Forget the debate over whether Obama is a socialist.
Now we’re discussing whether Jesus is for big government. Or, to be more accurate, the Pope has started a debate about whether free markets are bad, particularly for the poor.
Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute wrote about the underlying theological issues in an article for National Review, but I hope I also contributed to the secular aspect of the debate in this BBC interview.
The first thing I said was the rather obvious point that there’s a lot more to life than accumulating wealth.
My most important point was that capitalism is the only successful model for creating broadly shared prosperity and I used examples from the Pope’s home region of Latin America to show that nations with more economic liberty are far more successful.
But I emphasized that supporters of freedom have a challenge because many people mistakenly associate capitalism with cronyism and bailouts for big business. In reality, free markets are a system based on voluntary exchange and private property, which means no special favors for any industry or company.
To bolster my point that economic growth is the best way to help the poor, I cited Hong Kong as a role model, both for creating growth and for enabling upward mobility.
My second most important point, which came near the end of the interview, was that genuine compassion is when you give away your own money, not when you vote for politicians who will use coercion to redistribute other people’s money. I should have used the opportunity to cite the data showing that Americans are far more compassionate – in the right sense – than their European counterparts.
I’m sure “Libertarian Jesus” would have agreed.
Now we need to get others to climb on the freedom bandwagon. I suspect the Pope will be more receptive to that message than politicians, though the Vatican sometimes has been very good on these issues and at times very disappointing.
P.S. I was worried I made up a word when I stated that I wanted to make a “theologic” point, but it’s actually in the dictionary, so I got lucky. But even if it turned out it wasn’t a word, it wouldn’t have been nearly as embarrassing as the time in the 1990s when I wanted to say “annals” and pronounced it “anals.”
P.P.S. Thomas Sowell has some insightful analysis on whether Obama is a socialist.
[…] actually agrees that capitalism is the best approach to fighting poverty. Too bad the Pope lacks the same […]
[…] the best way to help the poor, as I noted when criticizing Pope Francis’ support for statism in a BBC interview, […]
[…] I generally don’t think recycling is economically sensible, I am going to reuse this 2013 BBC interview because it’s time (again) to criticize the economic illiteracy of Pope […]
[…] the best way to help the poor, as I noted when criticizing Pope Francis’ support for statism in a BBC interview, is free markets and […]
[…] in 2013, I talked to the BBC about Pope Francis and his bizarre hostility to free […]
[…] was to be very critical. After all, various news reports interpreted the Pope’s statement as an attack on capitalism and an embrace of the welfare […]
[…] of this rhetoric rubs me the wrong way (and citing an economic illiterate like Pope Francis is appalling), but what really matters is whether Rubio is proposing more power for government or […]
[…] first opined about Pope Francis in 2013, when I told a BBC audience why the Pope was wrong on economic […]
[…] On the topic of religion and public policy, I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies […]
[…] since my columns about the economic views of Pope Francis have been less than flattering (see here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] of Pope Francis, who has a knee-jerk view that capitalism is bad. I’ve explained why those views are wrong, though I’d first recommend reading what Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wrote on the […]
[…] almost feel guilty when I criticize the garbled economic thoughts of Pope Francis. After all, he was influenced by Peronist ideology as a youngster, so he was […]
[…] feel guilty when I criticize the garbled economic thoughts of Pope Francis. After all, he was influenced by Peronist ideology as a youngster, so he was […]
[…] feel guilty when I criticize the garbled economic thoughts of Pope Francis. After all, he was influenced by Peronist ideology as a youngster, so he was […]
[…] almost feel guilty when I criticize the garbled economic thoughts of Pope Francis. After all, he was influenced by Peronist ideology as a youngster, so he was […]
[…] This is why I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies […]
[…] of Pope Francis, who has a knee-jerk view that capitalism is bad. I’ve explained why those views are wrong, though I’d first recommend reading what Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wrote on the […]
[…] Pope Francis, who has a knee-jerk view that capitalism is bad. I’ve explained why those views are wrong, though I’d first recommend reading what Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wrote on the […]
[…] Though if you prefer favorable humor, I very much enjoy Libertarian Jesus (featured here and here) because he makes a very serious point about the absurdity of equating government coercion with compassion (a lesson Pope Francis needs to understand). […]
[…] is why I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies that […]
[…] is why I’ve been critical of Pope Francis. His heart may be in the right place, but he’s misguided about the policies […]
[…] readers know I’m not a big fan of Pope Francis, and I’ve shared some criticism based on the insights of Walter Williams and […]
[…] bad for poor people. Bono realizes that capitalism is the right model for upward mobility. Now let’s hope Pope Francis learns the same […]
[…] The obvious reason is that he is in a position of influence and he’s using that power to promote policies that will reduce prosperity. And poor people will be the biggest victims, as I explained in this BBC interview. […]
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
[…] The Pope Is Wrong about Capitalism: Free Markets Are Best for the Less Fortunate […]
[…] In fact, if you watched the interview by Dan Mitchell above he made the point as well. He reiterated it in his post here […]
Seems like the pope has fallen for the same “a redistribution dollar today is worth five compounding dollars in the future”, the same short-sighted arithmetic that attracts most voter-lemmings. The arithmetic of compounding and exponents is an integral part of the universe, God’s creation, so the pope should probably respect it more.
But most likely, the pope is expectedly heavy on dogma. He puts most weight on present ephemeral intention, rather than future long term outcome.
But coercive vs voluntary redistribution plays an important role, both theologically and economically, since voluntary redistribution is much less detrimental in diluting production incentives.
One must also consider that there is also much difference between traditionally coercive Catholicism and Protestant branches, such as Calvinism.
In the secular view, religious beliefs are part of mankind’s social evolution and natural selection. Those religions that incorporate successful ethical rules (eg. “Do not use the polling booth to gain access to other people’s productivity, even though your leader says ‘yes you can’ and as a majority you have the power to” do well. Other religions perish over the long term, along with the unproductive morals they embody. Because, from an economic standpoint, under sub-par growth rates, nothing is sustainable; not even the religion than embodies or contributes to that growth deficit.
In a utilitarian sense, other than religion, what else is going to prevent you from marking the “give me my neighbor’s wallet” X on the ballot, in the two minute secrecy of the polling booth? Only religion and the fear that one day your turn might come will impart any meaningful restraint. But if you see yourself as living in mediocrity forever, then the latter restraint evaporates. Only religion is left as the ultimate backstop, unless, of course, you are part of that libertarian extremist minority.
And what better representation of pitchfork democracy than the crucifixion of Jesus himself. “People of Judea, should Jesus be crucified?”.”People of Athens, should Socrates drink hemlock?” “People of America, should you foolishly attempt to maintain your top 10% worldwide standard of living by taking from your neighbor’s wallet?”
Or.. As Hillary Clinton would say — and is poised to soon repeat: “This is the village. Participation is mandatory. You offend the village, you go against the majority, you get crucified, drink hemlock, go to jail for not giving your wallet to the people”. But laws are of the people, by the people, for the people, and thus majority can reign supreme. Religion is a major evolutional force rewarding those societies that refrain from the temptation of degenerating into Pitchfork Democracy. The current pope seems to be choosing the path of decline.
Reblogged this on Literature, Mathematics, Science, Etc. and commented:
This post makes a good case for why capitalism helps the poor, a seemingly contradicting idea… Im now beginning to doubt my belief that socialism is the best for poor people.
Hi Dan, I’ m afraid there is no link to your BBC interview, could you please kindly provide it? (Hope it’s not just me who doesn’t know how to make it work :-() Best, Inés
Sent from my iPad
>
Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.