The Engine of Poverty
posted at 12:28 am on July 22, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Economic downturns make life tough on everyone. Natural disasters can cause enormous human misery, and require massive relief operations, to provide food and medical aid. To cause serious, long-term, grinding poverty, however, you need government involvement.
Big Government is the most formidable engine of poverty the industrialized world has ever seen. The worst famines to sweep the twentieth century were caused by either incompetent or malevolent government, with the Holodomor famine in Ukraine being a particularly horrifying example. Millions of Ukrainians were starved to death in the Holodomor, as a deliberate matter of Soviet policy. The infamous Ethiopian famine of the mid-80s prompted a well-meaning response from the West, including the Live Aid concerts organized by Bob Geldof… but while hundreds of millions of dollars were raised, much of the aid money and relief supplies were simply stolen by the Ethiopian military junta. Collectivist governments around the world have produced uniformly terrible standards of living.
Domestically, the Great Society’s War on Poverty did nothing but waste nearly nine trillion dollars, and create more poverty. Every lower-class social pathology has grown worse since the 1960s, most of them much worse. We certainly haven’t gotten much value for the money we’ve spent on Great Society social programs.
Of course, the meaning of “poverty” has changed a lot over the years. The poor of the United States have a higher standard of living than the middle class in much of the rest of the world. They also have a higher standard of living than the filthy rich of a hundred years ago, or the crowned royalty of the centuries before that. This improved standard of living has very little to do with the government. A poor American might get food stamps from Uncle Sam, but he will use them to buy food of incredible variety and purity from convenient local stores. Why is this high-quality food so readily available? Because people with money pay for it, and grocers compete to win their business. I challenge you to walk down any aisle of a grocery store without spotting at least a half-dozen products that are “new and improved.” The private sector is still improving this stuff long after a government-controlled grocery industry would have decided it was good enough.
If you are motivated by a humanitarian desire to help the poor – the ostensible mission of much of the modern liberal state – you must realize that nothing helps them more than the increased standard of living and economic opportunity brought about by the private sector. Every government action that shrinks the private sector hurts the poor. It hurts everyone else, too, except for the political class, and the plutocrats who find ways to shape legislation to their benefit… but it hurts the poor the most. Consider the “stimulus” travesty Obama and the Democrats shoved down the nation’s throat. It stimulated nothing, and drained billions of dollars away from a private economy that could have used those resources better. It wasn’t merely a waste of money. The value of every wasted government dollar must be judged by what free enterprise could have accomplished with it. The untold tragedy of the economy is the hidden story of all the things free people could do, if we started emptying out some of those fortresses in Washington and returning their money to them. The economy we have today might make you angry, but the economy we could have should make you furious.
Exactly what would the private sector do with its money that would be so wonderful? I don’t know – and neither does anyone else, particularly anyone in Washington. If the six long months of this Administration serve any constructive purpose, it should be permanently dissolving the illusion that a small group of political appointees can predict what the economy will do, and control it to produce an improved outcome. There is a better plan for restoring our prosperity than anything being cooked up by Obama’s brain trust. In fact, there are thousands of them – and no single person knows them all. They are scattered through the minds of people from coast to coast, formulated by small business owners behind the wheels of work trucks, as well as executives in boardrooms. People working within the incentives of the free market – operating in local markets they know personally, or national markets their companies have studied for decades – will always be able to outperform a group of academics, whose first order of business is listing all the things they won’t even consider doing, because it would violate their ideology. You’re always better off placing your bets on organizations that strive to reward their shareholders, over those dedicated to rewarding contributors.
No one benefits more from general economic strength than the poor, and no one suffers faster when the economy hits a downturn. The lowest-level jobs are the first to be filled when a company expands… and the first to go when it needs to cut labor costs. The benefits of technological progress have the most profound effect on the lower class standard of living. Even in the case of charity, the ideal results are obtained when a wealthy society has money to spend on the disadvantaged. The top private charities average about 85 cents on the dollar delivered to beneficiaries. Government welfare hits about 35 cents on the dollar, in a good year. The liberal sneers that we can’t rely on private charities to take care of all the needy. Why not? If we had given $787 billion to the top 50 private charities this year, do you think it would have all vanished down a rat hole, like the “stimulus?” The liberal conceit that only the State can be trusted to address the needs of the downtrodden is one of the most dangerous threats faced by the poor in America. The true sources of liberal disdain for private charity are their lust for power, and their revulsion at the religious character of many top charitable organizations. Nothing frightens them more than the idea that dedicated volunteer and religious groups might actually reduce poverty, because the downtrodden cease to be useful to the Left when they cross the poverty line. What would the federal budget need to be, if it were primarily concerned with defense, law enforcement, and the welfare of the most seriously disadvantaged Americans – and that welfare was administered with 85% efficiency?
The best thing going for the poor is the increase in their standard of living brought about by the energy of free enterprise. The only way they can ever escape from poverty is by obtaining a good education, and getting a decent job. Big Government is a miserable failure at the former, and an active threat to the latter – as can be seen from the obscene cap-and-trade bill, or Obama’s health care proposals. Nothing should be a higher priority for the poor than slashing the size of government and radically cutting taxes. The free markets are always hiring. When they slow down, it’s because they aren’t free.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just look around the globe and look carefully at those nations wherein the government controls everything, prices,production, movement of capital, movement of labor, and see how wonderfully successful they have been at eliminating poverty.
Then look carefully at those nations where the free market is encouraged to dominate, and see how it is working.
How many times must the fatally flawed Marxist model be resurrected by the Left before they ever realize that it not only keeps the poor poor, but makes the middle class poor, so only the oligarchs who control the state gain?
Liberals believe that mankind is degenerate, flawed, and needs the good offices of the state to free him from his bonds.
Conservatives believe that mankind is essentially good, that a man is for the most part the product of his industry, and the state serves only to protect the nation.
coldwarrior on July 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Liberals believe that mankind is degenerate, flawed, and needs the good offices of the state to free him from his bonds.
Conservatives believe that mankind is essentially good, that a man is for the most part the product of his industry, and the state serves only to protect the nation.
coldwarrior on July 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM
——-
Cold One,
By this definition, I’m a liberal… and I’m pretty damn sure that’s not the case.
The differentiation is in what the response to mans’ nature should be.
Libs want to restrict the failure modes available to most in order to cause more positive outcomes, but actually end up reducing the motivation to avoid failure by making it too comfortable. To wit, “America, the place where the poor people are fat.”
Cons accept that failure must be an option, even though this means some people will find new and spectacular ways to fail, but that with more options and an open playing field, the bulk of humanity will find ways to avoid failure, indeed some will find spectacular new ways to succeed.
Mew
acat on July 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Superb analysis, as usual, Dr. Zero. The culture of “Left thinking” (as you described in one of your earlier posts on April 16, 2009 at 11:20 PM) yields poverty.
NaCly dog on July 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM
This conservative believes that mankind is not particularly moral. We’re self-interested first. Putting that self-interest to good use is the cornerstone of capitalist thought.
Ignoring that fundamental drive is the fatal flaw in progressive thought. They assume altruism where none exists, which leads to misery since self-interest in progressive systems can only be pursued by abusing government power.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Dr. Zero, you are one of the reasons I frequent Hot Air.
Keep it up, brother. And keep your head clear.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Medical services are a necessity, therefore a “right”, so we should nationalize it.
Food is a necessity, therefore a “right”, so we should nationalize it.
What could go wrong?
forest on July 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
“The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away from you.”
Greg Toombs on July 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Money quote!
Chainsaw56 on July 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I agree totally! Statists believe people are too stupid to make their own choices. Their policies ensure that eventually that is true. You take away responsibilities and expecations and you guarantee a society filled with bitter, entitled, helpless and yes, poor people.
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Coldwarrior says:
How many times must the fatally flawed Marxist model be resurrected by the Left before they ever realize that it not only keeps the poor poor, but makes the middle class poor, so only the oligarchs who control the state gain?
The answer is endlessly. The definition of insanity is repeating a failing action and hoping for different results. Ergo, Socialist are crazy
Brian Mallard on July 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I forgot to say excellent work Doctor Zero!
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
It comes down to a view of humanity that liberals have.
They think we are selfish as humans, and that we don’t care for other people.
Conservatives donate to charity much more than their statist counterparts.
Give people room to breathe, and you give people room to give.
They force people to forfeit their income
yet they try to close down bell ringers for Salv Army during Christmas.
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Muslims claim there “is no compulsion in religion”
we should claim there is no compulsion in charity
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Who are we kidding though
lefties like their voters dumb and dependent
blah
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Meet “projection.”
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Not so – many on the left believe in the inherent goodness of man. Witness the basic tenets of secular humanist thought and its progressive roots. Observe the requirement for altruism inherent in leftist thought. Without that altruistic impulse, their systems of governance fall apart.
Many on the left happen to think that the only reasons you’d actively oppose their policies are ignorance and selfishness. They don’t think most people are selfish – just far-right conservatives. The truth of the matter is that all individuals are individuals first, and therefore self interested to a greater or lesser extent. But you’ll never get rid of self-interest.
The only way forward is to link self-interest to a productive end. That’s why capitalism, for all its flaws, works so very well.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Theunrepentantgeek
but if they didn’t think people were selfish why would they propose such bullyish policy?
Why the extreme requisitioning of income and it’s subsequent distribution
they think people can’t give under their own volition!
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM
(emphasis mine)
That’s not a bug to the leftist – that’s a feature. That’s because they always think that they’ll be the ones pulling the levers of power in the end, forgetting that every time it’s tried, they’re instead the first ones up against the wall, put there by the thugs who in the end are always the ones pulling the levers in a dictatorship. How do you tell a leftist? Someone who may have read history – but certainly doesn’t understand it.
What they fail to realize is that you cannot overturn the free-market laws of supply and demand any more than you can the overturn the law of gravity. Government entitlement programs say to the electorate, “OK, we’re going to buy all of the poverty you care to create, at current market prices.” The left never seems to figure out that unlimited government demand for poverty will be filled by unlimited electorate supply of the same.
Blacksmith on July 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Because they think the rich are selfish (which, apart from luck is why they’re rich of course) and they also think the rich have all the money. Hence they must create legislation to punish the rich. The middle class get a pass for being too ignorant and downtrodden by the rich to be expected to give much.
Don’t be mistaken – some on the left do believe that people are selfish and must be beaten into virtue by government force. But they also must believe that people will perform at peak efficiency without adequate compensation “for the good of their fellow man.”
It’s an ideology filled with contradictions. That’s why so many leftists are practically immune to cognitive dissonance. They must embrace it as necessary to maintain their view of the world.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM
There is something not-quite-right with both of these views of leftists. I feel like if I could actually put my finger on what it is, I could unravel the whole thing.
First, the leftist is always focused on either anecdotal suffering or statistics that bring such to mind. The very first thing they throw out when considering a situation is your right to property (though they are often rather protective of their own). Similarly, your liberty always loses to their liberty (or the liberty of anyone they are feeling sympathetic to at the moment), and often loses to their mere comfort.
I would say, above all, the leftist clings to that which says that he is a superior being, despite all of the measures by which someone else has out competed him.
At least, that’s how I would describe my own thoughts when I was one.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Unrepentant geek
good points
it’s hard to wrap ones head around these ideas
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I think, to an extent, we’re both right. There’s more than one type of leftist, and as I said, cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the ideology. When their own ideas conflict it can be difficult to parse out exactly what they’re supposed to think. We’re searching for logical consistency where there might not be any.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Awesome work.
RWExtremist on July 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I think it might be a corruption of “let me do my own thing”.
The leftist thinks that he should be able to make a living doing what he likes to do, and, if he fails at that (or someone else fails at that), then it must be the fault of those who succeed, or some subset of them. Once the leftist sifts out all of the successful that agree with him (usually because he grants them a pass on parts of their behavior that the rest of society rejects), he then labels all that remain as greedy, and claims that it is their greed alone that prevents the success of the unsuccessful. Attempts to confiscate that success follow.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM
There. FTFY.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on July 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Excellent article, Doc Zero, and much appreciated. The elephant in the room, though, with regard to poverty, is the role of the family. Marriage is the greatest anti-poverty program in history — that is, marry, then have your children, and then stay married. Unfortunately we have a near complete breakdown in our society of this vital safety net, and I don’t think we could repair it even if, hypothetically, we were able to repeal every single one of LBJ’s failed programs.
Nevertheless, I certainly agree that a vigorous free market would greatly reduce the damage done by both government and personal failures.
jwolf on July 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I feel like liberalism, well, modern liberalism represents
an amalgamation of everything bad about humanity
greed
envy
sloth
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Well, there should be a logical set of motivations behind it all, even if there are contradictions in their self description. It is important not to take their word for it what their motivations are, and to take note that different leftists will have different subsets of the motivation set.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Good One, Doc.
LegendHasIt on July 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I truly hope so…………
…….. Another good one, Doc. Thanks!
Seven Percent Solution on July 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I draw a hard line between principled greed and unprincipled greed. The former is something benefits me when present in others. Even the latter pales in comparison to the damage done by envy.
Sloth is simply unhelpful, unless it contributes to making greed unprincipled or leads to envy.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Yeah, I’d add that stable societies are founded on stable (heterosexual) families. The (heterosexual) family is the model of the state, and produces normal citizens. Without families (as ‘traditionally’ understood) you won’t have any citizens who are more than 2 days away from a state of absolute anarchy.
And on top of that I would also add that the Demoncratic party has with their condescending and patronizing entitlement programs largely maintained black people in a state of servility, dependency, and slavery for the past 30 years. So factor that in…
GTR640 on July 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM
A typo that more clearly describes what I was saying…
GTR640 on July 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM
I really like this sentence. Clear, distinct, and to the point.
PrettyD_Vicious on July 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM
GREED is not a bad word. Don’t buy into the Statist hype. Greed has given you a job, nice things, innovation in every industry, etc…
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Dr Zero -
Another great piece – and I must admit – I think you are a better writer than 99% of authors, professors, business leaders and teachers out there. Quite a rare gift.
As to comparing country’s that allow “free markets” over gov controlled – Ireland is a great case study over the past 20 years. Though caught in the global downturn – the Celtic Tiger immediatley drove unemployment from 15% to less than 6% in just 3 years. It outpaced the “Euro super economic powers” by 300-400% in the 20 year span. All because they allowed their markets to become free, compared to the socialist doldrums. All the while – members of the EU as long as other euro nations.
They are equally poised to rebound, if and when the global economy recovers. All due to free market capitalism.
Odie1941 on July 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
A thousand years from now, the collectivists will still be looking for the right person to run communism.
jukin on July 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Am in total agreement with Doctor Zero and jwolf. Some things are better if you take a “hands off” approach. I took a class in college called “Crisis Management”. One approach is to do nothing. Although not usually the preferred choice, sometimes it is the best choice!
texabama on July 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Odie1941 on July 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
All thanks to them cutting their corporate tax rates by fifty percent!!
Lower taxes is the mother of investment
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Count to 10, TheUnrepentantGeek, coldwarrior…
I suspect the key is to distinguish between, at simplest terms, nurture and nature.
Seems to me that Liberals, especially among the younger generation, are often simply not able to distinguish between the fetters of culture (the altruism they’ve been spoon-fed, i.e. nurture) and human nature.
Mew
acat on July 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
GREED is not a bad word. Don’t buy into the Statist hype. Greed has given you a job, nice things, innovation in every industry, etc…
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
—–
Ah yes, Gordon Gecko. (grin)
I really prefer the idea of “enlightened self-interest”.
A rose, by any other name, eh?
Mew
acat on July 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Ditto!
RD on July 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM
And they will still not understand that this is the very center of the flaw of the concept.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I think the motivations are simple and rational – after all, I don’t think most people’s fundamental motivations are all that complex. What gets tangled are the immense gantries of often contradictory logic we assemble to explain, justify, or otherwise interpret those motivations and the often bizarre actions that result from the aforementioned.
After all, people aren’t all that rational most of the time. We’re 10 parts instinct for every 1 part reason. You can’t really blame us though. Relatively speaking, consciousness is kinda new and we haven’t really gotten the hang of it yet.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM
You’ve got a real point there. Many of them are unwilling to acknowledge human nature (and sometimes reality itself) for what it is.
New Age/Secular Humanist brain rot may well be the death of us all.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Sugar coat it however you want but it’s the same thing. Bastardizing the the concept so the left won’t say you’re a bad person just gives them more power and concedes that they are right.
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Liberals live under the delusion that one can pick up a turd by the clean end.
Bevan on July 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I suppose it depends on how you define greed eh? Greed has a decidedly negative connotation in the dictionary. Here’s Webster:
If we’re going to accept Webster’s definition of greed, desire would be the more neutral term. In this definition, Greed denotes desire taken beyond acceptable limits. Those limits are one of the primary matters of the debate between left and right.
Bit of a thought for discussion:
The left would claim that you should take only what you need – and they get to decide what you need. The right would claim that you take what you’re capable of taking within the confines of the law.
How’s that? Are we getting at something here?
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM
How very Wesley Mouch-esque of them.
I don’t and won’t see greed as a bad thing. It’s a powerful motivator. All humans are greedy, some of us are just more efficient than others at making it work for us. My greed allows me to make a living and generously support causes near and dear to my heart. Oh wait, I’m greedy, therefore heartless. Silly me.
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I respect and appreciate your greed (provided you keep it on the level).
I don’t hold my relative lack there of as any sort of virtue.
Though I am a miser.
Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I don’t and won’t see greed as a bad thing. It’s a powerful motivator. All humans are greedy, some of us are just more efficient than others at making it work for us. My greed allows me to make a living and generously support causes near and dear to my heart. Oh wait, I’m greedy, therefore heartless. Silly me.
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM
—–
Ah, semantics.
I believe you’re using the word “greed” to cover “desire” as well as “lust” and “covet”.
While the three are related, and while there are others that also have similar definitions, they aren’t precisely the same, and the connotations matter.
Mew
acat on July 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM
An excellent article, should be read by everyone, like “I Pencil.”
The link should be posted on as many forums as possible, especially those where brainwashed young socialists hang out. Most will close their eyes and sing ‘la-la-la’ before launching into their carefully rehearsed tirade of shopworn anticapitalist slogans, but a small few will learn something. Never underestimate the power of engaging writing like this – books like Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism” have dissuaded many a young collectivist from spending their whole lives in the dark.
Sharke on July 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM
The problem with defining greed as being desire above and beyond what is “acceptable” is that the definition of “acceptable” can never be absolute. Take the average liberal elitist who decries greed. Yet they are living lives which would be defined as obscene by the poor of the third world. And take a poor person living in a big city. Are they considered “greedy” by someone living a primitive life in the rain forest?
So to anchor it to a benchmark I guess you have to define anything above and beyond primitivism as “greed.”
Sharke on July 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I do see your point about connotations. I guess I’m looking at it in the bigger picture. My point is taking a word that’s used against free-marketers to shut them up and shame/guilt them and embracing it without guilt or shame. After all, everyone is greedy. Greed is such a buzzword for the left these days and they forget what wrought the wonderful lifestyle we enjoy, even as they demonize it.
Conceptually, I think I prefer rational self interest to enlightened self interest. I just don’t care for forced altruism which is where enlightened self-interest seems to lead. (This comes from a meditating, Buddhist leaning, vegetarian, capitalist pig who volunteers one day a week and donates to charity.)
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Who else kinda hopes we find out starting on January 20, 2013?!?
das411 on July 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Actually it’s sort of the other way around. Leftists believe that man is perfectible and that any imperfect human need correcting by the state.
The Right believes that humans are flawed and motivated by self-interest.
baldilocks on July 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Conceptually, I think I prefer rational self interest to enlightened self interest. I just don’t care for forced altruism which is where enlightened self-interest seems to lead. (This comes from a meditating, Buddhist leaning, vegetarian, capitalist pig who volunteers one day a week and donates to charity.)
Monica on July 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
——
Monica,
I dislike “rational” because, simply, miracles are, by definition, violations of the laws of the universe, and therefore irrational.
Hmmm. Irrational self-interest. Maybe. (grin)
Mew
acat on July 22, 2009 at 9:44 PM
So you don’t like anything that’s not a violation of the laws of the universe? How very strange. Is there a medical definition for that condition yet?
Sharke on July 22, 2009 at 11:02 PM
I confess I don’t understand your point but there’s no need to explore it further, I’ll just agree to disagree.
What’s with the Mew at the end of every post? Your trademark?
Monica on July 23, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I confess I don’t understand your point but there’s no need to explore it further, I’ll just agree to disagree.
What’s with the Mew at the end of every post? Your trademark?
Monica on July 23, 2009 at 12:08 AM
——–
Monica,
What do you consider a miracle to be?
As for my signature, Mew, that’s because I’m a cat. Or did you not read my name?
Sharke,
Where do you get like or dislike out of that?
Mew
acat on July 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM