Jay Richards comment that there is no need to worry about multinational corporations like Microsoft because they don't have tanks is incredibly myopic view.

If nothing else, Pearce is right about his warnings about China and Amazon. The current Coronavirus pandemic / panic is underlining our dependence on them for supplying us everything, and Amazon has begun to refuse to sell books with which they disagree.

1:13 mark aging very well with a pandemic and 98% of pharmaceuticals manufactured in China and so much essential manufacturing outsourced that we can't even make ventilators

Wow. Did Dr. Pearce have a vision and see 2020? Because in his first 10 minutes he’s literally describing every problem we have now. Big business and big brother supporting one another with BLM t-shirts, gay advertising, and the destruction of small businesses after the quarantine! I think I’m already a distributist !

I am not a monarchist nor a traditionalist, but distributism seems to be pretty good to me. I still don't know too much about it; however, the general principle of the workers privately owning the means of production is alluring to me. I will definitely look into it more.

16:42 defines distributism 23:56- explains how both socialism (the state) and capitalism (global plutocrats) centralize power into a few 27:30- primary critique of distributism from a free market economist Response to “what do you find most challenging to your own position? What do you find most tempting and satisfying in the others opposition?” 39:20

"But as we believe in the free market, you're going to be buying them for $200 bucks each." That was such an excellent comeback. 1:00:44

A moderator is supposed to be unbiased. With all due respect, Father was being very biased which harmed the quality of this debate

Pearce's opening statement is eerily prophetic

Pearce should have brought up statistics which show fewer and fewer owners of private property in a capitalist's free market system.

The Acton Institute should have picked a moderator who was actually interested in moderating.

Good debate. While Jay might have won back in the day, Joseph has now been shown to be right. There is little in the normie-conservative free market types that is able to resist the rise of woke capitalism and the global-homogenization of culture. Pierce is a reactionary that is able to cut through the bullshit and see the crisis that we are really in.

I got more and more frustrated as this went on. Pearce seemed like he was always on the defense, which is unfortunate because I really believe distributism can answer many of the problems that capitalism has created that it can't answer. He was being too nice. I think for me the fundamental question I would have asked is, "what is the main issue in the American economy today, and how does your position address it?" Distributism has lots of answers, Free Market people have little. If Pearce was more direct, he could have touched on the two main reasons I subscribe to distributism... 1. Human flourishing: This is a hard conversation because distributist aren't anti-free market per se; they just want those benefits for everyone! You can't flourish, and the growing income gap can attest to this, if you are just a worker bee your whole life. 2. Over time, capitalism creates an unbalanced system. When too few people own too much wealth, things get lopsided. When the supply chain get small because 4 companies make all of one product, we become vulnerable. If, as a capitalist, my goal is to make more with less, it will inevitably make more than can be bought, creating an imbalance.

Three things kept coming to mind as I watched the debate. First, I think it is rather naive to suggest that economic power is only the power of persuasion, and it isn't coercion. The principle is that government can say "do this or we will deprive you of life or liberty." while business can only say "you should buy this for reason A and B". The counter point is that my ability to earn a living is on an equal level, or nearly equal level with my life and liberty. If you can't earn a living, your in just as bad a spot as if you are facing off against government coercion. So for example, if a telecom company controls my access to the internet, and my market is the internet, they can dictate to me basically whatever they want because my only choices are simply do what they want, or don't do business. (for real world example look at Netflix and Comcast). Another example would be, if I'm a farmer and only one company controls the world's seed supply, then I have no choice but to do what that company demands, or I simply don't earn a living. An extension on this point is what Jay Richards himself admitted, Big business doesn't want free markets. Big business wants to be able to use the power of government in order to control the market in their favor and prevent smaller upstarts from challenging them. What we see in the US, and probably most of the world is that they are often successful in doing this. The point then is that when companies get big enough, they simply kill the free market themselves through collusion with government. This produces a natural tendency for big business to align itself with big government. How do we stop this in a practical sense. Second, I think an often over-looked reality is that widely distributed ownership of property is not merely a good that we should pursue for moral reasons or even economic reasons, it is essential to the maintenance of a free society. When people own nothing it not only removes incentive for them to protect the freedom of the market and to protect property rights, it actually gives them incentive to work against those things. If the majority of people don't own anything and have limited prospects of ever having real ownership in the economy, it is only a matter of time before they vote in socialism or worse. It is fine to argue that free markets produce greater wealth for everyone, and I agree that this is true, but the reality is that the majority of people are too short sighted to respond to arguments like that. What they respond to is the fact that they have a real stake in the here and now. I own something I don't want to lose will always be more convincing than if we remove these restrictive regulations then everyone will eventually have more. Third, is a situation exemplified by the food supply in the US. There are a relatively small number of companies that control most of the commercially available food supply in the US. What most of the people in the US want is cheap food that tastes good. The companies have largely met this supply. We have a tremendous variety of products that meet this demand. However, a very very large percentage of the food supply is significantly unhealthy. Even things that people think are healthy are often not because of how they are produced. How can we possibly rectify a problem like this. It has already created a national problem of health issues and we have "diseases of civilization" of which one major contributing factor is the unhealthy nature of our food. It is cheaper to produce unhealthy food and disguise the fact that it is unhealthy, and most of the people just don't know any better. So how do we get around that? Granted we are seeing an increase in the availability of organic foods etc, but organic food is also prohibitively expensive for many people. Also some of the same problems exist where food can be sold as organic, but the producers can still take unhealthy shortcuts.

This got derailed nearly to the point of not being watchable as soon as the moderator clearly picked a side and it was 2 on 1

There are many markets where entering is just too expensive if you cannot compete with the monopolist. For example when you develop your own operating system, then it is very costly for people to change it, because operating systems like Windows are designed so that you cannot use the applications on other platforms. So if you want to enter the market you would have to convince many application developers to develop for your new operating system or you will fail. If the government would make a law that the api for an operating system must be open, then applications could be used on every operating system and making entering the market for new operating systems possible.

This was interesting and enjoyable to watch. Thanks for posting this video. I really need to look deeper into distributism. I thought both Joseph and Jay were providing information, using reason to defend and point to the weaknesses of distributism and the free market. Their respect for one another was refreshing! On the other hand, I thought the Rev. Sirico, although beginning cordially with some great questions, was quite the biased moderator. Additionally, even the information regarding this video is really, "all about the Rev. Sirico" and quite humbling regarding Jay R. and Joseph P. (even though they were the ones debating). Looking forward to learning more. God bless all!

If you have a capitalist who believes in a free market to debate against the distributist, you might as well have a socialist debate the distributist. Both a free market capitalist and marxist socialism both believe in a monopoly of a corporation, the difference is that in capitalism the corporation comes from the private sector while with communism the corporation would come from the public sector where the government becomes one big corporation. I favor the distributist over capitalism or socialism.

Home run , Joseph Peace. Keep up the great work !.

It seems pretty clear whom the Reverend and the audience were agreeing with in this debate.

Industry Oil Tech In Capitalism, the biggest industries always take political power and manipulate Free Markets to their Cronized Structure. Distributism is the right order because Capitalism requires culling by necessity for the system of Capitalism to exist.

This is so healthy for my brain. After thinking about it for 3 days it seems to me that free markets are based on the public having more and more whereas distributism is based on the family having enough. Edit: This is of course a simplification. But I do think that the free market could use some more fine-tuning socially speaking, especially when we see that the most developed countries also report the highest negative mental health rates. I think distributism is a good alternative.

Father & Richards vs Pearce.

1:03:32 yes it is bad and the open source movement showed that sharing every innovation benefits everyone, even the inventor.

Pearce sounds prophetic now we are in 2021 but so was Belloc in 'The Servile State'. What was missing from Richards and Sirico was an answer to 'what do you do if/when/now the biggest economic players effectively own/control the government and are therefore able to use the its coercive power to their advantage?' The whole 'economy - merely responsive and government - coercive dichotomy begins to break down in such a scenario, as does the notion that it is merely government regulations which give rise to it. I am not sure Distributism gives a definitive answer to how you could systematically change this but it does at least acknowledge the problem and reminds us that it is up to the individual to change this by going out of his way to buy from the little guy.

Awesome

There is a similar law in Wisconsin that prohibited craft brewers from going direct to market with taprooms. My understanding of the arguments was the "big beer," which in Wisconsin is Miller, said that tap rooms would give smaller brewers an advantage because they could bypass the distributors. Distributors also fought this law because they get paid for being the middleman. I believe the argument is similar to what Tesla has been fighting by wanting to go straight to consumer and not have traditional dealerships.

In a 2021, great reset era, which speaker’s comments aged better?

Debate begins at 4:50

I support both

Good theme of discussion but the father's sarcastic and condescending atitude made it become a critique of distributism rather than a debate. Also I felt like the moral aspect of distributism was put aside.

Robert Sirico is a member of "Mont Pelerin Society", too

Joseph Pearce's arguments are dramatically more convincing. The other two - bless them - really have nothing to say. "Economics as if people mattered" is the subtitle of Schumacher's 1970s groundbreaking book for a reason. The two capitalists here (priest and professor) speak about economics, but never about people.

At one point (3/4), the British gentleman talks about the great difficulty we would be in if, having put all our (manufacturing) eggs into one basket, we were to experience a major political or economic disruption. This discussion is from 2016, so he was rather prescient. A major, worldwide health disruption probably wasn't on anyone's radar--except for the CCP, probably. The current pandemic would've fit in VERY well with their " unrestricted warfare" policies, as well as their wish to decrease their own population.

Pearce's comments on China 01:12:00 seem quite prophetic.

1:13:00 is exactely what is happening nowadays.

I appreciate that both sides share many similarities which I appreciate: decentralization of government, smaller government, family, and ethics. I dislike that Pearce was not able to either clarify (in my mind anyway) the pubs which controlled the sale of "other branded beers." What I heard was that the UK/state, which has licensure control in the UK among others, to either mandate the pubs to sale the "other beers" or to allow them to be sold which otherwise couldn't be due to licensure. I may not being hearing and understanding clearly. However, if either is true, it is clearly a government/statist problem. Frankly, I am surprised that Pearce hasn't made that small leap of faith of which he seems close--Anarcho/Capitalism.

Both have good points

1:14:25 Did he just say God was in competition with Satan?.. That is deeply unsettling, profoundly unbiblical, and extremely disrespectful to God.

Pearce did an excellent job. A little bit disappointed by the QandA at the end. Seemed to be some silly questions like asking if economic and political power is different then trying to suggest Bill Gates coercing using money isn’t a problem.

The problem is good old fashioned human greed, excess ambition and waste.

I think it both possible and reasonable to sympathize with aspects of distributism, while completely rejecting claims by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to represent Christ's will on earth. For at no time does Scripture promote a particular economy ideology as good for all times and places. Rather, we are given precepts (some from Mosaic law) which point the way toward just economic relationships. God in His Sovereign power is able to work under all sorts of historical circumstances to protect his people and build His kingdom. Perhaps this approximates the view of distributism as an 'aesthetic', one which could well be applied to the critique and reform of existing systems.

I'm 49 minutes in, and nobody has mentioned the Pareto principle. This is the psychological tendency of the individual consumer to buy what their neighbour bought, and to thus concentrate economic power in the hands of one vendor. It has nothing to do with government or economic policy. It reigns supreme in the tech sector.

I don't know or give a hoot about economic theories. When Joseph Pearce spoke, I felt warm and wanted to be near him. When the other two spoke, I felt like they were heads of a tech giant and wanted back away.

Funny and sad at the same time to hear this moderator talking down to Joseph Pearce four years ago as if it is nonsense that moving manufacturing overseas is a problem, while as I'm writing we are suffering a shortage of medical protective equipment and medications such as antibiotics due to supply lines being closed as a result of the coronavirus. It'll probably work out in the end and we will have learned nothing, leaving ourselves vulnerable in the event of something worse. But you know, the important thing is that someone doesn't misapply the term "all your eggs in one basket."

I enjoyed the conversation but I always gets a little bored with economic debates because they all virtually ignore the fact that our economic system isn’t something that the public gets to invent or change at will. It is forced upon us by those with economic and political power. The only points in history when I see great economic reforms actually carried through are right after calamities that produce immense suffering for the general public. These events wake the public up, gets them engaged and organized. The intellectual and philosophical atmosphere has been so confused lately, both intentionally and accidentally, that I’m worried such a response isn’t even possible now. America’s response to the pandemic is a great example. The corporate media did a great job producing shiny distractions to divert people from real issues. Medicare for all should have been demanded by everyone during this crisis. It was the best possible impetus for it. But it didn’t happen. It’s funny that the media proposes capitalism and socialism as the only two possible economic systems, when neither lead to any semblance of liberty. Is this an accident?

the Distributist guy sounded like the preist in Pricess Bride

Anarchy means without hierarchy. It is a direct decentralized democracy. The origin of anarchy started with the Catholic Church and the economic system of distributism... Christian anarchy was the first anarchy, that should be sign enough that it is not chaos but based on direct human spiritual values and equality.

Dude. Dr. Pearce is straight getting roasted for speaking truth, here. "Big companies fail in the free market because they're slow and bloated" Really? I'm pretty sure they just throw their weight around.

They should discussed fair trade more and using economic as weapons against powerful people in dictorships, that they respect religous freedom and free speach etc, and the governments roll in that, consumers and business often just care about price on the goods and labour (influence campaigns can of course nugde that a little). Free trade among democracies is good. But is it good to trade with for example China that use uyghurs as cheap labour in their re-education camps, according to BBC you must be an atheist with marxist-lenist views to be in the chinese government, they use the money to build up their army and navy and lend money to african and asian countries that can not pay them back, that later buy them polical influence in UN and give them access to foreign ports etc?

Excellent defense of freedom Jay !

"I don't think God is the source of all competition" - Um.. I'm pretty God is the source of everything.

I think there are different camps in socialism top down vs bottom people distributist like power structures. I think in other countries their party is a democratic socialist platform.

Capitalism doesn't take into account the jobs that are being automated. probably in 10-15 years most transportation could be automated. Some of the biggest job sectors in the US are cashier and fast food worker. thats almost 10 million jobs that will probably be automated in the next 25 years. What happens to all those people?

Sirico talked too much.

Since Chesterton has been far & away the single greatest influence on my intellectual life, it pains me to say this, but, if Joseph Pearce (who is great otherwise, by the way!) was a solid representative in this debate, Chesterton/Belloc/Catholic Social Teaching has really just fallen prey to the most commonplace economic fallacies there are. Jay Richards pointed out that Pearce fell prey to the labor theory of value fallacy, and he's absolutely right. As Chesterton said, "Fallacies don't cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Similarly, economic fallacies do not cease to be economic fallacies simply because a Pope makes one the basis of an official Church document.

I don't See how distributism differs from socialism. If distributism were implemented you need the intrusion and force of the state to essentially"equalize" (make the businesses the appropriate sizes) the businesses. That is essentially Socialism.

Brewing beer in your garage is fine, but how are you going to build a car that way? Or a microprocessor?

Around 1:10:00 you see a prophetic message that slam dunks the capitalist, now that we are all n the age of COVID.

But isn't the capitalism of America a child of the English Reformation? In Catholic countries like Ireland, Anglo-American capitalism and media has helped erode the traditional Catholic culture there. Could it be argued that American capitalism has within it anti-traditional forces that tend to make war against Catholic culture, rather than support it?

Hahaha, you can tell Father is well educated in these matters. He probably should have just debated in place of Jay. I think Jay held back quite a bit to accommodate the distributist here with a little bit of a break since Father was chiming in. That priest has a really quick wit. Hope to see a lot more of him in videos, great stuff

justice + empathy + pragmatism = the right balance of public policy. no need for "free markets" crap or socialist crap

Too bad the examples were not drug companies or Monsanto and patents on seeds for food. Thus sick starving people at the mercy of overpriced necessities. Jay is a professor who professes he can't understand an analogy. How does he understand Jesus' analogies in the bible? Father does not understand when I put all my money in his church basket distributed to feed the poor I then become too poor to provide for my basic needs? Father also has problems understanding analogies. Thus Jesus?

Distributism employs the same self-contradictory thinking that is used by those advocating for a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). Advocates of both fantasies propose breaking land, labor and capital into smaller and smaller, decentralized pieces, while still maintaining a high degree of productivity and a unified paradigm of action. In fact, these are opposing ideas. If you believe that breaking land, labor and capital into smaller units is ethically superior, that's well and good, but you must realize that this paradigm also would be inherently less productive. It must also be understood that this approach will result in a myriad of disparate approaches and philosophies about how and what to produce. The only way to prevent this fragmentation would be to maintain some form of strong central planning and control, which is in direct contradiction to the expressed desire for decentralization.

Lousy sound! Heard 6 seconds, before leaving!

Distributism wins

Sorry, but Jay Richards is a weak and dangerous defender of free-markets, he's view is inconsistent with Catholicism. A conservative and serious Austrian economist could be much better than him, because they know how to deal with these inconsistencies. So, in the debate Joseph Pearce was wiser, more consistent and won easily.

In terms of Catholic doctrine Joseph is the true Catholic. The other two sound like Protestants.

Everything that is held up as a evil of capitialism is an action by a government, government-sponsored entity, crony capitalism (i.e. protected monopolies, licensing, etc.), or one individual. Joseph never engaged the core of free markets and private owership of capital. Jay was slow to see all those thumbs on the scale interfering with the operation of free markets and accepting Joseph's framing.

Distributism is the way.

@59:34 guy never grew up

Jay is being rather naive about the Chinese. Slave labor in China is rampant because of unrestrained capitalism. He can talk about the 20,000 Chinese entering the middle class, but he neglects the hundreds of thousands of those in forced labor.

distributism leads to genuinely free markets whereas capitalism inevitably and necessarily creates oligopolies.

Pearce wins hands down. This “father” guy is a joke. He should give up religion and worship his real idol. Money!

But the housekeeper can’t buy a house with land with her pay but her employer can… so she never gets her freedom and remains a serf. He gets to keep his servant. Clearly I have more regard for both the Marxist and Distributist. actually serfdom would be an upgrade because a lord would have a responsibility to provide home under their archaic arrangement. This modern servant although not beaten probably lives in her car. Have you seen the rent prices in the area she probably works? They have their cranial ideas but in real life this is how it plays out apart from their terms and science of economics. Should I bring up black rock and black stone that this free market idea breeds? He had to go and bring up the housekeeper…. Yes let’s discuss her. She is not just a tool to make a point but she has a face and is a real person who is living with the results of free trade policy capitalist policy put in place. She is perhaps Mexican and fled her native country because her family farm could not compete against big agricultural corn all because capitalist free trade. Perhaps that’s her story. In light of this thought I’m leaning more towards the distributist on this matter.

It's impossible to take seriously a video that begins with the words "St. John Paul the Great".

British dude has no idea what hes saying

Distributism seems good. The religious thing, not so good.