About the author
Mark Perry Tweets
Black Lives Matter protested white supremacy at Twin Cities Marathon, even though top 10 finalists were black?
View related content: Carpe Diem
The annual Twin Cities marathon, frequently recognized as the “most beautiful urban marathon in America,” was held last Sunday in my hometowns of Minneapolis-St. Paul. What might not have been so beautiful was a planned protest — titled Black Marathon — organized by the St. Paul chapter of Black Lives Matter. The original and publicly stated intention of Black Marathon, according to the group’s Facebook page, was to “shut down” and “disrupt” the race:
#BlackMarathon will disrupt, #BlackMarathon will bring awareness, #BlackMarathon will bring us closer to ending white supremacy and the institutions that enable it.
In a separate statement, organizer Rashad Turner said that “Our job is to let the community know that every day we are planning on dismantling white supremacy.” In response to the suggestion that disrupting and shutting down the marathon would stigmatize the advocacy group, Rashad Turner said “For anyone who believes that a person’s journey to completing a marathon is more important than our journey to being liberated as a people, you are under the mind control of white supremacy, and it’s time to free yourself.”
Fortunately, members of Black Lives Matter St. Paul honored an agreement they entered into last Thursday with St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman to not physically interfere with marathoners, and a peaceful demonstration took place on Sunday with no arrests.
Tell that to the runners from Africa. Since the race began in 1982, Ethiopians and Kenyans have certainly enjoyed the spotlight. Kenyan males won four straight Twin Cities Marathons between 1996 and 1999, including three straight by Andrew Musuva. Most recently, Chris Kipyego of Kenya won the race and the prize money in 2012. In 2011, Sammy Malakwen of Kenya won the men’s division. That year, Yeshimebet Bifa of Ethiopia won the women’s division and the money that goes with it, succeeding as female champion Buzunesh Deba of Ethiopia.
Now that the results are in for the 2015 Twin Cities marathon, here are the top 5 men and top 5 women finalists, along with their times and countries of origin, listed here and pictured above in the order below:
Top 5 Men
1. Dominic Ondoro, 2:11:16 (Kenya)
2. Elisha Barno, 2:11:39 (Kenya)
3. Jacob Chemtai, 2:14:13 (Kenya)
4. Abraham Kipkosgei Chelanga, 2:15:53 (Kenya)
5. Kipchumba Chelimo, 2:19:39 (Kenya)
Top 5 Women
1. Serkalem Abrha, 2:31:39 (Ethiopia)
2. Jane Kibii, 2:31:44 (Kenya)
3. Simegn Abnet Yeshanbel, 2:32:43 (Ethiopia)
4. Sarah Kiptoo, 2:35:25 (Kenya)
5. Obsie Birru, 2:26:53 (Ethiopia)
(Note: Ignoring gender, the No. 1 female Serkalem Abrha would have finished in 17th place. That is, 16 male runners finished ahead of the No. 1 female.)
Top ten finalists, all Africans, all black. White supremacy? Not when it comes to marathons. In retrospect, maybe the Twin Cities Marathon might have been the wrong event to bring awareness to white supremacy? Based on the top runners on Sunday, wouldn’t “Kenyan or African supremacy” be the main take-away from the marathon?
Whenever some group is not equally represented in some institution or activity, the automatic response in some quarters is to assume that someone has prevented equality of outcomes. Even in activities where individual performances are what determine outcomes, and those performances are easily measured objectively, there is seldom anything resembling equal representation.
We all know about the large over-representation of blacks among professional basketball players, and especially among the star players. Of the 100 top-ranked Marathon runners in the world in 2012, 68 were Kenyans. The list could go on and on. Although blacks are over-represented among professional football players, even the most avid National Football League fan is unlikely to be able to recall seeing even one black player who kicked a punt or a point after touchdown.
Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Black Kickers Back in the NFL?” Should there be an article titled: “What’s Holding Back Whites in the National Basketball Association?”
Or related to the discussion above, should there be an article “What’s Holding Back Whites and Americans in the Twin Cities Marathon?”Or given the gender differences for the finalists, “What’s Holding Back Female Marathon Runners?”
And back to Black Lives Matter St. Paul – what’s next for them? A protest of white supremacy at the upcoming season opener of the Minnesota Timberwolves, a team whose player roster is about 75% black, just like the rest of the NBA? Just a thought…..
View related content: Carpe Diem
It’s been a couple of months and time now for my sixth “quarterly” spelling/punctuation/grammar rant of the year (see my last five here, here, here, here and here) on what I think is the most common spelling/punctuation/grammar/orthographic mistake in the English language — the misuse of it’s (or its’) for its — illustrated by the examples below collected from CD comments and other sources on the Web:
1. The famous Stockholm (Wisconsin) Art Fair is this Saturday and celebrates it’s 42nd year!
2. The Lawn Ranger is proud to provide it’s customers with all of their year round property maintenance needs.
3. McDonald’s has changed it’s burger…. (see graphic above).
4. The best defense for capitalism is it’s creation of a middle class.
5. Unbridled capitalism is its best defense, also it’s worst indictment…..
6. In 2007, Big Buns opened it’s doors in Ballston, Arlington and became an instant neighborhood fixture.
7. Could society continue without higher education in it’s current bloated form?
John Tierney in NY Times: Recycling was ‘garbage’ in 1996, it’s still that way today, and the future looks even worse
View related content: Carpe Diem
In 1996, New York Times science columnist John Tierney wrote an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine about compulsory recycling titled “Recycling is Garbage.” Tierney’s controversial argument in that article can be summarized as follows: Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America. Tierney wrote, “Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but it’s a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources. Americans have embraced recycling as a transcendental experience, an act of moral redemption. We’re not just reusing our garbage; we’re performing a rite of atonement for the sin of excess.” Now you can understand why Tierney’s recycling article set the all-time record for the greatest volume of hate mail ever recorded in the history of the New York Times Magazine.
Because it was one of the first and most effective challenges to the naive, pro-recycling propaganda that has been used to successfully brainwash millions of American school children for the last quarter century, I’ve featured John Tierney’s classic recycling article on CD many times over the years (especially around the “green holy days” known as “Earth Day” and “America Recycles Day”), including here, here, here, and here.
It’s been almost 20 years since John Tierney taught us that “recycling is garbage.” Fortunately, he has just provided a recycling update in today’s New York Times with a new article titled “The Reign of Recycling.” So, what has happened over the last two decades? According to Tierney, “While it’s true that the recycling
message religion has reached more people converts than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.” And what about recycling’s future? It “looks even worse,” says Tierney.
Here’s a condensed version of Tierney’s new article on recycling, with my section titles and emphasis:
1. Background. In 1996, I wrote a long article for The New York Times Magazine (“Recycling is Garbage”) arguing that the recycling process as we carried it out was wasteful. I presented plenty of evidence that recycling was costly and ineffectual, but its defenders said that it was unfair to rush to judgment. Noting that the modern recycling movement had really just begun just a few years earlier, they predicted it would flourish as the industry matured and the public learned how to recycle properly. So, what’s happened since then? While it’s true that the recycling message has reached more people than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.
Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill. Prices for recyclable materials have plummeted because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them overseas. The slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel plans for new technologies. The future for recycling looks even worse. As cities move beyond recycling paper and metals, and into glass, food scraps and assorted plastics, the costs rise sharply while the environmental benefits decline and sometimes vanish.
2. Costs vs. Benefits of Recycling. Recycling has been relentlessly promoted as a goal in and of itself: an unalloyed public good and private virtue that is indoctrinated in students from kindergarten through college. As a result, otherwise well-informed and educated people have no idea of the relative costs and benefits.
They probably don’t know, for instance, that to reduce carbon emissions, you’ll accomplish a lot more by sorting paper and aluminum cans than by worrying about yogurt containers and half-eaten slices of pizza. Most people also assume that recycling plastic bottles must be doing lots for the planet. They’ve been encouraged by the EPA, which assures the public that recycling plastic results in less carbon being released into the atmosphere.
But how much difference does it make? Here’s some perspective: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in business- or first-class, where each passenger takes up more space, it could be more like 100,000.
Even those statistics might be misleading. New York and other cities instruct people to rinse the bottles before putting them in the recycling bin, but the EPA’s life-cycle calculation doesn’t take that water into account. That single omission can make a big difference. If you wash plastic in water that was heated by coal-derived electricity, then the net effect of your recycling could be more carbon in the atmosphere.
3. Recycling and Landfills. One of the original goals of the recycling movement was to avert a supposed crisis because there was no room left in the nation’s landfills. But that media-inspired fear was never realistic in a country with so much open space. In reporting the 1996 article I found that all the trash generated by Americans for the next 1,000 years would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the land available for grazing. And that tiny amount of land wouldn’t be lost forever, because landfills are typically covered with grass and converted to parkland, like the Freshkills Park being created on Staten Island. The United States Open tennis tournament is played on the site of an old landfill — and one that never had the linings and other environmental safeguards required today.
Though most cities shun landfills, they have been welcomed in rural communities that reap large economic benefits (and have plenty of greenery to buffer residents from the sights and smells). Consequently, the great landfill shortage has not arrived, and neither have the shortages of raw materials that were supposed to make recycling profitable.
4. Recycling Economics. As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining. That’s why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable. Recyclers have tried to improve the economics by automating the sorting process, but they’ve been frustrated by politicians eager to increase recycling rates by adding new materials of little value. The more types of trash that are recycled, the more difficult it becomes to sort the valuable from the worthless.
In New York City, the net cost of recycling a ton of trash is now $300 more than it would cost to bury the trash instead. That adds up to millions of extra dollars per year — about half the budget of the parks department — that New Yorkers are spending for the privilege of recycling. That money could buy far more valuable benefits, including more significant reductions in greenhouse emissions.
5. Recycling as a Religion. Religious rituals don’t need any practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But many recyclers want more than just the freedom to practice their religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory for everyone else, too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t sort properly. Seattle has become so aggressive that the city is being sued by residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting through their trash are violating their constitutional right to privacy.
It would take legions of garbage police to enforce a zero-waste society, but true believers insist that’s the future. When Mayor de Blasio promised to eliminate garbage in New York, he said it was “ludicrous” and “outdated” to keep sending garbage to landfills. Recycling, he declared, was the only way for New York to become “a truly sustainable city.”
But cities have been burying garbage for thousands of years, and it’s still the easiest and cheapest solution for trash. The recycling movement is floundering, and its survival depends on continual subsidies, sermons and policing. How can you build a sustainable city with a strategy that can’t even sustain itself?
Bottom Line: Economist Steven Landsburg wrote that “Naive environmentalism is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism. The antidote to bad religion is good science. The antidote to astrology is the scientific method, the antidote to naive creationism is evolutionary biology, and the antidote to naive environmentalism is economics.” Kudos to John Tierney for his new article that provides another effective economic antidote to the naive environmentalist practice known as recycling.
Bonus Video. In the Penn and Teller video below on recycling, they refer to John Tierney’s 1996 NYT article, and further explain why recycling is an activity that involves “feeling good for no reason.”
HT: Fred Dent
Today is Manufacturing Day, so let’s recognize America’s world-class manufacturing sector and factory workers
View related content: Carpe Diem
Manufacturing Day occurs annually on the first Friday of October (October 2 this year) and according to its sponsors “MFG DAY” is a “celebration of modern manufacturing meant to inspire the next generation of manufacturers.” To recognize Manufacturing Day this year, I’ve prepared a series of charts and facts about America’s manufacturing sector below.
1. US Manufacturing Output vs. Employment. The chart above shows annual measures of US manufacturing output (based on the BEA’s GDP by Industry data here) and US manufacturing employment (based on BLS data here) from 1947 to 2014. In inflation-adjusted constant 2014 dollars, US manufacturing output has increased more than five-fold over the last 67 years, from $410 billion in 1947 to a record-setting level of output last year of $2.09 trillion (see brown line in chart). Although we frequently hear claims that the US manufacturing sector is dying or in a state of decline, manufacturing output in the US, except during and following periods of economic contraction like the Great Recession, has continued to increase over time, and reached the highest level of output ever recorded in 2014.
What has been in a steady state of decline is the number of manufacturing workers needed to produce the increasing amount of manufacturing output as the blue line in the chart above shows. From a peak of nearly 19.5 million US factory workers in 1979, the number of manufacturing employees has steadily declined to a recent low in 2010 of 11.6 million workers before rebounding to slightly more than 12 million employees last year.
Comment: The ability of the US manufacturing sector to produce increasing amounts of output with fewer and fewer workers should be recognized as a sign of economic strength and vitality, not economic weakness. Thanks to advances in technology, the factory floor today is one with modern, advanced, state-of-the-art equipment that requires fewer employees, but with greater skills and training than in the past. The trend in US manufacturing over the last 30 years – more and more output with fewer and fewer workers – is exactly like the transformation that revolutionized US farming over the last 100 years or more. With fewer than 2% of America’s workers, we produce more agricultural output today in the US than when much greater numbers and much higher shares of the nation’s employees were working on farms. And yet when have you ever heard anybody say that “America just doesn’t grow anything anymore”? The fact that we frequently hear that “America just doesn’t manufacture or produce anything anymore” isn’t consistent with the reality that US factories produce more output today than at any time in US history.
2. Manufacturing Output per Worker. The chart above shows the dramatic increases over time in the amount of manufacturing output produced per US worker, which more than doubled in the 42 years between 1955 and 1997 from $40,000 to $85,000, and then more than doubled again in only 13 years between 1997 and 2010 to about $171,000 (all figures are expressed in constant 2014 dollars). Manufacturing output per employee last year of $171,538 established a new all-time record for the productivity of the American factory worker, measured in manufacturing output per factory worker.
3. Manufacturing Fact: The US produced nearly $2.10 trillion of manufacturing output last year. Considered as a separate country, the US manufacturing sector would have been the 9th largest economy in the world in 2014, ahead of No. 10 India’s entire economic output (GPD) of $2.05 trillion and slightly behind No. 8 Italy’s $2.14 trillion of GDP last year.
4. International Perspective of US Manufacturing. Another way to grasp the enormous size of the US manufacturing sector is illustrated in the graph above. Based on United Nations data currently available through 2013, the US produced almost as much manufacturing output in 2013 ($2.03 trillion) as the combined manufacturing output of the six countries of Germany, South Korea, France, Russia, Brazil and the UK ($2.14 trillion). Think of that international manufacturing comparison the next time you hear that “America’s manufacturing sector is dying” or that “America just doesn’t produce anything anymore.”
5. US Manufacturing Profits. When assessing the size, strength and health of America’s manufacturing sector, what ultimately matters is not the amount of output produced or the number of factory workers, but the amount of profit being generated by US factories. By that measure, US manufacturers as a group have never been bigger, stronger and healthier than in recent years, as the chart above shows. In each of the last four years (2011-2014), annual manufacturing profits have averaged nearly $600 billion (in constant 2014 dollars), which is more than 20% above the annual average of $494 billion in the four years before the Great Recession (2004-2007) and nearly double the average annual manufacturing profits generated during the 1993-1999 period of about $306 billion. Another profit-related indicator of manufacturing strength is the fact that manufacturing profits remained relatively high in 2008 and 2009 during and after the Great Recession, especially when compared to the much greater reduction in profits during the 2001 recession.
6. The Miracle of Manufacturing. As US manufacturing has become more technologically advanced and efficient, the price of manufactured durable goods has fallen in relation to both: a) other consumer products and services, and b) Americans’ after-tax disposable personal income. The chart above shows how much Americans collectively spend annually on four manufactured categories of consumer products: food, cars, clothing, and household furnishings like home appliances, as a share of national after-tax disposable income from 1947 to 2014. In 1947, Americans spent more than 42% of total after-tax personal income on those four categories of manufactured consumer products. As manufactured goods fell in price over time due to production efficiencies, technological advances, and greater worker productivity; and as personal income grew, the share of Americans’ disposable income spent on food, cars, clothing and household furnishings gradually and consistently fell to about 15% in each of the last 7 years. In relation to other goods and our income, manufactured goods have never been more affordable.
Bottom Line: As we celebrate Manufacturing Day on Friday, we can be thankful that America’s manufacturing sector has never produced more output or been more profitable than in recent years. Further, factory worker productivity has never been higher and the affordability of manufactured goods as a share of disposable personal income has never been greater. That’s a lot to be thankful for, so let me express my gratitude and thanks today to US world-class manufacturers and America’s factory workers.
Using White House reporting claim of 12%, 1 in more than 30 women at MSU and OSU are sexually assaulted, not 1 in 5
View related content: Carpe Diem
Trigger Warning: If you are upset by the accurate reporting of facts, statistics and data about campus sexual assault please stop reading now.
In a January 2014 report titled “Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action” (which led to the creation of the “Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault” headed by Vice-President Joe Biden), the White House made the following two statements:
White House Statement 1. Sexual assault is a particular problem on college campuses: 1 in 5 women has been sexually assaulted while in college.
White House Statement 2. Reporting rates for campus sexual assault are also very low: on average only 12% of student victims report the assault to law enforcement.
There’s a huge, irreconcilable statistical problem here, and I’ve reported on that irreconcilable issue on CD here, here, here, here and here. Using actual reported crime statistics on sexual offenses at almost any US college and applying the White House claim that only 12% of campus sexual assaults actually get reported, we have to conclude that nowhere near 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted while in college. Alternatively, if the “1 in 5 women” claim is true, the percentage of sexual assaults that get reported to the campus police would have to be much, much lower than 12%. In other words, the statistical claims about campus sexual assault that the White House uses don’t work together and they therefore both can’t be simultaneously correct. That is, either the claim that 1-in-5 college women are sexually assaulted claim is way too high or the 12% reporting rate is way too high.
Universities are now releasing their campus crime statistic reports for 2014, so here’s an updated analysis of sexual assaults between 2011-2014 at: a) Michigan State University (MSU), and b) the Ohio State University (OSU), summarized in the tables above (see crime reports here for MSU and OSU). Over the most recent four-year period from 2011 to 2014, there were 91 reports of “forcible sexual offenses” according to MSU’s Department of Public Safety, which included incidents that allegedly took place on campus, in university residence halls, on non-campus properties including fraternity and sorority houses, and on public property adjacent to or accessible from the campus. Over the same period, there were 110 reported forcible sexual offenses at OSU.
Using the White House claim that only 12% of campus sexual assaults get reported, there would have been 667 unreported forcible sexual offenses at MSU and 807 unreported offenses at OSU during the 2011-2014 period, bringing the total number of sexual assaults (reported + unreported) to 758 for MSU (91 reported + 667 unreported) and 917 for OSU (110 reported + 807 unreported).
The MSU campus in East Lansing has a total student population of 50,085 and 51.5% of the students, or 25,794, are female. Dividing the 758 estimated sexual assaults over the most recent four-year period (91 reported and 667 unreported) into the 25,794 MSU female students would mean that only 2.94% of female MSU students, or about 1 in 34, was sexually assaulted while in college over the last four years.
The Columbus campus of OSU has a total female student population of 28,658. Dividing the 917 estimated sexual assaults over a four-year period into the 28,658 OSU female students would mean that only 3.2% of OSU women, or about 1 in 31.25, would be sexually assaulted while in college.
Certainly those estimates of college campus sexual assaults are still too high, but not even close to the White House claim that one in five (and 20% of) female students are sexually assaulted while in college.
Further, the calculations above make the assumptions that: a) 100% of the 104 forcible sexual offenses at OSU from 2009-2012 were male on female incidents (and none were female on male or male on male), b) none of the 104 reported offenses were filed falsely or later retracted (see recent example here of a campus sexual assault that was falsely reported and later retracted), c) all of the reported cases involved MSU and OSU students and none were reported by OSU faculty or staff. If any of those three assumptions don’t hold perfectly, the 2.9% and 3.2% figures at MSU and OSU above would be even lower, and the 1-in-34 ratio at MSU and 1-in-31.25 ratio at OSU would be even greater.
From a political standpoint, using the totally implausible statistic that “1 in 5 women” are sexually assaulted while in college certainly gets a lot of attention. The “1 in 34 women” statistic found at MSU and the “1 in 31.25 women” ratio at OSU over the most recent four years, though not as attention-grabbing as “1 in 5,” are probably pretty representative of college campuses around the country and much closer to the truth than what the White House is claiming. And for the “1 in 5 women” claim to be true, it would imply an unbelievably low reporting rate of less than 2% for campus sexual assaults. That would be more than 50 actual sexual offenses that take place on campus for every one that gets reported, which is an under-reporting rate so low that it must be insulting to women. Women and men attending college today, their parents, their college administrators and professors, and society in general, are all much better served by the truth about college sexual assault than by Team Obama’s misleading, exaggerated, and false claims about “1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted while in college.”
Another reality check: For the “1 in 5 women” claim to be true at MSU and OSU, that would mean that approximately 1,254 campus sexual assaults on female students take place every single year at MSU (20% of 25,085 over four years, divided by 4 years) and 1,432 sexual assaults at OSU (20% of 28,658, divided by 4 years), which would mean that there would have to be more than three cases of campus sexual assault every single day of the year (3.44 at MSU and 3.92 at OSU), or about one every 6-7 hours! If MSU and OSU really were such crime-infested campuses with sexual assaults taking place every 6-7 hours, which would be a violent crime rate worse than the most crime-ridden neighborhoods of cities like Detroit, why would any sane parent even consider sending their daughter to MSU and OSU?
Bottom Line: Women and men attending college today, their parents, their college administrators and professors, and society in general, are all much better served by the truth about college sexual assault than by Team Obama’s misleading, exaggerated, and false claims that “1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted while in college.”
View related content: Carpe Diem
Some historical perspective on what four of the last five previous popes had to say about socialism over the last 50 years (emphasis added)……
1. Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)
Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production; it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.
~Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna, September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, Vol. XIV, p. 314
2. Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.
~Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31
3. Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)
The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own,” and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.
Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12
4. Pope Benedict XVI (2005 – 2013)
The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces.
~Encyclical Letter of Pope Benedict XVI