Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
A dangerous obsession: Part III
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What did you think of Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech Wednesday night?




People in the media, in academia and among the intelligentsia in general who are obsessed with "disparities" in income and wealth usually show not the slightest interest in how that income and wealth were produced in the first place.

They are hot to redistribute the existing income and wealth but seem wholly unaware that how you do that today can affect how much income and wealth will be produced tomorrow. Any number of schemes for redistributing wealth have ended up redistributing poverty in a number of countries.

"Progressives" in the media and among academics and intellectuals claim to be interested in ending poverty but the production of more output is the only way to end poverty for millions of people.

It not only can be done, it has already been done in many countries, for all countries were once very poor by today's standards. But most self-styled "progressives" show virtually zero interest in economic history or in economics in general.

Even in the United States, most people did not have a telephone or a refrigerator as late as 1930. Today, most Americans living below the official poverty level have not only these things but also color television, air-conditioning, a microwave oven and a motor vehicle.

How did this happen? The progressive intelligentsia show no interest in that question.

Even such historically poverty-stricken countries as India and China, repeatedly struck by massive famines, have within the past two decades adopted changed economic policies that have raised vast numbers of people out of desperate poverty.

An estimated 20 million people in India rose out of destitution in just one decade and more than a million Chinese per month have risen out of poverty. But have you heard any progressive intellectuals explaining how such a dramatic change for the better came about?

Progressives are in the business of complaining and denouncing -- as a prelude to seeking sweeping powers to control other people's lives, in the name of curing the ills of society. The last thing they want is to discover and discuss how millions of people rose out of poverty by entirely different methods, often by freeing economies from the control of people with sweeping power over other people's lives. Poverty and economic disparities are the raw materials from which the political left manufactures a sense of moral superiority, self-importance and political power. Against that background, it is understandable how they strive to keep poverty alive as an issue, even as they claim to want to end poverty, by playing lady bountiful to the poor. Even as they define deviancy downward, many of the progressive intelligentsia define poverty upward, so that people with amenities that even the middle class could only strive for, two generations ago, are still called "the poor" or the "have-nots." Except for people who can't work or won't work, there is very little real poverty in the United States today, except among people who come from poverty-stricken countries and bring their poverty with them. Talk about "the working poor" still resonates in politics, but most of the people in the bottom 20 percent of American households are not working full-time and year-round. There are more heads of household who work year-round and full-time among the top 5 percent of American heads of households than among the bottom 20 percent. The left has striven mightily to make working no longer necessary for having a claim to a share of what others have produced -- whether a share of "the nation's" wealth or "the world's" wealth. They have also striven mightily to inflate the number of people who look poor by counting young people with entry-level jobs, who are passing through lower income brackets at the beginning of their careers, among "the poor," even though most of these young people have incomes above the national average when they are older. The real obsession of the left is in gaining power or, at the very least, engaging in moral exhibitionism. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. ??

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: A Perspective on Poverty
Another aspect of poverty that needs to be expressed is the difference between being "poor" and being "without money/funds", i. e. "broke." Even at mumblety-mumble years of age, I am often faced with cash-flow situations which I describe as being "broke right now," or "flat busted till payday." But I am far from poor; I am well above the median income level and own a larger piece of the pie than my folks could have ever imagined for their son. "Broke" is a circumstance of pocketbook; "poor" is often a condition of spirit.

I grew up in what was described at the time (mid 60s) as a "working poor" home. I suppose that was an accurate description, in that both Dad and Mom worked, and each of us kids earned extra money (babysitting, paper routes, yard care, odd jobs, and collecting/returning beverage bottles for the deposit money) that went into the family pot. During the same period of time, we had no television (until I was in high school,) owned one car (that Dad brought into the marriage in 1952,) never traveled more than 150 miles from home, and made do with hand-me-downs and rummage sale clothes for school.

But the critical point is that we were never poor, we were just often broke. There was always money for charity collections at church, the Salvation Army bell ringers, and even to occasionally "hire" the kid down the block whose family needed a few extra bucks, to do work we were already taking care of on our own. There was never money for ice cream and pop for after-school treats, new anything "because everyone else has one," or anything else mom & dad thought was frivolous.

When social engineers of any ilk--politicians or aryling--blur the truth about poverty or pretend they can fix the moral condition with their agendas, you can readily see the obvious internal inconsistencies by just remembering the real distinction: If people believe they are poor (or can be convinced they are) regardless of objective measures, then they are morally impoverished. Conversely, if people believe they are on their way to better times, they will always find ways to get there; they become financially prosperous because they are morally prosperous first.

Charity is individual
Jesus taught us to give to others out of our own pockets, not to take from the pockets of others to give. As Christians, we are judged by how well we do this, not by how much money we can "steal" from our fellow citizens through taxes to assuage our consciences by giving our neighbor's money to the less fortunate (who in many cases are not so less fortunate if they live here).

Former Sen. Phil Graham (a doctorate in econ.) was a fiscal conservative who when asked when he was such a hawk on spending, how did he ever determine which spending bill to vote "yes" on? He replied, "I use the Dicky Flat rule" and went on to explain that Dicky Flat was one of his constituents who worked hard at the family printing business, volunteered at the Boy Scouts, and was a pillar of his community. Dr. Graham said any time a spending bill came before him for a vote, he asked himself, "Could I go to Dicky Flat and ask him to take money out of his pocket to contribute to fund the issue on the spending bill?" If the answer was yes, he would vote yes; if he was uncomfortable in asking Dicky to pay for the issue, then he would vote "no." If only the Dicky Flat rule was indeed a rule that all in congress were bound to.
Unfortunately socialism is alive and well. We are incorporating it here so slowly, the only time it really becomes evident to us is to listen to someone who had just immigrated from a socialist country to tell how, as a government, we are becoming what they left.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.