The Great Reset, the Vatican, and “Inclusive Capitalism”

What do the Pope and the Great Reset have to do with each other?

The papacy has been around for a long time – many centuries. The Great Reset, which I have discussed a lot of late, has also been around – at least for some decades. And a thing called “Inclusive Capitalism” has also been around for a few decades. What happens when you put all three together?

But let me say something at the outset: I am not picking on Catholics. Anyone who knows me realises I have always sought to avoid sectarian warfare. I have Catholic friends and Protestant friends. Some of my hardcore and very devout Catholic friends fully share with me concerns about the current Pope. He has been all over the place, and is far too often pushing various leftist agendas. One of my very committed Catholic friends recently told me she thinks Francis “is a heretic”!

Here I want to focus on a rather alarming website in which the Vatican is fully in bed with a rather worrying agenda. It is called “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican”. Someone alerted me to it recently, and after just seconds into it, I was thinking to myself, “Wow, this sounds just like the Great Reset!” And a few seconds later I found that the site was linking to the main Great Reset organisation, the World Economic Forum. See here:

You can check this site out for yourself, but on its homepage it says this:

The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.  

Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty, but many in society have been left behind and the planet has paid a price. There is a moral imperative to address this challenge, and we are taking action. Our members undertake measurable commitments to help create:

-Equality of opportunity
-Equitable outcomes
-Fairness across generations on the environment
-Fairness to all enabling full economic participation

As I said when I first wrote about the GR and the WEF and what is found on their website, all this sounds really neat: we have a lot of warm and fuzzy terms that might make you feel good. But we must move beyond the rhetoric and into the actual detail. And the details are indeed a worry.

I will need to assess these matters more carefully in future articles. But a few things can be done here. First, plenty of articles on this new initiative are available. For example:

The CEOS of Bank of America, Visa, EY, BP, Johnson & Johnson, Salesforce, and several other Fortune 500 companies are joining forces with Pope Francis to promote a more inclusive form of capitalism in a new organisation called the Council for Inclusive Capitalism With the Vatican.

To join, business leaders must commit to measurable steps to create a more equitable and fair economic system, including adherence to the UN’s sustainable development goals. As part of the commitment, the companies must take steps toward ending poverty, providing access to clear water, and reducing income inequality.

This is not the first time the pope has taken a strong stance on capitalism. In the third encyclical of his papacy in October, Pope Francis rebuked free market capitalism. An encyclical is a way for religious leaders to establish a historical record of the church’s teachings at the time. He’s also repeatedly called for leaders to combat “dismal” inequality with fairer policies.

Again, it all sounds benign enough. But there is much more to it than what reports like this let on. As I said, the idea of “inclusive capitalism” has been around for a while now. Let me quote from two earlier pieces on this. In an article from last year Catholic writer Michael Severance said this:

I like the word inclusive. Who doesn’t? My colleague certainly likes the word inclusive, especially when I include more money in her paycheck. My wife likes the word inclusive, when I include her equally in my share of assets and especially when I include myself in the housekeeping. Now even the pope likes the word inclusive. It is a word that’s simply impossible not to like.

However, when the feel-good word “inclusive” is applied to the not always feel-good word “capitalism,” it’s a little like mixing oil and water for lovers of socialism. They assume that capitalism is a naturally selfish “look out for your own short term gain while everyone else loses” economic system.

He continues:

We must remind Pope Francis – and other doubters of capitalism’s natural propensity for inclusion – that capitalism is not just about hard capital (the material means, the money, or any of its capital assets) but also and much more so about soft capital (the caput, that is, our intelligent heads: moral collaboration, the intention to servecreate, and produce goods). It’s all about achieving the common good in wealth for all the nations, not simply for my profit today.

Capitalism is part of man’s natural social order and striving together for flourishing. It’s about exchange. It’s about markets. It’s fundamentally about providing goods and services to others….

It’s a shame we have to attach platitudes to the natural attributes of capitalism.  We understand the Pope’s concern, since there are many false economies claiming to be “capitalism” that in effect are none other than cartels, monopolies, cronyism – all of which are built on frameworks of selfishness and ultimately self-destruction. Just go to Buenos Aires, and you’ll find plenty of empathy for the Argentine pope. Regardless, it’s high time we praise capitalism for what it actually is, and not for what it isn’t or often pretends to be.

And a piece from six years ago on inclusive capitalism opened this way:

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” Milton Friedman.

As the economic recovery from the financial crisis continues to disappoint on a variety of fronts—particularly job creation and real income growth—calls for a more inclusive capitalism grow louder. A chorus of critics is particularly obsessed with what they perceive as an increasing inequality—of both income and opportunity—that the current system has wrought.

It goes on to say this:

Alongside the growth of the entitlement state we have seen the increasing prevalence of crony capitalism—a condition in which favored industries enjoy monopoly powers granted by government. The means of such protections include intervention, mandates, regulations, and subsidies, which have prevented a free and competitive market from flourishing in many important areas. The Export-Import Bank, wind and solar power subsidies, ethanol subsidies, and the “too big to fail” doctrine are just the most-publicized examples. Such policies are bad for both taxpayers and innovators, as a rigged system that showers favoritism on certain industries promotes economic inefficiencies and corruption. Lobbyists and various insiders scramble to benefit from government spending and regulations.  

Of particular concern is the increasing prominence of a rule-making bureaucracy, including zealous federal agencies that, when combined with a cascade of executive orders, continue to move our economy in a direction outside of our constitutional principles and antithetical to free markets.

Much more can be said. Consider just one further issue: the second point of four found on their site, dealing with equitable outcomes. The idea of equality of outcomes is always a dangerous notion – one fully pushed by socialists, but one always warned against by those who value the free market. The simple truth is this: we are all different, so if you aim for equality of outcomes, that means you must treat people quite differently.

That is, the lazy will not want to put much effort into hard work, while the diligent will labour long and hard. But if they both end up with the same outcomes, then the slothful are being rewarded while the dedicated worker is being penalised. Needless to say, you will encourage laziness while deterring hard work.

As I said in an earlier piece:

In 1988 the Australian law professor wrote an important book entitled, The Australian Achievement: From Bondage To Freedom. While the entire volume is quite helpful, I draw your attention to ch. 20: “Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome”.

Says Cooray, “Equality of opportunity is best expressed in the phrase – career open to talents. No arbitrary obstacles should prevent people from achieving those public positions which their talents fit and which their values lead them to seek. Neither birth, nationality, colour, religion, sex nor any other equivalent characteristic should determine the public opportunities that are open to a person – only talent and achievement.

“Thus, equality of opportunity simply spells out the concept of equality before the law. And it has meaning and importance precisely because people are different in their genetic and cultural characteristics, and hence both want to and can pursue different careers. It is important to note that such equality of opportunity does not present any conflict with freedom. Quite the opposite. Equality of opportunity and freedom are two facets of the same basic concept.”

He continues, “Equality of outcome is a radically different concept. Equality of opportunity provides in a sense that all start the race of life at the same time. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. To slightly change what the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, ‘Everybody must win and all must have prizes’. That is the goal of radical socialism. Everyone must be a winner, everyone must be equal. Socialists do not really point towards absolute equality but they point to vague ideas of fairness and justness.”

But it is the Vatican getting into bed with groups like the WEF and cozying up with radical economic agendas that is the real worry here. The WEF is certainly singing the praises of the Pope:

One Catholic critique of all this is found here:  

And check out this recent article, also by concerned Catholics:

The future sure is looking a lot more ominous each passing day.

[1694 words]

14 Replies to “The Great Reset, the Vatican, and “Inclusive Capitalism””

  1. I suppose I must be the first one to comment here. Remember, I prefer sectarian warfare to take place elsewhere thanks. So if Catholics want to bash Protestants, or Protestants want to bash Catholics, there are plenty of other places where that takes place – but not here. However, if you want to comment on the matters at hand (the GR, political economy, social justice, etc) then feel free.

  2. As an atheist, I have to admit that this recent article was spiritually uplifting (not all atheists are left wing socialists). This article has some real firepower in it. It would be nice, very nice if the world moved in this direction. It’s almost too much to hope for. I will be pasting this article up on my office door. Great work!

  3. Capitalism is not always bad. Some things are bad such as selling illegal drugs or hiring a hitman. The law can prohibit any bad private activities. Capitalism provides choice. There will be a wide range of products to buy under a capitalist system. Some people say that workers are exploited. If someone is not happy in their job they may be able to get a job at another business. Employers need good staff. If employees are not treated well they will look for other jobs. If an employer wants to keep their best staff they have to treat them well. It is foolish to treat staff badly. There is very little incentive to create new inventions or new methods of production in a communist system. If someone has a new invention in a capitalist system they may become rich. Under a communist system an inventor may only receive a medal for their hard work and brilliant mind. The Americans went to Russia. They found that the Russians were using an abacus in the 20th Century! It was really quite bizarre. Private enterprise can respond quickly to changing economic and social trends. Communism is slow to respond to changing conditions. There may be shortages of some products. Capitalism can usually fill these shortages rapidly. Communism can only fill shortages slowly if ever. Capitalism is compatible with family life. Families can look after children, the elderly and people with a disability. Sometimes someone may only need a family member to check that they are OK. Government programs have incredible bureaucracies. These programs may be able to help the elderly, children and people with a disability. The cost is astronomical. They are slow to help someone after they have asked for help. They could be on a waiting list for weeks or even months! A person may need help now! Paperwork is relentless and takes priority over really helping someone. I have experienced these things myself. Paperwork must be done even though clients are waiting for normal procedures to happen. The welfare state has become a big problem. There is even an intergenerational effect. If someone is on welfare their children are more likely to be on welfare when they grow up. There was one young man who had 20 children in the US! He was unemployed. The government was suing him for child support on the mother’s behalf. Commitment has become old-fashioned. The welfare state seems to undermine the family. It encourages couples to live in separate houses and break up. I realise that relionships are not always easy. Communism has brought poverty and misery whenever it has been tried. Capitalism can create wealth. If an economy is booming more people will be brought into the workforce. Capitalism can provide money to research environmental issues. It can investigate new methods of production and how to deal with rubbish and recycling. Capitalism is not an exclusively Western phenomenon. In Africa there are markets. The markets are small but they are markets. They had markets before there was any outsiders there.

  4. Great article Bill – sensitively and respectfully written. Most of us ‘committed’ Catholics are scratching our head at what our pope is saying. As he looks at the possible persecution of the Christians world wide, maybe he is trying to appease the powers that be but he should know what the end of that is – failure and capitulation.
    We pray every day that what he is doing won’t do more harm than good.

  5. Thanks Bill for all your research. I believe the Pope has been influenced by his advisors or some bodies for some time as his encyclical back in June 2015 made headlines as it had a bit about climate change was caused by human activities. Now it looks like he or his advisors are influencing him to go the way of the Great Reset. Are some people just trying to keep their jobs or is there a money flow behind all this? I wish elite people who have plenty of money would spend it on helping charities and ministries that are trying to help the poor and vulnerable survive, instead of getting involved with man-made ideologies(idols).
    I hope you don’t mind another youtube by Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj as he mentions the Pope at 1hr 33min into this 1h 58min video. Others mentioned are Bill Gates and Covid at 26min followed by Mastercard at 57min and Elon Musk at 1hr 30min.

  6. You will not receive criticism, Bill, from this Catholic for as long as papal comment is light on spreading gospel and full on promoting trendy secular issues.

  7. I am a protestant but I admired JPII and wouldn’t have minded meeting him if he had come to town (closest he came was across state and I am not drive 5 hours for any mortal!) but the ones since can’t seem to fill his shoes.

    I always think back to the pilgrims in the first years after they landed and their communal experiment.

    Bureaucracy is one of the greatest evils man has ever devised. Of course if communists had to go through the same bureaucracy with their ideas communism would never see the light of day.

  8. Thank you Bill. So much to pray about. The world is a mess. Bless you.

  9. R. Spanier the old joke whenever the answer to something was yes was is the Pope Catholic? Now I would say that is not a definitive yes anymore. I’m a Protestant but last Pope I respected was JPII.

    Lynette it appears that video had been removed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: