3 ms·

> "I increasingly got the sensation that there is a connection between our wealth and their poverty," he said. One of the most dangerous fallacies in the world

> "I increasingly got the sensation that there is a connection between our wealth and their poverty," he said. One of the most dangerous fallacies in the world. Wealth does not create poverty. Poverty is the natural state of humanity - we evolved from being apes and crawled out of jungles, caves, and forests, and have been fighting nonstop to improve our lot. The question shouldn't be, "How come some people are poor?" but instead, "How come some people aren't?" Poverty is the natural state of affairs. This is never more obvious than when I'm somewhere with mixed levels of wealth. I'm in Northern Thailand right now. The poor in Thailand come from little villages where people barely subside on rice farming. No one "made" them poor, they've been poor for basically forever. Sometimes the poor farmers leave and go to the city to try to make money and make a better life. So they work in rather unpleasant jobs (construction, cleaning, cooking, etc) for far more money than they would've made subsistence farming. No one's making them poor - the jobs, unpleasant though they are, are far more pleasant for them than where they came from. Wealth comes from people who coordinate, manage, invent, develop, streamline. People are willing to pay for these things, so the producers become wealthy. In turn, the wealthy people can purchase things from the poor people - which makes the poor more wealthy too. More can be done. But the idea that making things people want and improving the world and getting compensated for it is creating poverty is false.

elbenshira 17y ago
I don't think he ever believed that the connection was really true. I think he just realized that he was not doing enough to help those who were not as fortunate as him.
cwan 17y ago
"All the money will go into his microcredit charity, which offers small loans to Latin America and builds development aid strategies to self-employed people in El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and Chile." The sad irony is that microcredit/microfinance works best when it's not a charity - further there are numerous examples of microcredits that do operate as charities and who end up squandering money on inefficient operations than reaching the poor because of how their performance is measured. As you point out, the idea that wealth comes from taking from the poor is not only wrong, but often harmful to the very people those like this donor claims he wants to help.
chrischen 17y ago
I agree that two parties can equally be wealthy, but that doesn't mean one party can't step on the other's head to get wealthier faster.
metamemetics 17y ago
Perhaps it's just in man's nature to feel guilty, and guilt is not always correlated with one's direct actions? Look at science-fiction movies. Why is the robots turning on their creators and killing us such a common theme? Perhaps some catholic western philosophy of guilt, sin, and deserved punishment is at work.
moultano 17y ago
There are some forms of poverty that are created by wealth. Poverty didn't destroy the environment; The creation of wealth did. Virtually every productive activity has negative externalities, and to deny those is as naive as thinking of wealth as zero sum. It's not zero-sum, but it's not monotonically positive either.
- cwan 17y ago
  Poverty does destroy the environment. Look at the pattern of development for any country. The environment gets worse and then better because once people stop worrying about putting food on the table they start worrying more about the quality of the food they eat and the air they breath and are often willing to pay a premium (not to mention to protect their own property rights from polluters). This is why East Germany was by far a worse polluter than West Germany, similarly for North and South Korea, etc. Thinking that virtually every productive activity has negative externalities may be true but should also take into account the much greater positive externalities.
  - moultano 17y ago
    Poorer people on average probably take less care of their environment than richer people, but that's not what I'm talking about. Them _becoming poorer_ isn't harming their environment. It's the derivative that's important. Someone is becoming very wealthy pulling oil out of the Niger delta, but the people living there are becoming much poorer as a result. http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5524695-146/niger_delta_residents_die_from_unsafe.csp http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5524695-146/niger...
    - cwan 17y ago
      There are numerous examples in developing countries/dictatorships/autocracies where wealth is physically taken away from the poor - and where the poor have no recourse because of poor legal systems/governance. However, this article is about a man in Austria who had some type of business not an autocrat stealing oil and brutalizing countrymen (for which hopefully such a man/woman ultimately does feel guilt). Wealthy countries become wealthy not by harvesting natural resources but by harnessing entrepreneurs and generating ideas. It's why capital overwhelmingly gets invested in developed countries and not developing ones - ie the returns are simply better.
dasil003 17y ago
I hear what you're saying but this is over the top: One of the most dangerous fallacies in the world. It may be a fallacy but, it's certainly not dangerous. At most it's a slight counterbalance to the ongoing concentration of wealth and power that's happening globally.
swannodette 17y ago
"Poverty is the natural state of humanity - we evolved from being apes and crawled out of jungles, caves, and forests, and have been fighting nonstop to improve our lot." Uh. You can only be poor if there's a monetary system in place however simplistic. Poverty and wealth are two sides of the same coin literally. EDIT: The flawed logic of viewpoint is even clearer when you consider "Are apes poor?". What could that possibly even mean?
crux_ 17y ago
What you say sounds nice to people who share a certain ideology about capitalism. I'm even (at least sometimes) one of those people. But that won't stop me from pointing out your straw-man here: Whoever said that wealth (in the "making things people want and improving the world and getting compensated for it" sense of the word) creates poverty? It's simply not an argument that you hear very often from anyone, yet it is somehow one of the most dangerous in the world? (The argument you do see more often is that the wealthy often apply their (proportionately larger) power at the expense of the poor. But that is far too complicated, even if you disagree with it, do dismiss so tritely, and not at all what you are refuting here.) (( Side thought: It's interesting to wonder if 'poverty' as such even existed prior to the first agricultural revolution. ))

elbenshira 17y ago

I don't think he ever believed that the connection was really true. I think he just realized that he was not doing enough to help those who were not as fortunate as him.

cwan 17y ago

"All the money will go into his microcredit charity, which offers small loans to Latin America and builds development aid strategies to self-employed people in El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and Chile." The sad irony is that microcredit/microfinance works best when it's not a charity - further there are numerous examples of microcredits that do operate as charities and who end up squandering money on inefficient operations than reaching the poor because of how their performance is measured. As you point out, the idea that wealth comes from taking from the poor is not only wrong, but often harmful to the very people those like this donor claims he wants to help.

chrischen 17y ago

I agree that two parties can equally be wealthy, but that doesn't mean one party can't step on the other's head to get wealthier faster.

metamemetics 17y ago

Perhaps it's just in man's nature to feel guilty, and guilt is not always correlated with one's direct actions? Look at science-fiction movies. Why is the robots turning on their creators and killing us such a common theme? Perhaps some catholic western philosophy of guilt, sin, and deserved punishment is at work.

moultano 17y ago

There are some forms of poverty that are created by wealth. Poverty didn't destroy the environment; The creation of wealth did. Virtually every productive activity has negative externalities, and to deny those is as naive as thinking of wealth as zero sum. It's not zero-sum, but it's not monotonically positive either.

cwan 17y ago
Poverty does destroy the environment. Look at the pattern of development for any country. The environment gets worse and then better because once people stop worrying about putting food on the table they start worrying more about the quality of the food they eat and the air they breath and are often willing to pay a premium (not to mention to protect their own property rights from polluters). This is why East Germany was by far a worse polluter than West Germany, similarly for North and South Korea, etc. Thinking that virtually every productive activity has negative externalities may be true but should also take into account the much greater positive externalities.
- moultano 17y ago
  Poorer people on average probably take less care of their environment than richer people, but that's not what I'm talking about. Them _becoming poorer_ isn't harming their environment. It's the derivative that's important. Someone is becoming very wealthy pulling oil out of the Niger delta, but the people living there are becoming much poorer as a result. http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5524695-146/niger_delta_residents_die_from_unsafe.csp http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5524695-146/niger...
  - cwan 17y ago
    There are numerous examples in developing countries/dictatorships/autocracies where wealth is physically taken away from the poor - and where the poor have no recourse because of poor legal systems/governance. However, this article is about a man in Austria who had some type of business not an autocrat stealing oil and brutalizing countrymen (for which hopefully such a man/woman ultimately does feel guilt). Wealthy countries become wealthy not by harvesting natural resources but by harnessing entrepreneurs and generating ideas. It's why capital overwhelmingly gets invested in developed countries and not developing ones - ie the returns are simply better.

dasil003 17y ago

I hear what you're saying but this is over the top: One of the most dangerous fallacies in the world. It may be a fallacy but, it's certainly not dangerous. At most it's a slight counterbalance to the ongoing concentration of wealth and power that's happening globally.

swannodette 17y ago

"Poverty is the natural state of humanity - we evolved from being apes and crawled out of jungles, caves, and forests, and have been fighting nonstop to improve our lot." Uh. You can only be poor if there's a monetary system in place however simplistic. Poverty and wealth are two sides of the same coin literally. EDIT: The flawed logic of viewpoint is even clearer when you consider "Are apes poor?". What could that possibly even mean?

crux_ 17y ago

What you say sounds nice to people who share a certain ideology about capitalism. I'm even (at least sometimes) one of those people. But that won't stop me from pointing out your straw-man here: Whoever said that wealth (in the "making things people want and improving the world and getting compensated for it" sense of the word) creates poverty? It's simply not an argument that you hear very often from anyone, yet it is somehow one of the most dangerous in the world? (The argument you do see more often is that the wealthy often apply their (proportionately larger) power at the expense of the poor. But that is far too complicated, even if you disagree with it, do dismiss so tritely, and not at all what you are refuting here.) (( Side thought: It's interesting to wonder if 'poverty' as such even existed prior to the first agricultural revolution. ))