Private Property in Magnifica Humanitas

We have been saying for years that many people get fundamental principles wrong.  This is understandable given the state of education today, but it still doesn’t make it right.  As people like Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler have been warning for about a century or more, schooling has degenerated from actual education, to job training, and finally to ideological indoctrination.  This is important because it’s one thing to issue an encyclical, and quite another to have it understood, and understanding comes at a high premium today.

Economic Doubletalk, III: The Monetary and Credit Critiques

In our previous posting on this subject, we looked at the theoretical complaints of economists the AI engine “Claude” gave to explain why economists reject Louis Kelso’s Binary Economics.  While there was some validity to the theoretical complaints, they were fairly easy to deal with once we identified the differences in assumptions between Kelso’s Binary Economics and mainstream economics.  There was quite a bit of confusion, but that is only to be expected because many of the critics don’t really know too much about Binary Economics . . . and some of them aren’t too clear on their own paradigm, either.

A New Encyclical . . . So What?

Word on the street is Pope Leo XIV is issuing a new “encyclical” on May 15, 2026.  The document, provisionally titled Magnifica Humanitas (hmmm . . .) is expected to be a follow-up on Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 effort, Rerum Novarum, “On Labor and Capital,” which some (erroneously, if it matters) consider the first “social encyclical.”

Economic Doubletalk, II: The Theoretical Critiques

In our last exciting episode, we looked at a list of reasons the AI engine “Claude” gave to explain why economists reject Louis Kelso’s Binary Economics.  We didn’t think the critiques were very good (or we wouldn’t be writing this blog, obviously) and they are very easily refuted.  This week we take the first group on the list, the “Theoretical Critiques”:

Economic Doubletalk, I: The Question

Recently a CESJ stalwart decided to ask “Claude” a question.  Actually, this particular individual has been asking Claude a lot of questions, but the answer to this particular question was one we could use to create a blog posting without first having to think what to write about.

Democratizing Finance

    One of the goals of the Economic Democracy Act is to “democratize” ownership of capital.  By this we do not mean the collectivist “The People” own (meaning everything is owned by the State and controlled by whoever holds political power), the individualist “Democratic Capitalism” (meaning almost everything is owned by a relatively few private individuals holding economic power), or the collective-individualist/individual-collectivist “Servile State” (meaning virtually everything is owned or controlled by a private-public sector economic-political elite holding both economic and political power).

The Monster from SpaceX

No, this is not the title of a 1950’s low-budget sci-fi flick.  Nor is it a cheap commercial from the, er, 1950s comparing what someone is advertising with “Brand X.”  No, it’s just some commentary about the proposed IPO — that’s “Initial Public Offering” for those of us not up on the lingo of financial markets — of “SpaceX” for “Space Exploration Technologies Corporation,” the rather unimaginatively named private American aerospace manufacturer and space transportation company.

How to Get Out of (National) Debt

The U.S. National Debt is now climbing upwards of $39 trillion . . . although it’s not impossible to find some experts who claim the figure is more like $100 trillion due to unbooked estimates for Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, whether we’re talking $39 trillion or $100 trillion — yes, that’s trillion — it’s in the realm of the surreal, not the real.  That’s a lot of money.

That Krazy Keynesian Math II, the Quantity Theory of Money

In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at the shaky moral foundation of Keynesian theory.  This consists of Keynes’s own assertion that his system would only work if we lie to ourselves for at least a century.  We also looked at the somewhat distorted and distorting concept of productivity as understood in economics and public policy.  In contrast, we posed Louis Kelso’s concept of productiveness, the free market-determined value each factor contributes to the overall production process.

That Krazy Keynesian Math I, Prevarication and Productiveness

 To some people, economics is not merely the dismal science (thanks to the Reverend Thomas Malthus), but also the incomprehensible science . . . with increasing numbers of potential and former votaries insisting it is no longer a science, if it ever was.  Of course, followers of Keynes who always knew the Master’s economics were a religion and not a science remain solidly entrenched in their faith . . . despite the lack of a solid moral or even rational foundation.

Economic Personalism and Distributism, Part II: Analysis

    In last week’s posting on this subject, we briefly answered four questions posed by a professor about distributism and the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism: 1) What lead you to become a proponent of this economic system in the first place? 2) What are a few of the most important principles of this economic system? 3) What do you see as the major advantages of this system? 4) What are the major challenges?

Economic Personalism and Distributism, Part I: Questions and Answers

  Recently a genuine college professor got in touch with us and asked us if we would mind answering a few questions about the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism.  He wanted to know how it stacks up against “distributism.”  Yes, we are aware that some (former) distributists now insist on calling the system developed by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc “localism.”

Kelso v. Keynes on Money

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, many people seem to confuse God and money, as well as religion and finance.  This, in the modern age suffused with what people like Mortimer J. Adler have delicately referred to as “philosophical mistakes,” is a disaster, whether the result of Belloc’s purported accusation of “knavish imbecility,” unthinking self-interest, or deliberate and considered villainy.

How to Understand Money

    In the introduction to one of his satiric songs written for the late, great show That Was the Week That Was (“TW3”) performed and recorded at the late, great “Hungry I” nightclub in San Francisco (the one that closed in 1970, not the strip club that replaced it . . . sort of), the late, great Tom Lehrer made the obvious and characteristic (“Seldom has any point to make except the obvious”) ironic comment that his Christmas Carol celebrated what everyone deeply and sincerely believes in: Money.  Of course, St. Paul made a similar comment in one or other of his letters to somebody or other, that love of money is the root of all evil.

Running Out of Money?

    “You can never be too rich or too thin” (or something like that) said, uh, somebody or other . . . maybe — it’s attributed to a bunch of people few members of the public today ever heard of.  Leaving aside the “too thin” bit as a bit beyond our competence, we’ll focus on whether you can be “too rich.”  Quick answer: yes, you can be too rich, especially if no one else has any money . . . money here defined as “all things transferred in commerce.”  (That’s in Black’s Law Dictionary, at least the edition we have.)

Do You Grok Kelso’s “Second Income Plan”?

 It’s a bit of cultural trivia from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 science fiction novel, Stranger in a Strange Land (it’s a Biblical reference), a with-it neologism that never really caught on, but had a certain vogue into the seventies among geeks and others (like us) grouped among the quasi-normal: “grok.”

The Blind Leading the Blinder

We may have mentioned one or two dozen (or hundred) times how much we like it when people ask us questions we can answer and then use as a posting on this blog.  What we like even better is when someone takes the bull between the teeth or the bit by the horns and writes the entire blog posting for us, with only a little bit of editing and formatting to make it fit our needs.

The Economic Answer to AI, II: The Spread of the Problem

In the previous posting on this subject, we noted — consistent with the Past Savings and the Sole Ownership assumptions combined with the Labor Theory of Value — most of “the rest of us” in the present day are constrained to wages and welfare for our subsistence.  Government policy has thus been focused on (as one of the founders of the Center for Economic and Social Justice used to put it while mimicking playing a cello) “jawbs, jawbs, jawbs” . . . with no thought as to what was behind the, er, “jawbs.”

The Economic Answer to AI, I: The Problem

 Recently we re-read New America (1983) by the late Poul Anderson, a compendium of four related science fiction novellas tied together into a coherent whole.  It was, as is typical of Anderson’s work, well-written, fitted within known science and social trends at the time it was published, and dealt with serious themes in a thoughtful yet entertaining manner.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, VI: “Limited Academic Influence and Institutional Support”

 After a brief hiatus, we are returning to our series on “Why Economists Reject Binary Economics.”  Unfortunately, the reasons the so-called experts refuse to give Binary Economics consideration do not improve with age.  Binary Economics, however, continues to advance and refine its theories and applications and ages like wine, while so-called “mainstream economics” (i.e., Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian) continues to degenerate and ages like milk.