destroyed."st be if we replace the word carthage with free market ideology, you can imagine pope francis using this most famous line. usually post do not use such language as the verb to destroy. perhaps you could say that the pope would say that free market ideology needs to be repealed or replaced, but in any event, we do not have to speculate about what he has said, and we can look at what he has said. i'm borrowing some of the same quotes that is a guarded. this economy kills. some people continue to defend thatle-down theory it will in a globally succeed in bringing about better justice and inclusiveness in the world. this opinion which has never been confirmed by the facts in those naive trust wielding economic power and in the second was working of the

economic system. he has repeatedly condemned the idolatry of the market and has said in a speech to its present harvey referred to in bolivia, when capital becomes an idol, you get pain, death, and a structured and the stench of the dung of the devil. words, perhapsg a strong as carthage must be destroyed. his ideology is traditional, systemic, and anthropological. it is supremely traditional. but then it set the economy must be autonomous and shielded from hasuence of moral character led men to abuse the process and a thoroughly destructive way. pope john the second set the state of inequality between individuals and nations not only still exists, it is increasing. it is obvious that a fundamental defect or rather a series of

, indeed a defective machinery, is at the root of contemporary economics and materialistic civilization, which does not allow the human family to break free from such radically unjust situations. onn paul to also said speaking of the poor and disadvantaged, it is not the question of eliminating the most serious needs here and there, but uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political, and economic structures more just pope paul the sixth condemned erroneous autonomy, a phrase -- we ran ace here symposium last year called erroneous autonomy, the catholic taste against libertarianism. we had a follow-up conference in june on faith and solidarity, using erroneous autonomy as highlighting the difference

andeen libertarian thought social thought to one of my favorite poets is from highest .he 11th he wrote that just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on the opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to free competition of forces. ar from this source as from poison spring has originated and spread all the areas of individualist economic thinking. we can go back even further to the gospel in which the blessed virgin mary says he has filled the hungry with good things and he has sent away empty. so what is the difference with pope francis? i would submit that he is quite blunt and you cannot spin him. benefitl ii and the 16th were interpreted by conservative voices to intermec and audience and they brought a distorting lens to what those two great popes had to say. with pope francis, there is no need to interpret.

of of the early criticisms pope francis was that he is very confusing. there's nothing confusing about it. you can go talk to some immigrant workers who work picking tomatoes that we will have our salad at lunch and they are not confused by pope francis. the people leveling that charge just don't like what he has to say. the critique is systemic. the change that pope francis calls for is not merely the individual capitalist become more virtuous. he is all in favor of virtue as opposed to vice, but it is deeper than that. if that were the case and only a matter of people behaving more virtuously, any system would do. i want to remind you that if men were angels, there were be no t.vernment could one is based on the facts of the ground and one is based. could you both, he does

condemning the system itself. free market ideology opposes all government and intervention in the market. teachingcis and social do not share this tour of government to government isn't especially, good. it is called tonight justice. john paul ii said that a just society is "not directed against the market but demands the market be a perfectly controlled." you could compare this who said liberty is always freedom from the government. the 16th pointed out, free market your allows no room for gratuitousness. we could compare this to mosaic law and forgiveness of death on a regular as it basis. self interest is a sin.

out, itson were pointed is different than what capitalism means. when he deals with some of these are,s, he pulls on office but i think the overlap is obvious. it foundation belief is the universal destination of goods, which means that all the kids of the world are to be distributed so that everyone has enough to live and participate in society. this claim is prior to property rights. private property rights can be recognized, but only as a consequence of the fall. divergence atof comes up all the time is that free-market ideologues always seem to have it in for organized labor. going back, the church has exclusively endorsed the rights of workers to unionize and have

never drawn a distance in between public and private sector workers and the right to organize. turning to the live reality, i think it is more important for pope francis. you said on several occasions that reality is more important than ideas. it is often served in some basis in fact that capitalism and other accrued from want of my lifted no one out of poverty, but if at the same time anexcludes others, it is unjust system and unworthy of the human person, in adequate as an economic system. look at the transpacific trade deal, which seems to be stalled, but if it goes through, one of these we can anticipate is that certain jobs and factories to the subject to accords in north america to go to vietnam and malaysia. invite ade accords race to the bottom with wages. we can look at the issue of debt crisis.

why is austerity disproportionately harming the poor? why is that always the first option. i was pleased to see last month that leaders have called for a different approach that puerto rico is facing. it is an odd situation in puerto rico. they fall between these two of that they are not a sovereign nation so they cannot work with statef and they are not a so they cannot go to think or to detection and they asked for the fed to restructure debt, and not to start with austerity but with a haircut to the hedge funds. i'm for that. that is a good idea. we can look at the 2008 economic meltdown. even alan greenspan, who i answer is devoted to free-market ideas, as needed -- admitted the crisis forced him to reevaluate his neoliberal associates. we saw scott walker roll out an

attack on them. leo 13thand for defended the unions. you can look at the circumstances of the shop owner who provides a living wage. the phrase living wage entered the american lexicon in 1906. it was based on leo's writings. the catholic belief is that every person is entitled to a living wage. the shop owner is a good catholic and wants to live by his faith and extends the living wage and his competition across the street doesn't, what in the market rewards the good guys? as greg gregory writes in his book, commenting on the transformation from a mercantilist to a capitalist system, "in effect, outside the price protection afforded by guilt, catholic practices have compelled to consult competitors to act as if driven by inquisitive desires even when they were not."

gregory describes the shift from the good society to the goods society which raises the an blem withl pro capitalism. capitalist that we and the west have succeeded where the communists failed. we have made a culture that is thoroughly materialistic instead of one big party. idols in our department stores. i think of the war on christmas every when news gets all worked up because this department store or that chain has dropped merry christmas in favor of happy holidays. if you want through department store between thanksgiving and christmas and new think the choice of happy holidays is the problem with what modern consumer capitalism has been to christmas, i suggest you missed the point. that taken a holiday about god become important in human flesh and took it as a chance to teach young people on how to be greedy.

is exactly what christmas has become in this country. i talk about the outspoken difficulties. there is some debate in free-market circles about whether the free-market ideology even contains a moral sense. on the freeman said that economic freedom is an engine itself. freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom. more on the issue of freedom and it appeare in a bit. there's no sense in calling the result just or unjust. in this view, the market is a tool that can be used well or badly with efficiency as the only relevant criteria. i think this is wrong. i think that tools always applies and that results can be efficient and unjust at the same time. pope francis explicitly want about using efficiency as the own criteria for evaluating other economic and social activity in his encyclical on the apartment. is and argue there

argument at the heart of ideology by posing a few questions. what does the market celebrate? who are its heroes and comparing these with a catholic. view? celebrates a self-made man. it' so brits thrift and or simplicity, which has a different flavor from frugality. it's over its self-assertion and not sell surrender. it's a great success. like all catholics celebrate scout. market runs and competition not cooperation. need i go on? american capitalism was celebrated in a show called "lifestyles of the rich and famous." pope francis has ministered in the name of christ to the poor and forgotten. the kristen at the coalition been clouded in u.s. culture. we tend to confuse fortune with

blessing. pope francis reminds us of the good news of the gospel is brought to the poor. if i may quote with the parker, if you want to know it got pix of money, just look at the people he gave it to. [laughter] finally, we will turn to the anthropological difference. when i say anthropology, i'm not talking about excavating for tools for 500 years ago. the church in something very rich and specific when it refers to the human person and that is a social meaning and not met thomas understanding. -- an autonomous understanding i think these examples will highlight the difference. critics complain this will create a culture of dependency. in a pedestrian sense, this criticism is valid. on program should create ramps to participate fully in society and not create disincentives to work or fully form a family. at a deeper level, a culture of

entitlement and dependency is precisely what free-market ideology cannot deliver, but what the christian vision demands. people really are entitled to a living wage. they are entitled to a roof over their heads. to secure retirement. they are entitled to access to health care. for christians, the human person is radically dependent first on god. every time we say grace, we prey from my bouncy. the bond on dependence is called solidarity neighborliness. i'm reminded that the hyatt said that we would gain "from not treating one another as neighbors." jesus said we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. requires aan vision focus on god and our fellow men and women. it always takes priority.

david schindler said that selfishness becomes mutual and it is not yet mutual generosity. atther point of difference the ecological level is this word freedom, which is a deeply ambiguous word that may carry far too much weight in a variety of contemporary political discussions. freedoms that we have at the basis of our constitutional system and that the friedman and hayek quotes refer to earlier -- this is not the freedom of the children of god. the catholic church cannot accept negative freedom from conception of freedom as adequate. you saw this in the debate over the decree on religious liberty and at the vatican council. everyone focuses on the big debate of the advocates of religious freedom versus the opponents. more interesting debate was among them are yet to did in race -- the people who did embrace the american

constitutionalism and the french people who saw it as a problem. see it asdocuments to a consensus document, john carney murray said this was an issue that we have to skate around. as we see in the issues surrounding the contraception mandate and i would argue here on the issues of economic liberty: we can no longer skate around other issues. the ice has gone far too thin. the catholic faith teaches that we humans are called to communion to solidarity god and with one another. everything the church teaches about human relations, including economics, flows from our belief that the human person is created in the image and likeness of god. our most foundational belief -- thatd is the trinity god himself as a communion of persons. it is in this image that we are created. denounce or demean solidarity

event and celebrate an autonomous self and build an economic theory around that is to challenge a christian's most about who god is. in this great free country of ours, we are all free to stand with high and friedman. i'm much happier to be standing with pope francis. [applause] marian: thank you very much. last speaker is jw richards, a professor at the catholic university of america. of then executive other stream and a senior fellow at the discovery institute. ,e is an author of many books including "infiltrated" and "indivisible" in 2012. he is the author of "money, greed, and god," ." he has been published in "wall

street journal" and other prestigious venues. with that, please help me w. richards. jay: it is fun to be in the auditorium for the subjects. since i went last, i realize that many other things that i was want to say are many things that president garvey has said or michael has said. i will check my plans are lower. i do want to address the question on how we understand pope francis. unless you are a full-time pope follower or write for a catholic publication or teach at a public university, virtually everything you think you know about any pope, especially this one, is coming to you second or third hand from the media. what he actually says is very different from what he effect says. michael quoted his statement about the dung of the devil. you quoted the actual statement that pope francis said.

pope francis called capitalism the dung of the devil. in the speech, he does not use the word capitalism. that is what is on about many of the things that pope francis says. he very rarely uses the word capitalism. i think that perhaps is delivered. my favorite example of media distortion has nothing to do with these topics. spoke to, pope francis the pontifical academies of science and was talking about how catholic plg understand god. it was reported in the english-speaking press that the pope had said to the scientists that god is not a divine being. let that sink in. the pope said that god is not a divine being. when i saw this, if i could make money finding media distortions, i would try to monetize this. this cannot possibly be right. so i went to the vatican new site and look at an english translation there, it was there. you cannot just the vatican new the on these things in

short-term. i went to the original speech in italian and what he had said is demiorgos. not a it is that god is not a top member of the universe and he christened it member of creation. translated like a game of telephone internationally had it same the pope is not a divine being. it came from what i am sure the pope is saying. that is how vatican actually get paid what we'll talk about for today, in fact what i wanted to say has already been said, is the thought that capitalism from the eyes of pope francis. is what i really want to focus on. i mentioned that pope francis rarely uses the word capitalism. until yesterday, i've not been able to find an example of him using the term at all. it turns out that if the story is to be trusted -- a year ago or two years ago in 2013, he

gave a talk to a soup kitchen in rome in which he referred to something called savage capitalism. i thought, perfect, here we go. when he defined this term savage capitalism, it was the logic of profit at any cost. int is a very specific idea a debate of a fair interpretation of capitalism as it is normally defend it or not -- it is clear to see that is what he had in mind. as president garvey said, many of the things that the pope writes, including in his most recent encyclical and his previous apostolic letter, he does not say a lot about these particular things. -- if i'mlic letter correct, it was only about eight pages in which he discusses economic topics at all. he does say this from pages 53-60. he says that we must say no -- and this is a direct quote -- "to an economy of exclusion, to

a new idolatry of money, we must say no to a financial system that rules rather than serves, and we must say no to the inequality to which sponsored violence." so if you are a defender of the free market, do you disagree with that or anything he said there? would you say no to an economy of exclusion or an idolatry of -- toor tuna quality inequality that spawns violence? however that she specifically condemns what he calls the absolute autonomy of markets. this is a term that he has used several times. it is something that pope francis and pope benedict used a term like that. reiterate that he refers to those who can continue to defend trickle-down theories that it will inevitably succeed and bring about greater justice

and inclusiveness in a world, such of you he writes, expresses a crude and naive trust in those wielding economic power and in the workings of the prevailing economic system. he says this -- we cannot longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. i think it would be fair to say and i would love to chat to spin this, and some people like to do this, especially those who think of the live alternatives that economic freedom is the best thing to go. you would like to spin this away, but i think pope francis when we fixssion -- this year. it looks like a quick off on me. -- i could keep going. here you go. michael was telling me beforehand that this is the reason he does not use powerpoint. they go. you've got another reason. i think it is fair to say that

his view of capitalism as he understands it is generally not positive. as president garvey says, he does have positive things to say about business and its role in creating wealth and creating jobs. i think that is the best that we can say. taken together so that his apostolic letter in his most recent encyclical and many of his extemporaneous and written speeches, i think the better thing to do is focus on what pope francis is primarily saying because he says many things over and over. i think we can take these as sort of recurring themes on the subject. he speaks frequently about what he calls speculation. the last week was speaking in italy i believe to a cooperative bank association in room. he talks about economic ideologies that deny human dignity, that and pray selfishness and greed. -- embrace selfishness and greed. he talks again a lot about the idolatry of money and ideologies

ize money.try about any said a lot quality, this does not distinguish him from virtually any other pope from the 20th or 21st century. he doesn't vote the idea -- does invoke the idea of the invisible hand. we can no longer trust the guidance of this invisible hand, which is the term that adam smith came up with. ingly, smith only use the term twice. whatever pope francis is talking about these things, invariably he has one subject in mind -- poverty. poverty is precisely the thing that motivates everything he says about these. if you tend to be skeptical of the things pope francis says about the economy, at least

understand this. are notgs he says that simply because of ideological collection, but because his profoundly concerned about the poor. the reason he took the name francis is because of his concern about before. nevertheless, i think my twitter handle is incidentally free marketjay. some of the things he says feel like a caricature. that is not something i would defend and certainly not any of the things that people i admire whatever defend. to christians, where does he specifically get the ideas that he has about what free-market capitalism or entrepreneurial capitalism actually are? i think it was a fairly clear reason for that. it requires us to make a useful distinction. many of the things he says about the global financial system, about the financial crisis, as marion said, i wrote a book in 2013 about the financial crisis. it's an abiding interest of mine. many of the things he says about

the financial system ring true when talking about that. when i read them on that, they ring true to me not as a critique of free-market capitalism, but as a critique of something we might call cronyism or corporatism. in so far as you understand what he talks about and what he is saying in that light, if you say what he is connoting or do noting in referring to, it is but theviews of smith corporatism and cronyism that often stands and for those things in some degree in the united states, but certainly in many countries in south america. this i think is really important because pope francis as an argentine has experienced for his entire life a particularly brutal, or what i would call, a hard corporatism, if you want to call that i've not been to argentina. i have friends who have and is a crucial thing to realize about

whenfrancis is experienced he is talking about the social economic system in things like this that he uses fairly vaguely. in 1900, argentina was one of the world's 10 wealthiest nations in terms of gdp per capita. because of this, there was massive immigration from northern europe in the early 20 century to argentina. you do not think of it this way anymore and is largely the result of juan peron and his wife, who came to power and ideology very difficult to describe in the left-right clinical spectrum. you think of it as a populist leftism which is a aristocratic attempt for the commerce class and the booze was the. bourgeoisie. it appeals to the common people that implicates former cronyism

in which large economic factors working collusion with the state to raise themselves and not to enrich the common people. if you think about what pope francis is saying in that light and think about his experience of cronyism in argentina, much of what he says starts to make sense. i did not want to say that he is clearly making these distinctions. he consisting was between the type of cronyism that is still rife in argentina in the type of free-market capitalism that you'll get in some place like hong kong or the type of general free economy that you would have been in place like south korea. he does not make these distinctions and i would very much to see him make those. nevertheless, i think it is absolutely important to understand his expense. what about argentina? argentina is now a basket case recentlyeconomic index has it one 79th in terms of economic freedom. it is between the democratic republic of congo and the

republic of congo. they are not doing very well. if you are in the south america plutocrats in cahoots with the state. that is your picture of capitalism. what pope francis says makes sense. here's the question. what to do? imagine you are a catholic philosopher.

you look at different political economies. you have no sense that there is a utopia. grounds, economic freedom as it tends to be defended in terms of rule of law best alternative for lifting large numbers of people out of absolute poverty? if you are aware of the things you can see at human progress or it these are empirical facts. to look atrying different ideologies. we are asking an empirical question. what mix of structures and institutions is most conducive to lifting large numbers of

people out of poverty? what if you are a faithful catholic and you are convinced that it's free economic systems that do this? understand a few things about the way in which authority works in the catholic church. you have to make distinctions. everyone who is not catholic, , i askede evangelicals them to study theology. it means the things is infallible. that's not true. you can discover this in about five minutes. that tends to be the impression. unless there is a detailed that hasl body of text

come to be known as catholic social teachings, the popes are applying particular themes from catholic theology and also from natural law to the abiding questions of economics and politics. i would refer to the central infallible core of these things as the principles you see articulated and a presupposed in these documents of catholic social teaching. it's a mistake to think that catholic social teaching equals some detailed catholic political policy. details how a it tax system should be put together or how immigration policy should be put together. it provides a set of principles that i would argue provide a lens for thinking through these issues. catholicot provide a

political position. they differ and disagree on a different political topics. how pope john paul ii put it. he said the social doctrine is not a way between marxist collectivism. it constitutes a category of its own. it does not mean that the principles, they are sealed from economic concern. what it means is they provide a which moral categories you ought to reflect on. person,ity of the human the destination of good,

good, you, the common ought to bring these categories to questions. it's not going to answer every single question. that's a prudential question based upon your analysis and empiricals based upon details as far as you understand them. put it veryt nicely. pope, he put it this.ay for i take it's not a third way. it is not irrelevant to moral questions. that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality, but

moralism. it is the antithesis of morality. he goes on to put it exactly the other way. when these things come together we have a hold is much greater than the sum of its parts. the are appreciative of the good that economic freedom brings to human beings. that ought to be our goal. it would not to sort of separate these things. not say that catholic teaching is one thing but economics just involves is sort of impurecal questions. it's rather is this. it's distinguishing the economic ideologies that pope francis talks about, that michael talked about. from the empirical results and discoveries and the theoretical

insights of economics and integrating those things with the perennial principles of catholic social teaching. i would argue if that's done properly, they can be an advocate of economic freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will now open it to q&a. please wait to be called upon. that's for the benefit of our viewers. microphone will come to you. and would you please be so kind to make your question really short and in a form of a question so we can get through as many of them as possible. so are there any questions in the audience? the gentleman over here. >> wonderful talks by everyone. my name is steven shore. i have a question that -- of a

dog that didn't bark. a classic distinction between accidents and substance, and when the holy father talks about the capitalism, is he clear as to whether he's attacking unfortunate accidents or the very substance itself? >> so far as i can tell he tends not to make that distinction. pope john paul did make that to capitalism. i'd frankly love them to make the difference but pope john paul ii, st. john paul ii said if by capitalism we mean this then no. if by capitalism means this then yes. but let's call it something else. and very often i think not just

catholics but many people, many critics of free market economics don't distinguish the metaphysical assumptions and the ideologies that might be the package of someone making the case for economic freedom and the real system itself or simply the question, just the empirical question. if we look at the types of systems and institutions that societies have, in which do societies tend to do better off or not? and frankly i did this as a college student is i confused say, the moral assumptions with the case for economic freedom. but the catholic doesn't need rand. there's plenty of ways to make the case for economic without that. i would argue we don't want to do that. if you want to be a catholic that is sort of in this area is use authentically catholic resources and develop the case for economic freedom based upon our empirical knowledge and key

insights that are not dependent on ideologies. division of labor, these sorts of things. subjective theory of value versus the labor theory value, these are insights drawn from economic study but they're not dependent on any particular ideology. marian: in the back. just one second. >> the man with the baby. >> i was wondering how you would define economic freedom and if that concept exists anywhere in the papal and cyclicals and formal documents? jay: is this for anyone? >> no. jay: the passage i referred to in a 2005 incyclical by benedict xvi, the only case there is a reference so far as i know in a

papal incyclical to the role of -- i forget if he uses the market or freedom, lifting billions out of poverty which may be a bit of an exaggeration. it's one sentence. there's a reference -- he is aware of the fact that india and china they've lifted people out of poverty. there's not a lot of reference to that. there's reference to freedom. the freedom that's discussed in catholic teaching is not a merely sort of negative freedom from. it's a freedom for, what i would

>> hi. my name is nona, a card-carrying economist.

and i'm also probably a disappointed catholic. i was -- i was really put off by the handouts. marian: can we ask the question. forgive me. the time. >> i guess i want to say, even the question if you believe in capitalism the pope is saying we can do better and my childhood there is what we called liberation theology, which my irish mother -- marian: ok. thank you, thank you very much. can we do better and what about liberation theology? >> i take can we do better part because that's certainly an easy one. sure, we can. i, like both jay and michael

sean, there is a danger in flattening what the pope has to say in the same way as political writers in the united states or members of political parties in the united states tend to flatten things for public consumption. i think what the pope has to say about this is enormously complicated and sophisticated and i think it should be understood in the same way and not flattened. let me just give one example. when we talk about the economic recession that we went through in the united states in 2008 and affected much of the western world then and then has traveled around the globe to the other side, there's a tendency to say on the one hand, this is the fall of the bankers who were gouging people and just concerned with the profit motive and repackages mortgages and deceiving people.

that's one theory, popular on the left. there is another theory, popular on the right, that it's the fault of barney frank and fannie and freddie which forced the banks to give loans to those who really shouldn't be getting them. when the pope talks about this thing, he talks about both of those sides and a third side which is the kind of materialism or the consumerism of the borrowers. he said, look, you're all guilty of the same sin which is a lust for consumption and for acquiring things. the bankers want to make more money, the government can't be trusted because they're human beings like the bankers and given to their own prestigious and desires and the consumers who take out loans for 100% of their property value which they can't repay, they, too, are guilty of the same kind of materialism and consumerism. so we can all do better but we have to begin with ourselves.

so in this kind of world, there isn't a solution that says that unregulated free market capitalism will be the right way to go. he says we need the government to tame the excesses of capitalism, but we shouldn't trust the government either, and he knows that better than anybody having lived under fernandez. this is a personal message as much as it is a message of political reform. marian: anyone wants to comment on the liberation theology, does it have a place in the catholic teaching today? michael sean: the condemnation was not -- there are other liberation theologians that waeren't condemned. it is the condemnation, the understanding of the human person that certain theologians put forward and certainly materialistic reductionism in understanding of the person. i have argued you could cut,

copy and paste that condemnation of certain liberation theologians and apply it to, say, an institute today. you would have to change some direct objects. but they make the exact same mistakes in their effort to defend or to baptize free market capitalism which is a -- which is something that cannot be done and at the level of -- at that theoretical level which is the differences i quoted in my remarks, these are directly in contradiction with one another. so i think -- but the night he was elected, i spoke to a friend and i had to go on their tv show and talk about him. i didn't know much about him. a lot of us didn't.

the thing to remember -- we knew that he was opposed to -- he said the latin american bishops never stopped asking the question -- what does it mean to exercise a preferential option for the poor? even after this condemnation. this gets to earlier the discussion of the levels of authority that, you know, the pope obviously when he's speaking on the plane, it's a different level when he's writing an encyclical. the level of authority could not be higher even on the plane because he's speaking straight from the gospel and there is no higher authority in the catholic faith than the gospel of jesus christ. this is where some of us -- oh, we can part this level of authority we are suspicious of that. and we americans don't always like to hear that. jay: i think michael is right. i would object to certain aspects of liberation theology on impurecal grounds, again.

just to give one example. an idea from an argentina person which held the southern hemisphere, at least south america and central america was poor because north was rich. the fundamental theme in the prominent liberation theologian gustavo gutierrez, if you read his entire argument, it hinges on this dependency, the poverty of the south is a causal relationship between the poverty of the south and the wealth of the north. even gustavo gutierrez in later editions of theology liberation based on the empirical details of economics actually abandon impurecal questions are very, very important here. there are many questions we are talking about economics that are not merely theoretical, not merely philosophical. there is data on it.

it's important, sort of respect the catholic has on science. to take a look at these kinds of things. >> i'm not an economist but i was a lawyer and i was 15 years on the staff on the senate banking committee. so i want to read something here from the actually incyclical itself where the pope says the principle of profits frequently isolated from other considerations reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. now, you can have different types of capitalism, in my view. in the united states, from world war ii until about 1985 or so, we can stakeholder theory of capitalism that you had responsibility out -- marian: could you please ask a question. >> the idea that capitalism has responsibility to its workers, to its community and others and then we shifted into this

shareholder capitalism where the only responsibility is to your shareholders and the c.e.o.'s who did tie to shareholder value, that's quite a different capitalism from what we used to have in this country 30 years ago. i think that's the important thing to understand. you can have different types of capitalism. it's not capitalism as such but whether capitalism can be moderated to produce benefits for the whole society. jay: i think you are talking about particular business models in which, for instance, managers are rewarded, according to short-term sort of monitoring of profits or something like that. i think it's a very bad business model. i think there's a lot of evidence to that. on economic grounds you can make the case that it's immoral to treat profits as the only end of a business. i think the opposite of profit is loss. if it's not an indicator you'll probably be in trouble. nobody will have a job.

the short-term indication, the incentive structures that encourages managers and c.e.o.'s to work for short-term profits but long-term destruction are very bad business models. i totally agree. >> given pope francis's views, what are his perspectives on taxation and more broadly, what are his views on what the state should do to battle inequality? >> i think i can answer your question in a different way. there was a photograph in "the washington post" about three weeks ago when they were having the horrible wildfires in washington state. there is a man whose home was saved. he had on a t-shirt that said lower taxes, less government equals more freedom. [laughter]

now, that firefighter was not only a government employee but i can guarantee you he was a union member and this guy whose house had just been saved was probably a tea partier because they make those t-shirts. that is the problem. now perhaps they should have let it burn and he would be not concerned about all the possessions. the man was on -- it was like the people who are opposed to obamacare when they first passed it and keep the government's hands off my medicare. what? again, the government -- the catholic church has never had this kind of hostile view which goes all the way back to before the american revolution. this hostile view of government. as, you know, the leviathan. that's not how catholic culture and theology ever viewed it. i think that's -- to answer your question, we wouldn't view taxes as repatience. when i ran a business, i remember the owner saying, unless there's 100% tax, you always still have an incentive

to make more money. we forgot that since the reagan years, haven't we? this idea that oh, if you raise the taxes, people will lose their incentives. they got to put their money in something. i never bought that. marian: one question over there in the back. a gentleman. >> yes. this is for all of you because you are all in higher education. where do you see sort of the practical implementation of francis's vision coming from within higher ed outside of sort of professional ethics courses? john: i couldn't quite -- >> where you can see an implementation of francis's position? jay: well, to plug in catholic

u, what we're trying to do is bring together economics and economics as science but economics was originally part of course of essentially ethics, of ethical philosophy. the business school of catholic u is trying to bring together an integration of catholic social teaching with economics and philosophy. it's at least one place that's being done. i'm not saying it's the only catholic institution trying to do that but it's the mission of the school in trying to do that. john: i second that point. one of the interesting points that francis's predecessor make, universities are called universities because they aspire to a universal view of human knowledge that we should not segregate disciplines into economics and political theory and ethics and philosophy that these disciplines ought to be talking to one another. one of the aspirations of our university is to do that very thing. economics divorced from ethics

brings about the kind of problems that the pope is worrying about. michael sean: in our little institute of catholic u, i shouldn't say we have 50 fellows but we will keep going on our erroneous autonomy theories. we'll do another one next june. we are at the beginning levels of trying to put that together and it focuses on these issues very, very clearly and we keep waving the pope francis flag. marian: that's all we have time for. i'm deeply grateful to the panel for this discussion. thank you so much for coming. lunch is upstairs. please come again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

"washington journal" is next. later this morning, a senate , we will hear from the ceo of the aetna insurance company. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. here is more about the pope's visit. c-span has live coverage from washington dc, the first stop on the pope's tour. we are live at the president and mrs. obama to greet the pontiff on his arrival.

the welcoming ceremony for the pope at the -- as the obamas officially welcome him to the white house. asianss and it canada's service at the national shrine of the immaculate conception on thursday morning. pope francis will be the first pontiff to address a joint meeting of congress. pope speaksng, the to the united nations general assembly. a.m., a religious service at the 9/11 memorial. follow coverage of the trip to the united states. >> we will also get some congressional perspective on the pope's trip. talkan boyle joins us to

about the pope's speech before congress. guest is paul vallely. host: security reparations are underway for the arrival of pope francis in washington dc. he will hold a series of it events including address to congress. for more information, no to our website c-span.org. addresse francis does "he lawmakers, "roll call reporting that there will be senators on hand who act as blocking tackles who a