Posted on 09/07/2010 10:36:21 AM PDT by An Old Man
Kel Kelly writes: Socialists commonly cite the existence of the poor as a reason for socialism, and they claim that their concern for the poor shows compassion and morality. Since the topic of poverty is a key battleground in the war of socialism versus capitalism, it is relevant to examine what poverty is, how much of it exists in the United States, and how we can truly eliminate it.
Who Are The Poor?
When we hear of the poor, we envision a massive group of people without food and shelter. In reality, most of the poor in capitalistic countries such as the United States are not in such a state. Data from a recent census reveals that of the official "poor":[1]
If we observe our presumably poorest citizens on our public transportation systems we see that they have cell phones, adequate clothing, personal audio devices, and are generally clean and free of disease and deformities. They also have the comfort of using a heated and air-conditioned transportation car that has carpet and flat-panel televisions for their amusement (paid for primarily by the wealthy, of course).
If you were to compare these American poor to the poor in Bolivia, Honduras, Cambodia, or India (or even to many of the poor in Mexico, Romania, Thailand, and Russia), you would see a stark difference. The poor in these countries often literally live in open-air huts with large leaves for roofs and stacked bricks that serve as a shared stove for multiple families. For the poor of the third-world countries, there is, for the most part, no money, no exchange of goods — just basic survival by subsistence farming or by hunting or fishing for food. To these people, American street sweepers and factory workers live a life of luxury.
The difference between the "wealthy poor" in capitalist countries and the "deprived and desolate poor" in noncapitalist countries is no coincidence. The freedom that exists in capitalistic countries results in more invested capital per worker. This means that workers can produce far more wealth for themselves and for the rest of society. In noncapitalist countries today (and in the days before capitalism first appeared) poverty really means that no work is available; there is no means by which to improve one's state of being, or even to maintain it.
Under capitalism, as we see, there is almost no question of poverty existing in this sense. Anyone who is not mentally or physically disabled can perform work and earn an income if they choose (except when prevented by the setting of minimum wages by government). Today, any poverty in the world is caused by an absence of capitalism, not the existence of capitalism.
Though the poor in this country have continuously seen their standard of living rise by capitalism, anticapitalists continually point to the poor as evidence of a need for wealth redistribution (i.e., less capitalism), just because the poor earn less than do the rich. But there will always be a bottom 10 percent or 20 percent of the population in income in any society no matter how wealthy we all become. Thus, politicians and socialists always have a group to point to that are always in need of "assistance."
But even if we focus on the bottom 10 percent or 20 percent of Americans, it would still be difficult to identify who the poor are, because the composition of this group changes constantly. The "disadvantaged," the group that is supposedly made poor by the rich, are not a static, defined group. A study by Michael Cox and Richard Alm of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas showed that of the bottom fifth of income earners in 1975, only 5 percent were still poor 16 years later. Less than 1 percent remained in the bottom fifth for the entire 16 years. Thirty percent rose from the bottom fifth to the top fifth. In sum, few people remain at subsistence level. There are ways out of poverty for most.
Not to diminish the pains and difficulties of poverty, but in terms of the ability to achieve an absolute level of health and strength, the "poor" are usually in the same shape as the average person. Poor children take in virtually the same amount of protein, vitamins, and minerals as middle-class children; and they actually consume more meat. Most poor children grow to be larger, stronger, and healthier than the average WWII soldier. Though some poor families have temporary challenges with hunger, 89 percent of the poor report that their families have "enough" to eat; only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough food.[2]
"Most poor children grow to be larger, stronger, and healthier than the average WWII soldier." Further, the poor are not as poor as government statistics intentionally misrepresent. For example, the ratio of "incomes" — the primary measurement used by government — of the top fifth to the bottom fifth of income earners is 15 to 1, but the ratio of their consumption is 4 to 1. This is because the poor usually have access to money that does not fall under taxable income, including government handouts. Their assets and wealth are not considered at all. The census bureau previously stated that people it deems "poor" typically spend $2.24 for every $1.00 in (government) reported income.[3]
Though there are indeed people who are in dire straits and need immediate help, most of the people we generally call "poor" are not as poor as anticapitalists make them out to be. Depending on whom they are compared to, the poor can appear to be outright rich. Socialists make it appear as though there are many more poor people than there really are, so as to justify stealing more money from the rich to try and "equal out" society. When we speak of the poor, we should only speak of those who are physically unable to work and provide for themselves, not the entire bottom 20 percent of income earners who represent tens of millions of people.
Some people need to go live in Africa to understand this.
Especially those who boast being African-American.
For this group, NOW and AS ALWAYS the government and Christian Americans EVERYWHERE have made generous and ongoing contributions.
These caring and generous people are tired of being called greedy and uncaring just because we oppose unnecessary and wastefully managed government benefits which basically duplicate what is already available for the truly needy!!!
It wrongly assumes that the only people unable to get work are those that are disabled. I don't deny that many of our poor are rich compared to some countries of the world. But to paint them all with a broad brush and claim they all have flat screen TV's paid for by the wealthy is going WAY too far.
And I'm not saying some of our government programs aren't wasteful and create disincentives to work. But that isn't a reason to abandon all help for the poor, it's a reason to refine and improve the programs.
Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then [it was] well [with him: was] not this to know me? saith the LORD.
Deu 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Pro 30:14 [There is] a generation, whose teeth [are as] swords, and their jaw teeth [as] knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from [among] men.
Lev 25:35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: [yea, though he be] a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Job 20:6 Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; Job 20:7 [Yet] he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where [is] he? ...Job 20:19 Because he hath oppressed [and] hath forsaken the poor; [because] he hath violently taken away an house which he builded not;
ping
DannyTN, I suspect your ideas are a lot closer to what the author expressed than you want to admit. It has long been a tradition in our country to care for those who are unable to tend for themselves. What I believe the major idea the article puts forth is that it is unjust and contrary to engage in government sponsored charity. That is left for you and I to take care of.
When I posted the article, I purposely left out what the author had to say about a solution to the problem.
The Failure of Antipoverty and Wealth-Redistribution Schemes
Our government has been "fighting poverty" for most of the last century. Tens of trillions of dollars have been spent. Yet success never comes. When it becomes apparent that "poverty" is not being eradicated, our politicians throw yet more money at the supposed problem. The increased money comes from our increased taxes (including the inflation tax).
With the amount of money the government has spent trying to eradicate poverty, why is it that it still exists.
Is it possible that due to a debasement of the currency poverty has simply been redefined because the poor now earn (or receive benefits from the government) far in excess of what we used to consider poverty?
I would disagree with that idea. I see a biblical mandate for both individual charity towards the poor and governmental charity towards the poor. In fact, I see scriptures that state that if a ruler does not consider the poor and needy, God will end his rule. That's something "We the People" need to consider if we wish to continue to rule.
That said, there has to be balance. Equality is a really stupid goal, as it destroys incentive.
"Is it possible that due to a debasement of the currency poverty has simply been redefined because the poor now earn (or receive benefits from the government) far in excess of what we used to consider poverty?"
I certainly would agree that poverty has been redefined upward. And it has almost certainly been defined upwards in real terms, not just nominal terms. That would have happened regardless of the debasement of the currency.
A couple of things to keep in mind here, is that the cost of living has changed and not just due to inflation. There is no longer any medical service you can afford for the cost of 3 chickens. Even if you sell the chickens first and pay in dollars. The transition from a farm economy has changed both the needs and the expectations.
Today you need internet access to look for a job. And we provide that at libraries and job aide centers, but then there are transportation costs to reach those. It's a different world and the needs have changed.
The minimum needs have been defined upwards, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I do think poor should be defined in terms of minimum needs. Food, shelter, a base level of medical care, etc. And not in terms of access to flat screen TV's. I strongly suspect the homeless living at the Union Mission in downtown Nashville have access to a flat screen TV. But let's be real, they are still poor.
Regarding debasement of the currency. I'm not really opposed to that as long as it stays reasonable. I agree with most economists that a "low" level of inflation is good for the economy. It forces dollars to be reinvested instead of hoarded. It certainly is better than the recurring bouts of deflation that we had on the gold standard in the 1800's. It is indeed a hidden tax, but it's not like you could manage inflation/deflation to 0, regardless of how you define your currency. It does look horrendous when you graph the compounded impact of 1-3% inflation over 70 years. But the simple truth is that our economy has thrived in that environment. At least it did until we outsourced our manufacturing, flooded the labor market with illegals, and decimated the confidence in our financial markets.
Those statements would put you in the socialist camp. Is that where you really want to be?
Socialism’s appeal lies in the fact that miserable people are only happy when they are surrounded by other miserable people.
No they would not.
The socialist camp is not in any way synonymous with any opinion on monetary policy. You're not going to get 0 inflation anyway, it's practically impossible. Inflation/deflation is determined by the supply of goods in the economy vs the supply of dollars. That changes constantly, and is influenced by more factors than you can imagine, including population growth, foreign holding of dollars, any lending in the economy, etc.
A gold standard won't reduce inflation/deflation to 0 and never did. In most years it caused deflation except during the California gold rush when we had hyper inflation.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
"Politicians have a vested interest in preventing the alleviation of poverty. If Americans are fully employed and earning continually increasing wages, who needs the thousands of welfare bureaucrats in Washington?"
But year by year there are still more people in need of government support. This is partially because as more people understand that incomes can be had without working for them, more people position themselves as poor so that they can receive benefits. No matter how much money is thrown at the problem, there will always be both the government-defined poor as well as the natural nondisability poor; there will always be people who choose not to better themselves, due to various psychological or mental desires to remain in their current state. Yet any attempt to equalize people by redistributing wealth must result in a destruction of capital and of the ability to create jobs and prosperity, and thus reduced incomes. Even Leonid Brezhnev, First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, stated that "One can only distribute and consume what has been produced; this is an elementary truth."[10] What he failed to learn, as history shows, was that only the protection of private property and free markets can bring about the coordination of people and physical resources in a way that increases the production of wealth, while government economic planning and forced redistribution reduces production.
Any attempt to equalize people by redistributing wealth must result in a destruction of capital and of the ability to create jobs and prosperity, and thus reduced incomes. Even Leonid Brezhnev, First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, stated that "One can only distribute and consume what has been produced; this is an elementary truth."[10] What he failed to learn, as history shows, was that only the protection of private property and free markets can bring about the coordination of people and physical resources in a way that increases the production of wealth, while government economic planning and forced redistribution reduces production.
Yes I’m sure about socialism not being synonymous with monetary policy. Not that socialists can’t use monetary policy to help reach their ends, especially that of redistribution. But what I advocate a low level of inflation of 1 to 3% is not at all synonymous with socialism.
And that second quote in your last post isn’t from me.
As I stated previously, equality should never be the goal, but rather helping the poor reach a certain minimum need level. And how you do it is important. A hand up is far better than a hand out. Programs should seek to overcome those mental states of mind. But hand outs are still appropriate in many cases.
There is an upside to safety nets that a lot of people overlook. They promote risk taking. And while some people equate risk taking with irresponsibility, risk taking is also what drives most economic innovation. A lot of the great entrepreneurs might never have risked what was necessary if failure meant a debtor’s prison or starvation.
But again in all things there must be balance. Safety nets and poor programs should never be allowed to consume the economy. The goal should never be equality, but rather that the poor have a way of meeting their minimum needs and that they have paths out of poverty and are encouraged to take them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.