<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Pope and Capitalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-pope-and-capitalism</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 06:24:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5335617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5335617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nor is there anything hypothetical about the Beatitudes or about Jesus&#039;s statement about the rich man and the Kingdom of God.  The problem, as I said, is one of balance.

I must disagree with your characterization of &quot;the Left&quot;--which is, I&#039;d say, a hypothetical and hyperbolic extreme.  More people than you seem to allow are &quot;old-fashioned liberals.&quot;  There aren&#039;t that many people committed to the Revolution as you appear to think.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nor is there anything hypothetical about the Beatitudes or about Jesus&#8217;s statement about the rich man and the Kingdom of God.  The problem, as I said, is one of balance.</p>
<p>I must disagree with your characterization of &#8220;the Left&#8221;&#8211;which is, I&#8217;d say, a hypothetical and hyperbolic extreme.  More people than you seem to allow are &#8220;old-fashioned liberals.&#8221;  There aren&#8217;t that many people committed to the Revolution as you appear to think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wolfthatknowsall</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5335482</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wolfthatknowsall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5335482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And the Left also has its &quot;churches&quot;, which have left their God-given purpose in pursuit of the social gospel.  I wince whenever I hear any &quot;high churchman&quot; pronounce on the mission of the church ...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the Left also has its &#8220;churches&#8221;, which have left their God-given purpose in pursuit of the social gospel.  I wince whenever I hear any &#8220;high churchman&#8221; pronounce on the mission of the church &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wolfthatknowsall</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5335476</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wolfthatknowsall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5335476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s absolutely nothing hypothetical about man shall earn his keep &quot;by the sweat of his brow&quot;.  The sweat of his brow might be as a construction worker or a bank president, but the principle is the same.  

The value of Capitalism is that it provides the freedom for the individual to choose how he will work.  Living off the sweat of others&#039; &quot;brows&quot; is not an option ... without being legitimately disabled.  Even then, family and church should be the first options ...

The Left?  Except for those who are old-fashioned liberals whose goal to help those in need (and they are few and far in between, today), it&#039;s purpose is the collective, government power, and the imposition of Marx on the world.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s absolutely nothing hypothetical about man shall earn his keep &#8220;by the sweat of his brow&#8221;.  The sweat of his brow might be as a construction worker or a bank president, but the principle is the same.  </p>
<p>The value of Capitalism is that it provides the freedom for the individual to choose how he will work.  Living off the sweat of others&#8217; &#8220;brows&#8221; is not an option &#8230; without being legitimately disabled.  Even then, family and church should be the first options &#8230;</p>
<p>The Left?  Except for those who are old-fashioned liberals whose goal to help those in need (and they are few and far in between, today), it&#8217;s purpose is the collective, government power, and the imposition of Marx on the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frodo</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5335138</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[frodo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5335138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just don&#039;t think it&#039;s that straightforward.  There are not only two equally hypothetical extremes--and I think that that&#039;s the Pope&#039;s central point.  The &quot;Left&quot; no more has a &quot;singular goal&quot; than the &quot;Right&quot; does.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s that straightforward.  There are not only two equally hypothetical extremes&#8211;and I think that that&#8217;s the Pope&#8217;s central point.  The &#8220;Left&#8221; no more has a &#8220;singular goal&#8221; than the &#8220;Right&#8221; does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brooklyn Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5335118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brooklyn Dave]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5335118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of people get the RC &quot;infallibity thing confused with everything that comes out of a Pope&#039;s mouth. This is just an opinion.  The RC church&#039;s world view on economics is definitely left of center. Don&#039;t forget Pope Francis is a Argentinian of Italian parents, and his world view on these things are very left-center. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has a whole bunch of drivel veering towards re-distributive economics. If the Church really wants to get my attention on these things, talk about crony capitalism, one world -ism, and how the real big bankers are screwing the rest of humanity. The phrase &quot;the poor,&quot; especially in religious left circles, has become so tiresome that I&#039;ve stopped listening. In America poverty is relative. It has more to do with lifestyles etc. Every poor person has a cell phone and some even have lap tops. They might not be able to go skiing in Aspen or snorkling off the Bahamas, but poverty is relative in the US. Alot of &quot;poverty aspirants&quot; that are religiously bent--I am not talking about priests and nuns in vows-- somehow think that we should emulate some sort of 3rd world poverty. I know I am all over the place, but the Church&#039;s life blood depends on the middle and upper middle class to keep it going.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people get the RC &#8220;infallibity thing confused with everything that comes out of a Pope&#8217;s mouth. This is just an opinion.  The RC church&#8217;s world view on economics is definitely left of center. Don&#8217;t forget Pope Francis is a Argentinian of Italian parents, and his world view on these things are very left-center. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has a whole bunch of drivel veering towards re-distributive economics. If the Church really wants to get my attention on these things, talk about crony capitalism, one world -ism, and how the real big bankers are screwing the rest of humanity. The phrase &#8220;the poor,&#8221; especially in religious left circles, has become so tiresome that I&#8217;ve stopped listening. In America poverty is relative. It has more to do with lifestyles etc. Every poor person has a cell phone and some even have lap tops. They might not be able to go skiing in Aspen or snorkling off the Bahamas, but poverty is relative in the US. Alot of &#8220;poverty aspirants&#8221; that are religiously bent&#8211;I am not talking about priests and nuns in vows&#8211; somehow think that we should emulate some sort of 3rd world poverty. I know I am all over the place, but the Church&#8217;s life blood depends on the middle and upper middle class to keep it going.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334902</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334902</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;We&#039;re leaving the realm of Economics, when you assert that by reducing someone&#039;s income from (say) $500K/year to $475K, it will be &quot;...removing incentives to work harder and smarter...&quot;&quot;



That&#039;s why socialism is still not laughed out of existence. You can&#039;t quantify it, but it&#039;s obviously a factor that if people are motivated by money to perform their work, they&#039;re going to be less motivated as you remove any fraction of it.


Sure, some might &quot;work harder to compensate&quot; but on a larger scale (than finding exceptions) it will be a demotivating factor to have your earnings given to someone who didn&#039;t have anything to do with getting that work done.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We&#8217;re leaving the realm of Economics, when you assert that by reducing someone&#8217;s income from (say) $500K/year to $475K, it will be &#8220;&#8230;removing incentives to work harder and smarter&#8230;&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why socialism is still not laughed out of existence. You can&#8217;t quantify it, but it&#8217;s obviously a factor that if people are motivated by money to perform their work, they&#8217;re going to be less motivated as you remove any fraction of it.</p>
<p>Sure, some might &#8220;work harder to compensate&#8221; but on a larger scale (than finding exceptions) it will be a demotivating factor to have your earnings given to someone who didn&#8217;t have anything to do with getting that work done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334898</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Further on &quot;Free Markets&quot; -- If you are thinking of &quot;Laws&quot;, we&#039;re not talking about the same thing...&quot;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market

free market

 noun

: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

It&#039;s not clear what point you&#039;re making by talking about fungible versus non-fungible products. If a product is not fungible, you consider that a monopoly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly?show=0&amp;t=1387354565

mo·nop·o·ly

 noun mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē

: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market

I guess one could say that license holders have monopolies for those products but this is not something that threatens the market unless there are no suitable alternatives and this item is crucial somehow.

Does Apple hold a monopoly on the iPad market? Sure, if you can&#039;t use Android or a similar OS, I guess you might care a little. But there is no need for the government to intervene because using Apple&#039;s OS is not critical to the function for the most part. And even if it is, most would argue that it&#039;s better to let Apple push other developers in to creating their own solutions rather than asking for government protection. Although people go ask for intellectual property rights protections if that&#039;s what you&#039;re getting at.

It seems we&#039;re drifting off the topic. I think you were going to explain:

 &quot;...the result of Free Markets&quot; deciding &quot;who gets how much&quot; is less than optimal...&quot; My underlying assumption is hat a higher GNP indicates a healthier economy..&quot;



How are you claiming that free markets are sub-optimal in deciding who gets how much with respect to maximizing GDP?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Further on &#8220;Free Markets&#8221; &#8212; If you are thinking of &#8220;Laws&#8221;, we&#8217;re not talking about the same thing&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market</a></p>
<p>free market</p>
<p> noun</p>
<p>: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not clear what point you&#8217;re making by talking about fungible versus non-fungible products. If a product is not fungible, you consider that a monopoly?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly?show=0&#038;t=1387354565" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly?show=0&#038;t=1387354565</a></p>
<p>mo·nop·o·ly</p>
<p> noun mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē</p>
<p>: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market</p>
<p>I guess one could say that license holders have monopolies for those products but this is not something that threatens the market unless there are no suitable alternatives and this item is crucial somehow.</p>
<p>Does Apple hold a monopoly on the iPad market? Sure, if you can&#8217;t use Android or a similar OS, I guess you might care a little. But there is no need for the government to intervene because using Apple&#8217;s OS is not critical to the function for the most part. And even if it is, most would argue that it&#8217;s better to let Apple push other developers in to creating their own solutions rather than asking for government protection. Although people go ask for intellectual property rights protections if that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re getting at.</p>
<p>It seems we&#8217;re drifting off the topic. I think you were going to explain:</p>
<p> &#8220;&#8230;the result of Free Markets&#8221; deciding &#8220;who gets how much&#8221; is less than optimal&#8230;&#8221; My underlying assumption is hat a higher GNP indicates a healthier economy..&#8221;</p>
<p>How are you claiming that free markets are sub-optimal in deciding who gets how much with respect to maximizing GDP?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IzzyKiddnya</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334890</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[IzzyKiddnya]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Further on &quot;Free Markets&quot;  --  If you are thinking of &quot;Laws&quot;, we&#039;re not talking about the same thing...
Markets are &quot;Free&quot; (among other criteria) when you don&#039;t care which lot you receive after you make you offer to buy, as they&#039;re all the same.  That&#039;s why I picked as examples (1) Stock - you don&#039;t care who sold his shares, as long as you receive them  (2) Wheat - a bushel of #1 winter wheat is exactly the same as another - you can&#039;t tell them apart (3) Crude Oil  --  West Texas Sweet Crude is traded - you don&#039;t care whose tank it came out of  --  These are &quot;Commodities&quot;  --  they are fungible or &quot;identical&quot;

You can buy &quot;Grade A (fluid) milk, with an expiration date of &quot;today&quot;  --  you don&#039;t care which dairy farm it came from to be packaged, as long as it&#039;s graded, fresh .
The Dairy distributor does his best to convince you that HIS product s somehow &quot;different&quot;, and deserving to be put in its own little market niche  --  &quot;Milk from Contented cows&quot;  or &quot;California milk&quot;, etc  =--  anything to keep his product from being a commodity

The market for soft drinks is interesting  --  is Canada Dry ginger ale really any different from Schwepp&#039;s or another brand?  You probably buy/select by price  --  but the manufacturers of Coke and Pepsi go to great lengths to &quot;differentiate&quot; the product, and you probably have a preference between them  --  I know I do!

Which brings us to another &quot;rule&quot; - which you touched on  --  any producer with a monopoly (sole maker) is NOT competing in a Free Market environment  and collusion between enterprises (oligopoly) or &quot;cartel&quot; has power over the supply and the resulting price...
When any one seller or buyer can influence the Market price  --  it is NOT (by definition) a &quot;Free Market&quot;.  
Here&#039;s the &quot;LAWS&quot; part  --  we have laws to prevent collusion and push the market closer to a &quot;FREE&quot; state...

Books or CDs are good examples  --  the market for a PARTICULAR copyrighted artist&#039;s performance is a monopoly and that market is not &quot;Free&quot;  --  but if you examine the market for ALL CDs -- (without regard for artist, style, etc (think &quot;Muzak&quot; ) or &quot;elevator music&quot;  --  it&#039;s all the &quot;same&quot; and each competes with the other on the basis of price. 
It would be illegal for all (or the majority of) CD publishers to meet and decide that they ALL would price their CDs at some certain price..

.Consider the market for ALL music CDs, -- that&#039;s closer to a &quot;free Market&quot;  (Test question - can you see why?)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Further on &#8220;Free Markets&#8221;  &#8212;  If you are thinking of &#8220;Laws&#8221;, we&#8217;re not talking about the same thing&#8230;<br />
Markets are &#8220;Free&#8221; (among other criteria) when you don&#8217;t care which lot you receive after you make you offer to buy, as they&#8217;re all the same.  That&#8217;s why I picked as examples (1) Stock &#8211; you don&#8217;t care who sold his shares, as long as you receive them  (2) Wheat &#8211; a bushel of #1 winter wheat is exactly the same as another &#8211; you can&#8217;t tell them apart (3) Crude Oil  &#8212;  West Texas Sweet Crude is traded &#8211; you don&#8217;t care whose tank it came out of  &#8212;  These are &#8220;Commodities&#8221;  &#8212;  they are fungible or &#8220;identical&#8221;</p>
<p>You can buy &#8220;Grade A (fluid) milk, with an expiration date of &#8220;today&#8221;  &#8212;  you don&#8217;t care which dairy farm it came from to be packaged, as long as it&#8217;s graded, fresh .<br />
The Dairy distributor does his best to convince you that HIS product s somehow &#8220;different&#8221;, and deserving to be put in its own little market niche  &#8212;  &#8220;Milk from Contented cows&#8221;  or &#8220;California milk&#8221;, etc  =&#8211;  anything to keep his product from being a commodity</p>
<p>The market for soft drinks is interesting  &#8212;  is Canada Dry ginger ale really any different from Schwepp&#8217;s or another brand?  You probably buy/select by price  &#8212;  but the manufacturers of Coke and Pepsi go to great lengths to &#8220;differentiate&#8221; the product, and you probably have a preference between them  &#8212;  I know I do!</p>
<p>Which brings us to another &#8220;rule&#8221; &#8211; which you touched on  &#8212;  any producer with a monopoly (sole maker) is NOT competing in a Free Market environment  and collusion between enterprises (oligopoly) or &#8220;cartel&#8221; has power over the supply and the resulting price&#8230;<br />
When any one seller or buyer can influence the Market price  &#8212;  it is NOT (by definition) a &#8220;Free Market&#8221;.<br />
Here&#8217;s the &#8220;LAWS&#8221; part  &#8212;  we have laws to prevent collusion and push the market closer to a &#8220;FREE&#8221; state&#8230;</p>
<p>Books or CDs are good examples  &#8212;  the market for a PARTICULAR copyrighted artist&#8217;s performance is a monopoly and that market is not &#8220;Free&#8221;  &#8212;  but if you examine the market for ALL CDs &#8212; (without regard for artist, style, etc (think &#8220;Muzak&#8221; ) or &#8220;elevator music&#8221;  &#8212;  it&#8217;s all the &#8220;same&#8221; and each competes with the other on the basis of price.<br />
It would be illegal for all (or the majority of) CD publishers to meet and decide that they ALL would price their CDs at some certain price..</p>
<p>.Consider the market for ALL music CDs, &#8212; that&#8217;s closer to a &#8220;free Market&#8221;  (Test question &#8211; can you see why?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334888</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The reason &quot;The Church&quot; is so hypocritical is not merely because they have some retail operations. It&#039;s because the role of the Church according to the Bible is to place faith in God and to use non-coercive charity to help the poor. Instead any time some &quot;Christian&quot; leader calls for government to collect taxes and redistribute wealth, they are acting hypocritically if they own any property that can&#039;t be immediately sold to pay for food, shelter, clothing for the needy and don&#039;t do that to solve the needs.


Or they can acknowledge the wisdom in preserving and investing capital in order to do that work over a longer time-frame more effectively by accumulating and investing capital in profit-making ventures. Like for example, selling indulgences and building vast palaces. Then never ever selling them.


Actually the pope was just acting as a politician in that moment and playing to the leftist sensibilities we find spreading like a cancer throughout the world. It&#039;s an easier sell than actually teaching what the Bible says.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason &#8220;The Church&#8221; is so hypocritical is not merely because they have some retail operations. It&#8217;s because the role of the Church according to the Bible is to place faith in God and to use non-coercive charity to help the poor. Instead any time some &#8220;Christian&#8221; leader calls for government to collect taxes and redistribute wealth, they are acting hypocritically if they own any property that can&#8217;t be immediately sold to pay for food, shelter, clothing for the needy and don&#8217;t do that to solve the needs.</p>
<p>Or they can acknowledge the wisdom in preserving and investing capital in order to do that work over a longer time-frame more effectively by accumulating and investing capital in profit-making ventures. Like for example, selling indulgences and building vast palaces. Then never ever selling them.</p>
<p>Actually the pope was just acting as a politician in that moment and playing to the leftist sensibilities we find spreading like a cancer throughout the world. It&#8217;s an easier sell than actually teaching what the Bible says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334885</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...and I&#039;m guessing you mean that if you cut someone&#039;s compensation by a small amount (3 or 4 %), he will work &quot;less hard&quot; or &quot;less smart&quot; -- am I correct?&quot;



No. A few percentage points won&#039;t generally do that. But the problem is that it&#039;s a slippery slope. As soon as the highly productive people begin to feel that it&#039;s not worth their extra effort, they&#039;ll take off elsewhere, including changing careers or approach to their work life. It&#039;s human nature.


And until you get in to larger numbers it won&#039;t help that much, which means politically we&#039;ll be pushed down that slope.


But at the same time, these factors won&#039;t do that much long term if you&#039;re only talking about small corrections.


The only way to ensure maximum productivity is to ensure access to real education and equal opportunities throughout to the maximum degree possible. Your suggestions are just manipulations that will change expectations and eventually people that truly create value will get what they deserve in a stable environment.


Given all of the fundamental problems we have with competency in general, it seems extremely myopic to focus on pinprick adjustments that theoretically tilt towards &quot;fairness&quot; (according to what objective standard?) and give people false hopes when they should be working on developing competencies that allow them to earn as much as they hope to.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;and I&#8217;m guessing you mean that if you cut someone&#8217;s compensation by a small amount (3 or 4 %), he will work &#8220;less hard&#8221; or &#8220;less smart&#8221; &#8212; am I correct?&#8221;</p>
<p>No. A few percentage points won&#8217;t generally do that. But the problem is that it&#8217;s a slippery slope. As soon as the highly productive people begin to feel that it&#8217;s not worth their extra effort, they&#8217;ll take off elsewhere, including changing careers or approach to their work life. It&#8217;s human nature.</p>
<p>And until you get in to larger numbers it won&#8217;t help that much, which means politically we&#8217;ll be pushed down that slope.</p>
<p>But at the same time, these factors won&#8217;t do that much long term if you&#8217;re only talking about small corrections.</p>
<p>The only way to ensure maximum productivity is to ensure access to real education and equal opportunities throughout to the maximum degree possible. Your suggestions are just manipulations that will change expectations and eventually people that truly create value will get what they deserve in a stable environment.</p>
<p>Given all of the fundamental problems we have with competency in general, it seems extremely myopic to focus on pinprick adjustments that theoretically tilt towards &#8220;fairness&#8221; (according to what objective standard?) and give people false hopes when they should be working on developing competencies that allow them to earn as much as they hope to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IzzyKiddnya</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334882</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[IzzyKiddnya]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I specifically said that I did not mean &quot;Income EQUALITY&quot; --- 

I meant --  IF incomes, at the low end, were  to marginally increase 
 and 
IF  incomes, at the high end&#039; were to  marginally decrease

then

Total spending on consumption would increase

It could be done by changes to the Income Tax marginal rates, or by increasing the persona exemption and increasing all the marginal rates  --  or by other means...
(Another caution here  --  I&#039;&#039;m NOT saying &quot;SHOULD&quot;, I&#039;m saying &quot;COULD&quot;.)  Good Economic Analysis does not prescribe --- it only show what&#039;s likely to happen [if nothing else changes in the meantime])

We&#039;re leaving the realm of Economics, when you assert  that by reducing someone&#039;s income from (say) $500K/year to $475K, it  will be  &quot;...removing incentives to work harder and smarter...&quot; 

I could say that he would work even more hard and smart - to re-attain the decreased income....
But, like you, I can&#039;t prove or disprove either of our assertions...

Incidentally, the term &quot;Productivity&quot; usually comes with a modifier or identifier  --  &quot;labor productivity&quot;, &quot;productivity of capital or investment&quot;, etc  --  and is a measure which compares the increase (or change) in output resulting from the increase (or change) in input.


In the case of compensation for human activity (&quot;labor, entrepreneurship, technical or managerial skill), you say &quot;...it would hurt productivity...&quot;  -- and I&#039;m guessing you mean that if you cut someone&#039;s compensation by a small amount (3 or 4 %), he will work &quot;less hard&quot; or &quot;less smart&quot; -- am I correct?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I specifically said that I did not mean &#8220;Income EQUALITY&#8221; &#8212; </p>
<p>I meant &#8212;  IF incomes, at the low end, were  to marginally increase<br />
 and<br />
IF  incomes, at the high end&#8217; were to  marginally decrease</p>
<p>then</p>
<p>Total spending on consumption would increase</p>
<p>It could be done by changes to the Income Tax marginal rates, or by increasing the persona exemption and increasing all the marginal rates  &#8212;  or by other means&#8230;<br />
(Another caution here  &#8212;  I&#8221;m NOT saying &#8220;SHOULD&#8221;, I&#8217;m saying &#8220;COULD&#8221;.)  Good Economic Analysis does not prescribe &#8212; it only show what&#8217;s likely to happen [if nothing else changes in the meantime])</p>
<p>We&#8217;re leaving the realm of Economics, when you assert  that by reducing someone&#8217;s income from (say) $500K/year to $475K, it  will be  &#8220;&#8230;removing incentives to work harder and smarter&#8230;&#8221; </p>
<p>I could say that he would work even more hard and smart &#8211; to re-attain the decreased income&#8230;.<br />
But, like you, I can&#8217;t prove or disprove either of our assertions&#8230;</p>
<p>Incidentally, the term &#8220;Productivity&#8221; usually comes with a modifier or identifier  &#8212;  &#8220;labor productivity&#8221;, &#8220;productivity of capital or investment&#8221;, etc  &#8212;  and is a measure which compares the increase (or change) in output resulting from the increase (or change) in input.</p>
<p>In the case of compensation for human activity (&#8220;labor, entrepreneurship, technical or managerial skill), you say &#8220;&#8230;it would hurt productivity&#8230;&#8221;  &#8212; and I&#8217;m guessing you mean that if you cut someone&#8217;s compensation by a small amount (3 or 4 %), he will work &#8220;less hard&#8221; or &#8220;less smart&#8221; &#8212; am I correct?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334851</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently &quot;The Church&quot; doesn&#039;t even understand what capitalism is.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently &#8220;The Church&#8221; doesn&#8217;t even understand what capitalism is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334850</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The Lukewarm church that promotes Social Justice, a definite sign before the entrance of the Ant-Christ who will emerge from the Roman Empire that crucified Christ.&quot;



They are greatly influenced by the many who think the Gospels are a call to create Heaven here on Earth.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Lukewarm church that promotes Social Justice, a definite sign before the entrance of the Ant-Christ who will emerge from the Roman Empire that crucified Christ.&#8221;</p>
<p>They are greatly influenced by the many who think the Gospels are a call to create Heaven here on Earth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334848</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;unfettered capitalism declares money means power meaning you can buy yourself benefits to keep your competitors out of business by the use of the state.&quot;



No it doesn&#039;t. Unfettered means you don&#039;t allow the state to interfere in markets. The state is the one that &quot;fetters.&quot; You&#039;re describing fettered capitalism. The more regulations we have, the more chance for organizations to corrupt the process and interfere with market competition. 


What your&#039;re arguing is that winners should not reap rewards because they&#039;ll just keep winning if they gain from their victories. They only win by winning clients.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;unfettered capitalism declares money means power meaning you can buy yourself benefits to keep your competitors out of business by the use of the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>No it doesn&#8217;t. Unfettered means you don&#8217;t allow the state to interfere in markets. The state is the one that &#8220;fetters.&#8221; You&#8217;re describing fettered capitalism. The more regulations we have, the more chance for organizations to corrupt the process and interfere with market competition. </p>
<p>What your&#8217;re arguing is that winners should not reap rewards because they&#8217;ll just keep winning if they gain from their victories. They only win by winning clients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334847</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;it is sad that Walter Williams seemed to overlook the key word &quot;unfettered capitalism&quot; meaning crony capitalism. he praised JD Rockefeller forgetting that he monopolized the energy sector.&quot;

Who suffered because of it?

&quot;he forgets that children were used as practical slaves in factories during the industrial revolution under capitalism.&quot;

What makes you think he forgot? Some safety laws are rational and it wasn&#039;t that &quot;capitalism&quot; was to blame but rather that new issues came up as we pioneered new technologies and some regulations had to follow. You can&#039;t impugn capitalism with any old sob story. How idiotic.

&quot;don&#039;t forget that early capitalism brought slavery back to Europe after nearly a thousand years.&quot;

Human activity is evil. It should be banned.

&quot;lets not forget that capitalism relies heavily on credit which is a form of slavery for the borrower is slave to the lender until his debt is paid in full.&quot;



Not in America. Credit is a form of slavery? OK Karl, Whatever. Crawl back in to your grave now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;it is sad that Walter Williams seemed to overlook the key word &#8220;unfettered capitalism&#8221; meaning crony capitalism. he praised JD Rockefeller forgetting that he monopolized the energy sector.&#8221;</p>
<p>Who suffered because of it?</p>
<p>&#8220;he forgets that children were used as practical slaves in factories during the industrial revolution under capitalism.&#8221;</p>
<p>What makes you think he forgot? Some safety laws are rational and it wasn&#8217;t that &#8220;capitalism&#8221; was to blame but rather that new issues came up as we pioneered new technologies and some regulations had to follow. You can&#8217;t impugn capitalism with any old sob story. How idiotic.</p>
<p>&#8220;don&#8217;t forget that early capitalism brought slavery back to Europe after nearly a thousand years.&#8221;</p>
<p>Human activity is evil. It should be banned.</p>
<p>&#8220;lets not forget that capitalism relies heavily on credit which is a form of slavery for the borrower is slave to the lender until his debt is paid in full.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not in America. Credit is a form of slavery? OK Karl, Whatever. Crawl back in to your grave now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334845</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...if incomes were distributed more evenly, we&#039;d see an increase in spending on consumption, and a resultant surge in GNP...a measure of how our economy is doing.&quot;

In the short term maybe. But you&#039;d also be removing incentives to work harder and smarter. Over the long term, it would hurt productivity.

&quot;Incidentally, very few markets in this country are completely &quot;free&quot;...maybe (for example) wheat in the CBOE, crude oil on the world market, and listed securities trades in regulated stock exchanges...&quot;



Of course we have laws. But they should be applied equally and not be used to mold society but only to protect from fraud and negligence.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;if incomes were distributed more evenly, we&#8217;d see an increase in spending on consumption, and a resultant surge in GNP&#8230;a measure of how our economy is doing.&#8221;</p>
<p>In the short term maybe. But you&#8217;d also be removing incentives to work harder and smarter. Over the long term, it would hurt productivity.</p>
<p>&#8220;Incidentally, very few markets in this country are completely &#8220;free&#8221;&#8230;maybe (for example) wheat in the CBOE, crude oil on the world market, and listed securities trades in regulated stock exchanges&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course we have laws. But they should be applied equally and not be used to mold society but only to protect from fraud and negligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334843</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334843</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The goal of capitalism is to create plans that lead to greater productivity. What is done after that should be left to the producer.


The Gospels don&#039;t teach coercive collection of charity, that&#039;s for sure. And certainly not by the government.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The goal of capitalism is to create plans that lead to greater productivity. What is done after that should be left to the producer.</p>
<p>The Gospels don&#8217;t teach coercive collection of charity, that&#8217;s for sure. And certainly not by the government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334842</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334842</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The Church has always had a social teaching, it&#039;s all over the Gospels.&quot;



Oh brother. Are you talking about &quot;The Church&quot; or the texts? And social teaching can include, &quot;Get to work idiot.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Church has always had a social teaching, it&#8217;s all over the Gospels.&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh brother. Are you talking about &#8220;The Church&#8221; or the texts? And social teaching can include, &#8220;Get to work idiot.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334837</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The key word here is &quot;inevitably&quot;--the Gospel of the Free Market makes precisely that claim and the Pope is correct to deny that. There&#039;s no evidence than capitalism *will definitely* produce more justice or inclusiveness in the world and one can cite plenty of examples of how it has failed at that. &quot;

Failed according to what standard? Your expectations?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The key word here is &#8220;inevitably&#8221;&#8211;the Gospel of the Free Market makes precisely that claim and the Pope is correct to deny that. There&#8217;s no evidence than capitalism *will definitely* produce more justice or inclusiveness in the world and one can cite plenty of examples of how it has failed at that. &#8221;</p>
<p>Failed according to what standard? Your expectations?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-pope-and-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-5334817</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 04:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213361#comment-5334817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Other people saw &amp; understood my original point.  It was not hard not comprehend. Nor is its&#039; validity much in dispute.   I one yard rebuttal is a yawner for a forum.  

Like I said I reviewed your comments and it led me to the conclusion that you are a left of center snarky commenter that is wrong much of the time.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Other people saw &amp; understood my original point.  It was not hard not comprehend. Nor is its&#8217; validity much in dispute.   I one yard rebuttal is a yawner for a forum.  </p>
<p>Like I said I reviewed your comments and it led me to the conclusion that you are a left of center snarky commenter that is wrong much of the time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 737/788 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 01:34:54 by W3 Total Cache -->