Which church advises this?Del wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:35 amI'm not so foolish as to believe that there are only two economic systems, called capitalism and socialism, and that these are the opposites of each other. I'm not a starry-eyed liberterian who believes that free-markets solve every problem. I am not a zealous Marxist who believes that socialism will inevitably bring utopia.wosbald wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:57 am+JMJ+
That's a bit facilely preemptory, innit?Del wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:30 amSocialism is the practice of taking wealth from the wealthy and distributing it to the poor, so that there is general equity all around. California is a wealthy, socialist state. They should be happy that they can share with the citizens of poorer states, right? "Working as intended."
If what you say is true, then the practical recommendations — let alone their theoretical foundations — in the Magisterially-promulgated, doctrinally-authoritative document, Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones, would seemingly need to be qualified as "Socialist".
And calling this document "Socialist" would seem to be as ill-advised as calling earlier Magisterial pronouncements — ones which affirmed the qualified legitimacy of certain Western, individualistically-inflected dispositions — as "Capitalist".The Catholic Magisterium wrote:[…]
5. Although global economic well-being appears to have increased in the second half of the twentieth century with an unprecedented magnitude and speed, at the same time inequalities proliferate between various countries and within them. Moreover, the number of people who live in conditions of extreme poverty continues to be enormous.
The recent financial crisis might have provided the occasion to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and a new regulation of financial activities that would neutralise predatory and speculative tendencies and acknowledge the value of the actual economy. Although there have been many positive efforts at various levels which should be recognized and appreciated, there does not seem to be any inclination to rethink the obsolete criteria that continue to govern the world. On the contrary, the response seems at times like a return to the heights of myopic egoism, limited by an inadequate framework that, excluding the common good, also excludes from its horizons the concern to create and spread wealth, and to eliminate the inequality so pronounced today. [bolding added]
But the Church is concerned with the whole world. And in many nations and regions, the poverty of the mass of population is profound -- while the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is unconscionable.
America is not like that. Our poor struggle, but they have apartments & food & cars & telephones. Our poor are richer than 80% of the world's population. The difference between rich and poor in America is not so outrageous. The rich have nicer cars and bigger houses, but most Americans of the "rich" and "poor" classes are just one or two steps up or down from the Middle Class lifestyle.
If America were to heed the Church's advice, we'd be far more concerned about charitable help to Africa and South America -- and less concerned about paying for healthcare of Californians.
Listen you’re the one who started this thread all worried about your healthcare. No one is keeping you from selling everything you own to help the poor in Africa. The result might be that you would net less giving down the road though. That’s how wealth works. Of course the Scandinavians are already charitably giving to the Africans at a higher rate than anyone and they provide basic healthcare for all.
The point is, “they” which are the powers that be in California, including those of us who participate in society at various levels. Are seeking solutions to the problems you mentioned. I think what will happen is that there will be a phasing in of new programs at the state level to compensate for the failure of Medicare at the federal level. It’s probably a good thing that local control will have more responsibilities to cover for those needs.
The debt and liabities California faces along with most states is less than the price of a new car per person. Not insurmountable. Given what we’re already paying anyway, it might be cheaper to just work toward a single payer system for all, so long as we don’t have too many people demanding that we ignore our own requirements in favor of giving charity to currupt entities in Africa.