Comments on: Is Thomas Woods a Dissenter? A Further Reply, Pt. 3

By: Thomas Storck

Thomas Storck — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:05:13 +0000

In post #42, the "he" in the second sentence refers to Obama, not God.

By: Thomas Storck

Thomas Storck — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:25:17 +0000

Only God know what Obama's economic views really are. I'm not sure even he does. Occasionally he speaks in support of some kinds of economic justice but usually acts like a supporter of corporate capitalism.

But discussing Obama is not very interesting, is it?

By: Contra Thomas Woods « Caelum Et Terra

Contra Thomas Woods « Caelum Et Terra — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:50:55 +0000

[...] One Part Two Part Three Part [...]

By: oil can harry

oil can harry — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:54:14 +0000

Mr. Storck, I didn't think you were a supporter of Obama. However, as I stated, your economic views seem a lot closer to his than to those of Tom Woods.

By: Thomas Storck

Thomas Storck — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:24:14 +0000

Thanks, Robert.

Oil can - why do you imagine I support Bush or Obama giving money to crooked banks while refusing to regulate them. I'm not a socialist, but Obama certainly isn't either. His policies are pretty much those of the previous administration.

By: robert

robert — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:54:38 +0000

Oh come on Oil Can!!! If the only thing we can compare economic reality to is the duopoly policies of the current regime we will never ever get to a level of a conversation. Mr Storck is simply reminding us of our real economic history and is not taking sides in the chimera or what we call "current political debate." Let us read something and ponder it, The Restoration of Property for instance, and then comment on what it says instead of reading this mornings newspaper and slinging political diatribe. Please, let us converse as if there are truths about human beings that we can know instead of this blind and stupid faith in invisible hands that hate us!! What in the heck is a free market if it were not present at some point in our cultural past or is not now saving us as we speak?

By: oil can harry

oil can harry — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:51:03 +0000

Mr Stork (#36), why do you call the President's economic policies "ridiculous" (which they most certainly are) when they match up far more closely with your own than those of free market-types like Tom Woods? Like Obama, you oppose small government, free trade and the gold standard while supporting minimum and "living" wage laws, labor unions and increased regulations like the awful Glass-Steagall Act. You also support the Left in their preposterous crusade against the phantom menace of man-made global warming.

By: Thomas Storck

Thomas Storck — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:10:05 +0000

Mr. Bailey (#35). I don't think that Thomas Woods' opposition to what I say has anything to do with President Obama's ridiculous policies (more or less the same policies that President Bush maintained, by the way). Woods has been promoting what he says for years and the differences run much deeper than anything you say.

And sure, people can misuse Catholic thought to promote bad ideas - they do it all the time. So therefore we should stop promoting Catholic ideas?

By: jack bailey

jack bailey — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:47:54 +0000

Mr. Storck, while I cannot fault you for wanting to heed papal teachings and develop Catholic positions in economics, the whole concept of third way is reminiscent to me of Yugoslavia's self management which was also supposed to be the third way, but it ended up as a delusion. Likewise it appears that your ideas would appeal to Catholic run labor unions (certainly preferable to communist ones) but that is not what we have to worry about. The concepts you are proposing were much more applicable at an earlier age. The challenges of today are very different. We are facing a president that is bent on destroying this society by collapsing the economy for his own pernicious reasons. We can see this every day as he never stops talking and instituting policies that bring harm to yet another group of citizens. This will go on until we are all destroyed. Furthermore, in this climate your paradigm can be used by Obama as another cynical way to increase his own power and get the Catholics to root for him. For example your paradigm appeals to Catholics but can also be used a basis for the apologetics of the GM bailout. This is where we are and why Mr. Woods is alarmed by your rejection of capitalism as the best way to maximize individual liberty and wealth.

By: robert

robert — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:23:35 +0000

Mr. Storck,
I have read only a scant amount from that period and understand even less of what little I have read, but I think you are correct in your observations about the current debate between socialists and capitalists. The fact that there are Catholics who lean to one side or the other of the duopoly debate, points to a third way which is totally lost from the conversation. In this regard, I find writers such as Clyde Wilson, Wendell Berry, Southern Agrarians and several others from the reform tradition with their emphasis on the local and communitarian aspect of economics, rather than the global and international aspect, to be better defenders of the social encyclicals than the current crop of populist catholics such as George Weigel,Mr. Novak, Mr. Woods,Nancy Pelosi, Senator Kennedy or Vice President Biden. All of these people brandish their catholic credentials on social issues when the timing is opportune but only rarely do they actually represent it. It would be more to the point to describe them as "paid Catholic handlers" -- to handle the catholic vote, i.e. popularize it, package it and provide it. As I have said before, I prefer the wolves dressed in sheep skin to the wolves hiding under shepherd skin.