Video: Will Pope Francis go left on economics?
posted at 12:41 pm on March 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
(VATICAN CITY) Of all the questions I’ve fielded since the election of former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis, the one that has been most difficult to answer clearly is the direction in which the new pontiff will take the Catholic Church on economics. It’s no secret that while Pope Francis clashed with the Kirchner government in Argentina over its policies on abortion and gay marriage, he also sharply criticized its policies on fiscal austerity and its impact on the nation’s poor. That has some American conservatives worried that the new Pope will push the debate to the left in the US.
I asked Kishore Jayalaban of the Acton Institute to talk with me about that very question. Jayalaban has lived in Italy for more than a dozen years, part of them working at the Vatican, and he says the impression that Francis will push economic arguments to the left is a misunderstanding of both Catholic economic thought and the economic situation in Argentina — where capitalism is much more rife with cronyism and corporatism than in the US. While Catholic doctrine teaches that public policy must offer preferential treatment of the poor, Jayalaban explains that this leaves a wide spectrum of options that fall within “prudential judgment.” Jayalaban is working on an Acton endeavor called Poverty Cure, which just launched — fortuitous timing:
Kishore Jayabalan on the economics of Pope Francis from Ed Morrissey on Vimeo.
Jayalaban’s colleague at Acton Sam Gregg also addressed this today at National Review:
No one in their right mind would describe Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., as an ecclesiastical Milton Friedman or a closet free marketer. Plainly, he’s not. But Francis does have two particular concerns with regard to economic issues. One is the naked materialism and consumerism that disfigures so many peoples’ lives. No Catholic is going to affirm people seeking their salvation in the endless acquisition of stuff. Francis’s asceticism is a clear repudiation of that mindset.
Francis’s second concern regarding economic issues is the materially poor. Again, that’s precisely what you would expect from any orthodox Catholic. As Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia (who’s no social liberal) once memorably wrote: “Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. Period.” …
Argentina is a once-prosperous nation that experienced a rapid spiral into seemingly perpetual economic dysfunction throughout the 20th century. Over and over again, Argentina has been brought to its knees by the populist politics of Peronism, which dominates Argentina’s Right and Left. “Kirchnerism,” as peddled by Argentina’s present and immediate past president, is simply the latest version of that.
In concrete terms, this pathology translates into big government, high taxes, hostility to business and foreign investment, heavy debt, and a level of corruption that defies imagination. That adds up to a strange mixture of unsophisticated Keynesianism and naked crony capitalism. And it doesn’t benefit the poor. It benefits the powerful and well-connected. In Argentina, you don’t get ahead through being economically entrepreneurial; you get ahead through political power and as many privileges from the state as you can.
This is the disaster that Pope Francis’s limited commentary on economic matters has sought to address since he became Argentina’s leading churchman in 1998. And Francis has made it abundantly clear that liberation theology is not the solution. One of the reasons he’s not so popular with some of his fellow Jesuits is that he stopped the Jesuits in Argentina from going down that path in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology’s Marxist components, he knew, were plainly incompatible with Catholicism. Father Bergoglio also foresaw that it would turn much of the Church into nothing more than just another utopian-revolutionary movement, as occurred in other parts of Latin America.
Jayalaban also explains that Curial reform really refers to the kind of organizational issues that are hardly unique to the Vatican. Also explaining Curial reform was Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, a theologian working in Rome, and a fellow American. I wanted to speak with Fr. Marcel after he debunked a story about a “dossier” that caught fire in the world press based on … well, not much at all, as Fr. Marcel explains here:
Fr. Marcel Guarnizo from Ed Morrissey on Vimeo.
I recorded this interview on Wednesday afternoon, but the surprisingly short election ended up pushing this back until today. Fr. Marcel stood in the rain for about 20 minutes to answer my questions, and he’s a Hot Air fan … or at least he was, until I made him get soaked.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


It’s come to this: Venezuela approves funds to relieve the toilet-paper shortage

Video: Dem Congressman rips IRS for abuses, threatens bringing in special prosecutor






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Uncle Sugar will figure out a way to Fast-n-FallingOver the situation to blame America and tax the hellouttait anyway.
Limerick on May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Even a blind pig…
Cleombrotus on May 12, 2013 at 6:37 PM
“I like girls who drink beer.” – Toby Keith
myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:37 PM
This is what senators are worried about — the excise tax on beer?
Liam on May 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM
These bills have been around for a few years, but the problem is that the explosive growth of this industry will make lessening the tax — at least in Congress’s books — more expensive.
Finding a pay for that both sides can agree on will be difficult.
bomble on May 12, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Its a good move since the blossoming up of home-brew has been great for this nation, but my understanding of the issue is that many big brewers own smaller craft brews, so they will qualify as well. Of course its all good if you think about it.
rob verdi on May 12, 2013 at 6:47 PM
This is great news!
Those White house beer summits will be cheaper…
Electrongod on May 12, 2013 at 6:50 PM
Bi-partisan? BS.
Craft beer appeals to blue-staters and the “smart growth” crowd which is why you see a guy like Schumer, who normally can’t find a tax he doesn’t like, suddenly so hot to reduce taxes on “craft beer”.
A lot of these small breweries, like the ones in my Upstate NY town already receive a ton of tax incentives and property tax breaks to locate in downtown areas. Guess who pays for that? The property taxpayers like me, who pay the full tax on my own property.
Don’t worry, old Chuckie, I’m sure, is quick working on a way to make up for the lost revenue, particularly in NY State where everything that moves is already taxed. And I’m sure I’ll get screwed over, like always.
Dreadnought on May 12, 2013 at 6:50 PM
Sounds like a good time for HA to supplement its offerings by starting up its own trademark HA micro-brew.
WhatSlushfund on May 12, 2013 at 6:51 PM
Oh no. Those we want to tax the living crud out of.
Limerick on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Bayam should be along any minute to defend Big Beer like Budweiser, while denigrating craft beer.
tom daschle concerned on May 12, 2013 at 6:53 PM
That is absolutely brilliant!
Right now the beer market is almost a full blown duopoly, where Anheuser-Busch InBev and Miller-Coors own 90%+ of the market.
It is only possibly through the states and federal government’s regulation of alcohol distribution. Breweries are almost wholly banned from selling directly to taverns/bars and grocery stores, because the government requires them to sell through a middle-mad (distributor).
AB InBev and Miller-Coors went after the distributors by either buying them out or contracting them, forcing all of the small breweries fight over whatever distribution is left for them. Any change to the three-tiered distribution system is decried and virtually shut down by their lobbyists.
Anyhow, the slashing of the excise tax would be an absolute boon to the small business craft brewers.
ZachV on May 12, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Red Stripe is some horrid beer, but they had some great commercials.
HOORAY BEER!
Steve Eggleston on May 12, 2013 at 6:58 PM
Glad to see an HA conservative finally agree that these perpetual tax cuts for the so called small businesses/ job creators are truly paid for by the working American..
HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 6:59 PM
Bread, beer, and circuses.
MelonCollie on May 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM
Rule of thumb: If Schumer is for it, I’m sure to get screwed.
And yes Mr. (or Ms.) Lib. You and I do agree on targeted tax breaks. Crony capitalism at its finest, which every conservative
should be against, whether it involves beer or not.
Dreadnought on May 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM
There was a nice article recently saying that American craft beers were even making headway in Germany. They noted that many of the German brands taste similar due to 500 year old German beer purity laws that force standardized ingredients and brewing processes.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 12, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Wow. We agree again. Wall Street/I am for everything BIbi is for Schumer is far from any politician I like.
HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM
You think so? I’ve always really liked Red Stripe. But, then again, I have plebian beer tastes. My usual go-to is Bud Light.
My theory is that Red Stripe was brewed to work together nicely with ganja.
WhatSlushfund on May 12, 2013 at 7:23 PM
If only this could make up for all of Sen. Collins’ wrongdoings this year. Unfortunately, I can’t afford the volume of Shipyard Summer Ale that it’d require to make me forgive and forget her RINO stance on nearly every important issue recently, of which none are more important than her embrace of the Manchin/Toomey bill. It’s time for her to come home and get a real job. Baxter IPA for ftw!
Birchbark on May 12, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Hate to pop your stereotype, Erika, but craft brewers don’t use the term.
AshleyTKing on May 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM
I’m OK with anything that makes Stone Brewery and Heavy Seas cheaper and easier to get hold of.
Sgt Steve on May 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM
…they want to keep us drunk!
KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM
This might be the first worthwhile thing Washington has done in…….. ever? Or at least since 1976 with the last beer tax cut. It’s such a good idea that even Schumer can figure it out!
alchemist19 on May 12, 2013 at 8:03 PM
It’s not one’s fault but yours that you don’t like beer that actually tastes good. :-)
alchemist19 on May 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Complaints about local property tax incentives, as above, aside, I am glad that any aspect of the Federal beast recognizes that lowering taxes is a logical move for stimulating growth.
And Anheiser and Miller products blow.
M240H on May 12, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Maybe I’m missing something, but why exactly is there an excise tax on beer? Does anyone know the rationale, other than “the government wants more money”?
NorthernCross on May 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM
Why don’t the lawmakers end the 3-tier distribution system instead? That is the real culprit that prevents smaller breweries from getting their beer out there. I live in the midwest and I can’t get Russian River, Dogfish head, and other popular craft breweries because the big distributors don’t want the competition.
Erika, I am disappointed you didn’t focus on the distribution racket and instead this obscure tax cut.
nazo311 on May 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM
States vary a lot too.
AshleyTKing on May 12, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Oh good, my son is brewing beer.
Cindy Munford on May 12, 2013 at 9:02 PM
I think it’s a holdover from the prohibition-era Volstead Act.
gryphon202 on May 12, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Love the photo – Three Floyds is one of the best breweries in the country and their Rye Da Tiger and Alpha Klaus are awesome beers.
bound4er on May 12, 2013 at 10:17 PM
+1
AshleyTKing on May 12, 2013 at 10:21 PM
I have no problem with rolling back Prohibition-era laws against home-brewing and small-scale brewing like Alabama recently did. Nor do I mind streamlining the bureaucracy for small brewers (where I am, all breweries are classified as “light industrial” and thus have a hard time getting decent zoning space outside of office parks). Even giving special tax treatment to start-ups sounds fine to me, which seems to be what this bill is about.
On the other hand, some places have tried to get too involved. One city out here decided to buy a restaurant space in its downtown, purchase a ton of brewery equipment, and then hand it all over to some random brothers who didn’t know what they were doing. Not surprisingly, that brewery attempt spectacularly failed and the city was left on the very large financial hook. It’s strange that they thought they needed to do that since all around them breweries are popping up left and right, but hey, some politician got to trumpet that they “helped small business in the downtown” (for a bit).
Streamline the regulations, especially for the little guys, and let the free market do its wonderful (and delicious in this case) work.
HayekFriendlyCon on May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Hillary’s going to need a keg or two before what is brewing with Benghazi comes to a head.
profitsbeard on May 12, 2013 at 11:31 PM
As my moniker attests, I’ve been brewing at home for some time. Inexpensive and better than 90% of the biers I can buy. Plus…no tax to the Feds!
BierManVA on May 13, 2013 at 6:10 AM
i don’t know of any bipartisan senators.
sesquipedalian on May 13, 2013 at 6:24 AM
…and I live a stone’s throw from the brewery. Happy times! Perfect picture.
tdarrington on May 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM
This is a great step, but what we truly need to see our craft beer market “really” flourish is for the government to get out of the distribution mandating business. The government’s forced distribution (3-tier system) plan enables companies like (the owners of) Miller, Busch, Coors, Bud, etc… to have a stranglehold on the competition. It’s government forced monopoly.
The system was established to help the little guy but actually has done the opposite over the last 10-20 years… and while beer drinking in America has never been better… it could actually be better! Just get the government out.
therambler on May 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Hmmmm. Is it time to follow the senator’s investments?
Don L on May 13, 2013 at 8:00 AM
“Yeah, what’s wrong with the beer we got?!”
-Alvin Holmes, Alabama State Representative
Nick_Angel on May 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM
I would love to see a streamlined process for lowering all of myriad of tax laws into something coherant and understandable. If this act is including all breweres regardless of size then it isn’t crony capitalism per se – but I would like to see a real effort to study the tax code – see how much streamlining would really cost – look to cut spending along with it,utilize some real non-static costing and come up with something that helps more than just brewers.
Zomcon JEM on May 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM
While I am for the lowering and elimination of many taxes, don’t we have bigger issues to deal with than this?
Klem Kadiddlehopper on May 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM