What should I read to understand this? In my last posting I suggested that I think that social and economic conditions need not be such an influential factor on the culture as some suggest. My sense is that the form of the liturgy and the liturgical forms being produced now that are the driving force for a wider culture of beauty…or of ugliness.
I am not a trained economist and so have tried to do some reading recently to try to understand more how this might work. It is important to try to understand this. If we want to create a culture of beauty for the New Evangelisation then we need to understand what influences culture and how in order to try to redress the balance today. furthermore, anyone who wishes the production of beautiful art to be a vibrant force in the modern world must, I suggest, try to understand how this can be funded. Should it be left to free market forces? Or should we seek to subsidize favoured artists for the good of society? I thought I would pass on where my reading has taken me.
It seemed to me that there are two things that I need to have clear in my mind in trying to understand this field. The first is what is the just society that we are seeking to move towards. There are many aspects of what this might be, but in terms of social conditions the encyclicals of the Church of the last 120 years seem most applicable. Rerum Novarum was my starting point. This was written in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII. Then I focussed on the following: Quadragesimo Ano written by Pope Pius XI to mark the fortieth anniversary of the first. Then I skipped forward to the encyclicals of John Paul II: Laborem Exigens, Solicitudino Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus. After that the recent encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI seemed to have much to say that was relevant.
Another aspect in trying to understand this, is to try to see historically what the social conditions were like that the Popes were commenting on. I am just starting here, but I have recently read T S Ashton’s The Industrial Revolution, 1760-1830.
The second thing is to try to understand how to get there. In order to do that I must, it seems to me, try to understand something about economics. My starting point is a book by the economist Thomas Sowell called Basic Economics. I have just finished reading this. First thing to say is that I don’t know how he does it, but this is an economics textbook, intended for use by university students as an introduction, but it is entertaining and throughout. Thomas Sowell explains clearly and easily what controls the generation of wealth and its distribution, whether it is in a market economy or a government controlled economy, the same principles apply (although obviously their application is very different in each case). He points out where moral decisions are to be made, but does not attempt to answer those questions for you, his goal is to show you how the economic choices made are likely to achieve the end desired. So Catholics would want to read Catholic social teaching as well so as to direct our picture of a just society. Sowell tests hypotheses with statistical data, so answering questions such as: does a lowering taxes in increase tax revenue or reduce it? He points out common errors used in economic argument such as equating the justice of a policy with its intended effect rather than what it actually causes (rent control policies and the detrimental effects that they have on the availability of housing for the poor 
being one example he discusses; he talks of the error of looking at the economy as a zero-sum game in which economic policies seek to redistribute a finite pot of money, rather than being aware also that policies can affect the creation of wealth for all and increase the size of the pot for all involved, both rich and poor. He discusses the true causes of the 1930s depression and the current financial crisis and in the case of the Great Depression, the reasons that it ended (very surprising and exactly the opposite of what I thought in every aspect). He discusses error of assuming that all the economy behaves as one small part – this leads to policies that protect certain groups of workers or employers, but neglect the effect – usually much more detrimental overall – on others with the community as a whole. he calls this the ‘fallacy of composition’. On each occasion he details the intentions of any stated policy, the actual effect with reference to statistical data. I found a real eye-opener and much of what he says overturns many of the assumptions I have made about how economics works for most of my adult life. I wholeheartedly recommended it.
I have put an interview with Mr Sowell in which he discusses this book, which is YouTube below. He is as entertaining in interview as his writing.
And finally, here is a book I haven’t read yet, although I am about to start. It is It Didn’t Have to Be This Way: Why Boom and Bust is Unnecessary – and How the Austrian School of Economics Breaks the Cycle (Culture of Enterprise). This is written by Harry Veryser who has taught economics at Thomas More College. He is currently runs the Master program in Economics at the University of Detroit. I am interested in this book particularly because here we have an economist who understands economics deeply, and who is a devout Catholic interested in a just society. I will keep you posted!
C.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
It sounds as if you have deliberately chosen to read Catholic social doctrine through the lens of Austrian/liberal economics. But if so, why that particular lens? It isn’t the only choice. You admirably admit that you are not an expert on economics (neither am I), so why have you chosen one particular school of economic thought to stand in for “economic science”? There are other alternatives, other economists who look at the data much differently than Mr. Sowell does. One of them you might read would be John Medaille, and his book “Toward a Truly Free Market,” which is likewise a very lucid and entertaining book and a serious one that introduces economic concepts and delivers rather a striking contrast — a Catholic and distributist one — to the Austrian ideas, along with persuasive arguments. You could supplement that with the work of an author like E.F. Schumacher, by all accounts an accomplished economist, and his book “Small is Beautiful,” which addresses different but related questions. If you want to study economic history, why not read renowned Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc’s “The Servile State”?
A couple of other problems here I would note. In your writing here you appear to assume that Catholic social doctrine speaks only of ends, of the kind of just society we want. But this is manifestly not the case. Catholic social doctrine also speaks of means to that end, and of moral principles that we may not violate. The just wage is one important example. The Church teaches clearly that the paying of a just wage is a moral requirement and that mutual agreement between the parties is *not* sufficient to ensure that this moral imperative has been met. By my understanding is that is anathema to Austrian thinking. Is it not so?
And yes, yes, I know, they will object on the grounds of “science.” To that I have three responses: 1) Marxists say the same; 2) again, there are still other schools of economic thought which study the same economic data but reach very different conclusions from the Austrians; and 3) furthermore, we know from Vatican I that science and faith cannot contradict, and that where there is an apparent conflict it is science about which we ought to reserve a proper skepticism. Nowhere is Catholic social doctrine presented as merely some sort of nebulous end goal toward which we must aim by whatever means seem best to us. It is shot through in means and ends with concern for justice, commutative justice and distributive justice and more.
Donald P. Goldman’s book “Distributism: A Catholic System of Economics,” which is available free online at http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Distributism-A-Catholic-System-of-Economics.pdf, presents a fairly irenic critique of libertarian economics from the standpoint of Catholic social doctrine.
To address your underlying question about the relation between industrialism and the destruction of beauty, I should think one likely explanation is that the one doesn’t cause the other but rather that both are caused by the materialist utilitarianism that undergirds them, just as it undergirds the sexual revolution, moral relativism, scientism and all the rest of its evil progeny.
Finally, as regards liberty, which you have brought up in previous posts in this vein, it is absolutely essential that we do not equivocate on the term. The liberal/utilitarian view of liberty is the freedom to do as you will. The Catholic view holds the highest and most meaningful meaning of freedom is the freedom to do good. That is what freedom is “for” and why we value it. I would argue that this is one of the central causes of our society’s incoherence on the subject of freedom, and it has clear implications in the political economics that are well worth pondering.
Dear Kyle
Thank you for your comment.
I am, I hope, espousing the ‘free economy’ of John Paul II. I am aware of the Catholic understanding of freedom, the just wage and there is no contradiction with these ideas or any other aspect of Catholic social teaching in Fr Sirico’s book that I am aware. If there were I would not recommend it. It is absolutely possible I have missed them or misunderstood them – in which case please point the out to me. You seem to me to be creating a caricature of free market economics that you can criticise, rather than explicitly criticising or making judgements on what has been actually been said?
David
David, thanks for your response. I don’t think I am drawing a caricature. Can you cite where you thought I did? As you know from reading those encyclicals, the popes have made direct criticisms of capitalism and the ideals of economic liberalism repeatedly and pervasively, alongside their critique of Marxist collectivism. My critique is connected to theirs. The popes warn that “there be dragons” in some capitalist ideologies. That is essentially the point I was trying to make.
I would further add that I did not mention Father Sirico at all in my comment here, so I clearly was not intending my comment as a critique of his book, which I have not read, but rather as a critique of a school of thought. So let’s take a specific case. In your recommendation of Father Sirico’s book, you state: “The place of the law and regulation in this is robustly to preserve personal freedom.” You go on to connect this with Father Sirico’s thought; my reading of a few of his shorter pieces and of the work of the Acton Institute suggests that this is a fair connection. In the next paragraph you quote Blessed John Paul II describing what he means by a “free economy,” and one of his clarifications is precisely that he is not talking about a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed by “a strong juridical framework” (i.e. laws and regulations) directing it to the service of common good and ethical and religious criteria, a point that would be in total continuity with the teaching of his predecessors and successors. I see some tension there between your description of the role of law and the pope’s, but perhaps you can correct me with how you see them fitting together.
In any case, my larger point was simple and straightforward. You asked for what you should read to further understand the relationships between these questions. I pointed out that you seem to be reading in economics from one particular point of view, one that is not without serious critics and one which is considered by many faithful Catholics and arguably by the popes to be in some tension with Catholic social doctrine, and I recommended some specific titles and authors to broaden that perspective. Of course it is yours to decide whether you think them worth reading, but in any case, it is an answer to your request that you may do with as you like.
Hi Kyle
One of the reasons that I recommended Fr Sirico’s book was that there is no conflict that I can see with anything in Catholic social teaching. Is there anything in what I have said that suggests that I am not in favour of a just society, that I do not want to see a moral society underpinned by rule of law as outlined in the church documents? If there is then please let me know. Certainly, it was not my intention to do so. You say you have taken views from a ‘school of thought’ – that’s correct, but what has this got to do with Fr Sirico or myself? You criticise things that this school of thought espouses, supposedly, and then associate myself and Fr Sirico with them without bringing any evidence that we hold the views you criticise.
David
David, I am not accusing you of deliberate dissent from Catholic teaching. I would assume not only in charity but out of familiarity with your writing that you are someone who intends and attempts to think with the Church. If I didn’t think so, I would not have bothered attempting this conversation.
You asked, in this blog post, for things to read, and in response I gave you some suggestions, along with a question about why you seem to have chosen to read about economics from only one point of view on that subject. You have not chosen to take up either of those points, either the question or the suggested titles and authors, which is of course your prerogative. I also replied above to your request for specifics with a particular statement you had made which seems to me to be in tension with a quote you provided from Blessed John Paul II on whether the role of law in political economics is to foster and protect economic freedom or to circumscribe it. Again I did this without accusation, only with the observation that they seem to me to be in tension, and with an invitation for you to help me see how you reconcile them. Again, it’s your blog, and I’m sure you, like me, have many demands on your time, so if you don’t wish to take this point up, that is your prerogative.
I do not see the tension you mention, and do you know what else I have read? Anyway I guess we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you for you comments though Kyle. I’m sure there will be more in the future. I am just working through Harry Veryser’s book now. He is of the Austrian school. I don’t know how you would classify Thomas Sowell though – I don’t think he is associated with the Austrian school. He went to Chicago I think so you might associate him with Milton Friedman and the Chicago school which is slightly different as I understand it
Yet more evidence that “conservatism” has morphed into paleo-liberalism, and that what it “conserves” are the values of the Enlightenment: license in place of liberty, individualism in place of community, naturalism in place of natural law. Today’s “conservatives” march under the white flag of surrender to Liberalism, but are perplexed that the Liberals win all the battles. Sirico compatible with the Just Wage? Oh, pul-leeze.
A weak and cowardly snipe. Rather than making sarcastic comments, why not engage in a proper debate. You attack what you suppose Fr Sirico to be saying rather than what he actually says. I don’t claim much expertise in this, but unless you give me actual points to consider what am I supposed to conclude about the coherence of your own point of view? If you have a problem with my reading matter or something that I have said, say why. I do not support any of the views that you claim I espouse. Produce the evidence please.
Mr Clayton:
I believe, in answer to your request to be given “actual points to consider”, that Kyle has already done that quite admirably.
Those points being?
David,
I think your reading list is just fine. While the market is not a foundation of ethics, it is a foundation of economics based on human freedom. It is therefore necessary to examine the social order precisely from the Austrian prism, even though a Catholic mind, aware of the overriding desire for charity, cannot reduce social life to mere market participation. Any other approach will suffer from statism: the idea that somehow, apriori, the secular state must insert itself into the economic relations, while the truth is that the state’s role in disrupting the market, as opposed to the role of voluntary charity, needs to be justified in the first place.
Let’s be civil and even friendly here (warmth is too easily denaturalized in writing). I think John is alluding to something I too have noted, when unfortunately the position of conservatism is predominantly colored by outspoken individualists of the Ayn Rand variety (say bye bye to agape love) and Libertarians .. some of them even anarchists no matter that they might use that term affably (cf. Murray Rothbard). Some of them (eg. Ron Paul) have admittedly seized hold of ideas that can be traced to the ‘Austrian school’ of economics, which is ill-received by economists (not so much because of its ‘axioms’ as because it’s too laissez-faire even about the need for statistical models and evidence).
But not all of those who’d rather be styled ‘conservative right’ than ‘liberal left’ are at all friends with libertarianism. And I sense that is the appeal of father Bob Sirico to readers like David (or me). However; one must swim awfully hard upstream in a present-day reactionary current against Obama to distance oneself from that radical selfism lurking downstream; and maybe that’s why Kyle is so very cautionary about reading much in the Austrian school. In his zeal for pulling the oars to attain the balance — ‘in medio stat virtus’ — he might be seen as a tad roughshod over David. David rightly places Thomas Sowell, who turned viscerally from Marxism early in his career, more in Friedman’s camp — and Friedman was a hot critic of the Austrian school.
A useful wiki page for basic orientation is under ‘Austrian School’, citing a trenchant criticism by Friedman near the end. On the other hand, Friedman praised Julian Simon, whose rather humane estimate of the power to reduce scarcities by personal choice and population pressure is close to a first-wave ‘school’ idea. Its pro-natalism put him well outside of any antiCatholic circles, even though personally he saw contraception as one of the goods to make less scarce!
My point is that not one economist is a paragon, which is why father Sirico set up Acton Institute; and it is well, David that in wanting to start somewhere you tackled so much of the great writing of the popes. I’m following the same project, with interest in the tension between ‘preferential option for the poor’ and preferential option for the poor-in-spirit. Pax Christi
Let me add that libertarianism is merely a preference for individual liberty over state control. It is not useful as a label because people form very different, even mutually hostile intellectual environments may all be called libertarians. Yes, there are libertarians whose views are incompatible with Catholicism; Rand, for example, was an atheist. But also there is the Acton Institute and distributism of Hillaire Belloc, rooted in the Catholic thought.
Likewise bringing up the chronic confusion about the fundamentals typical of American politics does not help in serious debate.
form -> from
Sorry.