> The not-poor are only not-poor because they receive money through some already existing mechanism of distribution. If that mechanism ceases to operate, they w

> The not-poor are only not-poor because they receive money through some already existing mechanism of distribution. If that mechanism ceases to operate, they will likely become poor by spending all their money. > Probably they think so because they have an unconscious and implicit belief that the currently existing mechanisms of distribution are somehow "natural". Frankly, that is a bizarre proposition. That strikes me as an un-natural way of looking at things. If a farmer grows potatoes and sells them for money, he's not "receiving" money, he's trading for it (he's receiving money as much as the other guy is "receiving" potatoes"). That seems very natural to me (you give something, you get something). Even in situations where this trade is illegal, it still happens; for example, drug dealers. They sell you heroin/cocaine/marijuana, you give them money. That transaction is highly illegal, yet it still happens because addicts want drugs and dealers want money (that they then use to buy other stuff with). On the other side of the spectrum, you have the completely legal and moral transactions, like the potato example I gave. Laws have some impact on the basic natural tendency of people to trade for what they need, but they can't make trade go away (look at alcohol prohibition for another example). I think the main cause of poverty is that poor people don't have much to trade (skills, labor, resources, even ideas or art). In other situations, trade is simply made difficult (for example, if you live in a warzone, it's pretty hard to be a hairdresser or grow potatoes).