Green Room

The Engine of Poverty

posted at 12:28 am on July 22, 2009 by

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.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

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 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 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

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

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

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?

Who else kinda hopes we find out starting on January 20, 2013?!?

das411 on July 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM

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

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

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

Comment pages: 1 2