I am not in the custom of quoting religious leaders, being a secular Jew, but I am nonetheless impressed by Pope Francis’ advocacy on behalf of the poor and his critique of the unfettered market.
To clarify, I understand and believe in the values of a free marketplace of goods and services, but at the same time, I think that society has an obligation to make sure that the market is regulated sufficiently to prevent extremes of inequality.
A healthy society requires a balance of the private and the public sector. A society without a public sector would be (in my eyes) mean, nasty, and brutish for all except those at the very top of a pointy pyramid, for all, that is, except the top 1% or 10%. A society without a private sector concentrates far too much power in the hands of those who rule and fails (as we saw in the instance of the Soviet Union) to permit enterprise, individualism, and personal freedom.
And it is in that spirit that I here cite a short article about Pope Francis, who has emerged as a powerful voice on behalf of the world’s poor.
Pope Francis, the author writes, is critical of “a world that is about “competition and survival of the fittest.” It is a world “where the powerful feed upon the powerless.”
He questions “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.” He is concerned that this culture has produced global indifference. Society seems content to believe that poverty is somebody else’s problem. For him, the poor are not only exploited but excluded. They have become “the outcast, the leftovers.”
He hammers the injustice of growing inequality. He sees this income gap as a “result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace.” He speaks of the “sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
He also speaks of growing world-wide corruption which is at least tolerated as the world eagerly seeks to serve the “interests of a deified market which become the only rule.” He specifically mentions “self-serving tax evasion,” and “the thirst for power and possessions,” as examples of the harmful corruption that abounds and knows no limits.”
As I reflect on the growing inequality in our society, where a very small number of people enjoy vast wealth while a vast number of people live in poverty, the words of Pope Francis ring true.
Yes, we need a marketplace where people buy and sell goods and services. But the marketplace should not make us indifferent to the losers, to those who cannot succeed in the competition to buy and sell.
A healthy society takes care of all its children and builds a culture where love, kindness, and compassion are valued more than the goods we acquire.
I guess that sounds radical, but I am no radical. I just want a better world for my children and grandchildren and yours too.

Thank you Diane for expressing many of our thoughts so beautifully. I too am not Catholic but find the Pope’s words as well as his actions appropriate and uplifting for these times. I wish all here, a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.
LikeLike
Maybe we need to reframe the dialogue, shift the paradigm. The 1 or 10 percent may have most of the wealth but, they are the real losers.
LikeLike
If only we could find a way to convince them of that. It really is true, but so hard to see when everyone is so distracted by opulence.
LikeLike
That famous Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, whose birthday that Christians celebrate today, also spoke out against poverty, hunger and inequality. As we celebrate His birth, it is only fitting that we return to those teachings and apply them to our lives. Pope Francis is correct- a healthy society takes care of all its children. Time that we got back to doing so. Why is that such a radical idea?
LikeLike
Democracy. Human rights. Freedom of expression and belief. Equality.
And a “better education for all.”
Radical? Only to those who long for the “good old days” when none of the above were considered proper. Jackie “Moms” Mabley said it just right:
“They’re always talking about the good old days, the good old days. I was there. Where was they?”
😎
LikeLike
KrazyTA- LOVE what you had to say about the “good old days”. One just has to open up a history book to see that our memories are often rose colored. But, there is always the present and the future to work towards. Why not start today to make those good old days a reality?
LikeLike
It WAS better pre-1975, at least in the United States, following WWII. That is beyond dispute. Not everybody shared in the prosperity, but it was there for more people than any other time. That was before neoliberalism and the rise of the crackpot Milton Friedman took told of politicians and turned them into puppets for the billionaires, Wall Street crooks, and policymakers who are trying to destroy the public good for private gain.
LikeLike
The poverty rate was a good deal higher in the late 1950s and early 1960s than today. In 1966 the poverty rate had fallen to be a bit lower than today, 14.7% vs 15.0% but children made up a higher percentage of the poor, 43.5% vs 34.6% today (by today I mean 2012, the most recent year of data I could find).
That might point to it being better today than pre-1975.
LikeLike
Pope Francis is truly the Pope for all people. I would love for him to visit America and travel the country speaking to all about this.
LikeLike
I’d love for him to sit at the round table to hear confession from Duncan, Rhee, Gates, Pearson, etc., professing their sins on child abuse, blackmailing teachers, brown nosing, and “sleeping” with politicians for selfish reasons.
In all seriousness, a tour on helping people out of poverty, people demonstrating compassion, and a lesson on being aware of people in fancy suits selling snake oil would do it for starters.
LikeLike
Isn’t it amazing that so many of the corporate education reform cabal claim to be Christian but ignore these fundamentals of Christianity. Also, wasn’t it that great Conservative Prophet Rush Limbaugh who claimed that the Pope’s words marked him as a Marxist? Let’s hear it for the Jesus, the Pope, and Dianne! Merry Christmas, everyone!
LikeLike
As a Christian, I often point out in scripture where the actions of Jesus are dissonant from what the affluent show case christians display in their pompous pronouncements. I also get into heated discussions of how Christianity does not mix with the vapid philosophy of Ayn Rand. I have found a new church since the Paul Ryan fans of my old church were too offended. I think I will visit them tonight as they dwell on the fact that Jesus was born in poverty and advocated for the fair treatment of all and preached of the worth of all men, not just the self proclaimed chosen of his time. Let’s gird our loins and prepare to renew the fight on all fronts against this corporate religion that seeks to destroy us all. What ever our differences are, we can reason them out once we establish a just society. What would it really cost us to care for our poor? Why shouldn’t everyone have food and shelter? Think about what creativity might then be unleashed when fear and uncertainty of poverty are removed. All we need is the compassion to care about one another instead of seeing people as an asset to be mined and exploited. I am proud to be thought of as a socialist in the tradition of Jesus and the new pope. Their company is preferable to that of the Limbaugh’s of the world.
LikeLike
I’m with you. Time for some action, don’t you think?
LikeLike
I agree with you completely. Ayn Rand and Jesus don’t exhibit similar traits.
LikeLike
It’s unfortunate that most attacks on income and/or wealth inequality focus on fairness/morality. True — the excessive inequality is unfair/immoral, but the real problem (and the most important reason we should reduce the inequality) is the impact of inequality on the economy.
It’s an obvious but rarely-noted fact that the poor and the middle class usually spend virtually all of their income (and often borrow $ to spend even more than their income). By contrast, the rich usually spend only a small percentage of their income. The rich “invest” the rest of their income — in savings accounts, CDs, stocks, bonds, gold, art, real estate, etc.. The economic problem is that only a tiny percentage of this invested $ is spent on buying newly-created products (or services) — for example, $ invested in the stock of a new corporation that immediately uses the newly-invested $ to build a factory or start a new business. Virtually all of the invested $ is spent on buying stuff that either are legal creations (i.e., CDs) that really constitute an exchange of one kind of $ for another kind of $ or are things that already exist. Little of this invested $ is promptly recycled into the economy to buy recently-produced goods or services.
In other words, most of the rich’s income escapes from the economy, at least temporarily. That escaped income reduces the total demand for goods/services in the economy. This reduced demand means that rational businesses have little incentive to increase inventories, expand production, or start new enterprises; there will be insufficient demand to buy the additional products/services. The consequence is higher under/unemployment and downward pressure on wages as workers compete for the too-few jobs. This, in turn, leads to further reductions in middle class income and the cycle continues. Govt deficits compensate, in part, for this $ escaping from the economy.
We should reverse the changes in national policies (tax, labor, corporate governance, financial regulation) that, over the last 30+ years, have rechanneled an increasing percentage of national income/assets from the middle class to the rich. This is the economic reason for attacking income inequality.
LikeLike
Just trying to translate into terms I can understand. In other words, are you saying that Reagan’s ‘trickle-down economics’– implemented by undoing every legal safeguard against a repeat of the Great Depression– was a sham? That it was all about– instead of facing mfg decline & the global challenge w/an innovative plan– setting things up so that those who could, would grab the most from the shrinking pie? If that’s what you mean, I agree. At the moment, we in the educational part of the pie are being grabbed. It’s been a long time coming. Perhaps we should be the ones to stand up to it.
LikeLike
Yes — “trickle-down” accurately describes the flawed economic justification for rechanneling $ from the middle-class to the rich. The trickle-down proponents do not distinguish between investment that creates products/services (for example, an investor buying new stock shares with the corporation using the $ from the stock sale to build a new factory) and investment that converts one capital asset into another capital asset with nothing new being built or no new service being provided (for example, an investor buying already-existing stock shares from another shareholder and the selling shareholder putting the stock sale proceeds in his bank account). The first kind of investment creates demand for goods/services and ultimately results in economic growth/jobs; the second kind of investment does not result in economic growth/jobs — it’s like taking the $ and putting it under a mattress. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of “investments” made by the rich are of the second kind.
LikeLike
LikeLike
It’s not really good form to post blind links and ultimately probably not terribly helpful to you either. I doubt many people will click unless they have a reasonable idea what they’re going to encounter, especially from a poverty-doesn’t-matter commenter like you.
LikeLike
Thank you for saying so well what I believe.
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughts Diane. Your blog has slowly but surely changed my views on this education debate, and your repetitive discussion of education as a “public good” has really pierced my heart.
I have been struggling for quite a while with this term “poverty” though, and its causal or correlative relationship to education. There is the more compassionate side of me that yearns for a Great Society II implementation, for law makers who will champion such a policy shift, and for the ultimate positive effect it will have on the education and well-being of all. There is the more skeptical side of me that asks, “are America’s poor really poor?”, and “is the economic distress our poor exhibit just a symptom of a deeper poverty of the soul, of prior generational oppression that no longer exists, of honest decent living, of good decision making, that no amount of anti-poverty programs can address?”. I’m still struggling with this debate internally.
I watched the movie “The First Grader” this weekend with family, and thought quite a bit about the ongoing poverty debate in America. For those readers who haven’t seen it, it’s a true story of 84-year old Kenyan Kimani Maruge who decides he’d like to learn to read when the Kenyan government announces it is offering free primary school education to all. Through many difficulties, Maruge eventually enrolls in and attends the local primary school as a kindergartener (which sets a Guinness World Record!). The economic poverty exhibited by Maruge and hundreds of his kindergarten classmates is far beyond anything that America’s “economic poor” can possibly comprehend, and yet they exhibit a “spiritual wealth” far beyond most Americans. Maruge (a Mau Mau freedom fighter veteran) and many of his countrymen are not without their own generational tales of government sanctioned oppression and hardship, experience economic poverty on a much greater level than most of America’s “poor” can possibly imagine, yet their spiritual pulse seems so different from many in our impoverished communities.
I see this same dichotomy regarding the spiritual pulse of the poor in my local community. My local community is predominately African American, Bosnian immigrant, and Burmese immigrant. Most are poor, yet there is a tremendous divide in the short term and long term outlook of this diverse population. Most African American families seem stuck in the same patterns from generation to generation, with many of the unhealthy lifestyle practices resulting in an economic poverty that flows to each successive generation. Most Bosnian and Burmese families arrive in our neighborhood with few clothes and nearly penniless, and often speaking little or no English. Their long term outlook is significantly different, as most work 2-3 jobs, are willing to take any job no matter how demeaning it may be perceived by others (factory work, sewer work, slaughter house work, dish washing work, etc.), live incredibly frugally, and use their collective earnings after 5-10 years of living in our community to open family-run bakeries, carpentry shops, construction companies, etc. Subsets of racial/ethnic groups start out at the same level of economic poverty in our neighborhood, are afforded the same access to social services and public services, yet some groups more consistently emerge from the economic poverty while others more consistently pass it on to their next generation.
I’m not expecting a response to this post — I mostly wanted to thank you for your continued advocacy on public education, for your continued concern with the most vulnerable, and let you know your blog sparks wonderful critical thinking in a variety of areas.
LikeLike