Pope Francis - economic naif / dunce

Peter Foster on the Pope’s economic naivete and ignorance:

 ... the serious issue of whether the Pope knows what he’s talking about when it comes to his professed concern for the poor. 

The appropriate approach to poverty is not to sanctify it but eradicate it . ... if Pope Francis really is concerned about relieving poverty, his reflexive anti-capitalist attitudes are pointing precisely in the wrong direction.

Pope John Paul II actually praised the free market as “the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. ... his successors  ... returned to the Church’s more traditional anti-capitalist stance, now larded with environmental concerns and support for UN-based global governance. ... Pope Francis came out of the Vatican gate in March sounding like the theological wing of the Occupy movement ...

... if the poor are truly his priority, then surely what is important is not “the gap” but the massive reductions in levels of absolute poverty in recent decades ... one can’t help asking whether the Pope is more concerned with relieving the poor or bringing down the rich.

he exposed his own economic confusion, first in implying that social benefits come only from charitable intention  ... and second in peddling the canard that promotion of markets represents some kind of quasi religious faith...

Distortion, misuse and abuse of poverty statistics

PJTV’s Bill Whittle with a very interesting presentation [via]:



From the Heritage Foundation research report:

... The overwhelming majority of the public do not regard a family living in these conditions as poor. [....] A full 80 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed that a family living in those living conditions should not be considered poor.

One of the most regrettable aspects of official U.S. government poverty statistics is the misleading negative image that they project around the world. U.S. government poverty numbers are like a Potemkin village in reverse, suggesting to the rest of the globe that living conditions in the U.S. are much worse than they actually are.

For example:

Al Jazeera ...tells a global audience: “37 million people—that is one in eight Americans—live below the official poverty line. That means these people are often homeless, hungry, and have no health insurance.”

The Teheran Times “... [O]ne in five children in the United States live in poverty, with almost half of them living in extreme poverty.”

... the Chinese government uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s misleading poverty reports to condemn the U.S. government for human rights violations.

Russia Today (RT) is a multilingual television news network funded by the Russian government. RT broadcasts news in English, Spanish, and Arabic to over 100 nations .... informs audiences that “one in seven Americans [are] living in poverty.”

What? No mention of the CBC and BBC?

The Indian mess

Jonathan Kay speaks the blunt truth about Canadian aboriginal policy. His analysis and prescription for a ‘fix’ is based on "three well-observed empirical truths":

The modern global economy is driven by cities...

...collective land ownership is a recipe for economic disaster...

Welfare destroys societies....

Mr. Kay observes that implementing the necessary change is "a massive legal and political undertaking". He’s absolutely right and I’d add that the biggest obstacle to change is the Indian leadership. If they don’t own up to the need for it and to their own responsibility for the present mess - there’ll be no meaningful change - which pretty much sums up progress to date.

What "poor"?

A favorite pastime of those on the left is bleating about the poor, poverty, social justice, etc ... Their obvious ‘truths’ about poverty form the basis for calls for ever more state intervention with ever more and ever bigger entitlement programs. After all, how can anyone be in favour of ‘social injustice’?

Together, Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle do a fine job of countering the lefty bleats.

Updates: Steyn here and here. Shaidle here, here and here.

Victoria, world-class enabler

enabler: one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.

Victoria is a beautiful spot -- scenic, temperate climate and a city offering most amenities along with a laid-back life-style -- all the reasons I moved here a dozen years ago.

These are the same reasons most people are attracted to Victoria. But, as well as productive citizens it has also attracted a substantial underclass of alcoholics, drug addicts, panhandlers, vagrants, youthful able-bodied ‘free spirits’ - most if not all of whom are homeless. Over the years it’s been hard not to notice the growing numbers of chronically dysfunctional people inhabiting the down-town streets and parks and gathering around the many facilities aimed at 'helping' them.

And, while it’s difficult not to notice the growing underclass, it’s nearly impossible not to notice the growth of a ‘poverty’ industry that clamours for ever more ‘help’ for the poor souls on the street. It’s a rare day that there isn’t a headlined story in the newspaper, a radio or TV talk-show or other media event highlighting the problem and appealing for help. In today’s local paper there’s a full four page advertising section detailing the ‘Our Place Society’s programs and asking for donations. And to hear the mayor and council going on about it one gets the impression it’s the only issue on their agenda.

‘Help’ includes soup kitchens, food banks, street outreach, drop-in centres, shelters, needle exchanges and just this week it was announced that the BC Health Minister will recommend approval for three ‘safe’ injection sites in Victoria. Vancouver has one. Victoria needs three?

It seems logical that, as a basic rule of thumb, the easier you make it for people to lead a dysfunctional, parasitic life, the more dysfunctional, parasitic people there will be. More facilities for street denizens will lead to more people living on the street. So, you might ask, how’s it really working out in Victoria? What are the numbers? Is there objective evidence that the city’s strategy of enabling dysfunctional behaviour is yielding more of it?

Yes there is! In 2005 the Victoria Cool Aid Society did a comprehensive survey to find out how many street people or ‘homeless’ there were. The count was 668 region-wide. The survey was repeated in 2007. The new count was 1242. That’s an increase of 85% in just two years - and bear in mind that for Victoria these are economic boom times with very low unemployment and ‘now hiring’ signs plastered in the windows of many, many businesses.

Now don’t get me wrong. Many of these street people, especially the addicts and the otherwise mentally challenged, certainly need help (beginning with an attempt to help themselves). And the people trying to help them have their hearts in the right place:) But you sure have ask whether a strategy of enabling bad behaviour, a strategy that attracts ever more troubled people to the streets, is the right one.

Victoria is unlikely to change its approach any time soon. It's a world-class enabler. So I predict the Cool Aid Society’s 2009 homeless survey will yield another big jump in the numbers.

Self-help

SDA’s excellent post today highlighting an essay by Stephen Den Beste triggered a few thoughts about poverty and aid.

Den Beste’s words about "development projects" and "why can’t we provide clean drinking water for everyone on earth", reminded me of the never-ending aid projects and campaigns to "help" long suffering Africa.

Many aid projects, as Den Beste hints, are "fundamentally easy" - the lowest of low-tech: digging wells for water, building fences for livestock, mosquito netting to combat malaria. These are the kinds of efforts that you’d think Africans would be fully capable of doing on their own.

Isn’t one of the big problems (albeit caused largely by dysfunctional and/or corrupt governance) in Africa the general economy, jobs, etc? Yet Western aid organizations are forever focused on funding and doing the work "for" Africa. Thirty years and a trillion or so dollars later it’s more of the same or worse. What’s that definition of insanity?

The only best way out for anyone ‘in need’ begins and ends with self-help. No one else can do better.