"If Catholics Adhere to Their Traditions, They Will Vote for Ron Paul"

[Adelbrecht]

Typical rhetorical response, avoiding the truth of my point.

Truth. What is truth?

Protection from theft and fraud is not a constant in libertarianism, as there is libertarian anarchism.

The alternative is to continue with poor productivity in a competitive market, which leads to bankruptcy. Same result, except MORE people lose their jobs. The US automakers are a case in point.

Protectionism. Hehehe

Distributism and solidarism are too amorphous to actually be applied to policy. Laissez faire capitalism is very much in line with anarchism.

They're both very theoretical, with the exception that distributism does have a precedent: the early Middle Ages. Production actually increased because of the redistribution of property (Manorialism). Laissez faire capitalism on the other hand is a dangerous fantasy.

Yep. Regulated by personal rights and private property rights.

And those already exist, and it isn't working.

No, because that would be fraud.

That's how banking became profitable.

Ah, so you are advocating some sort of utopianism. Makes sense.

It's called Christianity. Very utopian indeed.

Nice dodge.

Look, what if all the rich people just say: "screw this, I'm not giving anything to charity"?

[rbjmartin]

For the sake of university students?  What are these universities good for if they teach socialist economics?

Your country, due to the socialist entitlement mentality, is wasting resources on professional students rather than developing practical infrastructure.

Easy to speak for an American who has cities built according to strict plans. Our cities are ancient, restructuring them would mean the end of many historical buildings, including churches.

I do not care about wasting money. Pieces of metal and worthless paper. I'd rather have higher taxes than having lower taxes without trains, without social security, without health care.

In our country, the poorest people can go to the best universities and the best hospitals. Our health care is said to be one of the best of the world. People from other countries go to our hospitals. If that's socialism, well, I'm very glad that I live in "socialist country".

Let me guess: you are an university student. So you are enjoying the fruits of living in your socialist country while productive members of society pay for you. Does it matter to you that the Church has condemned socialism?

From Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum:

Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

[Adelbrecht]

You make a false assumption when you say that it is inherent to capitalism for "the rich" to own most of the means of production.

It is so in practice.

This is not necessarily the case.

It is the inevitable result.

Private property, in itself, is the means of production, and as long as individuals own private property, every property-owning individual possesses the means of production, not just the rich.

What can I produce with a small apartment in a big city?

Especially considering that much of the first world economy is composed of intellectual economies through the predominance of various service sectors, the means of production reside in the minds of programmers, engineers, architects, project managers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

And in the States everyone has equal opportunity to study those things? Every American student I know complains about the impossibly high costs of higher education.

Further, you are disregarding the humans again. Not everyone is fit for 'intellectual economics'.

[rbjmartin]

I think you need to get your nose out of your books and actually see what it's like in the real economy.

[Crusading Philologist]

Anyway, it's important to note that the Austrian approach to economics is methodologically flawed. The Austrians, especially the hardcore Misesians, will try to tell you that economics is an a priori science. According to them, real-world economic history and economic data are completely irrelevant because economics is supposed to be done through pure reason without any recourse to facts. Needless to say, this means that the Austrians end up talking about a man and a world that never has existed and never will exist. Homo Economicus doesn't exist, and the patterns of actually existing economies are often counterintuitive.

This is humorous, because you are describing to a T mainstream economics (whether it be supply-side or Keynesian). Have you taken an economics course? It is full of arbitrary formulae to analyze and dissect macro-economic events. This is NOT the Austrian approach. The Austrians begin with human behavior. There is reason why Ludwig von Mises' magnum opus was called "Human Action."

I don't know. Here's Bryan Caplan on the Austrian position:

4.2. Is Theory Enough?

Armchair economic theorizing can be and often is a productive way of learning about the world. Mises and Rothbard clearly proclaim this, I readily concede it, and most neoclassical economists frequently "act as if" they believe it. Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant.

Price theory shows us that a minimum wage in excess of the market-clearing price will increase unemployment. However, as Mises and Rothbard emphasize, economic theory tells us nothing about how big the increase in unemployment will be. Empirical studies of the imposition of minimum wages do more than merely illustrate economic theory; they help economists to learn which theoretically relevant factors actually matter. Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin, while economic theory is real knowledge, until you study some economic history your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. An economist who attributes hyper-inflations to radically and continuing declines in the demand for money contradicts no economic theory. He is however still a bad economist, because he analysis of which factors are quantitatively significant is so far off.

Yes, it is possible for the quantitative importance of different factors to change over time and across different societies; but study of these differences is just another task to which good economists need to devote themselves. For example, population economists do more than just describe the causes behind population growth; they also generalize about why different causes matter more in different countries and times. An increase in the supply of food may greatly increase population growth in a poor country, without having any important impact in a richer country; both facts required empirical study to learn, the facts learned varied across time and place, and yet an underlying and important pattern still exists.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Note that Caplan is more sympathetic to Austrian economics than your average mainstream economist.

On the question of the rich and the means of production in capitalism, I think "capitalism" usually tends to imply an economy in which the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie, who then employ wage-laborers to work the means of production. I suppose it  comes down to semantics, but an economy in which the means of production were widely distributed would arguably be missing many of the key features of the capitalist system.  

[Adelbrecht]

Let me guess: you are an university student. So you are enjoying the fruits of living in your socialist country while productive members of society pay for you. Does it matter to you that the Church has condemned socialism?

Does it even matter to you that you haven't got the slightest clue what socialism actually is? My country is capitalist, welfare state Keynesian capitalist to be exact. For you, socialism seems to be everything outside your point of view.

Does it even matter to you that the Church has also condemned laissez faire capitalism, your point of view?

I am not socialist, nor capitalist. I reject those two philosophies. I support free enterprise and acknowledge the right to own property. The problem with capitalism is neither private property nor free enterprise.

[Adelbrecht]

I think you need to get your nose out of your books and actually see what it's like in the real economy.

Sigh.

Let's all quit being Catholic too! The real world has become progressive and secular.

[Tim]

I believe Mac Arthur applied distibutism in the rebuilding of Japan. With the change to actually ownership of the Land by the lower class, they rebuilt it until George Soros and Rothschild manipulated the Asian Currencies and created the recession Japan from which it has not recovered.
This change unleashed small business and created wealth.

tim

[rbjmartin]

I don't know. Here's Bryan Caplan on the Austrian position:

4.2. Is Theory Enough?

Armchair economic theorizing can be and often is a productive way of learning about the world. Mises and Rothbard clearly proclaim this, I readily concede it, and most neoclassical economists frequently "act as if" they believe it. Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant.

Price theory shows us that a minimum wage in excess of the market-clearing price will increase unemployment. However, as Mises and Rothbard emphasize, economic theory tells us nothing about how big the increase in unemployment will be. Empirical studies of the imposition of minimum wages do more than merely illustrate economic theory; they help economists to learn which theoretically relevant factors actually matter. Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin, while economic theory is real knowledge, until you study some economic history your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. An economist who attributes hyper-inflations to radically and continuing declines in the demand for money contradicts no economic theory. He is however still a bad economist, because he analysis of which factors are quantitatively significant is so far off.

Yes, it is possible for the quantitative importance of different factors to change over time and across different societies; but study of these differences is just another task to which good economists need to devote themselves. For example, population economists do more than just describe the causes behind population growth; they also generalize about why different causes matter more in different countries and times. An increase in the supply of food may greatly increase population growth in a poor country, without having any important impact in a richer country; both facts required empirical study to learn, the facts learned varied across time and place, and yet an underlying and important pattern still exists.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

I undersand his point, but he's not saying that Austrian economics exists solely in a hermetically-sealed theoretical world. It is no more the case for Austrian economics than it is for Aristotelean philosophy.  Knowledge via human observation is inherent to any such philosophizing.

On the question of the rich and the means of production in capitalism, I think "capitalism" usually tends to imply an economy in which the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie, who then employ wage-laborers to work the means of production. I suppose it  comes down to semantics, but an economy in which the means of production were widely distributed would arguably be missing many of the key features of the capitalist system.  

I think your assumptions are erroneous. Concentrated means of production in the hands of the few is not inherent to the definition of capitalism.  It's quite possible for there to exist an economy where most of the means of production reside in small businesses. That was certainly the case in most of small town America 100 years ago.

[rbjmartin]

Let me guess: you are an university student. So you are enjoying the fruits of living in your socialist country while productive members of society pay for you. Does it matter to you that the Church has condemned socialism?

Does it even matter to you that you haven't got the slightest clue what socialism actually is? My country is capitalist, welfare state Keynesian capitalist to be exact.

Is that something similar to a round square? A welfare state MUST operate on socialist principles. Unless it lives in the Garden of Eden.

I've been studying socialism and its philosophical roots since you were in diapers. I toyed with socialism and communism in my youth. But since you are so cock-sure that I haven't "the slightest clue what socialism actually is" (what makes you so sure?), I pray you, my all-knowing young teacher, will school me.
 

Does it even matter to you that the Church has also condemned laissez faire capitalism, your point of view?

Please quote your source. You are most certainly taking it (and me) out of context if you think my views are contrary to the Church's.

I am not socialist, nor capitalist. I reject those two philosophies.

Ah, but you are happy to live under socialism so long as it suits your purposes.