Readers Write: (Dec. 28): Property crimes, Dan Markingson case, Pope Francis and capitalism, Southwest LRT

I was excited to read about the use of DNA testing for solving more crimes, especially property crimes ("DNA use turns to common crimes," Dec. 21). But, hey, property crimes are not just a "big deal" in the suburbs. They are also a big deal in the core cities. The average taxpayer is much more likely to experience a property crime in Minneapolis than a violent crime, and having your home broken into is the kind of personal violation that nobody should have to put up with. Keep up the good work solving property crimes, but don't ignore the core cities.

If we set aside the noise and drama of the battle between Prof. Carl Elliott and the University of Minnesota Psychiatry Department, Dan Markingson and the notion of "consent" become vital ("Testing the limits of academic freedom," Dec. 21).

I've a good deal of time in a psychiatric ward, and I can tell you that everyone arrives vulnerable. Diagnoses such as clinical depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia severely compromise a patient's ability to make decisions, no matter how well the question is asked. The very idea of any one of us making an informed decision regarding participation in a research study ignores the profound vulnerability of patients on a psychiatric ward.

If Markingson was not represented by an advocate with only his best interests in mind, the research study is manipulative and dangerous, to say the least. Patients depend on the nurses and doctors for their very lives, and a not altogether warranted trust develops. From what I've read, the U's Psychiatry Department took grave advantage of Markingson, using him for its own narrow ends, and Elliot's crusade, while valid at one time, is now just a rant. I call on both to step back to remember that a man's life was sacrificed.

Columnist D.J. Tice writes that Pope Francis doesn't understand capitalism ("Great pope, that Francis, but as an economist …" Dec. 21). I think Francis totally understands capitalism and the need for profits, just not the greed nor selfishness by many of these businesses.

Around the time of President Ronald Reagan and Republicans' so-called "trickle-down" economic policies, the ratio of CEO pay to workers was around 40 to 1. Today it is in the neighborhood of 400 to 1, while at a massively profitable company like McDonalds, it is around 1,000 to 1.

Profits are good. Greed is not, nor is selfishness.

I fear Tice has missed both the mark and the point in his analysis of the pope's critique of profit and the market economy. Perhaps Francis' preaching is not meant to charm but to challenge. Perhaps his words are not "left-leaning" and "populist" but rather humanitarian and Christian. Perhaps our selfishness does not alleviate the generational poverty and hunger afflicting billions, but actually contributes to it.

What if the pope is trying to wake us from our shallow acceptance of "the invisible hand" as the be-all, end-all of economic development? What if he wants us to question self-interest as our primary motivation to act for good? What if he's asking us to see the poor as dignified members of the community and not simply means to profit? What if it is in fact our sacrifice, and not our selfishness, that will free those in poverty from their suffering (and free us in the first world from our addiction to accumulation)?

Most challenging of all, for me at least, is this: What if Pope Francis is right?

• • •

I agree with Tice that the pope does not pay much attention to the theories of Adam Smith, the notions of profit or the concerns of modern human-resource departments. However, I don't believe it is because the organization he represents has not heard these arguments many times or because he has a left-leaning, naive agenda, but because it is his calling to speak against them. The church has pondered economics for 2,000 years, and it is willing to keep with its original message, even if it appears that this doesn't seem to make the world go 'round or that it's not going to change things overnight. Christianity, however, does indeed never "tire of this theme," as Tice complains.

Might Francis' message make someone pause for a moment? Good. He's doing his job.

• • •

Thomas Piketty's monumental work "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" researched and analyzed the rewards for capital and labor in five countries over a couple centuries. Although some of his data has been challenged, his conclusion is well-established: The system of capitalism tends to reward capital disproportionally to the rewards for labor. As a consequence, the gap between rich and poor widens over time. Both capital and labor are necessary for the production of products and services in a capitalistic society. However, the distribution of rewards is determined by power and not necessarily by appropriate contribution and distributive justice. As Piketty states several times in his book, the widening gap between the rich and the poor offers a poor environment for strong future economic growth.

Second, a logical reform of capitalism that will satisfy the profound simplicity of Pope Francis and those of us who support capitalism when it functions effectively for all of society is a profit-sharing system for each and every laborer. A system can be devised that will continue to reward capital but more fairly recognize the contribution of labor. Such a universal profit-sharing, company-designed system will reduce the gap between the rich and the poor (although the rich will benefit and not suffer from such a system in the long run), establish a more favorable economic base for future growth and begin to solve the extreme hunger and poverty in our society.

It took awhile, but the truth is finally coming out over the Southwest Corridor light-rail project.

In my view, cities have grown all too accustomed to feeding off government grants. A system that invariably encourages wasteful spending on poorly conceived projects — just to get the money. While grants certainly have their place, it cannot merely be the funding mechanism for a city's or region's "wish list."