Evangelii gaudium 54 (“trickle-down economics”). Significant translation error...

WDTPRS ^ | 11/29/2013 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[markomalley]

I have mentioned that people have raised translation problems with the new Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium. I posted under another entry about problems with par. 54, which in the English translation mentions “trickle-down” economics.

Since that other post delved into more things – the discussion there has been interesting – I thought it useful to pull out of EG 54 just the first part.

Let us assume that the original composition was Spanish:

54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

Official English…

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

Over at the other post a commentator pointed out that the official English rendering of EG 54 makes Spanish “por si’ mismo” into “inevitably”, but that it really means “by itself”.

Let’s swap in the “by itself” and read it again.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories ["trickle down economics"] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

There is a big difference between “inevitably” and “by itself”!

There are uses of “mismo” that have to do with time, such as “ahora mismo” (“right now”).  This is not one of those.

I think we can stipulate that “las teorías del «derrame»” is an adequate expression for English “trickle down” economics.  We can drill, I suppose, into who generally uses the phrase “trickle down”.  Some will say that only critics use the phrase.  Let’s leave that aside.  Also, I am not convinced that “justice and inclusiveness” does justice to “equidad e inclusión social”.  ”Equidad” is not “justice”.

But the real point here is that in EG 54 the author says that “trickle down” economics cannot by itself produce the desired result.

That is, of course, correct.

No economic plan will solve the problems of the poor by itself.  Economic plans must be carried out by people who have good, solid morals and values.

I submit that these morals and values must be rooted in religion.

Bottom line: Whoever did the English translation of EG 54 did Pope Francis and the watching world a grave disservice and caused confusion.  The use of “inevitably” for ”por si’ mismo” changes the meaning of the key phrase in a significant way.  The confusion will be difficult to rectify.

The Pope is not so much condemning a specific approach to helping the poor, though I think it is fair to assume that he isn’t a fan of “trickle-down” economics.  What he is really going after is the notion that markets, plans, schemes, theories, what have you, can be relied on to help the poor by themselves, that is, without our personal engagement and choice to take responsibility actually to help the poor in concrete ways.

[sitetest]

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories [’trickle down economics’] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.”

It's not that this is untrue, just that it's a strawman argument. I don't know anyone who thinks this. I don't read anyone who thinks this. Pretty much most folks who are economically-sophisticated understand that capitalism actually doesn't work so well in societies that don't abide by a fundamental public morality that includes: respect for property rights; respect for contracts; respect for the rule of law; respect for individual liberties. These things put all persons in a society on an equal footing, legally, and that permits the genius and hard work of individuals to cause them to flourish and prosper.

I don't know any serious folks who think that capitalism can thrive outside of a society without a strong legal and juridical system protecting property, contracts, individual rights, etc.

It's the folks who abridge capitalism, free enterprise, by using government to enforce economic rents for government cronies, by changing the laws after the fact, by INCREASING the power of the regulatory state so that no one REALLY knows what the law is until the regulators, and then the judges have their say. The one with the most expensive lawyers, the most connected lobbyists, and the biggest slush fund wins. The guy practicing actual free market capitalism, well, he may get left out in the cold.

Increasing inequality isn't a result of red-in-the-tooth capitalists run amok, but rather than those who are already rich and powerful buy politicians and REDUCE the function of the markets, and use government to further enrich them, to create regulatory barriers to entry to markets, and to plain old steal from the public purse.

The pope's words seem to be directed at folks that don't exist, and give cover to evil-doers who actually do exist.

[RobbyS]

But Rome is blamed for this. And as for the reforms, they owe more to Cranmer who was certainly a reformer, and a correspondent of Calvin. As to the liturgy and to the government of the Church, both Cranmer and Calvin thought of themselves as the true catholics. Calvin was willing to accept bishops, as we learn by his letters to the Polish reformers, and his own order of service , as opposed to that used by his church, was not much different from Cranmer’s. Let us never confuse Calvin and Knox. Calvin’s mind was subtle.

[Joe 6-pack]

"He should be promoting trickle down enthusiastically."

The Pope's job is to promote Christ enthusiastically. I find it odd, with the original translation which implied an endorsement of redistribution, everybody was saying the Pope should not be promoting economic systems. Now with this translation, the Pope is being criticized for not endorsing free markets as enthusiastically as he should.

[RobbyS]

I am not defending the pope’s words, but as I have said above, We cannot separate out a theory of capitalism from the actual practice of it. The capitalist system emerged from a particular history,our own, and probably could not have emerged from another. I also believe that modern science could only have merged from our western society, this despite the achievements of the Chinese culture. One invented, however, capitalism, like science, can be taken up by very different cultures, like for instance, Japan’s. and now China’s. Once the instrument is invented, it is no longer dependent on the inventor.

[sitetest]

Dear RobbyS,

“We cannot separate out a theory of capitalism from the actual practice of it.”

Why not? We can recognize when the economy of a given nation more closely obtains to free markets, or when it obtains less closely. What happens in China (and even in Japan) isn't free markets, isn't really capitalism. It's a deformation of capitalism.

It's state capitalism, and in China especially, it's crony capitalism. In China, major economic projects usually have the government, via the People's Liberation Army, as a major shareholder. Imagine if the United States government owned a huge chunk of GM or Chrysler. Or the banks.

Oops. Been there. Done that. No one called it capitalism. Everyone willing to tell the truth called it corporatism, state capitalism, or even fascism or socialism. The difference is that in the US, it was somewhat unusual. In China, it's the norm.

Neither China or Japan are about free markets. In fact, what's happening in these countries, especially China, is corporatism, which is really the economic program of fascism, which is a form of socialism.

The cause of the financial problems that the pope cites is actually a form of socialism that uses some forms of capitalism - the corporation, putative private ownership of the means of production (but that is actually directed in its operation by the government), state-controlled banking. You can find many of these features in the economic system of fascist Germany, you know, the Germany of the national SOCIALISTS.

sitetest