Author Topic: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?  (Read 16969 times)

Offline trentcath

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1529
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2014, 06:06:34 PM »
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.

This is just engaging in word games. The statement 'Debt in the abstract is worthless' is so vague and undefined that it is impossible to understand what you're trying to say.

No offence, but saying "xyz in the abstract is" is pretty common, so if you can't understand that I would humbly suggest its more of a fault on your part than mine.
 

Offline trentcath

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1529
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2014, 06:10:38 PM »
Quote
Don't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless.  It can be productive and generate a return.  Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive.  From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.

Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.

Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.

Modify the scenario slightly.  Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period.  Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.

Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead.  This is how loans can be used to benefit society.

I'm not really talking about that, what I am saying is that the sale and re-sale of debt that goes on today in the financial markets isn't sustainable and neither is the addiction to debt of average people and governments. I'm perfectly happy to admit that lending things to others can be beneficial and even that loans are sometimes necessary but when the entire economy runs on something which in and of itself is worthless its not particularly healthy.
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline Akavit

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1519
  • Thanked: 947 times
    • Traditional Catholic Furniture and Woodwork
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2014, 07:42:47 PM »
So you're referring to practices such as local banks taking on loans then immediately reselling to Fannie May?

Offline Akavit

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1519
  • Thanked: 947 times
    • Traditional Catholic Furniture and Woodwork
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2014, 07:55:37 PM »
To put what KingTheoden said in another way, if you want to have an influence for the better on the economy, you have to do the work yourself.  It's better to become a fair and just employer than to agitate for radical social changes that attempt to force others to be fair and just.  The latter cannot be done effectively as there are always ways to game any system.

Also, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

In one sense that is actually correct.  The biggest repudiation there is against the abortion industry is simply doing the opposite of what they do.  Raising a large family then educating the children to reject the abortion culture is a highly effective strategy.  It doesn't seem like it nor does it have much visible impact but the reality is that the actions of the majority of individuals rarely have a visible change on world affairs.

Why do you suppose "pro-choicers" have so many insults and slurs to cast at people they think have too many children?  It's because irresponsible people hate seeing others do what they know they should be doing themselves.
 
Pro-life demonstrations are all well and good but the reality is that all they can do is slow the progress of the enemy until enough people wake up and take the necessary actions.  It's too bad that a historically, a chastisement is often required before this takes place.

Offline LaramieHirsch

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2014, 10:57:09 PM »
I listened to this a few months ago.  It came out before Jones was finished with Barren Metal. 


http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=127



The Stark Truth: Interview with E. Michael Jones

Robert interviews E. Michael Jones. Topics include:

-Jones’s upcoming book on capitalism entitled Barron Metal;
-The history of usury and compound interest;
-The origins of capitalism;
-Marxism;
-Labor unions;
-His book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.




50 minutes.
"Evil smells weakness, and the weak can smell evil."  -Me

"Silence is complicity."  -Me

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them."

-Saint John Eudes
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12126
  • Thanked: 6758 times
  • Some sacrifices are WELL worth making.
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2014, 02:04:43 AM »
Quote
Don't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless.  It can be productive and generate a return.  Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive.  From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.

Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.

Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.

Modify the scenario slightly.  Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period.  Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.

Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead.  This is how loans can be used to benefit society.

I'm not really talking about that, what I am saying is that the sale and re-sale of debt that goes on today in the financial markets isn't sustainable and neither is the addiction to debt of average people and governments. I'm perfectly happy to admit that lending things to others can be beneficial and even that loans are sometimes necessary but when the entire economy runs on something which in and of itself is worthless its not particularly healthy.

I think one has to define sustainable in terms on human lifetimes or generations.

No money system is without problems.  Many have collapsed in history usually to be replaced by one with different features so that the same problems don't arise, ( but different problems do).

Ours is not perfect, it will surely collapse one day, but when and how I am sure that nobody on this board knows.

If the money system lasts for the rest of my life, with a few tweaks, then as far as I am concerned it was sustainable.  I have neither the power nor the responsibility to set economic policy.  The best I can do is make a healthy living in the economy I am in.

Frankly, I haven't found it particularly difficult to do that.  There are tons of opportunities in western countries and tons of money sloshing around in businesses.  One only needs to find a problem to solve or a way of making them more profit, stopping them getting fired or going to jail and businesses will spend money doing that.

If I hadn't been so lazy and enjoyed so many hobbies and distractions I am pretty sure I could have made squillions.  But I've never seen the point of sacrificing my life for that.  How many sirloin steaks can you eat?

If you cannot make a decent living in the economy today, in western nations, then I fail to see how you would have made one in the past with trade tariffs, local monopolies, inefficiencies, infectious diseases, world wars and religious persecutions to deal with.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 02:10:57 AM by Greg »
Retired to Rivendell.
 

Offline Lambda Phage

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 291 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2014, 09:12:11 AM »
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.

There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.


This sums up a lot of what is wrong with traditionalists and why I progressively distance myself from them as time goes on. E. Michael Jones is a bonafide nut. Normal rational people will not become trads because of nuts like him. Greg has alluded to it before, the IQ of a lot of the outspoken folks in this movement appears to be pretty pathetic. A lot of it is simply, as you say, going overboard, but a lot of it is also simply not having the brain to parse reality from fantasy. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America. Why do you have to hate America? Because of the conspiracy theories that imply her sheer essential evil. It is what I would call neo-gnosticism. And that is Jones' angle. He HAS to hate America as much as he does and EVERYTHING about her, BECAUSE of his sick conspiratorial worldview. This is problem number 1 in Catholic traditionalism: neo-gnostic conspiratorial thinking motivated by pride and stupidity.
 

Offline Lambda Phage

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 291 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2014, 09:39:11 AM »
For the record: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

"But we may correct this last opinion by the aid of the general principles of contractual justice; and we shall then more fully understand the strictness of the laws of earlier times, and the greater liberty allowed at the present day. The just price of a thing is based on the general estimate, which depends not in all cases on universal utility, but on general utility. Since the possession of an object is generally useful, I may require the price of that general utility, even when the object is of no use to me. There is much greater facility nowadays for making profitable investment of savings, and a true value, therefore, is always attached to the possession of money, as also to credit itself. A lender, during the whole time that the loan continues, deprives himself of a valuable thing, for the price of which he is compensated by the interest. It is right at the present day to permit interest on money lent, as it was not wrong to condemn the practice at a time when it was more difficult to find profitable investments for money. So long as no objection was made to the profitable investment of capital in industrial undertakings, discouragement of interest on loans acted as an encouragement of legitimate trade; it also led to the creation of new contractual associations, such as insurance companies, which give a reasonable hope of gain without risk. The action of the Church has found distinguished defenders, even outside her own pale, among the representatives of contemporary economic science. We may mention three English authors: Marshall, professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge (Principles of Economics, I, I, ii, secs. 8 etc.); Ashley, professor at the new University of Birmingham (An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, I, i, sec. 17); and the celebrated historian of political economy, Professor Cunningham (Growth of English Industry and Commerce, I, II, vi, sec. 85, third edition). Even at the present day, a small number of French catholics (Abbé Morel, "Du prêt à intéret"; Modeste, "Le prêt à intérêt, dernière forme de l'esclavage") see in the attitude of the Church only a tolerance justified by the fear of greater evils. This is not so. The change in the attitude of the Church is due entirely to a change in economic matters that require the present system. The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same. One writer, Father Belliot of the friars minor, denounces in loans for interest "the principal economic scourge of civilization", though the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists, which he deplores so much, does not arise so much from lending money at proper interest as from industrial investments, banking operations, and speculations, which have never been condemned as unjust in principle. There has never been at any time any prohibition against the investment of capital in commercial or industrial undertakings or in the public funds."

What is written here is sound Catholic reasoning, written pre-vatican II. Jones' reasoning is not based in Catholic tradition, it is based on jewish conspiracies. That is why he hates usury. And that is my point in all of this. For some, this isn't really about a love of traditional Catholic thought and teaching, it's about a sick view of the world that creates in the place of traditional Catholicism something that never truly existed in the first place.
 

Offline lauermar

  • "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" from 'All About Eve' (1950).
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1186
  • Thanked: 330 times
  • Baby Boomer
  • Religion: Traditional Diocesan Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2014, 09:45:22 AM »
I agree with Jones and Pope Francis that predatory capitalism,  crony capitalism,  are evil slavery.  These systems do not uphold the dignity of the human person and don't respect his rights. Where Francis and I differ is his idea of a proposed solution;  that an international organization like the UN can redistribute wealth and resources in a just and benevolent way. This is false, it is heresy. It leads to one world tyranny. The UN's true religion is population control. It opposes the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

The church's official teachings support distributism. Since I'm not under penalty of mortal sin for disagreeing with it, I can still present myself for communion.

Jones' other writings seem flaky and off - putting to me.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 09:51:58 AM by lauermar »
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12126
  • Thanked: 6758 times
  • Some sacrifices are WELL worth making.
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2014, 01:24:23 PM »
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.

There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.


This sums up a lot of what is wrong with traditionalists and why I progressively distance myself from them as time goes on. E. Michael Jones is a bonafide nut. Normal rational people will not become trads because of nuts like him. Greg has alluded to it before, the IQ of a lot of the outspoken folks in this movement appears to be pretty pathetic. A lot of it is simply, as you say, going overboard, but a lot of it is also simply not having the brain to parse reality from fantasy. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America. Why do you have to hate America? Because of the conspiracy theories that imply her sheer essential evil. It is what I would call neo-gnosticism. And that is Jones' angle. He HAS to hate America as much as he does and EVERYTHING about her, BECAUSE of his sick conspiratorial worldview. This is problem number 1 in Catholic traditionalism: neo-gnostic conspiratorial thinking motivated by pride and stupidity.

I have some advice for anyone who hates America.

Travel the world.  Spend two years travelling and really experiencing day to day life, work and bureaucracy in other places.

You won't hate America anything like as much when you return.  In fact, you might even like it.

America would not be on my top 3 places in the world to live, but it is definitely in the top 10.

Retired to Rivendell.
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 959 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2014, 02:03:27 PM »
. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America.

lol

what?

Can you demonstrate this hatred of the US manifested in trad literature or publications please, or are we simply to accept your hyperbole? Also can you provide evidence of community based shunnings based on a non-acceptance of these 'theories'?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 02:10:22 PM by Habitual_Ritual »
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5131
  • Thanked: 2772 times
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2014, 03:21:19 PM »

America would not be on my top 3 places in the world to live, but it is definitely in the top 10.

That's interesting.
What are your top 10?
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 959 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2014, 05:12:58 PM »
I'd like to know what the top 3 are.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8180
  • Thanked: 2691 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2014, 07:52:49 PM »
Quote
For the record:

Completely useless.  Usury is charging for the use, and only the use, of money.  It is evil.  A modern description would be a non-self liquidating loan, or a non-productive loan.  Prime examples are government debt and credit card debt.

When someone gets into financial trouble and asks for advice, what is the first thing they tell you?  Tear up the credit card.  What is causing the destruction of Greece, Spain, Argentina, Japan, etc....  Government debt.

Usury is evil.

Receiving interest on a productive loan, e.g. a corporate bond, is not usury and is perfectly fine.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • Thanked: 44 times
  • Traditio Legis (et Clavum)
  • Religion: 11th c. Orthodox Latin Catholic - a medieval relic aloof to 21st century trads
Re: E. Michael Jones: Pope Francis good with economics?
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2014, 01:48:17 AM »
Let me see... I hate angry hamsters, I hate traffic jams, I hate overpriced waffles, I hate America, I hate lambda Phage, I hate myself...I hate being confused, I hate being banned...

Whenever someone brings out the "you guys all hate America" accusation I start to know that all logical analysis has been lost by whoever throws out that accusation..


I'm also a communist terrorist pineapple thief ?  Can we not lovingly criticize our nation in order to nurse it back to health again? Does constructive criticism not build character?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 01:50:56 AM by Christopher McAvoy »
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet