Posted on 11/29/2013 9:10:30 AM PST by markomalley
I have mentioned that people have raised translation problems with the new Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium. I posted under another entry about problems with par. 54, which in the English translation mentions “trickle-down” economics.
Since that other post delved into more things – the discussion there has been interesting – I thought it useful to pull out of EG 54 just the first part.
Let us assume that the original composition was Spanish:
54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.
Official English…
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
Over at the other post a commentator pointed out that the official English rendering of EG 54 makes Spanish “por si’ mismo” into “inevitably”, but that it really means “by itself”.
Let’s swap in the “by itself” and read it again.
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories ["trickle down economics"] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
There is a big difference between “inevitably” and “by itself”!
There are uses of “mismo” that have to do with time, such as “ahora mismo” (“right now”). This is not one of those.
I think we can stipulate that “las teorías del «derrame»” is an adequate expression for English “trickle down” economics. We can drill, I suppose, into who generally uses the phrase “trickle down”. Some will say that only critics use the phrase. Let’s leave that aside. Also, I am not convinced that “justice and inclusiveness” does justice to “equidad e inclusión social”. ”Equidad” is not “justice”.
But the real point here is that in EG 54 the author says that “trickle down” economics cannot by itself produce the desired result.
That is, of course, correct.
No economic plan will solve the problems of the poor by itself. Economic plans must be carried out by people who have good, solid morals and values.
I submit that these morals and values must be rooted in religion.
Bottom line: Whoever did the English translation of EG 54 did Pope Francis and the watching world a grave disservice and caused confusion. The use of “inevitably” for ”por si’ mismo” changes the meaning of the key phrase in a significant way. The confusion will be difficult to rectify.
The Pope is not so much condemning a specific approach to helping the poor, though I think it is fair to assume that he isn’t a fan of “trickle-down” economics. What he is really going after is the notion that markets, plans, schemes, theories, what have you, can be relied on to help the poor by themselves, that is, without our personal engagement and choice to take responsibility actually to help the poor in concrete ways.
Very good!
Another related offering:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/tea-party-catholics.html
Religious freedom and economic freedom are linked. ;-)
Also, here are two worthwhile videos and the link to both:
1. Rev. Robert A. Sirico Comments on the Economic Views of Pope Francis in ‘Evangelii Gaudium’
2. PovertyCure trailer
Apparently you did not read my post, and I'm not sure you've read EG 54 in any language. As I made clear, the meaning of one specific Spanish word (in or out of a particular idiom) is entirely irrelevant when the rest of the document makes quite plain that the intention was derogatory.
Or do you think there are also alternative definitions for the characterizations of "crude" and "naive" regarding those who believe in free markets?
As for the rest of your rebuttal: completely pointless. Of course I am only talking about the part of the document that discusses economics.
My Spanish isn’t that good, but I was prompted to look up the presumed original of the second sentence in 280 (the only mention in subsidiarity in the whole work), and I am fairly certain it was botched pretty badly. The Spanish, near as I can tell, is coherent and consistent with past teaching—the English is arguably neither.
There also looks to be another problem—I think that Spanish is more prone to use exaggeration to make a point—which, if read in context, is not at all confusing. Translated into English, not so good. And to use too many infinitives to communicate is not to employ standard English.
On the flip side, there are some quotations that show just how good a prose artist Aquinas was—translated into English through the Spanish he is clearer than the translator is capable of making the Pope without an intervening language.
In fairness to whomever is translating, no one has ever been called to translate Papal documents from Spanish to English before, or likely from anything other than Latin into English without a Papal proofreading. So long as everyone was operating from Latin, one knew what to expect. At least, contrary to my first thought, Reggie Foster can’t be blamed (the leading English speaking Latinist in Rome is also a Maoist).
As I made clear, the meaning of one specific Spanish word (in or out of a particular idiom) is entirely irrelevant when the rest of the document makes quite plain that the intention was derogatory.
Of course I am only talking about the part of the document that discusses economics.
Which is it, the document "in its entirety" and "the rest of the document" or "only the part that discusses economics"?
The document is about evangelization not economics. You are falling into the trap of the media spinning it to mean something else. Yes, I too am uncomfortable, about some of what he says about economics (assuming the translation is accurate, which I admit is possible) but let us not make more out of it than we should. The document is about evangelization.
The document is long, (Hopelessly) complex, and nuanced. Did you pick up on him knocking welfare—twice?
Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. (202)
Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded. (204)
Deficit spending is also knocked in paragraph 54.
It works like this A ⊂ B ⊂ C implies what is said in A about a topic is also said in C. If C is about something more, but all of what is written about economics is entirely in A, than the entirety of what is said in A on that subject is not different than the entirety of what is said in C on that subject.
Get it?
What is said is entirely within the standard (and incorrect) understanding of economics promulgated by the Society of Jesus. I am happy to see that it would make your uncomfortable; it should.
Neither complex, nor nuanced.
Game. Set. Match.
Goodbye.
He makes a distinction between welfare (handouts) and income. He believes that in many situations welfare needs to be diminished and income increased. He holds that situations that do not do this are not long-term solutions, and a program of prosperity that involves putting more people on welfare so that the remainder may have a higher income is not a good thing.
Do you prefer the government making decisions, and creating mechanisms and processes that lead to people with no income but surviving on welfare?
Where else in the document does he talk about economics?
"it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income,"
Who makes the decisions? Who creates the programmes? And what are the mechanisms and processes specifically geared toward a "better distribution of income?"
In case you still have doubts about the socialism inherent in his message, he specifically eschews
"attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force [sic]"
So might well have Pius X written of the disappearing workforce in the buggy whip trade, or the disappearing workforce created by Henry Ford's massive use of component/assembly design. Never mind that such a "disappearance" made motor vehicles accessible to the middle class, while hand-made cars had been nothing more than a rich man's toy. [And never mind that Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote often of the same sort of nonsense.]
Reduction in force is part of the way capitalism works.
Period.
It gives rise to better efficiencies, cheaper products with higher quality, and new ideas and technologies as the money once wasted on protecting an obsolete methodology is freed to fund creativity. The remedy for a lost job is a new job, and the remedy to socialist claptrap is to reject it and stop making excuses for it.
Had the Pope merely wanted to make a point about the virtue of charity against the backdrop of amoral free market economics, he need not have spoken derisively about "trickle down economics" (there is no such thing) nor described those who believe in free economies as the best vehicle for compassionate treatment of the disadvantaged as "crude" and "naive." You can't pick and choose what's in here so that you can ignore the parts of the message you don't like. It says what it says.
Actually, subsidiarity means trickle up.
Problems -- start to solve them within your family, then your local church, local organizations, local community, then up to the county level, and up to the state level, and finally to a federal level.
Some of these threads explain it much better than I am doing.
Repeat After Me: Subsidiarity & Solidarity
Subsidiarity and Human Dignity
Does the USCCB Understand Subsidiarity?
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] The Principle of Subsidiarity
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Subsidiarity Over Social Justice
What is the USCCB’s problem with subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity: Where Justice and Freedom Coexist
Health reform still full of thorny problems for Catholics (Vasa comes out for subsidiarity)
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Subsidiarity, [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Day: SUBSIDIARITY, 06-11-09
Wonder who is in charge? Someone like Father Reese?
You are falling into the same trap. Not all business decisions are driven by the need to meet competition. Sometimes it is just to follow blindly the lead of some executive with a bad idea, such as the now departed chief executive of Penny’s. And from Ricardo onwards, many businessmen have been guilty of a mindset not unlike that of the “enclosing landlords” familiar to Thomas More, that treats human beings as expendable. As a critique of the social effects of capitalism, socialism has always had something truthful to say. It is only as a viable alternative, that socialism falls down, because it always concentrates power more than the worst plutocracy and will never yield control in the face of the most abject failures.
As for socialist Utopian "Saint" Sir Thomas Moore, well, he would certainly know about the expendability of human beings, wouldn't he? Or do you think the man who tortured and burned human beings alive was all sweetness and light, like the fictional character in Robert Bolt's play?
As a critique of the social effects of capitalism, socialism has always had something truthful to say.
Its critique -- like the Pope's -- is nonsense, laying the problems of the poor at the feet of free markets. The problem of poverty has been widely studied. Many of the people classified as "poor" in this country are poor by their own choices, and capitalism has exactly nothing to do with it. The Church, like socialists, has always known indigent people nursing fantasy resentments are an easy mark for demagogues and they have gone at advancing them with great gusto. For the genuinely poor, there is charity and guess which economic system produces (overwhelmingly) the most of that? It sure as hell isn't the "system" with "something truthful" to say.
He didn't really use "trickle down" -- he used the word "spillage" (teorías del « derrame » = theories of "spillage")
I would imagine that it roughly tries to capture the same topic.
And, no, I actually think he used it correctly.
Imagine if you had employers who:
What would they do? I would submit that they would pay these people the minimum they possibly could...regardless of how much value each person brings to the value chain.
As Christians, we would want to pay people justly (See S.Th. II-II-61-2) in the proportion to which they contribute to the production of products / services delivered by our company. Without that fundamental Christian ethic built into our psyche, we would strictly follow the laws of supply and demand.
As far as I understand, the theory of supply-side economics impacts labor rates in the following way: when there is reduced taxation and regulation placed upon industry, that industry will increase production. As industry increases production, there is an increased demand. That requires both a) increased requirements for plant/equipment (thus requiring production to produce that plant/equipment) and b) increased requirements for labor to operate that plant/equipment. As there is an increase in demand on a stable labor force, the prices for that labor will increase.
In "developing" countries, there is still a vast surplus of labor. Therefore, prices for that labor are still depressed. The question that follows (at least in my mind) is when a condition of "scarcity" will start to exist, thus allowing the prices to rise.
As I said above, as Christians, we would want to pay people justly (St. Thomas Aquinas talked about distributive justice being accomplished by distributing common goods (in this case, revenues) according to the "geometric mean" ...). With Christian ethics, we know to do that as "the right thing" to do. Without Christian ethics, people would only do so when "forced" by economic pressures.
Frankly, what concerns me with this document is the emphasis on "inequality" rather than on justice. For example: "Inequality is the root of social ills." (§202)
This seems to be in contradiction to much of the Papal Magesterium.
A review of previous papal issuances shows the following:
5. For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"[7] Their habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."[8] But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble.
9. But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquillity in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the "right" of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven. But not the less on this account does our holy Mother not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother's embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments. In fine, she does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, "who being rich became poor for our sake,[18] or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. But who does not see that this is the best method of arranging the old struggle between the rich and poor? For, as the very evidence of facts and events shows, if this method is rejected or disregarded, one of two things must occur: either the greater portion of the human race will fall back into the vile condition of slavery which so long prevailed among the pagan nations, or human society must continue to be disturbed by constant eruptions, to be disgraced by rapine and strife, as we have had sad witness even in recent times.
17. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. "Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life."[5]
34. But although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves, yet it should not be supposed that all can contribute in the like way and to the same extent. No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them. Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community. Those who labor at a trade or calling do not promote the general welfare in such measure as this, but they benefit the nation, if less directly, in a most important manner. We have insisted, it is true, that, since the end of society is to make men better, the chief good that society can possess is virtue. Nevertheless, it is the business of a well constituted body politic to see to the provision of those material and external helps "the use of which is necessary to virtuous action."[28] Now, for the provision of such commodities, the labor of the working class -- the exercise of their skill, and the employment of their strength, in the cultivation of the land, and in the workshops of trade -- is especially responsible and quite indispensable. Indeed, their co-operation is in this respect so important that it may be truly said that it is only by the labor of working men that States grow rich. Justice, therefore, demands that the interests of the working classes should be carefully watched over by the administration, so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits which they create -- that being housed, clothed, and bodily fit, they may find their life less hard and more endurable. It follows that whatever shall appear to prove conducive to the well-being of those who work should obtain favorable consideration. There is no fear that solicitude of this kind will be harmful to any interest; on the contrary, it will be to the advantage of all, for it cannot but be good for the commonwealth to shield from misery those on whom it so largely depends for the things that it needs.
Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth. The same is true of justice and equality; the Sillon says that it is striving to establish an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of greater justice. Thus, to the Sillon, every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice? Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealously, injustice, and subversive to any social order. Thus, Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice! Is this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? Besides, the Sillonists once again clash on this point with the teaching of Leo XIII. In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they could have read this: “Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.”
The Sillonist doctrines are not kept within the domain of abstract philosophy; they are taught to Catholic youth and, even worse, efforts are made to apply them in everyday life. The Sillon is regarded as the nucleus of the Future City and, accordingly, it is being made to its image as much as possible. Indeed, the Sillon has no hierarchy. The governing elite has emerged from the rank and file by selection, that is, by imposing itself through its moral authority and its virtues. People join it freely, and freely they may leave it. Studies are carried out without a master, at the very most, with an adviser. The study groups are really intellectual pools in which each member is at once both master and student. The most complete fellowship prevails amongst its members, and draws their souls into close communion: hence the common soul of the Sillon. It has been called a "friendship". Even the priest, on entering, lowers the eminent dignity of his priesthood and, by a strange reversal of roles, becomes a student, placing himself on a level with his young friends, and is no more than a comrade.
In these democratic practices and in the theories of the Ideal City from which they flow, you will recognize, Venerable Brethren, the hidden cause of the lack of discipline with which you have so often had to reproach the Sillon. It is not surprising that you do not find among the leaders and their comrades trained on these lines, whether seminarists or priests, the respect, the docility, and the obedience which are due to your authority and to yourselves; not is it surprising that you should be conscious of an underlying opposition on their part, and that, to your sorrow, you should see them withdraw altogether from works which are not those of the Sillon or, if compelled under obedience, that they should comply with distaste. You are the past; they are the pioneers of the civilization of the future. You represent the hierarchy, social inequalities, authority, and obedience - worn out institutions to which their hearts, captured by another ideal, can no longer submit to. Occurrences so sad as to bring tears to Our eyes bear witness to this frame of mind. And we cannot, with all Our patience, overcome a just feeling of indignation. Now then! Distrust of the Church, their Mother, is being instilled into the minds of Catholic youth; they are being taught that after nineteen centuries She has not yet been able to build up in this world a society on true foundations; She has not understood the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human dignity; they are told that the great Bishops and Kings, who have made France what it is and governed it so gloriously, have not been able to give their people true justice and true happiness because they did not possess the Sillonist Ideal!
(NB: The Sillon were/are a modernist group that sought to reconcile Catholic Doctrine with the ideals of the French revolution)
28. In a people worthy of the name, the citizen feels within him the consciousness of his personality, of his duties and rights, of his own freedom joined to respect for the freedom and dignity of others.
29. In a people worthy of the name all inequalities based not on whim but on the nature of things, inequalities of culture, possessions, social standing -- without, of course, prejudice to justice and mutual charity -- do not constitute any obstacle to the existence and the prevalence of a true spirit of union and brotherhood.
30. On the contrary, so far from impairing civil equality in any way, they give it its true meaning; namely, that, before the state everyone has the right to live honorably his own personal life in the place and under the conditions in which the designs and dispositions of Providence have placed him.
38. Anyone, therefore, who ventures to deny that there are differences among social classes contradicts the very laws of nature. Indeed, whoever opposes peaceful and necessary cooperation among the social classes is attempting, beyond doubt, to disrupt and divide human society; he menaces and does serious injury to private interests and the public welfare.
39. As Our predecessor, Pius XII, wisely said, "In a nation that is worthy of the name, inequalities among the social classes present few or no obstacles to their union in common brotherhood. We refer, of course, to those inequalities which result not from human caprice but from the nature of things -- inequalities having to do with intellectual and spiritual growth, with economic facts, with differences in individual circumstances, within, of course, the limits prescribed by justice and mutual charity.''[13]
40. The various classes of society, as well as groups of individuals, may certainly protect their rights, provided this is done by legal means, not violence, and provided that they do no injustice to the inviolable rights of others. All men are brothers. Their differences, therefore, must be settled by friendly agreement, with brotherly love for one another.
It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged "equality" of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a "leveling down." In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and "decision-making" body - if not also the "owner"- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of "psychological" emigration.
Sorry for the massive post, but I don't want to make some sort of claim without providing adequate proof to back it up.
And let me emphasize that I am not making any sort of accusation here nor am I drawing a conclusion...I am simply pointing out something that is concerning to me at this juncture.
A thoughtful discussion of this is... refreshing.
IDK how “por so mismo” could be translated as “inevitably” in the first place.
I think this post (37) could be its own thread. Great research!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.