• Pope Francis calls current Capitalist system"new Tyranny" and urges rich to share wealth after revea
    97 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43002173]Its a good thing that he didn't say that.[/QUOTE] well yeah i don't really see how its bait because its not some communist its just the pope saying "give some cash to the poor" i mean its a message the church has been preaching for the best part of 1800 years.
I always got the impression Sobotnik defended capitalism as a component of a mixed economy, not as a randroid.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43002419]I always got the impression Sobotnik defended capitalism as a component of a mixed economy, not as a randroid.[/QUOTE] Being pro-capitalism doesn't make one automatically anti-poor, anti-welfare.
im jewish and im loving this guy.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;43002169]Its good that the pope has this attitude but when 90% of catholic clergy still live in golden palaces it doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE] "cool he's trying to change the church from the top down but he hasn't accomplished it yet so fuck him."
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;43001655]Isn't the majority of the Vaticans wealth priceless artifacts and the like? Be kind of hard to redistribute some paintings.[/QUOTE] One could sell a few of the not sacred ones and donate the proceeds to charities around the world?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43002584]"cool he's trying to change the church from the top down but he hasn't accomplished it yet so fuck him."[/QUOTE] I never said "fuck him" calm down kiddo, I'm saying he should maybe focus more on sorting out the inequality within his own institution before he expects world leaders to make any kind of real effort.
i guess this new pope is pretty cool but i still feel like organized religion is the 'old tyranny'. and i still feel like the catholic church especially is a heavily flawed institution
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43002419]I always got the impression Sobotnik defended capitalism as a component of a mixed economy, not as a randroid.[/QUOTE] Some people equate both for some reason.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43002852]Some people equate both for some reason.[/QUOTE] socialismo o muerte comrade, the worlds black or its red. [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] (you fascist)
Watch out, here come the [URL="/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_of_Priests_for_the_Third_World"]tercermundistas [/URL]saying the pope has endorsed their ideas. And honestly, this will be overlooked. I mean, the base and foundations of the critique is spiritually-based, so most people will disagree with it. Besides, the evolution of philosophy since the end of the 18th century -which is totally of course materialistic/agaisnt Metaphysics- favors this kind of stuff/in some way justifies what's happening in today's world. [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_UO1qc_LQk/TqNhp2VW4mI/AAAAAAAAA5Y/iBwz9NsunyQ/s1600/c3.jpg[/IMG] ah, if this guy had just....you know....not fucked up things so hard regarding the application of the Church social doctrine....maybe....maybe Argentina would be a total different story today. Jesus.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;43001994][img]http://i.imgur.com/Y33CL7u.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] holy jesus that's amazing
the old one had no lumbar support i mean look how uncomfortable pope benidict looks in it [editline]27th November 2013[/editline] in defense of the church though, for decades they were not allowed behind the iron curtain in many of the soviet states but ya trickledown economics has been a major excuse for CEOs and Wallstreet to ignore the growing wealth divide, meanwhile politicians who's job it is to ensure that gap closes, have become dug into their positions, reinforced by billions of speacial interest dollars, insulated by the barriers the gilded barriers they build up around them. switzerland's minimum income proposal is very appealing because it would save money in the long term, and quite possibly improve conditions for people, as well as being a viable solution to the growing inefficiencies in the multiple goverment assistance programs we have. many of those programs could be moved into that single minimum income, while the really large, but nessicary programs like food stamps could be applied to more in-need situations than they currently are.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43000051][url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny[/url] Greed is a Sin? Economic injustice and corruption is bad?[/QUOTE] jesus was a liberal
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;43004119]jesus was a liberal[/QUOTE] he spent a lot of mana on making people's lives better. assuming that's what he used. :v:
When this guy eventually leaves, there will be mass mourning.
[QUOTE=KlaseR;43000648]the Vatican should start first since it's the richest institution in the world. It seems a bit hypocritical to denounce greedy capitalists while you're sitting on a pile of gold. sure, he says something about changing the state of his own church, but I'm not praising him until something [I]actually[/I] happens.[/QUOTE] A lot of people don't realize that the church has most of its money in land and buildings. These are not very liquid assets. Selling the Vatican would take a while and it won't be overnight.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43004290]When this guy eventually leaves, there will be mass mourning.[/QUOTE] And not solely by the believers either.
I think it'd be good if the government instituted a wealth ceiling for people, they can base it on that person's needs, and that person can appeal to the government to raise it if he can give them a convincing case as to why he needs to have that money.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004418]I think it'd be good if the government instituted a wealth ceiling for people, they can base it on that person's needs, and that person can appeal to the government to raise it if he can give them a convincing case as to why he needs to have that money.[/QUOTE] I would much rather have a minimum income than a wealth cap. Wealth isn't the problem, it's the systems by which it is gained and kept that are the problem.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004418]I think it'd be good if the government instituted a wealth ceiling for people, they can base it on that person's needs, and that person can appeal to the government to raise it if he can give them a convincing case as to why he needs to have that money.[/QUOTE] Sounds needlessly complex.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004418]I think it'd be good if the government instituted a wealth ceiling for people, they can base it on that person's needs, and that person can appeal to the government to raise it if he can give them a convincing case as to why he needs to have that money.[/QUOTE] Sorry the [I]Wealth Accumulation Regulatory Bureau[/I] has denied your application to increase your wealth ceiling. Your needs have been determined to be not sufficient enough. Looks like you won't be able to get that loan to startup that business you were planning. Seriously I've read some quack ideas on this forum but this is beyond ridiculous.
[QUOTE=M2k3;43004525]Sorry the [I]Wealth Accumulation Regulatory Bureau[/I] has denied your application to increase your wealth ceiling. Your needs have been determined to be not sufficient enough. Looks like you won't be able to get that loan to startup that business you were planning. Seriously I've read some quack ideas on this forum but this is beyond ridiculous.[/QUOTE] :v: makes sense to me, but alright, sorry that it isn't up to your standards. it's really just the opposite of having a minimum income, and either way could work potentially.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004626]:v: makes sense to me, but alright, sorry that it isn't up to your standards. it's really just the opposite of having a minimum income, and either way could work potentially.[/QUOTE] If this were a race, you're asking to cripple those in the lead instead of trying to boost the stamina of those in the back.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43004943]If this were a race, you're asking to cripple those in the lead instead of trying to boost the stamina of those in the back.[/QUOTE] If the extra wealth is redistributed and/or used to fund social programs (such as a minimum income), then what's the problem?
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004418]I think it'd be good if the government instituted a wealth ceiling for people, they can base it on that person's needs, and that person can appeal to the government to raise it if he can give them a convincing case as to why he needs to have that money.[/QUOTE] Welcome to soviet socialism. Everything you don't really *need* to survive is one way or the other unavailable to you. Not really "wealth ceiling", but effective non the less. Effects are the same. Does this sound fun to you? [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004974]If the extra wealth is redistributed and/or used to fund social programs (such as a minimum income), then what's the problem?[/QUOTE] Define "extra wealth".
Regardless of what Pope Francis does after he says things, I like that he's saying them period. Think about it. It's a high visibility individual imbued by his title with immense trust from hundreds of millions of people, and he's pointing out things like this. He [I]does[/I] do [I]something[/I] with his statements/promises (this happens to not be a promise, but that's his #1 criticism: "speak with your actions not your words" -facepunch), but the statements alone hold a ton of weight on their own, and I hope he keeps it up.
I think that there should be businesses that exist in the market with already existing ones, except they operate on an income neutral level, that is to say their products are priced at exactly what they cost to produce, deliver, house, etc. Housing food electricity and even internet. Not to say that the quality of these services will be the best, but at least livable. Being poor =/= being a waste of life, and that's how I feel sometimes. I'm sure others who have it worse than I do feel even worse about societies view of poor people.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;43005318]I think that there should be businesses that exist in the market with already existing ones, except they operate on an income neutral level, that is to say their products are priced at exactly what they cost to produce, deliver, house, etc. Housing food electricity and even internet. Not to say that the quality of these services will be the best, but at least livable. Being poor =/= being a waste of life, and that's how I feel sometimes. I'm sure others who have it worse than I do feel even worse about societies view of poor people.[/QUOTE] There's no way for such a company to be created. Venture capitalism doesn't work without profit, company growth doesn't work without profit, and no company is going to expand into another industry without the promise of profits. The only way for this to ever exist is for it to be socialized, and that wouldn't exactly be a "business".
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43004626]:v: makes sense to me, but alright, sorry that it isn't up to your standards. it's really just the opposite of having a minimum income, and either way could work potentially.[/QUOTE] Who is anyone to determine what a persons [I]needs[/I] are? You criticize my standards when I want nothing more than to have open choices. What is the amount deemed excessive in relation to a persons need? Not trying to come off as an ass but the idea of a "wealth cap" has some serious basic problems that would be answered differently from person to person. For example what is wealth? Do you mean net worth? Income? Cash in the bank? Would non liquid assets be included in the calculation? And many, many more factors. [I]Everyone[/I] would have a different opinion on what wealth actually is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.