Greetings Fellows

[max]

Hello all. I recently subscribed to Dappled Things and joined the forum after searching (via Google, of course) for a potential artistic home.

Presumably like everyone else here, I'm interested in the intersection of my faith with art and culture (chiefly poetry). My main influences in that regard are Dante and T.S. Eliot. From within the Catholic tradition specifically, my thinking and poetic endeavors owe much to Thomist ontology, Mariology, and distributivism.

By way of background, I have a B.A. (1996) in philosophy, literature and theology from Monmouth College (Illinois) and a J.D. (2008) from Quinnipiac University School of Law (Connecticut). I am currently a practicing criminal defense attorney in New Haven, Connecticut.

Through connection with Dappled Things and this forum, I hope to broaden and deepen my apprecation for Creation through engagement with the work and thought of others, through contribution to the Dappled Things community, and through fellowship.

[bluemaydie]

Wow, a distributist!

Actually, I know what those are--my dad's a distributist who's written a couple of books on the subject. John Medaille, if you've ever heard of him. In my spare moments, I'm his proofreader. Check him out at : www.distributistreview.com/press/
</shameless plug>

Although I have to say, I'm suspicious of anyone who likes Eliot. Mainly because I can't make head of tail of him, and I distrust people who are smarter than I.

Welcome to DT!
Kate

[max]

Thanks, Kate! Ah, so my reading list thickens again!

No smarts here. I've been studying Eliot in earnest for 15 years and still scratch my head.

Very happy to be here.
-Max

[syme]

Welcome! I'll second your thoughts on liking Eliot and at the same time scratching my head. But bluemaydie, what of his drama? Haven't you written some plays yourself? I loved Murder in the Cathedral.

Max, I'm intrigued by distributism, but what bothers me is this: I don't think I've ever met a distributist yet that seriously engages with mainstream economic theory. I've talked with a few recently, for example, and it doesn't seem to me they understand the fundamental principle of opportunity cost, on which practically all of economics is built. This leads them to say, for example, that charging interest on a loan according to market rates is actually engaging in the sin of usury, but that can't be because if you understand opportunity cost then not charging interest on a loan is *exactly* like giving money away. In fact, it *is* giving money away. While charity is a great thing, I don't think *not* giving money away in a business situation is a sin. Anyway, I like many of the goals and principles of distributists, but given their general lack of concern for understanding economic theory I have trouble taking them seriously. Thoughts?

[max]

Hi Syme! Thanks for the welcome.

I can't possibly claim to speak for distributists or distributism. My preliminary review of Mr. Medaille's background, for example, though, suggests he grasps the landscape of contemporary economic theory well enough.

That said, to take your specific example, I personally can't imagine any kind of functional lending system that doesn't operate on interest. The original prohibitions on "usura" arose in a time when money was hard currency and thus the actual value of the amount owed would almost always exceed a farm's profits in a given period, i.e., interest owed was not offset by inflation or increased earnings, and the creditors only (and eager) recourse was seizure of the collateral (the land itself). Of course, the very need to borrow grew out of the oppressive tribute/taxation system that lined the pockets both of the Romans and the native colonial government--a tribute system most likely designed to result in the dispossession of the common farmers and the consolidation of landholding into vast plantations.

Considering that, in the ancient Judeo-Christian world, land was ancestral and a gift from God, this system was among the greatest horrors. It probably in large part formed the volatile social circumstances in which Jesus's ministry arose (along with a number of other lesser movements).

The hard-money/dispossession system endured into the last century, also turning vast numbers of American homesteaders into sharecroppers and eventually into wage-earners (or "wage-slaves" as the Populists would term it). Little wonder "usurists" are ranked among the greatest sinners.

Our monetary system of course doesn'twork like that anymore. The chief problem with "usura" now is that it enables over-consumption and invites doom when the bills come due (particularly in light of interest rates that would make Shylock blush).

What I would say is that the credit-union model probably far better fits the distributist ideal than commercial lending does, not only because of the differing institutional motives but because distributism imagines localist economic activity on a scale for which credit unions are appropriate. Moreover, a credit union system is more likely to situate all the stakeholders in a shared community where the consequences of economic failures and successes are more immediately and tangibly shared.

[max]

PS, this seems like a good place to recommend Mr Medaille's blog at distrubutistreview. His most recent is a discussion of Wendell Berry who is one of my heroes.

[estiel]

Just want to say welcome, Max. I can't say anything intelligent about distributism or any other social/political/economic theory. I just know that John Medaille is famous and I'm impressed to learn he's Bluemaydie's dad. But about Eliot--I never read him, for the same reason I never read Flannery O'Conner--not because I don't understand them, but because I do.

[bluemaydie]

Syme--
I always forget about Eliot's plays. Actually, I ahven't read them yet. I suspect that's because I first read "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats," was lured in, read "The Wasteland," was puzzled, and gave up. I should try "Murder," though. It's been recommended often enough.

Speaking of recommendations, Syme, you should try reading "Toward a Truly Free Market." Just came out last month, and was written specifically to be a presentation of distributist principles in real economic terms, not the fluffy nostagic agrarian ones distributists have had a tendency to use. You can find it here: www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist/dp/1935191810/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281468067&sr=8-1

Kate

PS--Seriously? My dad is famous? Awesome!

[max]

Kate; I suppose famous is here used relatively, but I'm with Estiel. I have to admit I'm a bit star-struck to have made the acquaintance not only of his daughter but his proofreader! Toward a Truly Free Market is on my list--probably to be undertaken before the end of this year.

You know, as with many "great" works, I first read _The Waste Land_ because I had to (almost *gulp* 20 years ago now). I read "Burial of the Dead" and was lost and frustrated, but I knew something serious was going on. Then I read it again outloud, acting out the voices, and heard something like an, uh, peri-apocalyptic opera (so to speak), and I was hooked. I've been digging ever since.

Estiel: Although part of me wants to let be such an elegant statement as "I never read him, for the same reason I never read Flannery O'Conner--not because I don't understand them, but because I do," my curiosity overcomes me. How does one know such a thing without ever having engaged the texts?

-Max

[Bernardo]

Welcome Max (and hello everyone else)! I'm getting very interested in this thread. Having just returned from the Chesterton Conference, I was a bit frustrated myself with some of the "fluffy nostalgic agrarian" terms in which most distributists at the conference spoke. As you may know from my information on the DT page, economics was one of my majors in college so while I'm often frustrated by the rampant consumerism that the capitalist system seems to breed, I am all too aware of how well it *works* in terms of generating wealth. For that reason I'd be very interested in the book Kate mentions. As a matter of fact, I was thinking that it would be very interesting to have an exchange in DT between Catholics arguing about the appropriateness of distributist and capitalist ideas for achieving a society that is in accordance with the Church's vision of the good life. If perhaps that is too general, maybe some issue in particular could be discussed (in fact, usury might be good place to start).

So here's a question, Kate: if I found some other author to argue for the capitalist side, would your dad be interested, at least potentially, in carrying the banner for the distributists?

[bluemaydie]

Well, Bernardo, I just shot him an email. So we'll see what he says.

And I'd be interested in reading a capitalist/distributist debate in DT. Good idea!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go schedule time to read "The Wasteland" out loud, because a "peri-apocalyptic opera" sounds like fun.

Kate

[jmedaille]

I am the relatively famous John Médaille; famous I think, mainly for being bluemaydie's only living father.

Usury is still a sin, and still an economic mistake. In fact, the current crises (and most others) is a product of usury. Sharing in the profits of an investment is not usury, nor is collecting fees for lending. But 20% or 30% interest on non-productive loans (e.g., credit cards) is usurious, and it is both bad morality and bad economics.

I would be more than happy to debate my capitalist friends.

[estiel]

"Estiel: Although part of me wants to let be such an elegant statement as "I never read him, for the same reason I never read Flannery O'Conner--not because I don't understand them, but because I do," my curiosity overcomes me. How does one know such a thing without ever having engaged the texts?"
Just to answer Max's question: "Read" is one of those written words that can be *read* as both past and present tense (also past participle). I meant it to be *read* in the present tense. Does that answer your question?

I hope the mentioned discussion does come to pass. I need an education about such things.

[Bernardo]

Excellent! I am looking for an interlocutor for the debate. I will let you know when I find one through Kate. I have one in mind but I don't know if he will be able to do it or not. In the meantime, please feel free to suggest other topics besides usury that we might consider. I'll ask the other person as well and hopefully we can reach some issue everyone will find interesting.

[max]

Holy mackerel! Welcome Mr. Medaille! I have *definitely* come to the right place.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that any debate between capitalism and distributism that is specifically relevant to Catholics should begin with the question, "Which economic system better fosters the conditions that will support a way of life consistent with the Catholic tradition?" A necessary subsidiary question, it seems to me, is what does "wealth creation" mean within the framework of Catholic life?

I wonder if the biggest challenge might not be finding a champion of capitalism who understands distributism and can intelligently respond to it nearly as well as Mr. Medaille can engage capitalism.