Economics for Ecclesiastics, II: Another Problem

Yesterday we looked at what we believe to be the main problem with offering a course in Keynesian economics to religious leaders: Keynesian economics is based on unproved — and un-provable — assertion.  Keynes built a towering and complex superstructure on a foundation not merely of sand, but of quicksand.

Economics for Ecclesiastics, I: A Problem

Recently a regular reader of this blog sent us a copy of Michael Severance’s article, “Economics for Ecclesiastics.”  Severance is Operations Manager of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Rome, and can see first hand some of the problems that crop up when religious leaders do not have a sufficient grasp of economics.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 41

Is the stock market still plunging?  Or is it rising?  Is this the beginning of the end?  Or is it the end of the beginning?  Are you pro or antihistamine?  Is it colder in New York than it is in the summer?  What’s the difference between a duck?

Second-Hand Objectivism

A short time ago we got a question about Ayn Rand’s “objectivism.”  Cutting out all the adjectives that made it rather clear that the questioner didn’t care for Rand’s philosophy, we had to ask, what, specifically, did the questioner object to?  All we had been asked was what we thought about it.

Love Is Our Mission?

A few weeks ago we got an “advance review” from Dcn Joseph Bernard Gorini of the orientation book for the World Meeting of Families to take place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 22 through 27, 2015: Love is Our Mission: The Family Fully Alive, A Preparatory Catechesis for the World Meeting of Families (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2014).

“Little Moral Progress”?

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published a letter to the editor from a Mr. Anthony Crebbin to which we responded with a letter to the editor that they did not publish, shame on them.  Evidently the editors of the venerable financial newspaper remain unaware of the gems of wisdom that we impart so freely are worthy of publication at all times.  Hence our publication of the gist of the letter today on this blog.

Natural or Supernatural?

Last week’s brief series on whether or not “the rich” are automatically criminals based on mere unproved assertion and faith caused a minor flurry of commentary.  The cause of the tempest in a teapot was the implication that humanity can only enforce human law.  Divine law is God’s business.  This upset a couple (okay, we’re “under-exaggerating” here) of people.  There just seems to be a visceral reaction with some people that if God just can’t or won’t enforce His law to our satisfaction, we must take up the burden and start acting as judge, jury, and executioner until the poor, old, Divine Duffer finally wakes up and starts doing His job.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 40

The fluctuations in the stock market are increasing in magnitude, which ought to concern people more than it does.  It doesn’t, but that won’t stop us from offering what we believe to be the best solution to the problem that many people simply refuse to acknowledge exists.  Financial trivia: most financial panics have taken place in the Fall, around September and October.  Just sayin’.

Are “The Rich” Criminals?, III: By What Authority?

Back in 1904, Robert Hugh Benson published his lengthiest novel, By What Authority?, a fictional account of England under Elizabeth I.  It’s so long that one purchaser claimed he bought it but never read it, and so gave it a “one star” review on Amazon without knowing what the book was even about.  It was just too big and cumbersome, according to him.  (His loss.)

Are “The Rich” Criminals?, II: Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty

Yesterday we raised the obvious question that arises when people claim that coerced redistribution of existing wealth belonging to “the rich” is the working of God’s law: how do we know that what we’re demanding is actually God’s law?  We concluded that, in accordance with reason, we cannot prove, that is, know, that something is, in strict fact, God’s law.  We cannot, therefore, claim to be enforcing God’s law when we cannot prove that it is, in fact, God’s law.

Are “The Rich” Criminals?, I: God’s Law

Recently we had a short essay on “distributive justice” accepted by Light and Heat Ministries.  You can find the piece here.  The point was one we’ve made many times in this blog: that “distributive justice” does not mean redistribution of existing wealth on the basis of need, but that each participant in a common endeavor receives output in strict proportion to the relative value of his or her input.  Redistribution may be essential as an expedient in an emergency, but it is not a solution to growing wealth and income gap, or to widespread poverty.

Some Thoughts on Money and Credit

Recently we had a reader ask a few questions about monetary policy under CESJ’s proposed Capital Homesteading program.  This is understandable, as the vast majority of experts in money, credit, banking, and finance are locked into “Currency School” assumptions, while the Just Third Way is based on “Banking School” assumptions.  Trying to understand the Banking School from the perspective of the Currency School is virtually impossible, as the Currency School takes some assumptions from the Banking School, but not all.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 39

The stock market is, as usual, booming . . . which is oddly, the same thing we said a few weeks ago . . . and have been saying for quite some time.  That is, when we’re not noting a drastic plunge.  Why no one seems to be worried about the increased volatility of the market, and the fact that there seems to be nothing behind the much-touted “recovery” except for tremendous amounts of government debt and toxic assets is a little puzzling.

“Enthusiasm” and the Act of Social Justice

We’ve decided that the reason Monsignor Ronald Knox, the third member of the Chesterton-Sheen-Knox Reason Triumvirate, has been pretty much brushed aside is that he was a trifle too . . . we’ll say “sarcastic” at times.  “Unvarnished” or “uncomfortable” would be a better and probably more descriptive way of putting it, but whatever you call it, those intellectual zingers that Knox kept inserting into his writing seem to make people uneasy, and don’t give them anything to distort or twist all out of shape so they can misrepresent his thought.

Fulton J. Sheen on Natural and Supernatural, Capitalism and Socialism

A lot of people remember that the late Fulton Sheen had a “thing” about socialism.  He was agin’ it.  He didn’t like the way that the communist form of socialism tried to abolish God.  He also didn’t like the way that socialists played fast and loose with the truth, accusing others of the very thing of which they were guilty.  Not that he was all that enthusiastic about capitalism, however.

A Note on Subsidiarity and Social Justice

Some people define the concept of subsidiarity as the State doing whatever the individual cannot do for him- or herself.  More accurately, the Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary (a supporting, rather than subordinate) function.  The central authority thereby performs only those tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

Christian Roots of the Caliphate

One of the most disturbing things about the radical Islamic movement is the insistence on imposing Sharia (religious) Law under a new Caliphate, in which the head of state is also head of the religion, and government enforces purely religious doctrines and practices.  This violates the traditional separation of Church, State, and Family that characterizes political theory based on the laws and customs of the ancient Roman Res Publica — the Republic.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 38

Things are starting to pick up in the Just Third Way as people come off their summer breaks and start back in on the work of civilization -- or, at least, saving civilization so its work can continue.  The events of this week may have been few in number, but they make up in significance what they lack in quantity:

The Ultimate Irony (Economically Speaking), or Opportunity?

Once in a while we get comments from Austrian school economists about how binary economics is completely off the wall, a cluster of errors, inflationary nonsense . . . you see the drift.  When people disagree on matters monetary, pretty much anything goes if it undermines the other person’s position.

Buying Time, II: When the Solution is the Solution

Yesterday we looked at the problem of viewing redistribution as a solution instead of as an expedient to buy time on the way to developing and implementing a solution.  We decided that, consistent with common sense and Say’s Law of Markets (which is an application of principles of common sense, e.g., you can’t consume something that hasn’t been produced), viewing redistribution in any form as anything other than a short term expedient is not a good idea.