Pints With Aquinas - Is it generally immoral to invest in 401k's for retirement? w/ Jacob Imam Vs Trent Horn

Episode Date: July 26, 2022

Jacob Imam debates Trent Horn on whether it is generally immoral to invest in 401k's for retirement. Affirmative: Jacob Imam Negative: Trent Horn Trent's Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCounselofTrent NEWPOLITY: https://newpolity.com 20 minute opening statements 10 minute rebuttals 10 minute cross examination periods 20 minute audience Q+A 5 minute closing statements SPONSORS: Exodus90: https://exodus90.com/matt-home/ Hallow: https://hallow.com/matt

Did you know that I'm now hosting a live daily podcast called Morning Coffee? Every morning at 8.30am you can join me and dozens of other early birds for a caffeinated conversation about theology, philosophy and how to grow in your relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. The podcasts are completely free to watch. All you have to do is sign up on locals by clicking the link in the description below. Hope to see you there. Oh, good day and welcome to Pints with Aquinas.

My name is Matty Fratty. And today on the show, we've got Jacob Imam debating Trent Horn. The topic they'll be debating is, is it generally immoral to invest in 401Ks for retirement? We'll have 20 minute opening statements followed by 10 minute rebuttals, followed by a period of cross-examination where each person will get 10 minutes to cross-examine the other. Then we'll have 20 minutes of Q&A.

So if you're a local supporter or a Patreon, go over there right now and feel free to ask your questions and direct them either to Jacob or Trent. We'll try to get to some super chats too if you wanna do that. And then finally, we'll have five minute closing statements. So rather than doing a bunch of intros, I'd rather just jump right into it, fellas. So, Jacob, you have 20 minutes to begin.

OK. Click over on the clicking device. Well, Matt, thanks, Trent. Thanks so much. Been looking forward to this. Well, I am going today to very earnestly argue in favor of the resolution. I do not want to cast aspersions on those who are investing in 401Ks for retirement. Popular wisdom has taught us to believe that speculating in the stock market or getting a financial advisor to do that for us is prudent. If you're not investing, you're losing, we hear.

Many people who have 401Ks don't think much about them. They're just a benefit that their companies offer. Others actively think about them for the sake of their families. It is for them a means of relieving them from serious end of life burdens. There can be noble and honorable reasons for investing in 401ks, but even the most noble reasons do not magically make an act moral. There's no better reason for acting than to act for the sake of love, but a man who sleeps with his girlfriend for love is still a fornicator. Today's debate may give people the chance to ask whether or not the way that they are caring for

their loved ones is a good way of caring for them, whether their noble ends are best attained by the means of a 401k. So what is a 401k? To keep it simple, we'll just use Investopedia's definition, which says, quote, a 401k plan is a company sponsored retirement account to which employees can contribute income while employers may match contributions. The employee gets to choose among a number of investment options, usually mutual funds, end quote. A mutual fund is a professionally professionally managed fund that pools money from many people to purchase shares on the stock market.

So an employer offers certain mutual funds to his employees, generally speaking, to invest in. This financial instrument, the traditional 401k, is the focus of our debate today. We're not discussing specialized techniques of 401ks or even other investment vehicles for retirement such as pension plans or IRAs. And what we are specifically debating is whether or not they are generally immoral to use for retirement. Whether retirement itself is good or evil is not the debate, rather it is the 401k as a financial technique. Now the idea of something being generally immoral is not a specific term in moral theology, but for today's debate, it should be understood to describe an act which would require unique and particular circumstances in order to be justified.

moral insofar as it would require a unique and particular circumstance such as just war to be moral. And the same goes for 401ks. So I will argue. This makes my opponent's position difficult. Even if he could imagine a unique and particular way of arranging a 401k or unique and particular situation in which a 401k was a person's only option for avoiding some other evil. Still, he would only have found that the 401k to be specifically moral, but would implicitly agree with the resolution alongside me that it is generally immoral outside of those circumstances.

So now to the argument. 401ks make money by investing a part of your salary and sometimes an employer's match in the stock market. This does not mean that a 401k makes money by investing directly in companies. When we buy a stock, we are giving our money not to the company, but to another investor who is selling the stock. It is like buying a ticket to an NFL game from a scalper instead of from the ticket booth.

Likewise, when we sell the stock or when it is sold for us through the 401k, it is sold to another investor. We buy from a scalper and then scalp the ticket ourselves at a higher price. Though in this case, no one ever goes to the game. Tickets just continually circulate. The main way a 401k makes money is by buying stocks and then selling them for a higher price at a later date. In a word, the main way a 401k makes money is through speculation.

The late Paul Samuelson, a Nobel laureate in economics and author of the most widely used economic textbooks in the world, defined speculation as follows, quote, speculation involves the buying and selling of assets or commodities with the purpose of making profits from the fluctuation in prices. Generally, a speculator buys an asset with an eye of selling it later for a profit when the price has risen. Speculators are not interested in using the product or making something with it, rather they make a profit from price changes." Seemuelson for his part did not discourage speculation, but that is not the case with

the Catholic tradition. Saint Augustine wrote, quote, to buy what is cheap and sell what is dear is truly a vice, end quote. St. Thomas Aquinas said the same thing, writing, quote, it is evident that this common desire to buy low and sell high is not from nature, but from vice, wherefore it is common to many who walk along the broad road of sin, end quote." And Pope John Paul II, bringing this traditional teaching forward in St. Thesimus Annus writes, quote, the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from merely speculative activities constitute one of the chief obstacles to the development and to economic order. End quote. In another passage, he calls the ownership of speculative assets like obstacles to the development and to economic order."

End quote. In another passage, he calls the ownership of speculative assets like the ones in a 401k illegitimate. Quote, the ownership of capital becomes illegitimate when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others in an effort to gain a profit, which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of speculation. Ownership of this kind has no justification and represents an abuse in the sight of God

and man." The tradition has condemned speculation because it seeks a profit without corresponding work done for society, as John Paul says here. In effect, one is getting without giving. The antipathy expressed by the Church Fathers is the same antipathy many of us feel for ticket scalpers, that they are profiting without giving any gift or adding any real value to society. Are they clever and resourceful? Yes, of course, but cleverness is no justification for action. People ought to receive compensation

for their work precisely because they have cultivated the good through their work. This is precisely what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians when he writes, quote, If a man will not work, he shall not eat, end quote. People deserve a reward for the way they have bettered other people's lives. You've already heard John Paul II say it. Here's Pope Benedict's argument, quote, a speculative use of financial resources that is of no benefit to the real economy. Excuse me, I misread that. In Caritas and Veritate, he condemns, quote,

a speculative use of financial resources that is of no benefit to the real economy. That is the economy made up of actual goods and services, which he juxtaposed to a theoretical economy. Within this economy, justice dictates and the Christian tradition teaches that prices should increase only on the basis of an increase in the value of the things sold for the community. St. Thomas Aquinas says, quote, If the tradesman sells at a higher price, something that has changed for the better, he would seem to receive the reward of his labor, end quote. The person who makes money for his retirement through a 401k buy stocks low and sells them high, making a profit without adding any value to it. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas calls cheating.

There are, it's easy to see this problem perhaps in the physical marketplace. Like if I buy up lumber and then wait for the price of lumber to rise before selling it at a higher price, I've deprived someone else of their capacity to purchase the lumber for truly productive purposes and in the same stroke, driven up the price of lumber. Normally, my making lumber deer is justified by the fact that I'm doing some good with it, making cabinets, a dining room table for someone to use. But where I do no good with it, I'm depriving the community of productive resources while also driving up their prices.

Again, no good is done and no labor improves the stock in our 401ks. They are imaginary commodities designed specifically for the purpose of buying low and selling high and they have been that way ever since their inception in the Dutch East India Company. But this does not mean that we are not depriving others when we speculate in the stock market as opposed to say the lumber yard. In fact, the case becomes worse. Consider buying lumber as a speculative asset rather than as something to be used. What happens if the guy I sell to does the same thing and the next guy and the next? If no one ever bought the wood for consumption, say for building a house, we would call it wasteful. Think of the energy required to store the wood transfer and the like.

Think of the energy required to store the wood, transfer, and the like. The same problem ails the stock market. Take for instance a report by Stanford University's Jonathan Kumi. He calculated that the total percentage of global electricity used by stock market data centers in 2018 was 1.5%. That's about the same as what Great Britain consumes every year. The financial industry has also vacuumed up a generation's worth of high quality math and science brain power and turned it to the society's worthless task of buying low and selling high on the stock market. This loss of laborers is also a loss of investors. All that money going into the stock market could

have been invested in the local community for the sake of creating more and better jobs, which is what John Paul told us to do in Centesimus Annus, where he defined investment as the following, quote, to invest is to offer people an opportunity to make good use of their labor, end quote. Investing should, the saint states, participate in the act of loving and dignifying one's neighbor. Here, a proponent of 401ks may probably stop me and say something to this effect. The 401ks do not waste all this human potential and energy because they do invest in companies and those companies do things, build things and barring evil companies serve the common

good. But this is incorrect because stocks are not true investments. Because a 401k purchases stocks from other stockholders, a company rarely, if ever, receives your cash as useful capital for their operations. There are ways a company might leverage your stock to increase capital, but generally 401k investments have not led most companies to produce more and better goods. In fact, stock speculation as a whole has not just not only in 401ks. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that from 1989 to 2017, $34 trillion of real

equity wealth was created by the U.S. corporate sector. And yet, among the $34 trillion they found, only 25% was attributed to the production of goods and services, what Pope Benedict called the real economy. The vast majority was attributed to speculation. In short, rather than focusing on producing tangible goods and helpful services, our best minds focused on new financial techniques. This decelerating economy, as the National Bureau of Economic Research calls it, came primarily at the expense of wages. For comparison, they found that from 1952 to 1988, real economic growth, the production

of goods and services was double the growth found after the popularization of 401ks in the 1980s. And no doubt what we are producing is actually worse. Our food is substantially worse. Our buildings are less beautiful and more temporary. And as many have pointed out, great technological advances have stopped arriving. The argument that stock investments serve the common good is simply foolish. Nations that devote themselves to buying and selling serve the common good less than nations that devote themselves to labor, real production, and true investments. Our movement from a real economy to a speculative economy is obviously not all attributable to a 401k,

but they did serve as the main vehicle transforming speculation from a practice of the wealthy to a commonplace among the middle class. The authors of the Trent Catechism saw in their own time a similar transition to a more mercantile economy, one of buying and selling and less growing and sharing. They warned against it. In the 1990s, in the midst of our own increase in buying and selling by the stock market, the authors of our current catechism Saw it fit to quote their warning against Quote merchants who cannot bear to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can buy more Cheaply and sell more dearly and quote well

It would take too long to go into this completely it is clear clear that the middle class's use of 401ks has primarily benefited wealthier speculators. It got more people involved in the stock market. The greater the demand for financial assets, the higher the prices rise, and those better at speculating do better at the expense of others. We wouldn't face this problem if we followed Pope St. John Paul II's words. He writes, quote, The decision to invest in one place rather than another, in one productive sector rather than another, is always a moral and cultural choice, end quote. That's another way of saying that investments are never neutral.

Investments are cultural acts because they physically change the order of society for better or worse. We are either building the city of God or the city of man for better or worse. We are either building the city of God or the city of man, but investments are moral acts because what we invest in reveals what which city our souls long for. This is why what we invest in, as the Pope says again, quote, reveals the human quality of the person making such decisions, end quote. Does the mutual fund in your 401k reveal the quality of your person? The pope says it does.

But we are pretending that it does not, that the 401k is a pure means to other actions, which will reveal how generous and noble we really are. But later down the line, Pope Benedict XVI, seeing the increased mechanization of the stock market, cites this same passage from John Paul II and says in Caritas and Veritaté, quote, all this, it should be stressed, is still valid today, despite the fact that the capital market has been significantly liberalized and modern technological thinking can suggest that investment is merely a technical act, not a human and ethical one." Because we handle our 401ks with a push of the button on our computers, we forget the

human and the societal implications of the action. Now, as we already mentioned, people can invest in 401ks for a profit because they want to help their family in their old age. That is a wonderful intention and a good goal to have. But investing in a 401k is a complete act that needs to be evaluated for its own sake. The specific intention of a 401k is to make money. Asking for what is actually a separate evaluation. The question is not whether or not we can do good things with the profits of a 401k. Of course we can. The question is, are we allowed to invest merely for the sake of profit? And the answer is no. If the only reason why I

wanted to start a college, say, was to make money, that would not only be idiotic because it's not lucrative, it would also be evil no matter what I did later with the money. And that's the same principle that applies. Why we can't invest in pornography companies, even if we send all that money to charity afterwards. Pope St. John Paul II taught us and sent testimony on us that profit could be a sign of the health of a company, but it can never be the reason why anyone does something

exclusively, he writes, quote, The purpose of a business is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs and who form a particular group at the service of the whole society. End quote. The 1996 Catechism teaches the same idea, stating, quote, in business, people have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits, end quote.

The reason is plainly laid out in the LeBorg-McCurson that work is our means of serving our neighbor and that through our work, we grow in virtue. Pope Benedict XVI, again writing in Caritas and Veritate, says, quote, without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing space enclosed within history. It runs the risk of being reduced to the mere accumulation of wealth. Humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of higher goods.

End quote. The pope ultimately grounds an action done merely for profit alone in atheism. If we took John Paul the second seriously and Benedict the sixteenth as well, we would take investing very seriously. We would plan out what companies we wanted to build and support, what people we wanted to invest in, and we would execute only few ventures. We would both be invested financially as well as spiritually. Our spirit would be in it. But the opposite is true with a 401k. 401k's usually utilize mutual funds precisely for the sake of diversification. Diversification is a method of varying your portfolio of stocks in order to lessen the likelihood of losing money

and increase the likelihood of gaining a profit. The goal is not to help companies. It's not to build a better culture or encourage greater morality, as John Paul II taught. We do not know the companies whose stocks we're buying. Our buying them does not even directly help the companies as discussed. If I really wanted to help Home Depot because I love wordworking and think that more people should figure out how to operate a drill, then I wouldn't go buy their stock so that they might get a larger line of credit. I would buy more wood from them. I would tell my friends to do the same.

I would promote them on social media. It is not a natural result of my liking Home Depot to want to buy their stocks from another person. And let's just be honest, do we care if the companies in our 401k succeed beyond what it means for our bank account? We don't because that's the only thing we check is our bank account. Our real orientation in investing should be towards doing good. If you notice the main thrust of ethical investments, the so-called ethical investment mutual funds are particularly

oriented in avoiding evil. They say that we won't invest in abortion or child labor, but they never say what they in fact want to build up. I certainly understand saying this company supports planned parenthood. They utilize slave labor in China and they pay their employees to transition. And therefore I won't invest in them. That makes good sense. But the opposite, does that? This company does not support planned parenthood. They do not utilize slave labor in them. That makes good sense. But the opposite? Does that? This company does not support

Planned Parenthood. They do not utilize slave labor in China. They do not pay their employees to transition. Therefore, I'll invest in them? That just doesn't make sense. What positive good are they doing to get your vote with your money? There's no positive reason for doing it except to make money. It's only asking what one cannot do, not what one should do. It's like a high school boyfriend asking how far he can go physically with his girlfriend. That's just the wrong question to ask stemming from the wrong disposition of soul. In chasing after the Kingdom of God, we need to reorient away from a desire only to avoid doing evil with our investments and towards a desire to build up the good world here and now

401ks are not designed to help us do that They teach us to love money for its own sake and to put off true investment and service to the common good for when we retire Therefore Christians should not, generally speaking, have 401Ks. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jacob. Trent, when have you begin?

You have 20 minutes. All right. Well, I want to thank Matt for hosting this debate and Jacob for participating. 1 John 5.19 says, we know that we are of God and the whole world is in the power of the evil one. It's not hard to find companies that support evil causes and things like that.

So what do we do? Should we just move to the wilderness to avoid these kinds of evils? St. Paul advises against this in 1 Corinthians 5.11. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men, not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers or idolaters.

Since then, you would need to go out of the world. And we shouldn't go out of the world because God wants us to share the gospel in this world. Fortunately, Catholic moral theology gives us principles for knowing when we can and cannot cooperate with evil. And we can use these principles to determine that it is morally legitimate to invest in 401ks or retirement. Now my opponent has the burden of proving these investments are immoral. The default position is that an action is permitted if it is not condemned because we have freedom in Christ. St. Paul even said that Christians could, though they did not

have to, eat meat sacrificed to idols. Likewise, my position is said that Christians could, though they did not have to, eat meat sacrificed to idols. Likewise, my position is not that Christians have to invest in 401Ks, but that they are free to use that for retirement savings. Paul even said that it was the morally stronger Christians who could eat meat made originally for demons. He made it clear that those who benefited from an evil act like adultery were holier because they had a strong enough faith to eat the meat without falling into idolatry. And I would say the same is true of Christians who prudently save and investing in 401ks that they're stronger morally because they've overcome the temptation to simply fall into greed but to use

their savings to build up the kingdom of God. Now, the name 401k comes from section 401k of the US tax code. Then Jacob explained how they're used, that you can use pre-tax income to put into an investment account. Now, my opponent says in his article, the case against blind investing, that it's wrong to invest in 401ks because the church teaches this isn't true investment and that it supports what

he calls unsavory companies. And he says this is even true of Catholic mutual funds like Ave Maria Growth. But my opponent's position is flawed and I'll show why that's the case of four arguments. Number one, the Church does not teach that investing in 401ks is immoral. The authority to bind the faithful in matters of faith and morals lies with the magisterium of the Catholic church, not the private opinions of lay people. In his opening statement, my opponent never cited a single magisterial authority

that said investing in 401Ks in particular or the stock market in general is immoral, not one. Now, he cited magisterial teachings from the popes that reference things like speculation or investments and then says that those generic words mean you can't invest in the stock market or in 401Ks. And I'll address that in my rebuttal. But notice what's interesting here. No magisterial statement he cited said you can't invest in the stock market or you can't invest in 401k's retirement, not one. In fact, the catechism says in paragraph 2413 that games of chance or gambling are not contrary

to justice. So under my opponent's view, you could bet on red at the roulette table, but not on the SMP going up, which doesn't make any sense. In the past, my opponent has cited St. Thomas Aquinas and other scholastic figures and church fathers saying that their rules for investing are violated by 401ks, that you can only invest in a company that you work for. However, these rules that he puts forward for investing, even if they are found in the church fathers, they're not part of the magisterium. And so they are not binding upon Catholics. And I'll explain in my rebuttal why these particular arguments aren't convincing.

But just because we read an Aquinas or Chrysostom or Augustine rules for how we can or can't lend money doesn't mean we're bound by that today. Past saints and doctors of the church sometimes held incorrect views like on the nature of ensoulment, like when Aquinas thought that it took women twice as long to get a soul as a man, and rigorous moral views, like that every sexual act between a husband and wife is venially sinful, or that it's wrong to leave your child in inheritance. If the magisterium, the teaching office of the church, that is held within the bishops,

does not reiterate these views, then Catholics are not bound to follow them. That means that Catholics are free to invest in 401ks. What's interesting is in the past, my opponent has cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their socially responsible investment guidelines. Now, he's cited that in the past, saying that it shows we should not invest in companies, and their socially responsible investment guidelines. Now, he cited that in the past, saying

that it shows we should not invest in companies, but actually it shows quite the opposite. In the bishop's own internal policy document about how we ought to invest, the US bishops say that there are two goals we should follow. Number one, we should obtain a reasonable rate of return on investments. And the bishops then say a reasonable rate of return is considered one that matches the

level of the market. So right off the bat, notice what's interesting here that the US bishops say that it's okay to invest in the market to obtain a reasonable rate of return on it. So clearly they don't agree with my opponent whose claim that investing in the stock market to get a rate of return is an immoral act of greed that can't be justified. Their second principle is that we have to exercise ethical and social stewardship. And they recognize that socially beneficial activities and socially undesirable or even immoral activities are inextricably linked.

The document then goes on to say that you can own stock or invest in companies even if they some of the activities they do are evil, provided not the majority that they do, but even if some of them are so that you can retain the power to be at a shareholder meeting. In an interview that was published this morning at the Pillar, Bishop Praprocki of Springfield, Illinois talked about how he personally invests in Walgreens so he can have a voice and he complained to Walgreens when they were going to compel pharmacists to fill illicit prescriptions. So there's an example here and I would ask my opponent,

is Bishop Paprocki doing something immoral by investing in a company like Walgreens or allowing the people who work within his diocese to have a 401k plan? You have to wonder which is more likely that my opponent is correct and all of the bishops are wrong, all the moral theologians are wrong, and that we have to follow what my opponent says about very particular meanings of words and papal encyclicals, or we can trust the bishops leading us on this and seeing in things like the catechism that the catechism itself never says that investing in 401ks or that buying low and selling high is immoral.

In fact, in paragraph 2409, the catechism does mention speculation. My opponent said, well, you can't buy low and sell high. Though I would say to him, does that apply to things like gold or real estate? In an article he wrote on the case against the stock market with Mark Barnes, my opponent recommended that people, instead of saving for retirement, they should buy land or precious metals. But the only way you would get value from those is if you sold them at a future date

when their price goes up. Is that not the illicit speculation my opponent just condemned? In fact, in paragraph 2409 of the Catechism, it says, the following are morally illicit. Speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others.

This is talking about things like illegal pump and dump stock schemes. You can see that in a great movie called The Boiler Room, by the way. But it allows for other kinds of speculation. And speculation is just simply using your brains to realize a price will go up or down in the future and acting accordingly. When you choose to buy airline tickets two months out from a flight instead of the day before because you know the price will increase, you're engaged in speculation. It's just using your brain to determine what prices will do in the future and acting accordingly. So when we look, for example, in encyclicals when speculation is condemned, it's talking about these kinds of illegal or highly risky ventures, not the very vanilla kind of investing in a 401k. Father Richard Newhouse, the founder of

First Things magazine says this, since Pope John Paul II repeatedly affirms the importance of capital and exchange, he obviously is not criticizing the trade in stocks, bonds and other securities. And he goes on to talk about illicit speculation, what it means could refer to junk bonds, or black market exchanges in an Eastern European context that Pope John Paul II was familiar with. Also, when it comes to the idea of work that well, we can only invest in things that we work at, well, choosing to not spend your money to buy a piece of ownership in another company, and then waiting to sell it later, that is a form of work.

Even Father Oswald von Nelbruning, who is a Jesuit theologian who studied the stock market, who himself was agnostic on the morality of speculation. He himself says that investing in the stock market is work. It's work that's not of the rough physical kind, but it is work. If you choose to buy these stocks, sell them at a later date when their value goes up,

you've taken a risk, undergone work, and you're entitled to a reward as a result. So to continue with my discussion though, my opponent has also said in his previous articles that we can't invest in these companies because they do evil things. He talked about things like child labor, being involved in donating to Planned Parenthood, but he's misunderstood cooperation with evil. The church teaches we can't intend evil, but we also can't proximately materially cooperate with evil. For example, even if you don't like abortion, you can't work at an abortion clinic and be the nurse who hands the instruments to the doctor. That's proximately evil. For example, even if you don't like abortion, you can't work at an abortion clinic

and be the nurse who hands the instruments to the doctor. That's proximate material cooperation with evil. That's wrong. But you could be the landscaper who plants flowers outside if you have a proportionate reason. Like, for example, you really need the money in order to support an essential family expense. That's why Cardinal Ratzinger said in his 2004 memorandum, remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. So we do have proportionate reasons for investing in 401ks, buying that stock, and then selling it later in order to provide for ourselves and for our children. If you look at other companies, for example, later in order to provide for ourselves and for our children.

If you look at other companies, for example, we see nothing wrong with shopping at Walgreens, for example, even though they sell contraception or cosmopolitan at the checkout counter. So if we're able to support companies by purchasing from them and giving them money through purchases, even if we don't agree with every single thing the company does, then surely it follows that we can also invest in the company or buy shares in the stock, even if we don't agree with every single thing that the company does. And so just to follow the example that Bishop Propache said, that he owned a personal stock in Walgreens,

and he uses that to voice his concern at shareholder meetings to get results. Let's see here. I would also ask my opponent then for the case that he's making. So he's talking about where we can and cannot invest. Once again, where does this come from? We're not seeing this in magisterial documents, we're only seeing it in very strained interpretations, things we

don't find the bishops themselves teaching, or even in something like the universal catechism. So that's correct what he said about investing. In an article he published with Mark Barnes, my opponent said, to call buying something on the stock market investing is a misnomer. Nothing is actually being invested in. Your money is not usually going to the company. He then says it only helps the company in a highly indirect way. Well, what's wrong with that? Someone bought an ownership stake in a company, now they want to sell it.

People can buy and sell things that they no longer need or use. I had a ticket to San Diego Comic-Con and I chose to resell it because I'm not able to go anymore. Am I some kind of illicit scalper? The connections that my opponent was making earlier? No, not at all.

In a free exchange, both parties benefit one another. And they're able to benefit one another in growing an economy that provides jobs and goods and services that do promote the common good. In fact, I was really surprised by a lot of the things that my opponent said in his opening, saying that this isn't true investing because we're not building up the common good. I'm just utterly baffled by the things he said. What is he talking about? We've raised the standard of living over the past 100 years. We have seen steady stock market growth and growth in the economy. We've also raised the standard of living. A hundred years ago, people spent half their income on food and clothing. Now they spend 13% of their income because we can make

these goods cheaper and we can allow the poor to have better access to food and other medicines that they did not have 100 years ago. When he said, well, great technological advances have stopped arriving. Look at what we're doing right now. We're having a debate that thousands of people are able to watch online. How hasn't all of this technological advancement brought about by people partnering with companies to allow them to grow in order to reach others? In fact, my opponent himself uses these companies that he says that we can't invest in. On his new Polity website, he condemns investing in Apple, for example, or Facebook or Google because of their alleged involvement in child labor,

manipulation of political process, and other allegedly evil things these companies do. Yet my opponent uses YouTube to promote his new polity show. Twitter uses all these companies. I would ask him, if we can use these companies' products to promote our own particular ends, why can't we buy ownership stake in the companies to promote our particular ends? He also said well we are not allowed to invest to just make a profit, but the magisterium

doesn't teach this. It says that profit is an indicator of a company's health but not the only indicator, so certainly you shouldn't buy stock in a patently evil company like Playboy or Planned Parenthood. But when you look at 401ks, the vast majority of these companies, the vast majority of what they do is to promote morally elicit things, to be able to have technology like this so that we can engage in debates, to go to stores to buy products that help our families and allow economies to grow in the common good to flourish. So looking at all of this, I think that it just simply, it simply does not make sense when you see the way that our goods and services are used in this regard.

So I'd like to go back though to the question of retirement, because I do believe that this provides a proportionate reason to be involved in these different companies In his article that he wrote the case against and why Christians can't invest in the stock market He recommends quote instead of saving for retirement buying precious metals land and property But then my opponent seems to talk about both sides of his mouth because he talks about how buying lumber and reselling it at a later date will drive up the price of lumber and is bad for the common good.

But isn't that also the case that would happen if we bought precious metals and resold them? That will drive up the price of them or land or property. Is it wrong for me to buy a home even if I don't do major renovations to it, i.e. I don't work on it, and then resell it because the price of the home naturally goes up?

If my opponent condemns speculation, saying that we cannot choose to invest in things based on our knowledge, whether the price will go up or down, we could hardly do anything to prepare for the future. What Aquinas and others are talking about is of buying low and selling high. What they mean is in question 77 and 78 of the second part of the Summa, Aquinas is condemning the practice

of selling something for more than it's worth. First, this relies on the medieval just price theory, which itself has fallen out of fashion and the church does not teach. Spanish theologians at the school of Salamanca in the 16th and 17th century, people like Luis Molina, have said the price of a good is what the common market estimation is, what people say the price is, what they are willing to pay for it. And so when we see that, it makes sense we might buy something and people are willing to make more for it at a later time.

And so we make a profit in that respect. As long as we don't worship money for money's sake or become greedy, it doesn't follow that we can't invest. Saying that we need to empty our retirement accounts because we have in order to avoid the sin of greed is like saying we need to empty our refrigerators in order to avoid the sin of gluttony. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater and it's actually going against our goal to develop strong Christian virtue so that we can love our neighbor as ourself. Deuteronomy 6 5 says you shall love the Lord with all your heart, with all your mind and all your strength. The Hebrew word for strength is meyod ka, and literally it means money. The Hebrew commenter Rashi said that there are people who love money even more than their own bodies.

That's why the text says, love with all your money. So we can love the Lord with all our money. When we make money, there's a temptation for greed, but we're empowered by the Holy Spirit to resist that temptation, just like any other sin pride gluttony despair in order to use the goods that God has blessed us with in order to bless others whether it's supporting ourselves in our old age or supporting our children And in fact, that's something that really concerned me about in his article what my opponent said you should do for retirement

really concerned me about in his article, what my opponent said you should do for retirement. He said, let us prepare our kids instead of our 401ks to take care of us during our retirement. But there are many people, even if they have stable jobs that have a hard time caring for their 65 year old parents and their 85 year old grandparents. Now we should care for our aging parents. Christ condemned those who chose to give, give money to the temple instead of caring for our aging parents. Christ condemned those who chose to give money to the temple instead of caring for their aging parents. But we should not selfishly hobble our children

by demanding they take care of us because of a faulty moral opinion that the magisterium does not teach. Rather, we should prudently save and work for the future. Remember what St. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3, 8-10. He talked about how we did not eat anyone's bread without paying, even though we had the right to do that. Rather, he didn't want to be a burden. He said, if anyone will not work, let him not eat.

Pope Leo XIII said, he praised the man who lives sparingly, saves money, and for greater security, invests his saving." That's Pope Peter 13. And Proverbs 13-22 likewise says, a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children. Seeing that we have these good reasons and that the church does not condemn investing in 401Ks, we ought to do that. And so my opponent is incorrect, and it is not generally immoral to invest in 401k's. OK, thanks, Trent.

Now we're going to move into a time of 10 minute rebuttals. Jacob will have 10 minutes and then Trent and then we're going to get into some Q&A. So just a reminder, if you're a local supporter or Patreon, please go over there right now and ask your question to one of these fellows here. Jacob, whenever you start, I'll click the 10 minute timer. Okay, great. Thanks so much, Trent. So I have a number of responses, but I do want to clarify a few things that this debate is only about 401Ks. It's not about alternatives. And I'd love to have a conversation with you about that at some other time, but it's not relevant for today's discussion.

Another thing that I want to absolutely say is that I am in favor of savings and I am in favor of investing very much so, you know, there's qualifications on what that is, but in no way do I totally affirm and thankful for Leo the 13th. But let's get to some of these bigger things. Now, you cited or you stated that the term speculation is a generic word. It is in some ways you could say that has multiple meanings, but in an economic sense, it doesn't. And I cited Samuelson who does give the technical definition for it that we need to follow. The further thing is that John Paul II actually uses a technical phrase

as it pertains to the magisterial teaching on this subject. The idea of buying low and selling high without doing any other work to it had a particular technical phrase in medieval economic treatises and laws. That was Fakiyatqwistum. OK, what is the exact term that John Paul II uses in Centesimus Annus? Well, it's that actually. So it's not so much it doesn't matter what the word is. It's what's the meaning behind the word.

And that meaning is problematic. Now, you also cite Catechism 2409 here saying that there is not necessarily the intention of doing all these bad things within speculation and that there is some forms of speculation that are justified. I don't see that in the text at all. That is a conflict that is reading into it. But even beyond that, again, we need to go to the Latin and the word there is the words there are lucrosa negociatio, which as far as I can find,

do not have any technical meaning and they'd rather refer to lucrative transactions, generally speaking, which is a very reason why the text then needs to clarify the meaning in the next clause. The English translation is just an unfortunate use of a word, which otherwise Paul Samuelson's definition should be received as. Now what about this question of families? Is it wrong to rely on families? You know what? Well, Ted Benna, who is the one that discovered this widespread use of 401ks? He actually later in life regretted his invention

He called it a monster and that we should blow it up he was asked the question of what would you know, what did people do before the 401k and Just how would they manage their life and he he said, quote, It wasn't much of an issue. There wasn't a lot of planning around it. You'd have social security and whatever personal savings you manage to accumulate. Older people would end up living with their kids. Family connectivity isn't what it was, you know,

which I don't think is something that we should rejoice in. In fact, John Paul II says the same. He says, quote, A man is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God. A society is alienated if its forms of social organization and production and consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to establish the solidarity among peoples.

Now with money that never breeds you gives you independence. You're still dependent on people. You're just dependent now on people you don't know rather than on those that you do. And the predicament here is that it doesn't actually bring anything except what John Paul II says. It doesn't give you independence. And the predicament here is that it doesn't actually bring anything except what John Paul II says. It doesn't give you independence. It breeds alienation. So I would first start with some of those responses that speculation is a problem in the tradition that has been specifically denounced by the magisterium, and that it doesn't matter whether or not certain things are specifically named, we then can apply this.

And so, of course, I'm not saying that my word is magisterial. That would be insane. It's rather, does these arguments, is the church speaking about actions that we are involved in? And I think that's clearly the case. You mentioned at one point that we're loaning out funds in the stock market. That is not how the stock market works.

It doesn't work by, you don't gain money by interest. You gain money through price indexing. So that's a problem as well. You also cite certain authorities like Oswald von Nelm Brunning, who I'm a big fan of. And he actually did explicitly condemn the stock market in his dissertation. And it was interesting that after he did that, it wasn't speculation generally that he was condemning. He said that a later Magisterial Declaration would have to be made,

you know, to say that, which later it did and John Paul II. But he actually wrote his dissertation and condemned the stock market. And it was then that Pius XI asked him to draft, make the first draft of quadrigresimo anno. So again, that's not an authoritative claim, but he's definitely not on your side on this case. You also cite Louis de Molina, who is a very brilliant thinker, don't get me wrong,

but again, is not much of an authority as it pertains to this topic. In fact, Innocent X in 1654 said that His Holiness by the present decree declares and decrees that no trust at all is to be placed in the opinions of the brothers OSD as well as Louis Molina. Again, in Innocent by Innocent, the 11th successor, 1679, he in his combination of the laxist, he condemns usury, simony, private property, valuation, and last but not least, speculation with the footnotes all going to Molina and Lesius.

Not all of them, but those two were included. So again, those are not authorities within the tradition, especially next to Thomas Aquinas, next to St. Augustine. And I do believe, you know, that we need to be taking seriously when the patristics are speaking in one voice. They're not talking about price mechanism. They specifically cite labor as the predicament that's going into it, not just price. So again, these are just basic

flaws in thinking here. The bishops, modern bishops, I'll say, I'm not sure if they're really the pillars of light that maybe we once saw in the early church. I'm not sure if they're really the pillars of light that maybe we once saw in the early church. I'm not sure if they're really the ones that we want to follow today. They certainly do not inspire me in the sense that their life is the thing that is revealing a martyrdom of Christ. Now, of course, are they apostles? Do they, when they speak from the tradition, speak well? Of course, they do. They are our leaders.

They are our shepherds. And I respect their opinions as shepherds, but these are not authoritative claims that they're making and not authoritative actions that you're referring to. And so I'm happy to dismiss them. Now, where else are we going? I think there's an important distinction also that needs to be made between funds needed to go towards necessities and those that we use for investment.

Excuse me. Now, this distinction is actually made. You talked about the distinction of buying from a company versus investing in it. No, that distinction is actually made by John Paul II also in his section on the free market. He talks about investing actually in parallel with almsgiving specifically for the reason that it pertains to excessive funds. It's not things that we need right now. Okay? So there are endless number of statements from the church, from church authorities, from church fathers, the 1996 catechism that says that funds that are not necessary, this comes from Leo the 13th,

that when what necessity demands has been supplied and one standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. Even in the 1996 Catechism, it states, when we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice. Now, funds that we use for investment are definitionally funds that are in excess. We don't need them right now. And that's why John Paul II prefaces his statements on investment with the considerations of charity in mind. And then ultimately why he defines investment in the way that he does, that investment is ultimately an act to dignify the labor of your

neighbor. It is an act to do positive good. If we have freedom, we have to use that for the ways that we should act to build up the kingdom as it should be built. I do not see how 401ks do that. That was not proven at all in your statement. And in fact, we don't have any reason to believe that they actively build the kingdom of God, given not only the trends in society. And of fact, we don't have any reason to believe that they actively build the kingdom of God, given not only the trends in society, and of course, I'm not speaking of the last hundred years, the stats that I cited, which again, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, are coming from the late 80s after 401ks were popularized. Again, as the Catechism says, as it decided to reiterate in 2537, that the reason why

speculation has been able to rise amongst the upper classes precisely because more of us are speculating, and that is no reason to justify the actions. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Jacob. Trent, you have 10 minutes. Whenever you begin, I will click the timer. All right. Thanks, Jacob. Trent, you have 10 minutes. Whenever you begin, I will click the timer. All right.

So let's try to pull together and remember the burden of proof in this debate. The burden of proof is held by my opponent. He is saying it is immoral for us to invest in 401ks. He needs to carry that because the church teaches that if the church does not condemn something, then it is permitted. So we have to ask, well, does the church condemn this? Well, what is the argument my opponent is essentially made? This is essentially his argument. Investing in 401Ks is wrong because that involves speculation, and the church condemns speculation. All right, well, how does my opponent define speculation?

He defines speculation as buying something and then selling it when its price increases in the future. Then we have to ask, well, does the church teach that? Is that what is being taught in these magisterial statements? I'll read them to you. And you see, is that what it's saying? Paragraph 2409 of the catechism, the following are morally illicit. Speculation, and then it says in which one contrives to manipulate the price of

goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others, like a pump-and-dump stock scheme. Notice the catechism doesn't simply say, it is condemned to buy something at a low price and sell it later at a higher price. It doesn't say that. It also doesn't say that in these papal encyclicals. In Centus and Mus Annus, Pope John Paul II says, it becomes illegitimate, however,

owning private property when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others in an effort to, and the word for speculation there literally means gain a profit, which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and wealth of society. So if you buy a factory just to keep it shuttered in order to drive your prices up, that would be illicit. But investing in 401ks helps companies to grow to serve the common good. They say, but rather it's the result of curbing them, illicit exploitation, speculation,

or the breaking of solidarity. So here, it's talking about some kind of risky economic venture, especially those that are illegal or artificial. But that's not the case with 401Ks. We're buying ownership share in a company, the price of that thing we buy it goes up and we sell it later. If my opponent is correct and that you cannot buy something low and sell it high later, I would ask him, is it wrong to buy precious metals and resell them later? Is it wrong to buy a home? Then three years later,

you realize the price of it has gone up a bunch, even without you doing work to it, can you resell it? Well, that would be involving speculation, for example. But just because some of the scholastics oppose things like buying low or selling high, and that's not even what seems to be clear in this section of the summa that Jacob is referencing. Selling something for more than it's worth would be like if

you have a evil plumber that comes to your house and he oversells the price of his labor because you are ignorant. That would be selling something for more than it's worth. And that would be wrong. But the price of something, the problem is the medieval just price theory my opponent's argument relies on. It assumes falsely that prices have this very specific intrinsic quality to a good when the price of something can change because of whether other people desire it or not. And so we have to take that into account that as the prices rise or fall with things, we'll make or lose money as a result. So my opponent's argument, just to summarize 401k is wrong because speculation

is wrong. He defines speculation as buying low and selling high based on your under speculating about the future. But if we can agree that it's not immoral to, in other mundane cases, to buy a house knowing its value will go up, buy precious metals, buy a comic book action figure, and not unwrapping the toy, and then selling it 20 or 30 years later. There is work involved here. The work is choosing to not spend my money now, but to hold off on that and reap a reward later. And so my opponent was saying, well, we can use our money for present needs. We can spend our money to purchase in stores to meet our present needs, but all our excess funds have to go to help the poor. Well, guess what? You will

be among the poor in, let's say, 20, 30, 40, 50 years when you are no longer able to work. But you can provide for yourself in the future. If we can spend our money on our present needs now, we can also save our money to meet our future needs. That's why I quote a Pope Leo XIII who said that a man should live sparingly and he should save his money and invest his money, and then transmit that to his children through inheritance. He talked about these companies, what positive good are they doing? And I feel like, well, what does Jacob mean? If investing in 401Ks doesn't help these companies, then why does it matter what we do if we buy these ownership

shares or not? But if it does help, well, we should ask, yeah, what do these companies do? And in general, when you look at a 401k or an index fund, they provide us with things like semiconductor chips, allow us to drive our cars, they fill our stores with the basics of food and medicine and clothes that we use every day. And so we are building up the common good in investing in these companies, growing a stock market, growing the market, bringing down the costs of goods and services so that we're able to help the poor to be able to access these things. And so I just don't see how my opponent's position entails that it's wrong to invest in 401k's because it relies on the much more

controversial principle, it is wrong to speculate or it is wrong to buy low and sell high, which he has not shown a single magisterial statement that says this. He merely takes one word, speculate and rams this meaning into it. It reminds me of people who see in Pope Paul VI and in Gaudium, it says in Pope John Paul II, saying that deportation is intrinsically evil. And so what they'll do is they'll look in these magisterial documents and they'll see, oh, it says here deportation is intrinsically evil. So that means you could never, and that means kicking someone out of your country. So you can never deport anyone for any reason. Well, no, yes, the word deportatio means to expel someone,

but in the context, it's talking about mass deportations, like in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union to send people off to death camps or in the wilderness to die. Much the same way speculare, another variance of speculation in these papal encyclicals, does not mean buy low and sell high

or think about the future, guess about the future. It's clear in the context in paragraph 2409 as well as in Santissimus Annus 43 that we're talking about illegal or exceedingly risky forms of speculation like junk bonds. Not the very mundane things you see in a 401k with the stable growth that is there. Let's see, he took a little bit of a jab at Luis Molina saying, well, Molina's thought

had been condemned by a particular pope. Well, the same thing happened to Thomas Aquinas too. Aquinas' works were condemned contemporaneously near his own lifetime. So that would cut against the officials he holds dear. The point is what we look towards, we look towards the magisterium. What is right or wrong? What is moral or immoral? We look to Christ's church. 1 Timothy 3.15 says the church is the pillar and ground of faith. We look to what the church teaches. Does the church teach we can't buy low and sell high? Does it teach we can't

invest in the stock market of 401ks, it doesn't do that. The bishops themselves do that, and have given advice for that in their own internal documents, and then they're teaching to their flocks. That's why I was shocked, shocked when my opponent said, Well, maybe these bishops, we shouldn't listen to them or follow them. And I feel free to dismiss them. I feel like my opponent's position is the bishops are wrong, and we need to reform our church. Wow, where have I heard that one before?

This, as Yoda once said in the Star Wars movies, to a dangerous place this line of thinking will take us. And so that's why I would encourage you in looking at the arguments my opponent has presented. His argument boils down I will affirm summarize this one more time. His argument boils down to saying investing in 401k is wrong, because his definition of speculation, the broad definition, buy low sell high, that's immoral. The problem is the church doesn't teach that.

And from basic common sense, we can see it's not wrong to buy something, whether it's a precious metal, whether it's real estate, whether it's a collectible item, or whether it's an ownership stake in a company, and then selling it later when the price naturally goes up. If we see that all those things are moral, then investing in 401ks would be moral as well. My opponent has not proven that we can only make money by engaging in physical labor

or other very narrow definitions of work. And by the way, when I mentioned Father Oswald von Nelbruning, I know his, I have cited him because of his negative view of the stock market. What I said about Father Nelbruning was that he said that investing and speculating is work. It is a kind of work. You have to do mental work to plan and think about what the future will be, and then set aside your money to use for future goods.

So I will rest my case at that point. And then I look forward to speaking more with my opponent about this. All right. Thank you very much, Trent. Okay. So what we're going to do now before we get into the period of cross examination and then Q&A is going to take a quick break. And we'll be back in just a couple of minutes. Don't go away. Exodus 90. You've heard of them, haven't you, Neil?

I have. Well, the guys behind Exodus 90 have started Exodus 21. They've caught they're calling it a 21 day restart. So for 21 days, you along with the friends you invite, pray and read through the first two chapters of Corinthians while practicing disciplines such as 20 minutes of prayer every day, abstaining from unnecessary screen time, that doesn't include points with the coiners obviously, abstaining from meat on Fridays, and fasting until 4pm on each weekday. You can take this short opportunity to introduce your brothers, cousins, co-workers, fellow parishioners and even your neighbours.

Be kind of weird if you didn't know them, just assume they're Catholic and want to torture themselves for 21 days, on how to live like Christ and prepare them for Exodus 90 in January. So check it out, go to Exodus90.com. Exodus90.com. To get started. I did Exodus 90 once and I lived like a boss monster for the first 31 days and then failed miserably.

So Exodus 21 sounds super great at this. Yeah, I would have crushed it, although probably because 21 days was the goal. I would have like faded out around the 11th day. I don't know. Exodus 90 dot com slash Matt. Go check him out to get started. People who have done it just says it really rejuvenates their prayer life and helps them. Exodus nine zero dot com slash Matt.

Link is in the description. Click it and check them out. And that starts January. You know, you can start whenever. Oh, so Exodus 90 is going to be starting in January. So this 21 day can be like a little test. But honestly, for me, I just do the 21 day. So you can do it whenever you want.

Go check it out right now. Exodus 90 dot com slash. Man, it's a great way to grow in friendship, too, with people in your community. Check them out. Also, I want to say thank you to Hello. Sorry. Hello is a really great prayer and meditation app. It is just phenomenal. Whenever I talk about Hello, I'm always impressed that a Catholic group has been

able to create one of the greatest apps in the history and catalog of current apps. It has sleep stories. It allows you to pray the Rosary. It even has Mark Wahlberg praying the Rosary so you can pray with Mark Wahlberg, which is pretty cool. I just got back from a trip to Africa and I'm really bad at sleeping on airplanes, so I listened to sleep stories and they people read the Bible to you and stuff like that. It's really really good. Hello.com slash Matt Fradd and also when you sign up on the website you get three months for free. So if you just download the app and sign up that way you got to start paying monthly, but you can try it for three months.

That's a long time and you can see if you like it and if you don't you can cancel and you won't be charged ascent hello.com slash Matt Fred. Finally I want to say a massive thanks to everybody who's beginning to support us on locals. Locals is a free speech platform that will enable me to continue putting out content laugh long after YouTube may choose to ban us or suspend us as Twitter did recently. So go to locals.com slash, no, matphrad.com slash locals. Right? Link is in the description.

Link is in the description. And follow us there. We have morning podcasts. You get access to monthly spiritual direction with Father Gregory Pine. We release monthly audio books. For the month of August, We're going to be releasing. What's it called? Tree Survival is the interior interior castle.

We just commissioned a study on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas by Dr. Ed Faser hard man to get a hold of but he has recorded the videos. They're fantastic. So just go support us there. And one more thing that we're doing is we've put together an ink on paper newsletter. It's phenomenal.

I'm not joking. Isn't it? You saw it. Did you actually impress? I really like it. It would be awkward if you said it. Crossword to get a Catholic crossword puzzle and poetry and articles from theologians. And this will when you get this for free, by the way, we even pay shipping.

So if you live in Namibia or Yemen or Australia, China, wherever we we ship it to you for free whenever these newsletters come out and you can put your phone in a drawer or set it on fire. Sit out on the back porch with a whiskey or coffee and, and just unplug and just go to matfrad.locals.com and join us over there. We didn't really. That's not extra. You just sign up for the local support. Yeah. And so what you're going to do is once you sign up as an annual local supporter, that's how you get the thing.

You can support us monthly, but if you support us annually, you get annually, you get access to this newsletter. And you just we just ask that you put your address in. So once you sign up to locals, there's something pinned to the top. Click through that, put in your address, and we'll just start sending them to you. Check it out. MattFrad.locals.com Also, you don't actually have to pay to watch a lot of

the content that we put out over on Locals so download our Locals app it's on iOS and Android and start following us over there because it's an amazing community of Catholics all around the world that are supporting each other it's not just me posting it's also the supporters posting I think people will really really dig it so matfrad.locals.com check it out thank you very much final word it'd be great if you subscribed it'd be great if you then rang that bell button because right now we have a hundred thousand trophy over here we're over quarter of a million which sounds more than 250,000 which is why I phrase it that way and once we get a million

subscribers they will give us another plaque at which point I will quit the YouTube channel, sell my house and go live in the forest somewhere. And newspapers, ink on paper, newspapers. Yeah. And just read all of the newspapers that I put together. Thanks so much. All right. So there's me for five minutes telling you to give me all of your freaking money. Invest in, uh, invest in pints with Aquinas locals. Yeah, this is good. All right, Trent, you still. Oh, Trent's coming back now.

All right. So we are now going to move into a time of 10 minute cross examination. So Jacob will have the first 10 minutes. Then Trent, I want to remind people because people get all sensitive on the Internet that the, you know, whoever's doing the cross examination is free to interrupt his opponent to be rude, as it were, to push him along, to get the answer he wants to get. This isn't considered rude.

This is just how it works. So, Trent, you ready? Oh, he's putting in his earphones. I have had the devil upon my technology. You can hear me fine, right? Yeah, you look great. Look great. Smell good.

My Thunderbolt dock, it fell behind my... I'm gonna have to do a whole debrief about everything technological. I only have 10% power left. I just plugged in my computer, but it's fine now. Wow, bless you. That's just like the last thing you need in a debate. Like for me, I got nothing riding on this, right?

I'm just drinking whiskey and just whatever. Whose turn is it? I'm not really drinking whiskey. All right, so everyone take a breath and everyone watching, get ready, buckle up. Jacob, whenever you want to start I'll click the 10 minute timer and you can go for it mate. Sure. Thanks. So I just wanted to start with some clarifications and we can go from there

So the first thing I just want to make sure is is clear is that? With the tradition is speaking about this whole buying low holding and doing nothing selling high later That's seeing Thomas actually specifically says, if you do that without the intention of getting rich, you just buy something, you didn't do anything with it. You know, that's not the problem. It's the only intention of your making money is there. Like that's the predicament.

So if I have my house, right? And I buy it and then 20 years later, I can sell it at a new market value. You know, Thomas is fine with that. As far as I can tell, Bonaventure is fine with that. Chris Austin is fine with that. Augustine is fine with that. Paul II is fine with that. Benedict XVI is fine with that.

It's just a matter if your major intention is to make money that way. Just want to make sure that's clear. Yeah, and I don't see, I see nothing wrong also with buying a home because you know that market will increase selling it later or for example, buying gold or precious metals or buying something whose value will go up and then sell it later. I don't see what would be wrong with that.

And you mentioned that. Yeah. But then, so then there is a question then of the question of work. And certainly when you say that in the context of paragraph 43 that John Paul II is clearly speaking about risk or illegal activity or and illegal activity, that's 48. And certainly risk is not really a valid reason for getting ownership of something. I mean, think about Russian roulette. You get the money based on risk, but we wouldn't call that just, right? And then he uses the term illegal or illegal rather.

So he's talking about two separate things. But in the other paragraph in 43, he certainly says that it's the result of when that speculation is wrong, when it's not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society. And so, I mean, this is maybe too much of a leading question and that being a jerk, but not all work is valid and just, right? I mean, somebody that works to set up a prostitution ring, he's working, he's expending energy, but it's not good or just right? Correct. That's why I don't invest in prostitution companies. Good job. Awesome. So I just want to make sure that there's a distinction there because it is based upon value add, as he said, the overall expansion of work and wealth in society, right?

So that's really the core of what I'm trying to clarify there and what I'm what the tradition is speaking of and why? speculation when you're not doing anything When there's no real value add That's the problem Right. I guess we want to hear your response to that because you haven't heard that yet. My response would be it would seem to me that Selling making shares available to a company and allowing people to trade them probably helps the company in some way, otherwise the company wouldn't bother to do it at all. So if I engage in buying those shares and then it helps those companies,

maybe for their stock price to increase or whatever it does, however it helps them. If in general, the companies that are in 401Ks, and they're all pretty standard companies, I don't have a moral objection. It helps them to grow, provide jobs. You don't have a moral objection to companies that utilize slave labor in China or child labor in Africa that gives to Plain Parenthood. Like, OK, so you mean companies like social media companies or Apple or things like that? Well, like Microsoft, for instance, has a partnership with the actual the communist state of China

to be able to use their slave labor camps. I mean, look, there's a question about whether or not, like, how directly are you cooperating in that? And I think that's a great question. I think that's worth the conversation. But my major concern is that that's at least scandalizing. But more than that, it is speculation. So I certainly understand why companies go public. That's why does that, you know, that's getting a lot of money right off the bat. But we're talking about 401ks. Right. We're talking about 401ks.

So, right. My answer is... And so we're not really talking about major companies that are underwriting IPOs. We're not. We're talking about 401ks. That's just a different thing. Right. But if I see nothing more, if I believe there are proportionate reasons to buy an

iPhone or to buy a lithium ion, if I buy a device that has a lithium ion battery in it, odds are the precious metal, the cobalt for that came from child labor in the Congo. So if it's morally appropriate to buy things, purchase items that involve these evils in a remote material way down the line? I see no difference between investing in companies that have the same level of cooperation. Well, I think that's that has to be clearly misguided because based upon the principle of necessity. So a lot of us probably don't qualify for that example. Like, you know, buying how many of us really need a smartphone? How many of us really need a television? You know, these are these are serious questions that we just have to deal with, you know, buying how many of us really need a smartphone, how many of us really need a television?

You know, these are these are serious questions that we just have to deal with, you know, in our modern society. But I'm not saying we have to just jump to an idealized state. I think that's that's silly, too. That seems quite foolish. But we need to be making the right decisions in the right direction slowly and over time. And what I would say, then, is that if you're morally concerned, like for me, more harm comes to someone in choosing to not invest in retirement in a 401k

than in not using a cell phone. I just have a question about that because, I mean, how can that be the case when the 401k wasn't even really popularized until the 1980s? I mean, what? Everybody just died horrible deaths before that. Like there was no other options for saving and investing as Leo the 13th talked about. I mean, obviously there were obviously there are. So instead of using 401ks, we should rely on social security that's blindly invested for us. I'm not saying that we should rely on that. My main argument is that we need to return to the natural order of self-giving, which is what

this what I'm saying is that the natural order of the self-giving of society, as John Paul II says in that paragraph 41 of Saintestimus on us, like whenever we put in structures of sin, this is his argument. When we put it together in structures of sin, this is his argument, when we put it together, structures of sin in society that prevent us from giving of self to one another and rather result in alienation, then we have a problem. We should start to move away from that. That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily condoning something that was previously done, but it doesn't mean that that's our only option. I mean, it's something invented in 1978,

like a law that was written in 1978 is not the savior for retirement now. And I would, you know, along with the creator of 401ks bemoan the fracturing of the family. Right. And there's people who are also involved in creating other kinds of technology that come to regret how they're misused. But many people also use 401ks for things like being able to pay for expensive medical costs.

Many people when they reach old age have mobility issues. So I just totally agree. But my argument is that the for the investing that speculating is a complete act that should be evaluated on its own. I think it's maybe sometimes more clear, like if I'm investing in, you know, just pick a random example, like a coffee shop in town, then you can judge the fruit of that investment based upon what we're doing. You know, are there strippers in my coffee shop?

You know, I think that's a bad investment, right? You know, and I think it's just clear when that. What about a company like Novavax that has created a COVID-19 vaccine that doesn't have a connection to abortion? Like, is that worth investing in? Well, then it just brings us back to the other problem is that if you really wanted that company to succeed, why would you buy their stock? It's just just like you really are committed

to giving them another line of credit. This is my other argument that you haven't responded to yet about you can't do something for pure profit alone. I mean, that's that's a problem. If you really I've cited multiple documents here that you didn't respond to. So this is you can do something

for profit. Obviously, profit is a sign of health of a company, as John Paul II says. But profit alone. I mean, that's not Christian. We don't do things just for pure profit alone. That's not right. So if you're if you're buying stock from Nova, I mean, why wouldn't you just buy, give them money? I mean, sending the money. Why wouldn't you?

I mean, that actually directly helps them more than doing a financial technique such as this. That just doesn't make any sense. It does make sense because when I invest in companies, it allows me to build my portfolio and amass more money so I can give. Then I can give the more money I make, I could give it to against malaria.

I could give it through zero interest. No, no, that's utilitarian argumentation, which, you know, St. Paul says we can't say that we can do evil, that good might come. I mean, that's just, you know, I mean, very tossing. That's a very tough splendor. I mean, John Paul II wrote an entire encyclical against that line of reasoning. I mean, just that's not Catholic way of thinking. But even more than that, 401K is don't don't permit you.

Again, generally speaking, 97% of the time, 99% of the time, and speaking individual companies, you are not just buying up shares of particular companies. You don't even know what you're buying. You're diversifying. I can look in my 401k to see what's there, right? But your example is specific companies. You don't have that choice.

Yeah. So, you know, I think so, again, the reason why we invest and we just have to be honest with ourselves is it pertains to 401ks. So we're doing it for profit. Thanks. All right, Trent, whenever you begin, you have 10 minutes to cross examine Jacob. Okay. So, yeah, Jacob, I'm trying to understand your argument. It seems to boil down to we cannot invest solely to make a profit.

I'm trying to understand this. So would it be wrong for me to buy gold knowing that the price, now gold is actually very volatile. I wouldn't recommend this for people. Would it be wrong for me to buy gold knowing it would be worth more in 20 years and selling it later? Is that wrong? So I think gold is a really interesting example, precisely for this reason,

is that in the midst of our fiat currency that we currently have, our dollars are being devalued nearly every day. That is very hard to make a legitimate claim for the unsound money that we currently have. And so if we are going to save up for something, your dollars are going to be devalued every day. that it's very hard to make a legitimate claim for the unsound money that we currently have. And so if we are going to save up for something, your dollars are going to be devalued every day, primarily in large part through inflation, also in large part through speculation. I mean, that's what speculation does. It drives up prices. Yeah. So the following to that, though, is that gold has just historically speaking,

retained its purchasing power. So my, so the reason why Can you buy it and sell it later? Can you buy it and sell it later because it's worth more? My, my reason for that is that you are actually retaining the same purchasing power that you currently have. That's my argument, not to have a profit in that technical sense later.

So is the goal, but will the goal be worth more? I buy it at one price. Proportionally, historically speaking, proportionally, no. OK. All right. So you can buy gold and sell it later. You just say that it hasn't actually increased in its price for some reason. In relative to real goods. Absolutely. OK.

Is there. Would you agree, goods, absolutely. Okay, is there, would you agree though that you have not presented a magisterial statement that condemns, it says you cannot invest in the stock market or 401Ks? And these, as you said, the 401K has been around since the 1980s. So we've had a 40 year period for some kind of either papal or a bishop speaking about this.

None of your magisterial statements specifically mentioned 401k is correct. They never specifically mentioned a 401k. I'm applying principles that they use. OK, so they say I actually one one example actually did come on July 19th when there was a new, not a new, but a new law that came out directing the Vatican banks investment funds. And there they actually cite some of these passages that I cited from John Paul II. And that's their decision that led them to invest in private companies rather than public companies.

So that's actually, again, that's not a magisterial statement, but it is gives credence to the same interpretation That I am giving by the current magisterial Authorities, even though it's not an authoritative statement Okay, but it gives it gives an only a rotation and only implies the Roman Curia. It's not absolutely Yes, you're right. Yeah so Absolutely. Yes, you're right. Yeah. So let's continue on with a few things. Do you agree that the catechism teaches that it can be OK to gamble?

You know, I just can't remember that that part. I'll read it to you. It's paragraph twenty four, thirteen of the catechism. So it says that it says games of chance are not contrary to justice, card games, et cetera, or wagers. So, yeah, I'd like to see the nuance of that. Sure. But I don't. I mean, if that's what it says, that's what it says.

But I'd like to see the nuance of that statement. It says games of chance or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. And unfair wagers and cheating. So it seems to say here that if you fairly bet on a game of chance. Now, do most people bet on games of chance solely to make money? I think they have some fun with it.

You know, if I sit down poker night with the buddies, you know, that just makes the competitive edge a little bit more, a little bit more excitement. Imagine that there's something like that that is referred to not other things in that in that passage. Do you think the primary reason people engage in games of chance involving money is to make money? I don't know. I don't have a vague general interpretation of that. But I do say that about speculating in the stock market through a 401k. Yes, that is primarily if not exclusively through for profit.

So if you're following the catechism says, would your position be that it's not immoral to bet on red at a roulette table, but it is immoral to bet on the SMP going up? I don't know about the roulette. I don't have an opinion on that yet. It's ill formed. But certainly, there is no sense of doing it for fun. The reason why people invest in the stock market

is to make money. And I would further say that the, there is probably a difference between games and business. I mean, this is another thing that Oswald von Nell Brünig talks about, of course, in his dissertation about the distinction between gambling and speculation in the stock market. Do people go to work just to make money?

Do a lot of people go to, do people go to their jobs just to make money? I think some people have terrible jobs that they only work for money. Absolutely. Is that immoral? And they're the guise of necessity, which is a distinction I've made already in this debate. I don't think so, depending upon what how how necessary working that specific job is. So like Father Gregory Pine the other day made a great video on

our level of cooperation. Let me ask you this. So then if it were necessary, if someone has a necessity to provide for their present needs, would they not also have a necessity to provide for their future needs? For example, suppose someone does not have children or maybe they don't know what their children would do. Maybe they want their children to become cloistered nuns, so they're not able to support them in their old age. Would that not create a necessity to provide for themselves in the future through retirement savings?

I would say there are many examples of that, but by saying, by noting these specific examples in which particular circumstances would make it necessary for somebody to save, then you have already agreed to the resolution that is generally immoral, given that you've only found a specific example. You have implicitly done so. But I would also say that it's not like 401Ks are the only way in which you can invest, obviously, or safe. It's obviously not.

What's another way you could provide for yourself so that when you are no longer able to work, you're you're not just buying a bunch of cat food because it's the cheapest canned food. What other ways would you do that? That does happen to people. It does happen to people who don't save for retirement. Okay. Yeah. I think there's a number of different ways that we can talk about. Certainly you can talk about money. Just money alone is an example. I have no more,

multiple people who do that. I know multiple people who are doing well with that. Money will lose its value because of inflation. How would you save up enough to provide for yourself? Oh, it's still possible. I mean, I know I know people who are living very well just by cash savings alone. It's not like 401K is just completely the only way of doing that. Absolutely not. I would also say that, you know, you need to consider. You can say so your excess money, you can say that you don't have to give it to the poor. You can save it to spend on yourself. Well, you're talking about the solicitude of the future,

which of course St. Thomas says we can take too far, right? But it should be done. But within the context of the common good, he says, there can be no prudence or no solicitude for oneself alone. He said that is not real prudence. That's not real or good solicitude. To say to plan for your future? Outside the context of your community. You have to understand that all actions are for the common good, of which you are a part. So you have to care for yourself as part of the common good. Right. So saving so that you're able to support yourself in old age, so you have funds for yourself and funds to spend on the good of others.

Does that promote the common good? Yes, like depending. Yes, it could very well. It could. Okay. I mean, legal 13 says it, but I think it's just common sense as well. Okay. I want to go back to the, does it concern you at all that there isn't a single bishop

who would agree with your position since they all allow people to invest in 401ks? Like what would you say to Bishop Baprocki? He specifically buys shares in Walgreens to be present at shareholder meetings. Does that concern you at all that none of them would agree with your position? I would say a few different things. I'm not sure if you've actually asked all of them. So I'd like to do that first. I think the second thing I would say is that buying specifically buying

shares of Walgreens is certainly not something that you are going to do in a 401k. You cannot show up to these meetings. They're held by the financial advisor. You're not talking about a 401k here, Tim. Hold on. No, I'm saying about these companies. On the New Pallity website, you guys listed the Aave Maria growth funds and you criticize the companies in there.

And one of them you criticize is buying shares in Walgreens. Mm-hmm. So you do buy. Let's just stick to this debate. I would love to have another conversation about that article. I'd be grateful to come on your show and do that. Please take me up on that. But, but let's just stick to this debate. Okay.

Well, I'm just saying that you are these in 401ks and these funds, you do buy ownership share a very small amount, but you do. Right. That's different than what Bishop Proprio is doing. you do buy ownership share a very small amount. But you do buy it in long range. Right, but that's different than what Bishop Proprio is doing. And we have to understand that we're talking about two different financial techniques here. Sure.

Okay. All right, so we're gonna move into a time of 20 minutes Q and A. What I'm gonna try to do is alternate who asks the question first. And so everybody will get a chance to have the last word as it were I would ask that if each of you could try to keep your answers to under two minutes

might be difficult. Do you have another water? Do you have another water there Neil? I think we're out. We're out. Alright, even duel. Alright so yeah we're gonna have 20 minutes of Q&A. I'll alternate who gets to ask, answer the question first and therefore who has the last say each time. Try to keep your answers to under two minutes if you can. All right. Let's see here. Alex says for Trent, regarding speculation, wouldn't it be reasonable

to conclude that any purchase of a good or a stock, no matter the amount, will have an effect on the overall value of that good or stock. The effect may be small for something like a stick of gum at the grocery store, but it's greater than zero, which seems to satisfy the catechism's definition of speculation. Trent go first. Okay. Well, right. Well, what I would say is that the catechism doesn't offer a definition of the word speculation. It presents example like if you're referring to paragraph 2409, it specifically says, well,

here, I can bring it up right here. What it says talks first, this is in the section on provisions in civil law against stealing and forcing up prices by taking advantage of ignorance or the hardship of another, like the with the evil plumber example that I gave earlier, paying unjust wages, business fraud, it's talking about fraud in business, not doing business in general, which would include things like the stock exchange

And it says what's illicit is speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially to gain an advantage so For example a pump-and-dump scheme occurs when you buy up a bunch of stock from a company Spread word that it's great when it's actually not and then then you sell your shares because you know it's about to collapse. That's actually illegal and people are arrested for that. So that would be wrong. But yeah, when you buy anything, you increase the value for that thing. So clearly, it wouldn't be wrong to invest

because anything we buy will increase its value to show that people want it. Cool. Great. Thanks. You know, I also agree that you're not getting a definition out of 24.09 in the catechism as well. And as I mentioned in my initial rebuttal, that lucrosa negoziatio is not a technical term. It does not specifically refer to the age old idea of buying low, holding, doing nothing, all this purposefully and selling high later. It's just, I mean, as far as I can tell, it's just a lucrative transactions, which is exactly the reason why it needs to qualify in the next clause. So I agree with Trent that that's not what we're getting in reference to. What we do find a technical term

for the age old idea of purposely buying low to sell high later with doing nothing in return is found in centesimus honest with the Fakihat quistum. I mean, that is just a technical term. That's how we have to interpret it. But we don't have to do that with 24.09. This question comes from Seth Slayman. Greatest name ever. Slayman. Is that his real name?

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe Jacob. All the way. He says, Jacob, although I agree with a good portion of your thought process, it seems to me at the base of it is a community who thinks similarly is crucial to your idea. Can you speak to the virtue of prudence in making a large decision decision like this for your family, especially in a day when you can't trust the value of the dollar. But we still need to use the dollar. Yeah, it's a great question. And, you know, to be honest, I don't like I like teaching

these things from the tradition. I'm not a pastor. I would recommend that you talk to one about it. But this is it depends. I certainly understand if people are in their late 50s already, their kids are raised, they have not raised them with this mindset, that they might be in one of those specific circumstances where it's not immoral, as I mentioned at the beginning of my talk. And so that might be a consideration, but you really need to consider whether or not you're being honest with yourself in that moment.

If your kids are young, well, I mean, the idea is that, you know, as Arthur Brooks wrote a great article against the idea of the nuclear family, that's just a modern invention. It's usually multi-generational living. That's part of God's original design. When he talks about being cursed, the third and fourth generations, because they're all living under one household. I think the return to the family is actually a fundamental part of being truly prudent. That's as St. Thomas talks about in his treatise on prudence,

again, that you can't just consider the individual. It has to be in the context of the family. So, I would say that those are, you know, these are some of these things that we just need to actually take to significant prayer, be open to having our consciences formed, better oriented to Christ. And ultimately all this is to be able to see his face more clearly and through that, being able to love one another more dearly. Trent. Yeah, and I would agree that good things can be misused.

I saw a story about a woman who's retired and she says, I'm going to live on a cruise ship for the rest of my life. And people in the news story, they say, but what about your grandkids? She says, I'm done with all that. And that's selfish and breaks up the family. And so I agree with Jacob, that kind of mindset is bad, but it's the mindset that's bad, not the 401k itself, not saving. We can save so that we are financially prepared for

in old age, but also to maintain those familial bonds. And to have that extra financial help is a good thing and it's a way to love and care for others. For example, it can be a loving thing for grandparents to be able to provide for them so they can live in a house down the street. Because a lot of grandparents, I think, and I, you know, around,

you have little kids around grandparents. One of the perks of being a grandparent is you get to have short, fun exchanges with grandkids. You already got through the whole thing of having kids around you night and day. The fun thing about being a grandparent is the short intermittent visits. And so to have that communal activity is a good thing

without by necessity someone having to live with you. And as I said before, people have mobility issues, health issues, that in saving in this way, I think it's important and it's about the attitude, not the mechanism. I will say this though, I know a family who's home burnt down and through a technical error, they didn't have house and fire insurance.

And so they went to their community. I had them on my podcast and we, thousands of people heard their story and they were only able to raise about $50,000 and the cost is 300,000 to rebuild their home that they're still on the hook for. So the fact of the matter is we have mechanisms now like insurance where premiums end up supporting these companies,

retirement, investing 401k to allow us to be able to thrive and protect us from disaster so we can focus on loving our neighbor instead of scrambling to have our needs met. A question here from Josiah Thursday goes to Trent. It says, Trent, you said that many diocese and bishops engage in this form of investment. Many bishops in the world support all kinds of evils. How can current bishops actions override consensus of the fathers? Okay, well what I would say here first is I would dispute that premise, engage in all sorts of evils. What is the person talking about here?

Sometimes bishops don't always do what we want, they're only human. But we have to understand who has Christ given us to lead us in the faith, to teach us. He's given us the church, in particular the teaching office of the church. And that would be the magisterium. So, even Aquinas himself, in talking about this, he relates, he talks about the magisterium of the Prelese, it says specifically, St. Thomas was absolutely certain that the right to judge in matters of doctrine was the sole responsibility of the officium prelationis, the office of the prelacy, the church prelates. And so we can look to the bishops to guide us in matters of faith and morals, even in very new things. We look to the CDF, we look to the bishops when IVF is invented, when surrogacy becomes popular. So 401ks have been around for 40 years,

and even when other evil things are invented, like IVF for example, the church comes out and is forthright, church health plans are not going to cover an evil procedure like that, and yet the bishops show us a different example when it comes to investing in 401ks. I'm not aware of any bishop who, maybe they don't provide 401ks, but none that prohibit people from investing in them. So, I think we should be able to follow their example. And if we say, well, you know, I'm only going to follow the bishops when they agree with me, well, then the authority isn't in the church, it's in you. And that's a dangerous path to go down. Yeah, is another good question and, you know, great response.

I'd say that we do find the first signs of this in the law that was, that came out in which private companies are invested in as an interpretive guide. Again, it's not an authoritative one, something can change. I don't hold out on that. But there's also, you know, just a real, I think that we need to be clear about the age that we're living in. Like, this is not a glory season of the church and that reform never begins with the bishops, you know, it starts with the laity in part and then also through new orders. I mean, you talk about, you know, reform coming from anybody but the bishop, I mean, that's

what St. Dominic did, that's what St. Francis did. You know, this is, you know, the ways in which Christ speaks through the census of Adalum to guide His church to himself. If there are principles here, and I believe, I mean, I've demonstrated that there are, guiding us on how we should actually invest in a positive way that we need to regain our understanding of all of human life, as Benedict XVI says, and Curtas and Veritate 75, of reclaiming the gift economy and not just in

exchanges of community of justice but actually gifts of self to one another. But isn't that just how we want to live anyway? Like that's what makes life really worth living is being with one another, loving one another, fully giving one another. That is, nobody on their deathbed says that I wanted to watch more movies or whatever else. It's always I want to spend more time with those who I dearly cherish. And the mechanisms that we've set up in society have not tended us in that direction. And I would just briefly cite St. Thomas, commentary in the Nicobatian Ethics in Book Eight, where he makes the distinction

between real friendship and an impoverished vision of it. And he makes the claim, this is where I grab that line, some people know is that, um, that money takes over for where love lacks. And our question really has to be, how can we, in all cases increase love to decrease the use of money? But sometimes that's just necessary. But where can we allow in our lives for love to win? Seth Francis says question for Jacob.

Where should a Catholic invest for retirement under your mattress or even a savings account will be eaten by inflation? Yeah, I think we've addressed part of that already that, that again, 401ks are not the only option out there. And then I know multiple great people that don't have 401ks and are living well off of retirement. The natural place to look for retirement is your family. I mean, even when I mentioned Ben, Ted Ben, who created the 401k, he bemoaned the fracturing of the family

that didn't really exist prior towards this obsession with saving for retirement. I mean, that's actually something that we should spend some time meditating on. I don't say that as an authoritative statement. Obviously, it's not. But but we really need to consider What was life like before we get so used to our modern day? We just assume that this is just all there is is the only option and it's not the only option and I'd really really, you know ask people to

To be honest with themselves in these cases If that's not too arrogant to say, and to ask whether or not they are open to other reasons and other actions. We've mentioned gold as an option, but families is obviously first and foremost. And the question of when we retire is another good question to ask. Trent. Yeah. What I would say is what did people do before? Well, before, throughout most of human history, a person did not have to wonder, how am I going to help my 65 year old parents and my 85 and 95 year old grandparents? We're soon reaching, and this is something many people in my age now have to confront, because thankfully

through these major pharmaceutical companies, health companies, and other firms that have given us life-saving medicine and technology, we have been blessed to have our grandparents with us much longer than they were in the past. And that's a good thing. But it also comes with it, the added questions, well, how do we support someone who might have very specific? Needs to be able to help them that let's say you're a Catholic father. You're 35 You got a 65 year old parents 85 year old grandparents 90 year old grandparents You have a family of four with your little kids Wouldn't you have been now you'll do everything in your might to help your parents and grandparents? Absolutely

But wouldn't you have been grateful that they thought ahead and chose to not just put money into their mattress or savings account, but that they have saved up enough so that they are financially taken care of. And then you can pour your heart into emotionally and spiritually taking care of them that people don't have to spend all their time. I got to work and work and work to pay for all these bills. Now we have the time and my ideal in retirement is that being financially secure that you can pray, pay, and play. You are free to go and pray at the Adoration Chapel as much as you want. All kinds of prayer and pilgrimages to help others, to pay for worthy

causes, to be that generous donor and to play, play with your grandkids, to have that with others. And my opponent hasn't shown that using probably the most effective method to reach that goal is immoral. He hasn't shown that. So I think we should opt for that. This question is for Trent from patron Seth Francis. He says, at what point, Trent, would a 401k become usury?

Is this something to consider? Sure. Now, usury, the way the church defines usury in the catechism, the understanding of how usury is developed is that it is lending money at a punitive interest rate. So taking advantage of someone knowing that they're down and out, and requiring an extremely high interest rate that will keep them trapped in a cycle of debt. That's how the church understands usury,

even though throughout much of church history, usury was simply lending at interest at all, which the wrongness of we've developed in our understanding of it as economies and markets change. Now, I would say that buying a share in a company, I don't see how that would fall under usury, the wrongness of we've developed in our understanding of it as economies and markets change. Now I would say that buying a share in a company, I don't see how that would fall under usury because I'm not lending at interest per se, I'm buying something, an ownership share or a stock or whatever you want to define it, and then selling it again when the price increases

in the future. And so you can look online, just look at 100 year trends, look at the S&P 500, gold and silver. Gold and silver is all over the place. It's not reliable for future savings. But we see a general trend and growth in S&P. I don't see how it would fall under usury because it's not about lending and saying,

you got to pay me back with interest. It's more about I buy something I own and hold on to it. Its value increases over time and then I sell it. And as I shown, the church does not condemn merely buying something and its value, even if you don't put work into it, if its value increases over time, you're allowed to reap the rewards of your patience and having your money in the thing you bought rather than spending it on something else. rewards of your patience and having your money in the thing you bought rather than spending it on something else. Yeah, I mean, that last statement is just blatantly false from the tradition.

So I'm sorry, Trent. The other thing is that unusually, I agree. I mean, it's just this is a different problem. We're talking about price indexing, not not interest rates. I will say this, though, that, you know, something that needs to be factored in just the technical means of how a 401k works is that in the traditional 401k, you do get taxed at the bracket at which money you take out. So you are actually are de- disincentivized from taking out large sums, as Trent mentioned in a previous response, because you get taxed at a higher bracket. So say you're living off of $50,000 a year, great.

$50,000, you get taxed at that. But now you want to pay for the $200,000 stained glass at your church. Now you have to take out $250,000. You get taxed at a significantly higher tax bracket. So it actually disincentivizes you from actually being able to pay well Amongst the nice alliteration there

Alright, let's do one final question Let's see here. This comes from patron Sam Markham. He says Jacob It seems that you are conflating investing with owning buying shares of companies whether directly or via 401k is Ownership and or we companies, those that broadly represent the means of production rather than abstain and allow other exclusive ownership of those means by owning, we can vote by not owning. We cannot tactically one could invest in a 401k for the matching benefits, getting more money and then transfer those into a self-directed IRA in which one only investing companies that promote the common good. PS, love NeuPolity, I recommend it everywhere. Thanks bro. Yeah, thanks for the question. I really appreciate that. So first of all, let's just take the second half of that, like

having that technique of transferring the money over. Again, you're talking about a specific case that might be moral, but that implicitly again, affirms the resolution that it's generally immoral. I mean, really, we got to be clear about that. The second thing is on ownership. And I appreciate this question. It was one that the vulnerable Thornton Sheen actually answered, you know, a while ago. And he writes this, I'll just, I'll just quote from him. Some some representatives of capitalism sensing the evil in their system have tried to silence criticism by pointing to the diffused ownership and the great corporations they advertise no one owns more than 4% of the stock of this great company or they print lists of stockholders showing that these include farmers school teachers baseball

players taxi drivers and even babies. But there is a catch to this argument, and it is this. Although it is true that individuals of small means own shares in the company, it is not true that they run the company. Their responsibility for its policies is nil. Possession properly has two faces, two aspects. We all have a right to private property, but this is accompanied by our responsibility

for its righteous use. Everyone admits that the farmer who owns a horse is obligated to feed and care for it. But in the case of stocks and bonds, we forget that the same principle should apply. Now, there's a question of like, what sense do we own? We don't get a share of profits. Dividends are not that. That's not what a dividend is. And many companies don't offer dividends as well. Well, what about, you know, going and seeing if we can control part of the company?

Well, with mutual funds, you actually don't have the same share, voting share as you do if you just pick a company off the stock market. I'll just, you know, end with this. You know, in what sense really do you own it? You know, even if the company closes, do you have rights to any of the assets? Well, actually, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pretty much no, they answer, that the stockholders do not have to be notified

of bankruptcy in the case because they generally don't receive anything. And if they do, they go on to say you have to apply for it. And in those cases, you really will as well. But even like as an owner, can I as a gust owner of a Ford of, you know, some Ford stock go in to see the acclaimed assembly lines? No, if I go in that, they're not going to welcome me as an owner. They're going to call security and drag me out. So I think this is at best the kind of a communistic quasi type of ownership with those in the

Soviet Union had where they owned everything commonly. But as the vulnerable Fulton Sheen says, they don't really have either face of ownership, whether that is control and responsibility or the profiting off of the thing. And trying to feel free to respond and then we'll move into closing statements. Yeah, I would just say that's wrong for a number of reasons. First, in the Soviet Union, whenever people try to do communism, where everybody owns, it ends up that the state owns things in the people's names. But rather, what's happening here is that we have, we buy ownership stake in a company. Now to distinguish two things, one,

if you do buy shares in a company, not through a mutual fund, but you buy directly with the company, it's not the case that they're just gonna drag you out, kicking and screaming unless you break into the floor or something. Read the pillar this morning, the interview with Bishop Paprocki,

and he talks about how he called Walgreens and said, I'm really concerned about what you're doing with pharmacists and I'm a shareholder. And they immediately fast-tracked his concern and worked with him primarily because he was a shareholder. Now we're debating 401ks and that's going to be a little bit different because you own a very, very tiny amount diversified across a portfolio. So you're not probably going to get the same kind of treatment. But guess what? That means you also have very minimal involvement. But in general, go and look at these standard index funds and look at the companies.

They engage by and large in things that promote the common good. They have trucks that ship the meat to our stores so that we can buy food. They develop medicines and vaccines, other things that help to keep us healthy. They create semiconductor chips and mine for cobalt and things so we can have computers and pints of the Aquinas and phones and you can go on YouTube and watch new polity. And when you look at these companies in general, they promote the common good. Are they perfect? No. But remember, when you buy a cell phone, the rare earth metals in here, you are part of a chain of supply that ends with slave labor in China or the Congo.

But as I said at the beginning of the debate, we live in an evil world. And so we're going to remotely and materially participate with evil. The question we have to ask is, do we have a proportionate reason to do so? And in the case of retirement savings, which is what we're debating a 401 case, if the proportionate reason is I am able to support myself and not end up in poverty or cause immense financial strain on my children or handcuff them so that my kids are guilty and they think, oh, I want to become a priest, but my dad didn't save for retirement. I got to take care of him. As a father of three, I want my children to know, I retirement, I got to take care of him. As a father of three, I want my children to know, I mean, I will take care of my parents, I hope they'll take care of

me if I'm down and out, but I'm never going to follow a faulty moral principle that will hobble them and force them to take care of me so that they're unable to follow God's will in their lives. I will save and be prudent and follow Pope Leo XIII's advice to save, invest, and leave an inheritance to my children. And I think when we do that, we really do build up the kingdom of God. All right. So we're going to move into five minute closing statements. Jacob, you're going to go first and then Trent. So whenever you want to begin, take your time and I'll click start. Sure. Well, thanks Trent for this great conversation and Matt for hosting it. I came here making a couple of arguments and I'll just try and briefly summarize them if I

know where on earth my summaries are. The first is that 401ks depend upon speculation. Speculation has been condemned by the church, as we've seen, and therefore, 401Ks are generally immoral. Now, the question here is not so much a question of, is speculation wrong? Speculation is wrong. It's been clearly defined and clearly condemned. The question here is, does it apply to 401Ks? And definitionally, they do. It definitionally holds to that. clearly condemned. The question here is, does it apply to 401 case?

And definitionally they do. It definitely holds to that. And as I've mentioned, that there is an interpretative lens through that from the recent laws in the Vatican. But there's a second problem as well, is that the tradition says that we cannot do any one thing just for profit alone For one case they only exist for profit alone we don't actually care about the companies that we're investing in we don't even know the companies that we're investing in and

Therefore for one case are generally immoral Throughout this debate. We haven't heard a response at all to that second claim, especially in light of the Magisterial Declarations that I cited. But also we haven't heard a convincing response to the former as well. But even more than these kind of technical arguments, we really need to sit with what John Paul II tells us to do as it pertains to investing. He defines investing as to give another an opportunity to make good use of his labor. He says that what we invest in reveals the human quality of our soul and that investing is always a

moral and cultural decision. In this, it's we again have to shy away from the idea of asking, where's the line that I cannot cross? That's not Catholicism. That is Pharisaicalism. We don't ask what is the law. The letter of the law kills, it orients us, it directs us in the right way, but our focus needs to be the face of Jesus Christ. It needs to be on His kingdom, building up the city of God so that more people might love him and enjoy him eternally. So, what are the investments that we Catholics should be building up, especially in this post-Christian society, this anti-Christian society that we are currently living in? We need to build up, again, a culture of life, a culture of family, a culture of faith in which, again, Jesus Christ, true King of the earth is forever praised.

This has to be our concentration. This has to be what's on our minds. And when we find even the founder of 401k's bemoaning the breakdown of the family, we might need to turn around and say, all right, I'm not quite sure where the line is. How far am I participating in evil? But rather have the major concentration on doing good. So I would commend that to people for their plans for retirement, but also in their investments generally, specifically right now. We are preparing, most people are preparing their 401ks for retirement, but that means that they're actively investing now. We cannot put off doing virtuous things later only to form unvirtuous habits now.

We have to start being virtuous now. And so that's why the concentration of our moral investments have to be first and foremost on our mind. I hope you take that to heart. Thanks very much. All right, thanks so much Trent. Whenever you begin, you have five minutes. Sure, once again, I'm really grateful

for Jacob taking part in this debate and Matt for hosting it. I think this is important because at the very beginning of the debate, my opponent said, I'm not gonna cast dispersions on people who invest in 401ks. And yet my opponent, his previous work on this and appearances on Pines with Aquinas,

he has robbed people of peace. He has said that it's sinful. And there are many people, especially those who struggle with scruples, who don't want to sin, and of course none of us should sin. But scrupulosity occurs when we invent sins out of whole cloth, and we think something is sinful when it actually isn't. It's a very dangerous spiritual habit to form, and that's why we have to look to the church to teach us to know what is moral and what's not moral. And so my opponent said, you know, well, where do we draw the line? That's not the Christian way, that's Pharisaical. I'm sorry, my opponent is the one who has acted like a Pharisee in

these teachings. One, he draws the line with particular, very nuanced rules based on his personal interpretation of the Church Fathers about where some investments are okay and others are not. It reminds me of what Jesus said in Matthew 23, 4, they bind heavy burdens hard to bear and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with their finger. That my opponent has, some people have emptied out their 401ks simply because they don't want to commit a sin because my opponent says that it's immoral and sinful to save in 401ks for retirement. And so I took part in this debate to let people know

they have freedom in Christ. They're not tied by these burdens. That when we look to the church, the pillar and foundation of our faith, to guide us in these matters, the church has not condemned this. My opponent admitted he could not produce a single magisterial text to show you cannot invest in 401ks. He talked about the motu proprio to the Roman Curia, which is not to people in general, and even there it only restricted the kinds of companies the Curia would invest in. Not general investing itself, the bishops themselves and their socially responsible

guide for investing say that you should try to seek a reasonable rate of return on the market and that you can be invested in companies that have some illicit practices if there is a proportionate reason for doing so. So that's why my central argument was that only the church can bind us in this matter. The church hasn't and has had ample opportunity to do so. And my opponent's reply is, maybe we need a new Reformation. That should concern you a bit about my opponent's position. There have been lay people, if my opponent is Saint Francis or Saint Dominic, time will tell on that, who have helped to spur these things on, but we look to the church for our guidance in these matters. There have also been many people

throughout history, well-meaning people with idiosyncratic views on faith and morals that have caused harm to others. And I think statistically this is more likely to be in that case. He said I didn't address the you can't invest for profit alone. That's not true. I talked about that. The church even tolerates and allows gambling, for example, one for making money and two for just the fun and thrill of it. Well, people have fun and thrill in investing. It's a bit more boring than gambling, but you're more likely to get a return on that.

And they use it specifically to build up themselves. My opponent's central argument was that, and he said here, 401k's are wrong because the church condemns speculation. Of course, that depends on how you define speculating. My opponent defines speculation in an incredibly broad way, but that is not how these magisterial statements have defined it. And I can use the reductio ad absurdum that we see the hesitancy in my opponent talking about in other cases where we buy and sell things at a higher value like gold, precious metals, land, real estate even, even something we don't live in like an investment home, that people see there's no problem with because there isn't.

We have to remember that the fathers of the church often had rigorous moral views and that morality develops over time. The universal condemnation of usury, for example, became a condemnation of excessively high interest rates. So to understand what is taught by faith and morals, we have to look at what the church teaches. The church has not condemned this. Rather what the church has said, and I'll'll close what Pope Leo XIII said, he recommends the man who lives sparingly, saves money, and for greater security, invests

his savings. Proverbs 1322, a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children. And since I showed the central argument my opponent used, doesn't work to show investing in 401Ks is wrong, The church has not condemned that. I say let us be good men and women who don't spend our money all on ourselves in the present, but prudently save some aside so that when our physical strength has left us and we can no longer work, we can use our financial strength to bless our children, our children's children and everyone who is a child of God. So thank you very much.

All right, thanks Trent. Thanks Jacob. I know with debates like this, y'all could go on for another five hours, but unfortunately we're going to have to cap it there. But I did want to just ask each of you where people who are watching right now can find you online or something you'd like to promote, Jacob? Sure, newpolity.com is where you can find us, particularly in our podcast. Mark Barnes and I did a series on good money that walks through the virtues that the tradition has taught us particularly pertain to money and some other things as well.

We'll see you over there. Thanks, Jacob. Trent. I recommend my podcast, The Council of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, available on iTunes, Google Play, and on YouTube. And if you'd like to support the work I do, you can check out trenthornpodcast.com.

All right, God bless everybody. Thank you for being here. Click that thumbs up button. And if you think this is a debate worth people's time, help us out by sharing it with your friends and followers. Thanks so much. Thanks, Neil. And just, we'll have links to everything in the description.

So nobody's gonna have to type anything. You're the man, Neil. And just, we'll have links to everything in the description. So nobody's going to have to type anything there. You're the man, Neil. What a champion. All right. Thanks everybody. See you. God bless you. Bye.