Even the poorest – and maybe especially the poorest – hoist the flag and dream the American dream, which is of course a nightmare for countless people. One reason why Americans believe their country is so great is because immigrants from godawful places come here and think it’s paradise.

And that’s just the citizens (and permanent residents like myself) – the USA has its own outsourcing within the country in the form of 12+ million people who came here illegally – not that anybody minded except perfunctory gestures for the placating of mouthbreathers come election time. It would seem any rational person would secure the border and/or legalize illegals and/or provide faster immigration processing and so forth. Truth is, why would anyone be interested in that on the business end ? Chattel is great to have. Democrats are definitely more interested because they see future voters. And, because they are generally less inclined to kick people when they’re down (well, other than partial birth abortion).

It’s win-win for Republicans (to one of his very few credits, Bush tried to change the immigration mess) – cheap labor AND something to rile up the morons come election time. I mean, what would the GOP do without “wetbacks” and “fags” (with a cameo by “Feminazis”? They’d never win an election again.

So, in short, poverty in the USA is here to stay. Here an incomplete list of reasons/factors:

Health insurance tied to employment is a pretty good stranglehold. Why give that up ?
McJobs are convenient for business, under-the-table jobs even more so. You can’t complain if La Migra is a phone call away.
Endless hordes of lobbyists make sure that the status quo is -at least- maintained
An unending supply of poor schmucks happy to have a McJob is provided by godawful Hinterworldistans (applause by Blackadder)
Said poor schmucks convince Americans that this is the greate..blah, cause why else would people come here ?
Who cares if a mother has to work until midnight if the munchies make a visit ? Twinkies at all times, I believe that is part of the Bill of Rights.

Lastly, Americans are educated, in ways not seen since people had to sing songs praising 5-year-plans, in how great their country is. Not just great but THE greatest. (This of course proves that there’s something being hidden). Kids have it drilled into them that “country” is something to be loved above all else (well, aside from a typically vengeful god, depending on what state you live in, usually he has a drawl), something to be pledged allegiance to – DAILY ! Now, imagine how hard it is to find something wrong with one’s country after that kind of brainwashing.

To give you an idea what a liberal Republican is like – look at that a-hole Schwarzenegger (who is from rural Austria, sad to say – although his German may actually be worse than his English) who has such grand ideas as lowering the California minimum wage, and cutting state workers’ salary by 10%. In his native country he’d be SOL with that kind of brutality. (Btw, his hometown took re-renamed a soccer stadium dedicated to him after he signed off on his first execution).

This is a violent country, foreign and domestic, including business. Few other places would make it possible to be ruined by crazed financial plunderers. The American system’s prime interests are neither “regular” employees nor the poor but business and war. Both are waged on the backs of regular people.

10 years ago, my friend Prof. Halperin told me, “Americans are a war-like people.” Damn straight.

We have been here before, Zach.

I am merely disgusted with the number of u.s. Christians who demand the “right” to be selfish. Oops, and then ask stupid things like “after rights, then what?” Are you one of them?

Well, there are unions, too. Collective bargaining came into being because people united – often under the threat, and fact, of injury and death. All progress had to be wrested from business. Of course, where they can still have their way, with “outsourced” jobs – the sweatshops not to be dismissed right away – you can see what corporations do if they can do as they please.

Of course, it still is much closer to the golden days of exploitation in this country. Little vacation, little protection, no provisions for mothers even in state jobs, working on weekends, working at night, working on Christmas, you name it. God forbid someone couldn’t shop at 3 a.m. Of course, in EUrope the prohibitions of working on Sunday are being eroded over time. It used to be unthinkable. There is of course paralysis via governmental overlord-ship. But the Oklahoma Land Rush that is the American system isn’t exactly heaven. Businesses in Europe do try to move towards more Americanism , which is done on the backs of the people. American circumstances are a corporation’s wet dream. Sick leave for giving birth versus 8 weeks before and after birth at full pay with working prohibited, I just can’t get over that one. That and the financial collapse of this country weened me off the American teat. Well, I also blame Vox Nova :P

I used to think, e.g. in Paris, what ! The grocery store closes at 7 p.m. ! Not thinking or caring about the people who’d like to get home to their families.

Whoever is in a position of power is prone to exploit it. This includes stupid liberal ideas, too of course. Not that Democrats are pro-regular-people in a European sense, mind you. Instead of truly effecting change, they frequently come up with patronizing schemes that just make things worse. Government “projects” are usually pits. In Austria, they’re sought after. They don’t much change the basics of the system. And why ? Most of the people are sold on being worse off, believing they’re better off. All you need is a flag and drilling it into children. Drill sergeants don’t just exist in the military. It’s much like a beehive – they train you into either drones or soldiers.

In your opinion, what is the ideal economic arrangement? What arrangement best serves the poor? Is anarchy the best chance for the poor? i.e., are you advocating that individuals should be charitable without someone coercing them into it? What should we do?

I guess I’d say that that the appeal of fair trade messaging is entirely negative. “Buy our product, we don’t abuse our workers.” Well, as the Chris Rock routine goes: “What, you want a cookie? You’re not supposed to abuse your workers.”

To the extent that fair trade products bring attention to the plight of workers in the third world, I think they can be a good thing. However, there are also aspects that are concerning. Some of this has to do with fair trade labelling regulations. For instance, the rules for labelling a coffee “fair trade” in Europe stipulate that the growers must be paid a certain amount per kilo of coffee and no more. The idea, I guess, is that this makes sure that all fair trade growers benefit equally, but since even fair trade rates don’t get you much of a lifestyle by modern standards, African growers who have developed higher quality varietals have found it to their advantage not to label their products “fair trade” because they can make more selling based on quality than based on the “fair trade” labeling.

Ideally, this is the point all products should get to: where everyone is being paid a decent wage and you decide what to buy based on quality.

My concern with the fair trade handicraft product movement is a little different. The folks running “fair trade stores” which import woven goods and other handicrafts from the third world and pay people a “fair wage” to do their “traditional” work often try to fit stereotype by producing very rustic-looking products. They also put a big emphasis on all their stuff being hand made.

What the problem with this? Well if you’re selling colorful quilts made in India through a fair trade store at $200 a piece (looking around on some fair trade blanket sites that looks pretty standard) and if your traditional Indian women cranking out handmade quilts are producing roughtly 25 a year (having hand quilters in the family, I can’t imagine knocking them out faster than one every two weeks — and even that would mean working constantly and taking shortcuts) then you’ve got to figure that by the time you count in shipping and distribution and the rent on the fair trade shop and so on the most this Indian quiltmaker is going to make is 100×25=2500/year. Now $2500 is a lot of money in much of the third world, but is it a long term solution as that country develops? I deal with a lot of Indian workers through work — and call center workers there often make 8000-10,000/yr. IT guys make 20,000/yr. Even low level manufacturing would pay much more than this quilt making. And there’s no way to scale up the quilt making operation so that the quiltmaker can make more money if the whole selling case for the end product is that its handmade in this woman’s home.

My concern is thus that these “buy handmade products at fair trade prices” attempts, though very well meant, end up trapping people in an economic dead end, not developing skills that would help them make more later, and trap them selling into a small niche market in the developed world which is willing to buy excessively rustic-looking products because of the living wage marketing story.

What would I favor instead?

-Programs to provide educational opportunities to young people in the developing world so that they’ll be able to compete in the global skilled labor marketplace.

-Business ventures which bring in sufficient foreign investment to install high productivity production methods and give workers training in skilled modern methods. Even if their wages seem low by developed world standards, those kind of jobs have enough productivity built in to allow higher wages as the labor market tightens, and it provides the workers with valuable skills that will allow them to shop themselves around to different companies in order to seek the highest wages possible.