The Pope's critique of Capitalism: A review and analysis of what he fails to say.

<<<   Duh !  So what's the solution?  Take from the rich until we are all poor?  That IS the agenda of the Left,  you know. 

Mr. Piketty roiled the debate among mainstream economists, yet Francis’ critique is more unnerving to some because he is not reframing inequality and poverty around a new economic theory but instead defining it in moral terms. “Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy,” he said on Wednesday. “It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment   . . . . . .   “I’m a believer in capitalism but it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that we have,” said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government policies like a higher minimum wage.

Yet what remains unclear is whether Francis has a clear vision for a systemic alternative to the status quo that he and others criticize. “All these critiques point toward the incoherence of the simple idea of free market economics, but they don’t prescribe a remedy,” said Mr. Johnson, of the Institute for New Economic Thinking.       Francis acknowledged as much, conceding on Wednesday that he had no new “recipe” to quickly change the world. Instead, he spoke about a “process of change” undertaken at the grass-roots level.  (read more of the summary of the Pope's recent speech,  here,  in the NY Times).

Editor's notes:  Of course,  a fair redistribution of wealth (read: taking from the rich and giving it to the poor) is not a biblical command.  It's just not in the text,  whether Old or New Testaments.  

The command is to care for those in need.  which includes provisions given to those in need.  But to use the commandment as if it were a political statement,  a secular agenda,  was never the intent of the biblical charge.  

And the excepts above,  confirm this conclusion.  It is an easy thing to criticize free market capitalism,  because,  like the poor,  the greedy "you have with you always." 

To quote from the article,  we have this:  "Yet what remains unclear is whether Francis has a clear vision for a systemic alternative to the status quo that he and others criticize. 'All these critiques point toward the incoherence of the simple idea of free market economics, but they don’t prescribe a remedy,'  ”

In my opinion,  there is something grossly unwise in preaching against the inequities of capitalism in the absence of any viable alternative   . . . . . . . .   and that is what is the case with Pope Francis's commentary.  He gets headlines for running around the planet preaching "dissatisfaction."   No one bothers to mention that he has no solutions   . . . . . .     by his own admission.  

And, so,  we hear the Left blast capitalism,  as if they actually have a better idea.  "Top down" economics is out;  "from the middle out" is in.  Problem.  No one,  and I mean "no one at all,"  has a clue as to the practical application of "from the middle out" economics,  unless they mean to imply some sort of  "welfare state."  

Is that what the Left has in mind?  A robust welfare state  (an oxymoron if there ever was one).  Understand this fact of secular governmental life:  If you do not have your producers,  the wealthy and elite,  you have nothing in terms of jobs and wealth creation  . . . . . . . .     nothing.   I mean,  where do these clowns think jobs and wealth creation come from?  They never seem to get to that issue as they critique the current economic system.  The truth of the matter is this:  There is no alternative to "top down" economics.  And those of you who read this blog,  know full well,  that you (all) have never worked for a poor man.  Job applications are received by corporations and the wealthy-with-innovative-ideas and the capital to invest in those ideas.  That is "top down,"  "trickle" economics.  The small minded can sit around and make up anti-capitalist verbiage until the cows come home,  but,  at the end of the day,  they have nothing to offer that does not include those who know how to create wealth.   

The Pope's global conversation is nothing but empty chatter unless, and until,  he gets around to discussing real-time solutions that are practical and, at the same time,  demanding of personal responsibility.  To date,  he has done nothing to solve the problems his rhetoric exposes   . . . . . . .    nothing.  He should be ashamed of himself.  After all,  he has the world's attention but is doing nothing with the opportunity that has been given to him.