I was contemplating economics the other day while taking a shower. Elections naturally bring up this topic, so it's been jingling around my head, and I do some of my best thinking in the shower. Here are some of the random thoughts that I had.
1) You will always have poor
people. You know what? Our discussions of economics and politics will be much simpler if we come to terms with this reality. Poor people have always existed, and poor people will always exist. As a poor person (by first-world standards, anyway), I am okay with that. It simply is the way that the world is.
Why, you ask, must it be this way? Well, I can give you at least three reasons. Firstly, some poor people like being poor. They might not like being poor per se, but they would rather remain poor than do what is necessary to lift themselves out of poverty. Politicians can talk about equality and social justice, but it is inescapable that every society has a class of people who would rather do the minimum necessary to subsist than spend decades of their lives doing what is necessary to ascend financially. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. These people do not define themselves by their finances. They are often, though not necessarily, less materialistic than their career-minded peers. These folks don't need 10k in the bank to feel secure and/or fulfilled. I largely identify with this class of people.
Secondly, financial acuity is generational, just like poverty. Rich people don't just pass on their wealth to their children; they also pass on the understanding of how to use and build wealth. For those who are raised in poverty, the knowledge required to transcend the poverty of their forebearers must come from beyond their financial strata. Unless a person intentionally seeks out those who can teach him how to use money wisely, or is blessed by some philanthropist, he will remain poor until the day he dies.
Thirdly, sometimes life sucks. No matter what, the incidentals of life will leave some people in poverty. Natural disasters, wars, deaths in the family, etc. are all financially devastating and are beyond even the wealthiest man's control, though the wealthy may be able to weather these storms more comfortably than the poor. Any politician who thinks he can eliminate poverty is a liar, a fool, or both. Only God can control the weather.
2) It is not the government's job to remove people from poverty. This is true, both generically speaking, and specifically here in the United States. The Constitution of the United States nowhere specifies that the government, Federal, State, or local, is obliged to ensure that no one lives in poverty. The government has a few basic duties, and it should stick to them. Depending on your specific political persuasion, those duties may include things like building roads, maintaining the peace, punishing criminals, and protecting the borders.
Regarding a nation's economy, the government should have as little involvement as possible. The primary role the government should play in the economy is providing an environment where upward mobility is possible. They do this by protecting private property rights, punishing criminals, and enforcing contracts. It may also be advantageous for them to provide the infrastructure for the economy by building roads, creating currency, etc.
It is not Uncle Sam's responsibility to make sure that you have enough money, a good job, an education, a nice house, healthcare, or any other object, service, or opportunity. It is the government's role to make sure that your rights are not infringed as you pursue those things. It is the pursuit of happiness that we are guaranteed, not happiness itself. There is an enormous and fundamental difference between those two concepts. We may not properly label as a right anything that requires the government to infringe upon the rights of our fellow citizens.
3) It is impossible for the government to remove people from poverty. Ethical considerations aside, we should never look to the State to extricate people from poverty simply because the government has consistently proven that it cannot accomplish this task. Oh, the government may temporarily alleviate the financial concerns of some citizens, but eventually such a government, and the economy it constrains, will collapse on itself. As it has been said, the government typically produces the exact opposite of its intended effect. There a number of reasons for this, such as shortsightedness, lack of accountability, corruption, and the general dearth of life experience held by career politicians, but the primary reasons is that bloated bureaucracies never have and never will make a nation more prosperous. They are a drain on a society's resources, and the only people they enrich are members of the bureaucracy.
Moreover, as noted above, the "just want to make enough to stay alive" class will never rise above their natural tendencies. At worst, they want to produce as little as possible and consume as much as possible, and at best, they are simple folk who simply want to live simple lives. Efforts to redistribute wealth, educate the lower classes, or "make rich people pay their fair share" will never be successful as long as the lower classes have no motivation or ability to produce. You could redistribute all the wealth in the United States evenly and the disproportion would be restored within 5-10 years. There are perfectly innocent and rational causes for wealth disparity throughout the United States. Some people know to use money. Some people don't. Some people don't care.
4) Asserting that the government shouldn't redistribute wealth does not make you cold hearted. If you're a Bernie Sanders' fan, you probably think that I am cold and heartless. I assure you, I am not, and if you really understood the negative effects of wealth redistribution, you would agree with everything that I have said thus far. To oppose government involvement in an activity is not equivalent to opposing that activity itself. I am for wealth redistribution. I am not for government-enforced wealth redistribution. There are many causes that I support that I would not want the government funding. Just as opposing government education does not make you pro-illiteracy, so opposing government redistribution of wealth does not make you pro-poverty. The United States has long been one of the wealthiest nations in the world. We have also long been one of the most generous nations in the world. Private charity has proven to be far more effective than government-funded charity because it is far more efficient and much less liable to corruption. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim a generous spirit while insisting that charity is only possible with government intervention.
You see, when the government gets involved, everyone suffers. As I stated earlier, government bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, and efficiency is the key to prosperity. Every dollar spent expanding the bureaucracy is a dollar that could've supported a charitable cause. The government is not the answer; it is a part of the problem. Sometime when you're bored, read this. If you still think that the government is the best institution to regulate healthcare, education, etc., I'm not sure what to tell you.
Why, you ask, must it be this way? Well, I can give you at least three reasons. Firstly, some poor people like being poor. They might not like being poor per se, but they would rather remain poor than do what is necessary to lift themselves out of poverty. Politicians can talk about equality and social justice, but it is inescapable that every society has a class of people who would rather do the minimum necessary to subsist than spend decades of their lives doing what is necessary to ascend financially. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. These people do not define themselves by their finances. They are often, though not necessarily, less materialistic than their career-minded peers. These folks don't need 10k in the bank to feel secure and/or fulfilled. I largely identify with this class of people.
Secondly, financial acuity is generational, just like poverty. Rich people don't just pass on their wealth to their children; they also pass on the understanding of how to use and build wealth. For those who are raised in poverty, the knowledge required to transcend the poverty of their forebearers must come from beyond their financial strata. Unless a person intentionally seeks out those who can teach him how to use money wisely, or is blessed by some philanthropist, he will remain poor until the day he dies.
Thirdly, sometimes life sucks. No matter what, the incidentals of life will leave some people in poverty. Natural disasters, wars, deaths in the family, etc. are all financially devastating and are beyond even the wealthiest man's control, though the wealthy may be able to weather these storms more comfortably than the poor. Any politician who thinks he can eliminate poverty is a liar, a fool, or both. Only God can control the weather.
2) It is not the government's job to remove people from poverty. This is true, both generically speaking, and specifically here in the United States. The Constitution of the United States nowhere specifies that the government, Federal, State, or local, is obliged to ensure that no one lives in poverty. The government has a few basic duties, and it should stick to them. Depending on your specific political persuasion, those duties may include things like building roads, maintaining the peace, punishing criminals, and protecting the borders.
Regarding a nation's economy, the government should have as little involvement as possible. The primary role the government should play in the economy is providing an environment where upward mobility is possible. They do this by protecting private property rights, punishing criminals, and enforcing contracts. It may also be advantageous for them to provide the infrastructure for the economy by building roads, creating currency, etc.
It is not Uncle Sam's responsibility to make sure that you have enough money, a good job, an education, a nice house, healthcare, or any other object, service, or opportunity. It is the government's role to make sure that your rights are not infringed as you pursue those things. It is the pursuit of happiness that we are guaranteed, not happiness itself. There is an enormous and fundamental difference between those two concepts. We may not properly label as a right anything that requires the government to infringe upon the rights of our fellow citizens.
3) It is impossible for the government to remove people from poverty. Ethical considerations aside, we should never look to the State to extricate people from poverty simply because the government has consistently proven that it cannot accomplish this task. Oh, the government may temporarily alleviate the financial concerns of some citizens, but eventually such a government, and the economy it constrains, will collapse on itself. As it has been said, the government typically produces the exact opposite of its intended effect. There a number of reasons for this, such as shortsightedness, lack of accountability, corruption, and the general dearth of life experience held by career politicians, but the primary reasons is that bloated bureaucracies never have and never will make a nation more prosperous. They are a drain on a society's resources, and the only people they enrich are members of the bureaucracy.
Moreover, as noted above, the "just want to make enough to stay alive" class will never rise above their natural tendencies. At worst, they want to produce as little as possible and consume as much as possible, and at best, they are simple folk who simply want to live simple lives. Efforts to redistribute wealth, educate the lower classes, or "make rich people pay their fair share" will never be successful as long as the lower classes have no motivation or ability to produce. You could redistribute all the wealth in the United States evenly and the disproportion would be restored within 5-10 years. There are perfectly innocent and rational causes for wealth disparity throughout the United States. Some people know to use money. Some people don't. Some people don't care.
4) Asserting that the government shouldn't redistribute wealth does not make you cold hearted. If you're a Bernie Sanders' fan, you probably think that I am cold and heartless. I assure you, I am not, and if you really understood the negative effects of wealth redistribution, you would agree with everything that I have said thus far. To oppose government involvement in an activity is not equivalent to opposing that activity itself. I am for wealth redistribution. I am not for government-enforced wealth redistribution. There are many causes that I support that I would not want the government funding. Just as opposing government education does not make you pro-illiteracy, so opposing government redistribution of wealth does not make you pro-poverty. The United States has long been one of the wealthiest nations in the world. We have also long been one of the most generous nations in the world. Private charity has proven to be far more effective than government-funded charity because it is far more efficient and much less liable to corruption. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim a generous spirit while insisting that charity is only possible with government intervention.
You see, when the government gets involved, everyone suffers. As I stated earlier, government bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, and efficiency is the key to prosperity. Every dollar spent expanding the bureaucracy is a dollar that could've supported a charitable cause. The government is not the answer; it is a part of the problem. Sometime when you're bored, read this. If you still think that the government is the best institution to regulate healthcare, education, etc., I'm not sure what to tell you.
Comments
Post a Comment