Comments on: Government Intervention and High Prices http://catholicexchange.com/2009/12/08/124851/ Catholic News, Catholic Articles, Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Content, Catholic Information Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 By: lkeebler http://catholicexchange.com/2009/12/08/124851/comment-page-1/#comment-44417 lkeebler Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:20:21 +0000 http://catholicexchange.com/?p=124851#comment-44417 There are many things that come at a high price with government intervention. Our children, who are priceless, for one. I won't tell you what blatantly evil and disgusting things GLSEN promotes, and to children, you can look it up yourself, parents be aware (the conference strait from the devil and his demons - 2001 GLSEN conference). But to have this man in any way associated with making any decision for our children should be a crime. This is only one example of the corruption and the decaying of our country... God help us. "Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN. He was paid $273,573.96 as its executive director in 2007. Jennings was the keynote speaker at the 2000 GLSEN conference." There are many things that come at a high price with government intervention. Our children, who are priceless, for one. I won’t tell you what blatantly evil and disgusting things GLSEN promotes, and to children, you can look it up yourself, parents be aware (the conference strait from the devil and his demons – 2001 GLSEN conference). But to have this man in any way associated with making any decision for our children should be a crime. This is only one example of the corruption and the decaying of our country… God help us.

“Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN. He was paid $273,573.96 as its executive director in 2007. Jennings was the keynote speaker at the 2000 GLSEN conference.”

]]> By: Joe DeVet http://catholicexchange.com/2009/12/08/124851/comment-page-1/#comment-44409 Joe DeVet Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:23:51 +0000 http://catholicexchange.com/?p=124851#comment-44409 What's a nice economic piece like this doing in a place like this--a Catholic website? Well, there's a moral dimension to messing with markets which is often overlooked in Catholic discourse about "social justice." We Catholics proclaim a "preferential option for the poor", but as the discussion goes on, many other competing "social-justice" goals tend to get in the way. We see a problem like the loss of the family farm, and we figure we'll subsidize plowing crops under and killing piglets for the sake of the farm. We see a minority who don't have health insurance, and are tempted to think remaking the whole health system will help those few. At the end of the day, we may have helped SOME poor in the short term, but have harmed all the poor in the longer term. Prices are higher and goods and services more limited as a result of the interventions. The rich (includes you and me) are inconvenienced; the poor actually suffer. They don't just "feel" poorer, as the author states, but ARE poorer. So much for the "preferential option." Bearing this in mind, we need to recognize that it is not only a bad idea to intervene in markets the way the current administration is trying to do, it is actually sinful. What’s a nice economic piece like this doing in a place like this–a Catholic website?

Well, there’s a moral dimension to messing with markets which is often overlooked in Catholic discourse about “social justice.” We Catholics proclaim a “preferential option for the poor”, but as the discussion goes on, many other competing “social-justice” goals tend to get in the way. We see a problem like the loss of the family farm, and we figure we’ll subsidize plowing crops under and killing piglets for the sake of the farm. We see a minority who don’t have health insurance, and are tempted to think remaking the whole health system will help those few.

At the end of the day, we may have helped SOME poor in the short term, but have harmed all the poor in the longer term. Prices are higher and goods and services more limited as a result of the interventions. The rich (includes you and me) are inconvenienced; the poor actually suffer. They don’t just “feel” poorer, as the author states, but ARE poorer.

So much for the “preferential option.” Bearing this in mind, we need to recognize that it is not only a bad idea to intervene in markets the way the current administration is trying to do, it is actually sinful.

]]>