If so, I apologize, for that was not my intent.
I’m referring to Scott Richert of ChroniclesMagazine.Org, who has responded to my latest two posts in our exchange, HERE and HERE.
Mr. Richert appears not to wish to continue the exchange (he titles his second post "Final Thoughts in the Case of St. Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII, Pius XI, et al. v. Jimmy Akin," and he refers to me "bring[ing] what remained of this conversation to a screeching halt").
Mr. Richert had requested that I do an analysis of the just price concept and how it compared to my own views, and in my previous post I did so. In his reply (the second link above), Mr. Richert does not engage my analysis on the merits but lodges a number of complaints against me as an author.
First, he takes exception to me saying that (and not providing examples
of how) the concept of the just price concept has varied considerably
over time. He appears to believe that this is not the case.
He also conjectures that I did this as a rhetorical technique to
suggest that the Church keeps changing its mind on what the just price
concept means and therefore we don’t need to consider it. This is absolutely not the case.
The just price concept has been articulated by many different writers
over the centuries, many (most) of whom lacked magisterial authority,
and I was simply noting this to make clear to the reader why I needed
Mr. Richert to provide a definition for me to interact with since I
otherwise couldn’t make sure that I was interacting with his view
rather than committing the straw man fallacy against him by critiquing
the what was said by a writer whose views on the concept Mr. Richert
does not endorse.
I was trying to avoid the straw man fallacy by making sure I was clear
on Mr. Richert’s view, not suggesting that his view (or any one else’s)
is irrelevant because others have given different articulations to a
concept. As my academic training is in analytic philosophy, I’m quite
concerned with getting precise definitions on the table rather than
dealing with concepts in an impressoinistic manner.
The reasons I didn’t provide examples were (a) the piece (like others
in the series) were too long anyway, (b) it’s obvious that there are
substantively different articulations of the concept (as can be seen by
comparing Mr. Richert’s passage from Fr. Cahill with the one found HERE),
and (c) any term not dogmatically defined by the Magisterium is
naturally going to be given significantly different articulations by
theologians over a period of several hundred years.
If Mr. Richert wants to continue the discussion, further examples can be provided to document this point.
Second, Mr. Richert objections to my inclusion of a bracketed insertion into the following statement from Fr. Cahill:
all commodities [in the Middle Ages] had a certain value
which common estimation could determine and which accidental
circumstances, such as scarcity or the special needs of the buyer or
seller, could not substantially change.
Mr. Richert suggests that the insertion "[in the Middle Ages]" is
another debater’s trick to alienate the reader from the just price
concept, as if the fact it applied to the Middle Ages meant that it is
unworthy of consideration.
This is not the case. I included the insertion because Mr. Richert
quoted this particular bit from Fr. Cahill as a working definition of
the just price and, as you’ll note, Fr. Cahill uses the past tense in
it. In his endorsement of this as a definition, Mr. Richert did not
quote the context that would enable the reader to understand what time
period Fr. Cahill was referring to by his use of the past tense.
I was attempting to help the reader out by explaining an unexpected usage of the past tense, not seeking to undermine the definition. If I had been trying to do the latter I would included a reference to the Middle Ages in the ultimate formal definition I proposed for critique. (A definition that doesn’t use the past tense since I could re-cast it.)
Third, Mr. Richert is very offended by my note to the reader:
(Warning to those who might want to look up the quotes from Fr. Cahill: Many readers will find parts of Fr. Cahill’s book extremely offensive. For example, he repeatedly laments the influence that “the Jews” have in various sectors of society.)
Mr. Richert thinks this is another debater’s trick whereby I hypocritically do a guilt by association smear on him (I had previously charged him with doing such smears against me.)
After noting that Fr. Cahill’s book has an imprimi potest and a nihil obstat (neither of which is a guarantee that the work won’t contain offensive material), Mr. Richert says:
It’s odd that Mr. Akin believes that “many” of his readers (presumably a predominantly Catholic audience) would find such a work offensive.
Let me be clear about why I included this warning: It was for self-protection.
I would have been happier if Mr. Richert had supplied his own definition for the concept of just price or if he had quoted from someone other than Fr. Cahill, for then I wouldn’t have had to interact with Fr. Cahill’s book.
Fr. Cahill says a number of things that, however socially acceptable they may have been in the 1930s when the book was written, are offensive to many today, including contemporary conservative Catholics. In fact, I know of cases of conservative Catholics complaining about this book before.
Aware of this, I did not want to engage in a discussion of Fr. Cahill’s book without making some kind of warning to the reader about the material it contains (people who read the blog regularly have seen me issue such warnings regularly). I didn’t want people getting the book (for example, because they’d like to read what it had to say on economic matters) and then complaining to me about the anti-Jewish material and potentially even accusing me of anti-Semitism.
I didn’t want to make this a focus of the discussion, which is why I didn’t reproduce any of Fr. Cahill’s anti-Jewish remarks. I also didn’t want to smear Mr. Richert, which is why I didn’t introduce Fr. Cahill as "an anti-Semitic priest." The fact that he made offensive remarks about Jewish people doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know economics or Church teaching regarding economics, so I issued the warning as mildly as I could.
I partitioned it (a) as a parenthetical statement, (b) as a warning to those who might want to look up the quotes, not as a warning to readers of the blog in general (though of course others would see it), (c) as a brief comment that gave no inflammatory examples, and (d) as a note tagged to the LAST of the quotes I gave from the book instead of the first, so that readers would have the chance to think about what Fr. Cahill said on economics before getting warned about his views in other areas.
I don’t see how much more I could have toned it down and still issued a warning. I could have simply said that his book contains material many will find offensive, but then I would be open to the counter charge, "Oh, but what IS this ‘offensive’ material? Why are you doing a hit-and-run on Fr. Cahill without even giving us any hint of what he says that is so ‘offensive’?"
As to it being odd that readers might take offense at what Fr. Cahill says since most of my blog readers are presumably Catholic, I would note (a) that my readership is actually quite diverse and includes people from many different perspectives, including some readers who are Jewish, (b) I’ve known conservative, non-PC Catholics to take offense at this book before, and (c) I think that many of my Catholic readers would take offense at passages from Fr. Cahill like:
Jewish Influence.–As in the case of Liberalism, Freemasonry, Bolshevism, and almost every modern movement that is essentially unchristian and anti-Christian, the formation and development of Individualistic Capitalism unquestionably owes much to the Jews. The whole modern system of finance, upon which modern capitalism pivots, is practically a Jewish creation, and the world of finance is to-day almost completely dominated by the Jews. Again, English Puritanism which is so closely associated with the rise of Indivdiualistic Capitalism, seems to exhibit a certain affinity with modern Judaism. The Jews were always specially favoured by the Puritan leaders, and attained much influence in England under Cromwell, the greatest and most typical of the English Puritans. Again, the selfish concentration upon matrial gain and the worship of worldly success, which are characteristic of the modern individualistic spirit, take the place of real religion with Jew and Puritan alike [p. 144].
Knowing that the book contained passages such as this (and it is one of many in which Cahill railed against "the Jews"), I concluded that I needed to warn individuals who might wanted to look up the references that they would find such material in the book.
This doesn’t mean Cahill is wrong about what the just price concept meant or that the just price concept is a bad one. Even people who are bigoted enough to say that "selfish concentration upon material gain and the worship of worldly success . . . take the place of real religion" with Jewish (and Puritan) people can correctly understand and articulate economic concepts and even endorse good ones.
Being a bigot in one area doesn’t mean that you’re wrong in others. It does mean, though, that your works will be quoted with warnings given about them.
Not wanting to sidetrack the discussion with Fr. Cahill’s prejudices, however, I didn’t quote such passages and issued the warning as modestly as I could think to.
Finally, Mr. Richert takes exception to my characterization of the Middle Ages as impoverished compared to modern times. His response is that modern times are spiritually impoverished compared to the Middle Ages.
This is quite true. The faith among the Christian population was stronger then and suffused their culture in a way it does not today. This aspect of the Middle Ages is much to be admired and, if possible, duplicated at some point in the future (though B16 doesn’t see that happening any time soon).
Mr. Richert points out that there are values that transcend economics and that must be pursued, and this is also quite true. He tells a poignant story involving Mother Theresa, which is spiritually compelling and a powerful testimony to the value of compassion over money.
These points do not mean, however, that the economics of the Middle Ages were correct, that they should be applied today, or that the Church requires us to believe in them.
If I have inadvertently given Mr. Richert offense, I again apologize.
It is disappointing that Mr. Richert wished to end his involvement in this discussion on such a sour note.
It is also disappointing that, having requested that I do an analysis of the just price concept, he would choose not to interact substantively with the reasoning I laid out.
Should he choose to continue the discussion, I would be very interested to hear what he might have to say to two of the points that I raised:
- If the just price concept is to play a moral restraining function and not be identified from or solely from the free market price of a good and not be identified through a series of price controls then what criteria does Mr. Richert think that a merchant should look to that do not substantially involve considerations of the item’s supply or the needs of those who purchase it?
- Does Mr. Richert acknowledge that by asking for a just price to be determined that is not substantially affected by "scarcity or the special needs of the buyer" that he is asking for a price to be determined in a way not substantially affected by considerations of supply and demand?
Mr Richert was entirely justified in criticising you Mr Akin. Your justification of price gouging was an outrageous rationalisation of greed.
On a more general note it seems to me that the loudest American Catholics tend to want to justify their own political ideologies as the genuine face of Catholocism. For example, in the seventies liberal ideology was justified as the true spirit of Vatican II, while now we get conservatives like yourself who are trying to deform the face of Christ into that of Milton Friedman.
Now now,
Analyses grounded in sound economic principles seem to make people mad.
What we may think to be a ‘reasonable’ or ‘socially just’ price has nothing to do with how much it must have cost for a good or a service to be provided.
In times when a type of good becomes scarce, it is only natural for its price to rise as a means to ration it among those who have value it the most (who are able to pay more). After all, there is only so much of the good.
How else could we distribute this good? Well, we could get it rationed. But who would we leave to be in charge of the rationing? And to whom, on what merit, should we ration the good that is scarce? I can hear the word government a mile away now. But the government also have their own motives and not mentioning all the red tape involved in getting the good across to the people. In an extreme situation, certain ideas of ‘social justice’ drives a nation to put all the resources into its government’s hands. It’s this thing called communism.
It’s been said many times already, but the free-market is the vehicle through which resources can be maximized. It should be pursued and the gains could be redistributed – to a certain extent – to increase the welfare of hopefully everyone in a society.
The analysis is not so much a rationalization of greed as it is an analysis of the interaction of incentives and actions. I must say that Jimmy has articulated his understanding of and informed opinions on the issue in a remarkably clear, reasoned and dispassionate way.
I have heard someone saying that, the Church would teach us to take a dollar from our pocket and give it directly to the poor. This is in contrast to giving that dollar to the government only to have a fraction of it actually given to them.
Or to expect sellers and producers to be selling at we may think to be ‘just’ for that matter, disregarding actual costs and scarcity in the process.
Before simply accusing someone of espousing a rationalizatin of a political idealogy, do your homework first. This is the best one can so to respect the intellect of the other party and himself.
Amare Et Severe,
Anne Louise
@The Wild Woman of Borneo
“In fact, I know of cases of conservative Catholics complaining about this book before.” Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. You didn’t specify the cases by name. You bad boy. 😉
Mr. Richert should heed Mr. Spock’s advice to Dr. McCoy: “Please try to control your leaps of illogic.”
Jimmy, the ability to reason objectively is held by a lower percentage of the populace than most people assume. Unfortunately, the fellow with whom you are arguing does not have it. Much like people frequently do with political opinions, he is proceeding from a set of unstated assumptions. In this case, he cannot see the difference between price gouging (an immoral taking advantage of others) and standard supply/demand economic theory. To him, any apologia for adjustments to gas prices is a justification for greed*. One of my favorite sayings, which you are doubtless already familiar with: You cannot reason a person out of an opinion he did not reason himself into.
* When, in fact, the explanation is pretty simple: to keep a business operating, I have to be able to replace my inventory. Some people, like Mr. Richert, believe the only relevant factor in pricing is what it cost you to buy what you are selling. But what it will cost you to *replace* what you are selling is even more important, especially in a situation with a commodity which turns over as fast as gasoline. Sell gasoline that cost you $2.00 a gallon for $2.20 and you’ve got a reasonable 10% profit margin — but if replacing that gas costs you $2.50 a gallon, you’ll be out of business soon, unless you’ve got an unlimited pool of capital to draw from.
Of course, Mr. Richert would take the above explanation as an argument that charging $10.00 a gallon is justifiable. No, it isn’t, but the difference is between a “fair” profit and “gouging,” and is simply unquantifiable.
“Mr Richert was entirely justified in criticising you Mr Akin. Your justification of price gouging was an outrageous rationalisation of greed.”
mettw-
Neither you nor Mr. Richert seems willing to engage Jimmy on the basis of his arguments, but continue to ramp up your rhetoric with each reasoned response that is made to your position.
Please tell us HOW Jimmy was justifying price-gouging, or how his positions constitute an “outrageous rationalization of greed”. Until then, why should anyone listen to what you say?
People may have observed that Jimmy and I don’t always agree on economics. What seems to be occuring is that there is a bit of talking past each other. Jimmy’s comment seemed to be on the general rise in gas prices nationally. Scott was basing his criticism on gas prices local to the Atlanta area. One cannot clearly infer from Jimmy’s remarks an endorsement of the high gas prices in Atlanta. In subsequent posts on the topic generally he states that government intervention may be necessary in some instances. That to me, makes the inference invalid.
My observation is that this situation was being used as a backdoor to engage or criticize Jimmy on the compatibility of free markets with Catholic social teaching. If Jimmy is like most free market types, he doesn’t support free markets, because they are the best expression of Catholic social teaching, but because capitalism is the only workable economic theory and to work from any other foundation would lead to chaos. In other words, Jimmy most likely doesn’t disagree with Catholic social teaching as much as he disagrees with applying it to a false foundation of something other than Capitalism. So, charging him with disobedience is likely to offend him.
Please note, I’m not saying any of this to offend anyone; I’m trying to offer a reasonable and charitable explanation. I realize I’ve made a number of assumptions, and if I have incorrectly pigeon holed you Jimmy, I apologize. You have been more than gracious in creating the Great Depression thread, so I’m not really looking to have any further economics debates for awhile.
It is not that supply and demand do not enter into the equation, but that profit needs to be restrained to the level that provides a good but modest living for the business owner. Hence the “natural price point” of hotel rooms after the hurricane based solely on supply and demand is irrelevant because the increase in demand has not been reflected in an increase in costs to the hotel owner (to the extent is did he might be justified in raising prices by that amount).
The hotel owner in not morally justifed in increasing his income because a catastrophe has caused in increase in demand for his product. This is price-gouging. Profit must be restrained to a reasonable level and economic activity must be subordinated to the common good.
But how to ration you ask? Maybe first come first served? or maybe only rent one room per family? Maybe the hotel owner would rent first to people he knows or relatives? Any of these would be a moral response. Serving the rich and not the poor for your own personal gain is not.
Just Price, Economics and the Middle Ages
Finally, Mr. Richert takes exception to my characterization of the Middle Ages as impoverished compared to modern times. His response is that modern times are spiritually impoverished compared to the Middle Ages. This is quite true. The faith among the…
More on Richert-Akin
Should he [Scott Richert] choose to continue the discussion, I would be very interested to hear what he might have to say to two of the points that I raised: 1. If the just price concept is to play a…
More on Richert-Akin
Should he [Scott Richert] choose to continue the discussion, I would be very interested to hear what he might have to say to two of the points that I raised: 1. If the just price concept is to play a…
Dear Ben,
Well, yes, the first come first served basis is a method that could be used. Any of those methods you mentioned can be used – they are at the disposal of the seller or producer.
However, in those cases, there would be wastages occuring:-
1. The utility of the consumers who would have got to enjoy the good if there were more of the good produced (at higher prices).
2. The full profits that could have been realized by selling at the ‘equilibrium price’.
I understand that most of the objection lies with the reservation as to the sellers’ motives. It is quite safe to assume that in general, producers and sellers are profit-maximizing.
Profit-maximization is something, I do not opine to be intrinsically bad. If it rids of wastages and maximizes resources, there would be a larger economic pie. As mentioned, if the resources could be redistributed well – it should be pursued.
For instance, the producer maximizes his profits and donates a large sum of it to the poor or uses the money to run a charity center.
However, it is up to a seller how he conducts his business – whether to maximize profits or not. That is why I think charitable organizations specialize in what they do – it is more efficient that way – businesses and them each doing what they do best.
Amare Et Severe,
Anne Louise
Humm.
Objecting to prices on the ground they are “gouging” is an outrageous rationalisation of greed.
Arguing that whoever comes first is entitled to all of a good that many more people could benefit from it is certainly greed. 0:)
1) If a hotel owner raises the price of his rooms during a hurricane (or its aftermath) above the level of the increases in the cost of operations brought on by said disater so that he may profit by the misfortune of others, he is acting sinfully. To say so isn’t greed; it is an act of mercy: admonish the sinner.
2)Maximizing profit is not intrinsically evil. There are instances when the price which maximizes profit coincides with the just price. However, there are cases when maximizing profits is sinful, even mortally so. Unfortunately, the assertion that something is not intrinsically evil has become an increasingly popular method of excusing sin, but it is a straw man.
Ben, you beg the question. Especially when the question raises greed on the other side: those buying want as much as possible for as little as possible. Even if the rebuker is not himself the buyer, it raises the question of self-righteousness.
To reverse your comment: if a hotel owner, for whatever reason, has a high cost of operations, so that he charges $100 more than a neighboring hotel, do you maintain that it is your duty to take that hotel room in indifference? Is it greed on your part to take the other hotel’s room?