Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Now Sally Steenland is the director of faith and progressive policy initiative with the center of American progress as she joins me now from DC.
-- -- about at what perverse while welcome.
Thank you very much nice to be here -- you listen to archbishop Dolan he's that you is that -- Catholic bishop in the united -- credits and hedging thing.
I'm not really sure what their four but the Vatican.
Don't the Occupy Wall Street -- protesters.
What -- is saying is that the Vatican about two weeks ago released a document on the economy.
And the principles of the document the language of the document.
Is very resonant with some of the themes of the Occupy Wall Street movement and some of those -- are.
Have to do with unfairness that the economy doesn't exist for itself people don't exist to serve the economy but the economy should really exist to serve people.
And there's something inherently unfair and morally raw -- When 1%.
Of the population in America always almost half.
All the wealth.
Half of all the bonds and stocks so there's this great in balance and when you look at that.
There's -- an elemental question of unfairness.
About the economic system.
And the free market so.
The free market shouldn't make a profit -- making money is wrong what they're saying is that was not the highest good there is a good that is greater than that.
And the economy exists for people.
And to insist on no regulation of the economy at all in fact -- a form of idolatry.
Because it living in -- sinful world everybody makes mistakes and when you say well we've got to check.
The government we've got -- check civil society but guess what the market gets to do whatever -- want that just doesn't make sense but winning and any talk of.
The economy exists to serve people I'm sure there are a lot of people don't understand we don't believe in that because that's a very.
Religious point of view that a lot of people wouldn't agree with -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Wall -- -- Economy exists to serve the people but it doesn't exist to serve.
Of people in it and a social kind of social welfare kind of sense.
-- -- well.
It -- I think this is an example where the right thing to do is also the Smart thing to do where morality fairness and ethics.
Really line up very well with self interest.
I think what we're seeing now in our economy that -- -- nobody's self interest.
In terms of our economic health.
To have a middle class that is suffering so much to have social mobility and economic mobility that's just stuck where people can't move ahead.
To have an economy where people make a living wage where people have -- jobs where people can spend money.
And where people believed that their children will have a better life than they have where people believe in the American dream.
And have confidence in the economy.
Everybody wants that so you don't have to use language of morality you can use language of self interest and say this is not a good situation.
Yeah and it wasn't the one thing that on -- -- and talked about -- that.
There was no consistent message.
With -- you occupy wall streeters and do you see that as well but there's no consistent message among them.
Or do you say there is it's a consistent message.
Well I think consistent message that has come out and will win it it waste is to be seen what will happen in the coming months -- it's a very organic movement with.
No one spokesperson -- you can say oh you tell us what's going on.
Is the is this issue of fairness and the 99%.
And -- and the 1% vs the 99% which factually.
It gives you a space to talk about inequality so some of the things that I just talked about 99%.
Of -- public you know owns.
Takes in very little income compared to the 1% that just strikes people as wrong.
And if you look that you know have -- a change the dialogue in the debate in fact research has shown that they really have in terms of media coverage.
So this summer -- what the media was talking about what they were reporting on what the public debate was really about was.
Cutting the deficit cutting the budget there was no discussion at all of economic on fairness.
Or who is the economy working for -- the suffering middle class.
We now we see -- terms of needing jobs economic unfairness.
That's now part of the conversation.
Which is no small thing yes and why have things that -- a lot of other people have been talking that was 1% vs the 99%.
And so who are the 1% how much income do you have to have in order to be the 1%.
All I you know that's a good question I'm not sure I could give you a dollar figure but what what it is is if you look at the 1%.
They take home 40%.
So it's millionaires and above its millionaires and billionaires and probably multi millionaires.
It's this and any the other thing that I think is important to say.
This is a new thing for America and not I'm not since the 1920s and we know what happened in the nineteen to Wendy's has a very volatile society -- was great economic distress.
And there was great disparities between rich and -- and we have the stock market crash in 1929.
So these kind of roller coaster rides where a small percentage of people grab all the wealth and there's no rules of the road -- there's no sense.
You know in America.
Saying you've got to give this the way -- this is a welfare state what we are saying is.
In a country where productivity has gone up workers are doing their part working longer hours.
Producing greater goods than ever before should get a share of that pie and not just he would go to stockholders.
Filter by section