Profits before People
Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institute is reportedly an expert on constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights, but he doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of the preposition before. He chides the pope for advancing “a wickedly deformed foundation for social policy” because the pope had the gall to denounce people who put “profits before people.” For reasons that elude me, Epstein seems to think that the pope has condemned profits. He then ludicrously implies that the pope sees the world in the abstract while he sees the real world, the world in which profits are passed on to real people. A quick search of the pope’s own website would reveal to Epstein that the pope wasn’t suggesting that profits should disappear or that investment capital should be made scarce by the public sector.
Besides, the pope, whose organization is run largely by the help of investment capital, knows perfectly well that profits can and do benefit people. When he says that “the economy cannot be measured by the maximum profit but by the common good,” he’s not at all condemning profit, but rather stating that profits should go toward the common good, which includes the benefit of people. Profits are made for people, not people for profits. Putting people before profits doesn’t mean making profits scarce; before doesn’t mean make go away. It means that people are more important than profits, that people should not be reduced to mere means in the pursuit of profits, that profits should not be greedily horded so that people are deprived of life’s necessities and basic comforts.
Comments are closed.
Excellent, Kyle. One way to measure profit is by the common good! Unfortunately, this method doesn’t fit into the short-term financial calculus that drives modern business, which is why capitalism – at least as presently configured – is incapable of dealing with externalities which lead to the tragedy of the commons. There is hope, though. Both the B Corp. movement and the notion of socially responsible investing tend more in the direction of B16 than Richard Epstein.
Perhaps some of these so called intellectuals should be required to read a few encyclicals, starting with Reum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Mater et Magistra, Populorum Progressio, Laborem Exercens, Centesimus Annus etc. etc.
That might give them a better understanding of what the Pope have been saying regarding putting People before profits. Ultimately it is all about the diginity of the individual as a being created “In the image and likeness of God”, and that all should be treated in a just manner. Basically, individuals are not mere commodities.
Pope Benedict’s statement that “the economy cannot function only with mercantile self-regulation but needs an ethical reason in order to work for man,” puts me in mind of the famous quote by Adam Smith that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Was Smith wrong?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Read all of Adam Smith. He also believe that an shared ethical framework was a necessary underpinning for a sustainable functioning economy. He was always aware of human greed especially in those of larger business interests who had the power and influence to put their interests above the common good.
Smith was not naive about human nature.
Self-interest for the butcher, the brewer, and the baker included the common good of their neighbors, families, and customers. Can the same be said of global corporations for whom entire ecosystems and populations are minor externalities?
I first read this nonsense on the Mirror of Justice blog-site and will copy my comment from there:
“At this incredibly late date, with so much damage done in the name of the Pelagian/Libertartian fantasy world pushed by ideological publicists like this Epstein chap….WHO CARES???????????”
Perhaps some of these so called intellectuals should be required to read a few encyclicals, starting with …
Now this is our problem. When a liberal says something questionable, the conservative shouts “dissenter” and applies the worst motives. When a conservative says something questionable, he is simply asked to study the matter more deeply.
I don’t doubt that Professor Epstein is an intellectual. If he has not read the encyclicals, I would bet he has read other material making the same points. I think it is most likely that Professor Epstein just fundamentally rejects Catholic Social Teaching. Let’s just say it.
As to Blackadder, Mr. Smith speaks to those who have an expectation of dinner. And for those workers that do not have a (reasonable) expectation of dinner?
This was a rather poor effort on the part of Mr. Epstein in so far as it pertains to accurately portraying the thinking of Our Holy Father. His words must be understood in the context of Catholic teaching.He was quite clearly not condemning profit as such .
The thinking of The Church on the free market was well summarized by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus. The pursuit of profit is not condemned but clearly neither is the pursuit of profit, or of anything for that matter to be turned into an idol. All kinds of “profitable” pursuits come to mind such as the manufacture and marketing of abortifacient drugs to mention only one, which a thinking Catholic would condemn as being destructive of human life and dignity. A consumerist ethic, which seeks to create an excessive regard for things, is also not to be encouraged.
His reference to socialists taking comform somehow from the Pope’s words also reflects ignorance as to just how clearly Catholic teaching condemens socialism and the modern bureaucratically heavy welfare state. Hopefully his next commentary on The Pope’s words and by implication Catholic teaching, will be buttressed with greater understanding.
Catholic teaching may directly condemn socialism, but “the modern bureaucratically heavy welfare state” is a rightwing bugaboo, not a common papal target. The social encyclicals have made it clear that the modern state has a responsibility to pursue the common good of its citizens, including helping meet basic human needs — for food, shelter, security in old age and yes, health care — all pursuits neo-liberal (i.e., conservative and libertarian) movements condemn as overstepping the bounds of government.
Though the Church has condemned the welfare state mentality which creates dependency on the state. This is a fact.
The state has a responsibility to pursue the common good, but His Holiness Blessed John Paul II did warn in Centesimus Annus about the excesses of the modern welfare state. A fair reading of his encyclical will confirm this.
Blessed John Paul did warn of excesses. But he and the Episcopate have never found any excess in our American social welfare state. Almost every major component not only has been free of Catholic objection but has been affirmatively supported by the Church: Old Age and Survivors Insurance, Disability Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps (SNAP), Workers Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, TANF, LIHEAP, etc.
The Church has repeatedly determined the American welfare state to be too limited rather than excessive.
Nor would I expect a finding of such excesses. That is not what the Church does. It does not endorse specific programs in its social teaching only broad principles which the faithful are to apply in accordance with prudential judgment. Programs you have cited may have received favorable comment in the prudential judgment of our pastors from time to time, but there is no imprimatur as such to the American welfare state or its European counterparts as presently manifested. Both are arguably quite destructive at least some respects, to those they claim to help.
To clarify, I said “the modern heavily bureaucratic welfare state” is a rightwing bugaboo, not a common papal target, not that a pope never said anything negative about a “welfare mentality.” Even more prevalent in the social encyclicals are warnings against the capitalist mentality, but since certain American Catholic writers typically cast aside all such references as the totally fallible ramblings of out-of-touch pontiffs relying on their prudential judgments, I’m not surprised they’re not well-known here.