This Cardinal Is In Serious Error

A few weeks ago, I welcomed Pope Benedict's call, delivered at the German parliament, for a public debate on positivism. 


Well, today, it seems that the first shot has been fired from within the Vatican itself, with Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace releasing a document titled “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of the global public authority." This document - which is not a "papal document" - opposes a priorism in Economics, espouses empiricism and positivism, and since these are both "intellectual covers for socialism" - as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written - the document ends up with all the grave errors of socialism, to the extent of calling for a global central bank.


But the Cardinal begins with some half-truths - half-truths that have prompted one commentator to call this document "Right diagnosis, deadly cure." After the diagnosis, the Cardinal asks the question:

What has driven the world in such a problematic direction for its economy and also for peace?

And his first answer is this:

First and foremost, an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls. Economic liberalism is a theoretical system of thought, a form of “economic apriorism” that purports to derive laws for how markets function from theory, these being laws of capitalistic development, while exaggerating certain aspects of markets. An economic system of thought that sets down a priori the laws of market functioning and economic development, without measuring them against reality, runs the risk of becoming an instrument subordinated to the interests of the countries that effectively enjoy a position of economic and financial advantage. 

This is an issue concerning epistemology. The question is: Does Economics have to follow the method of physics - which is measurement, after which theories are arrived at a posteriori. Or are the Laws of Economics arrived at a priori, by deduction, and are established by logic, just like the propositions of mathematics or geometry, such that they do not need measurement and observation to validate them?


Let us take an example:


The Law of Exchange - which says that when a good is traded voluntarily, both parties gain by the trade; that their individual valuations of that good are unequal. Obviously, if I prefer beer over money, the barowner prefers money over beer. How does such a law require "measurement" or "observation" to validate it? Obviously, this law is NOT going to be established a posteriori. It is true a priori. 


In fact, "value" cannot be measured, for it lies within the valuing mind. "Value is subjective." All that can be measured are prices and quantities - and the price at which exchange transpires will show agreement, not unequal valuation. The "demand-and-supply curves" type of education teaches nonsense - and these curves can only be produced by "measurement." The curves are actually "statistics."  They are thus History - they are not Theory, which in Economics must be true a priori.


Hence, the methods of physics are NOT applicable to the Science of Economics. Positivism and empiricism are the intellectual covers for socialism and interventionism, since they deny the MIND of the acting individual, and they create the false impression of a "national economy" - with its "national income" and its "growth rate" - which must be managed by a super-human mind: that of the central planner; that of the Great Leader. 


Thus, Hans-Hermann Hoppe concludes his brief essay against empiricism with these words:

If we want to attack socialism, we must also attack the absurd intellectual error of empiricism. And if we want to defeat socialism, we must make a principled Misesian case based on the logic of human action and the irrefutable laws of economics.

Since Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace,  espouses empiricism and disavows a priorism, he is led deep into socialism, statism, and even the "primacy of politics."


Here are some quotes from the rest of the document:

...the world’s peoples ought to adopt an ethic of solidarity as the animating core of their action... [But we are all individuals, and we buy and sell in markets full of strangers. See my article on "catallaxy."]

the risk of an “idolatry of the market..." [The real risk is idolatry of the State and political authority. See also Tom Woods' rejoinder here.]

global social justice seem most urgent... for achieving... a fair distribution of world wealth... [The "mirage of social justice" gone global!]

one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” [Horrors!]

strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank [Here is a report that Germany will ditch the Euro if the ECB starts printing more of them.]

In this process, the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics needs to be restored and, with them, the primacy of politics – which is responsible for the common good – over the economy and finance. [Read Anthony de Jasay's Before Resorting to Politics.]

forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on “virtuous” behaviours aimed at developing the “real economy” [Moral hazard.]

At this point, I would like to remind the Cardinal of his views on the Principle of Subsidiarity, which he upholds, and defines as follows:

According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.

Now, money has ALWAYS been "private money": GOLD. Accordingly, we human beings, in freedom, without the aid of any political authority, can manage to produce our own money. Free banking can be conducted under traditional commercial law - as Jesus Huerta de Soto has shown. Thus, according to a Principle upheld by the Church, and also by Cardinal Turkson, there is NO NEED for ANY POLITICAL AUTHORITY over money and banking, and certainly not at the global level.


This is NOT new - not "neo-liberalism." This is "classical liberalism." Adam Smith's "Three Duties of the Sovereign" did NOT include anything to do with money. I have recounted these three duties here.


Mises put it best, in Human Action, when he wrote:

The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold, and not something else, is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics.

Thus, we Hindus are currently celebrating Diwali - when we traditionally buy gold. It is a "custom" - from History. This has NOTHING to do with "theory."

As far as "world order" is concerned, Mises also put it best when he wrote, in Nation, State, and Economy:

Liberalism, which demands full freedom of the economy, seeks to dissolve the difficulties that the diversity of political arrangements pits against the development of trade by separating the economy from the state. It strives for the greatest possible unification of law, in the last analysis for world unity of law. But it does not believe that to reach this goal, great empires or even a world empire must be created.

I also recommend to my reader this Islamic Judgment on Paper Money - which shows very clear reasoning.

But recall where I began unraveling this litany of errors - with Cardinal Turkson's empiricism, his antipathy to a priorism, and his love for "measurement" in Economics. On the subject of epistemology, I earnestly recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which you can find here.


Professor Hoppe's article "Why the State demands Control of Money" is also a very useful read in today's times.