Skip to main content

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

In a recent blog post Paul Krugman piqued my interest in Ettore Gotti-Tedeschi, the Director of the Vatican Bank, or as it is officially called, the Institute for Religious Works.  How does my Church's banker-in-chief view the current economic situation?  

What I learned left me nervous.

Krugman cites an article in which Gotti-Tedeschi claims that Keynesian economics opposes an "attitude of saving."

I know that Keynes viewed savings differently, so I looked more deeply into Gotti-Tedeschi's views and learned that what first appeared to be the off-the-cuff ramblings of a conservative banker may be part of an effort by the Catholic Right to thwart a Keynesian comeback.

The director of the Vatican Bank suggested that Keynesian economics is responsible for much of the world's current economic woes. This struck me as odd, considering that for more than the last thirty years the financial world emphasized a free market "Washington Consensus" view.  He was quoted by the Catholic News Agency as saying:

He said Keynes' crisis-averting tactics can be seen in the U.S., where government economic policy has focused on increasing public expenditures - and public debt - in order to stimulate private economic activity, including consumer demand and employment.

In addition, also following Keynesian wisdom, the U.S. is printing more money and has looked at increasing taxes in an effort to generate more public revenues.

Tedeschi warned that these policies are leading to a "nationalization" of private debt in the U.S. He also criticized the government bailouts of private banks that offered too much credit without adequate guarantees. This too is leading to increased government control of the economy in the U.S. - a "nationalization" that is being paid for with newly printed currency.

But he continued on:

He [Gotti-Tedeschi] said artificially low interest rates are another key to the strategy of increasing spending and discouraging saving. With no incentive to keep money in the bank, those who would have otherwise been savers are pushed to spend.

"Zero interest rates factually equal a de facto transfer of wealth from he who was a virtuous saver (although not for Keynes) to he who has become virtuously (for Keynes) indebted," he said. "Practically, it's about a hidden tax on poor savers, a tax transferred to the wealthy, (that is), over-indebted states, business people and bankers."

Although the alternative to zero interest in such a situation is economic collapse and eventual default, the zero-rates "are not sustainable and are dangerous," Tedeschi warned.

"They destroy savings, which is an essential resource to create the base for bank credit; they promote speculation on real estate and securities, create illusory artificial values rather than scaling them down; they push consumption to more risky debt; they alter the market with artificial values and thus lead to belief that the very markets do not know how to correct themselves."

Let's fact check this.

First, Keynes never opposed savings per se. What concerned the British economist was something quite different: during economically slow times (such as in the current day) when savings exceeded investment.. This is what Keynes called the paradox of thrift -- when savings becomes hoarding and thus actually impedes economic prosperity.

Secondly, unlike Gotti-Tesdeschi who blurs the difference between savings and investment, Keynes took great pains to clarify the difference -- and then illustrated why the distinction is necessary:

For although the amount of his own saving is unlikely to have any significant influence on his own income, the reactions of the amount of his consumption on the incomes of others makes it impossible for all individuals simultaneously to save any given sums. Every such attempt to save more by reducing consumption will so affect incomes that the attempt necessarily defeats itself. It is, of course, just as impossible for the community as a whole to save less than the amount of current investment, since the attempt to do so will necessarily raise incomes to a level at which the sums which individuals choose to save add up to a figure exactly equal to the amount of investment.

But there is more. It should be immediately obvious why Gotti-Tedeschi opposes even the most judicious use of inflation: it cuts into his profit margin. Banks provide credit. In this continued era of deregulation many high-powered bankers do not want to go back to the pre-Washington Consensus days when banking was safe and boring; a time when financial institutions were rewarded with more modest, yet healthy profits.

Gotti-Tedeschi, a former professor of financial ethics at the Catholic University of Milan, attributes the world recession to declining birth rates and opposes unions.  He is also rumored to be a member of the elitist and secretive sect, Opus Dei.  This would certainly by consistent with his well established desire for a more authoritarian, pre-Vatican II Church.

(Interestingly, the former professor of financial ethics is currently under investigation for engaging in money laundering while head of the Vatican Bank.)

Gotti-Tedeschi is not alone in his assault on Keynes.  Jeffrey Tucker, a convert to Catholicism and a faculty member at Acton University and webmaster for the Ludwig Von Mises Institute),  joins Gotti-Tedeschi in misrepresenting Keynes, but first gets some history wrong:

Keynes is a great target, and an important one. He was born in 1883 and died in 1946, long after governments began citing his material as a cover for power grabs but before his theories came to dominate economics departments. His collected works are vast, but he is mostly known for his 1946 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

Tucker is off by ten years; The General Theory was published in 1936. But Tucker's problem with facts is not limited to dates. He goes on to use Gotti-Tedeschi to misconstrue Keynes's theories:

Keynes would have none of it. He wanted action, busyness, production, labor, spending - these were the key. If the public wouldn't do it, his prescription for prosperity involved a vast increase in government control over economic life using fiscal and monetary planning to "stimulate demand" and discourage saving, while believing that prosperity could be generated out of a printing press if necessary. In other words, Keynes wanted a vast coercive apparatus to goad markets into doing what he believed they should be doing, and never mind the cost.

Tedeschi, as a banker with long experience, knows that these teachings are the road to disaster. They have not only been proven wrong time and again; they actually make no sense from the point of view of economic logic. The whole raison d'être of markets is to enable the most rational use of scarce resources, and there are good reasons for a pull-back in a recession, if only to wash away the errors made during an artificial boom. In making these comments, Tedeschi stands with a great tradition of anti-Keynesian including Hutt, F. A. Hayek, Wilhelm Ropke, Ludwig von Mises, Orvall Watts, Murray Rothbard, Lionel Robbins, Henry Hazlitt, and many others.

The myth about Keynes supposedly "discouraging saving" has been addressed above. But the claim about monetary planning "generated out of a printing press" would be more relevant if it had been addressed to its real avatar, fellow free market advocate Milton Friedman. Keynes  -- unlike Friedman -- cited the use of taxation in economic boom times in order to pay back monies borrowed during leaner times.

More to the point, however, the "pump-priming" caused by government spending during the Second World War not only finished the New Deal's task of ending the Great Depression, it gave an immensely greater number of Americans a true sense of upward mobility. The post Second World War economy in both the United States and Western Europe was anything but a "road to disaster."

I suspect that what these two economists are doing is further proof of an increasing number of Religious Right giving religious cover for a very secular economic agenda. This is beyond convergence, as we have seen by the actions of Religious Right activists such as Robert P. George and Opus Dei convert CNBC cable host Larry Kudlow it is being deliberately pursued. They are increasingly converging to destroy the very tools of wealth creation for the poor and working class:  Keynesian economics andlabor unions.

In the New Testament book of Mark, Chapter 10 a wealthy young man asked Jesus what he must do to achieve the Kingdom of Heaven.  "Go thy way," Jesus replied. "Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." When the young man could not bring himself to follow this command, Jesus then famously commented, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

I never believed that Jesus was condemning wealth, per se. Instead, the real issue is what a rich man would do if forced to choose between following Jesus or his earthly wealth.

Ettore Gotti-Tedeschi, Tucker, and their ilk have made their choice clear.

Originally posted to Frank Cocozzelli on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM PST.

Also republished by Spiritual Organization of Unapologetic Liberals at Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    This group of buccaneer economists would rather gamble peoples’ lives on a form of what Keynes called “casino capitalism.” It is reckless and it is wrong. Beyond that, it goes against a heritage of a more just Catholic economic thought, a point as I previously observed where Monsignor Ryan and Keynes converged:

    Keynes and Ryan lived in a time when the well-being of the individual being inextricably linked to the betterment of the whole society was an ascendant idea. In that period, free-thinking people understood that miserliness and an open-ended definition of economic liberty both caused and prolonged the Great Depression. Certainly Keynes and Ryan understood that true economic freedom was tied to reasonableness, self-discipline and yes, social justice. And while they were imperfect in their applications of social justice, they were central players in pointing us in a better direction; a trend that lasted until the coming of a late twentieth century conservatism.    

    Now, a different set of thinkers seems to have America's ear. That set includes neo-conservatives such as Robert P. George and Michael Novak who, their Catholicism notwithstanding, make the perverse case for the wealthy miser and call it liberty.

    •  If people want to be buccaneer economists (4+ / 0-)

      I suppose that's their choice, but when they seek to clothe buccaneer economics in the mantle of the Church, that just makes my blood boil.  I wonder how many of the fine men and women who taught me are spinning in their graves.

      If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

      by marykk on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 01:10:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even At Best They'd Only Complain a Bit About (6+ / 0-)

    wealth inequality. What they fight for is sex control.

    But I have to say I wasn't expecting to see the Vatican come out so clearly in favor of restoration of aristocracy and masses of working poor.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 12:59:10 PM PST

  •  I'm not sure being Catholic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckylizard, Mariken

    has anything to do with this.  

    There are lots of economists who disagree with Keynes for one reason or another.  Keynesian economics is only one school of economic thought, and by no means is it universally accepted as incontrovertible truth (except perhaps here at Dkos).  Economics, by its nature, is opinion and theory.  By its nature, economic theories cannot be proven scientifically in any kind of definitive way, simply because you cannot conduct experiments where you control for variables.

    These are people who don't like Keynesian economic thought.  Fine.  But I'm not sure that there's much "Catholic" about that, except that it happens to be a Catholic that you are quoting.  I'm certain there are Catholics who disagree, and who are followers of Keynesian theory.  Neither one has much to do with the Catholic religion, except for the fact that Catholics can also have economic views.  

    •  It Does (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tobendaro, dirkster42, Floande

      And for several important reasons.

      First, ever since the 1890s, Catholic economic thought has embraced a progressive view, often openly embracing Keynesian viewpoints. The New Deal was heavily influenced by Catholic social teachings, especially Rerum Novarum which FDR cited as authority for bottom-up economics.

      This attack on Keynes signals a shift away from what benefits the flock to what benefits the more nefarious friends of some of the hierarchy.

      •  This is not some official Church Doctrine (0+ / 0-)

        This is the economic -- not religious, but ECONOMIC -- opinion of one person who happens to be in a position of authority in the Catholic Church.  

        His economic opinion is not "the Catholic position."  It's his opinion.  And being in a high-ranking position in the Catholic Church does not (1) deprive you of the right to have opinions on non-religious issues such as economics; or (2) make your opinions on non-religious issues such as economics the "Church position."  

        As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not have an "official" Church position on economic theory, Keynesian or otherwise.  

    •  I think the operative phrase is here (3+ / 0-)
      my Church's banker-in-chief

      Monocausality is the source of all our problems.

      by dirkster42 on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 01:20:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure. As I said above (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck

        it is the opinion of one high-ranking person in the Catholic Church as to an issue that is non-religious.  

        Being a high-ranking official in the Catholic Church does not (1) deprive a person of the right to have opinions on non-religious issues; or (2) turn that person's opinions on non-religious issues into the "Catholic position."  

        There is no "Catholic position" on whether Keynesian theory, or Friedman theory, is economically valid or not.  The Church doesn't espouse a "Catholic position" on things like that.  It issues the "Catholic position" on things that either are a core religious belief or directly flow from a core religious belief.

        •  Then the question is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Frank Cocozzelli

          Why is the banker making statements about economics that reflect on what the Church's position is?  I am pretty sure, being a Catholic and all, that these guys don't pontificate for nothing.  heh

          And she's good at appearing sane, I just want you to know. Winwood/Capaldi

          by tobendaro on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 04:15:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Except that this isn't about (5+ / 0-)

      being Catholic so much as that there is a Catholic (Vatican) bank.  I would be slightly less horrified that my church has its own freakin' bank if it would stay the heck out of politics.  I have only vague knowledge of some of the things that the Vatican bank has done to influence world politics and finances, and it (mostly) ain't good.  There is just too much temptation when dealing with that kind of money and the influence that it can afford to those in charge...

      -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

      by luckylizard on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 01:24:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Vatican & US Bishops chose to align with the GOP (4+ / 0-)

      ...and remained silent on  Marc Thiessen's repugnant  Catholic defense of torture while promptly rebuking Nancy Pelosi  for misrepresenting the church's position on abortion. The US Bishops have also rebuked Biden and Kerry during their 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

      The Republicanism comes from the top and is pushed down into DC meetings (as during the health care reform negotiation right up to the end), magazines and journals, and catholic lay organizations. It is politics and finance, not theology, but by men of the cloth, on a mission, engaged in a culture war.

  •  Well the Vatican has a lot of experience... (5+ / 0-)

    ...in these matters.  After all, the Church did prosper significantly under Feudalism and would certainly like to go back to the old days.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 01:40:19 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site