8 ms·

Poverty is the natural state for humans, not the wealthy prosperous state that most Westerners live in. What those in the west created is an aberration. Peopl

Poverty is the natural state for humans, not the wealthy prosperous state that most Westerners live in. What those in the west created is an aberration. People, like the author of this article wonder, why are people poor? Why is there poverty? The deeper question to ask is, why was wealth ever created? And what do we do to encourage it everywhere?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
fatdog789 17y ago
Poverty is only natural when the local human population exceeds the local resources available to sustain it. For most of human history, poverty was not the natural state of human existence; indeed, given the frequency and scale of wars (prior to the Geneva conventions, when war was between populations and not just armies), poverty was very rare until the 19th century.
- bokonist 17y ago
  I'm surprised this has so many up votes because it is so factually incorrect. In 1690 Gregory King made an made a primitive economic census of the English population. Out of a population of 5.5 million, 1.3 million were "cottagers and paupers", and 2.7 were in the lowest class "Vagrants; as Gipsies, Theives, Beggers, &c." (source, The World we have lost by Peter Laslett) It's should also be noted that average heights were about 4 inches shorter than the height of a modern American. Not having good enough nutrition to reach a full height seems like a pretty sure sign of poverty to me. They did not so much have the crowded slums that are typical of modern poverty. People would die of disease before cities could reach such densities. But relative to us, people were impoverished in terms of health, nutrition, or material comfort. EDIT: One more point. Overall violent death rates ( including war and homicide) in 16th-19th century Britain were about the same as the violent death rate in modern Houston, Texas. See Greg Clark, A Farewell to Alms, pages 128-129.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    >were about the same as the violent death rate in modern Houston, Texas. You realize most of the world would think this is abnormally high?
    - bokonist 17y ago
      Yes.
- paulsmith 17y ago
  Actually, wars against populations and not just between armies began to disappear as a consequence of the end of the Thirty Years' War in the 17th Century. Until that point, armies were largely expected to be self-funding, so they would take resources from local towns (and destroy those of their opposition). Due to the utter exhaustion on all sides at the end of the war, and the cost of supporting large standing armies, a number of military reforms came about, including making armies smaller and more professional, and making non-combatant populations (more or less) off-limits. This is largely were we get the concept of a "civilian" -- someone who has allegiance to a nation but is not directly involved in the fighting of its wars.
fallentimes 17y ago
Your comment reminded me of this quote: "We don't take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life. We don't grab a kidney from you to save someone's life, even though that health difference was unfair brute luck. Redistribution of wealth has some role in maintaining a stable democracy and preventing starvation. But the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited. The power of wealth creation to produce net value is extraordinary. Most of America's poor are already among the best-off of all humans in world history. We should be putting our resources, including our advocacy and our intellectual resources, into wealth creation as much as we can." -Tyler Cowen
- andreyf 17y ago
  the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited Considering what some rhetoricians label as "wealth redistribution", this is flat-out wrong. Consider socialized education, medicine, or early childhood education - all have shown to have strong impacts on social mobility, and hence, wealth creation. This might be too subtle for a slogan, but it isn't rocket science, either: systems of smart wealth redistribution are absolutely necessary, although not sufficient, for maximum wealth creation. Also necessary, off the top of my head: social pressure for parents to be responsible, and a "path to prosperity" with which individuals can identify.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Consider socialized education, medicine, or early childhood education - all have shown to have strong impacts on social mobility, and hence, wealth creation. Evidence? Sources?
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - bokonist 17y ago
        Yet, when countries like Brazil copied the European-style welfare state they failed to get the same result. And neither Britain, the U.S. nor China had a welfare state during their industrial revolution. Correlation != causation
andreyf 17y ago
People are poor because they are never given the opportunity to create wealth. I create wealth because my parents and various nations' tax payers paid for me to dick around doing just about anything I wanted for the first 22 years of my life, and kindly encouraged me to learn something useful in the process. People are poor because they don't have that opportunity/encouragement.
- fnid 17y ago
  I used to believe this so I did some tests. I gave opportunities to people at what many would consider the lowest levels of society. I found that even with those opportunities, they continued to treat others with a lack of respect. The kind of lack of respect that makes people not want to help them or even be around them. I even rent-to-owned a house to a family with 5 kids. This family would never have had the opportunity to own a house had I not given them that opportunity. They didn't have a high school diploma, no credit. Judgements against them. Criminal history. So I thought, "If they have the opportunity, will they take it to improve their life? If they have the opportunity to buy and own a home, will they make the most of it?" They destroyed the house. They caused more damage than they paid in rent. It isn't the lack of opportunity. I thought it was, but it isn't. Opportunities are external motivators. It takes internal motivation to succeed. You can't provide that to someone. They have to create it within themselves. It's the people who have that internal motivation who find opportunities and make the most of them.
  - rw 17y ago
    See also: socialization, nature vs. nurture, anecdotes != data.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    And what makes you think such motivation isn't environmental? With the right opportunities earlier in life, they may have developed that internal drive.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Well, I certainly agree with your point that economic opportunity alone is insufficient for wealth creation. If element you're pointing out is missing from low-SES communities is that unquantifiable culture, and I agree. Since this puts us way off the track of political correctness, I'll bring up what I consider the shining example of social mobility in the US: American Jews. I would argue that the Jewish community maximizes both economic opportunity and a variety of social pressures - on education, family, and community.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

fatdog789 17y ago

Poverty is only natural when the local human population exceeds the local resources available to sustain it. For most of human history, poverty was not the natural state of human existence; indeed, given the frequency and scale of wars (prior to the Geneva conventions, when war was between populations and not just armies), poverty was very rare until the 19th century.

bokonist 17y ago
I'm surprised this has so many up votes because it is so factually incorrect. In 1690 Gregory King made an made a primitive economic census of the English population. Out of a population of 5.5 million, 1.3 million were "cottagers and paupers", and 2.7 were in the lowest class "Vagrants; as Gipsies, Theives, Beggers, &c." (source, The World we have lost by Peter Laslett) It's should also be noted that average heights were about 4 inches shorter than the height of a modern American. Not having good enough nutrition to reach a full height seems like a pretty sure sign of poverty to me. They did not so much have the crowded slums that are typical of modern poverty. People would die of disease before cities could reach such densities. But relative to us, people were impoverished in terms of health, nutrition, or material comfort. EDIT: One more point. Overall violent death rates ( including war and homicide) in 16th-19th century Britain were about the same as the violent death rate in modern Houston, Texas. See Greg Clark, A Farewell to Alms, pages 128-129.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  >were about the same as the violent death rate in modern Houston, Texas. You realize most of the world would think this is abnormally high?
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Yes.
paulsmith 17y ago
Actually, wars against populations and not just between armies began to disappear as a consequence of the end of the Thirty Years' War in the 17th Century. Until that point, armies were largely expected to be self-funding, so they would take resources from local towns (and destroy those of their opposition). Due to the utter exhaustion on all sides at the end of the war, and the cost of supporting large standing armies, a number of military reforms came about, including making armies smaller and more professional, and making non-combatant populations (more or less) off-limits. This is largely were we get the concept of a "civilian" -- someone who has allegiance to a nation but is not directly involved in the fighting of its wars.

fallentimes 17y ago

Your comment reminded me of this quote: "We don't take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life. We don't grab a kidney from you to save someone's life, even though that health difference was unfair brute luck. Redistribution of wealth has some role in maintaining a stable democracy and preventing starvation. But the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited. The power of wealth creation to produce net value is extraordinary. Most of America's poor are already among the best-off of all humans in world history. We should be putting our resources, including our advocacy and our intellectual resources, into wealth creation as much as we can." -Tyler Cowen

andreyf 17y ago
the power of wealth redistribution to produce net value is quite limited Considering what some rhetoricians label as "wealth redistribution", this is flat-out wrong. Consider socialized education, medicine, or early childhood education - all have shown to have strong impacts on social mobility, and hence, wealth creation. This might be too subtle for a slogan, but it isn't rocket science, either: systems of smart wealth redistribution are absolutely necessary, although not sufficient, for maximum wealth creation. Also necessary, off the top of my head: social pressure for parents to be responsible, and a "path to prosperity" with which individuals can identify.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Consider socialized education, medicine, or early childhood education - all have shown to have strong impacts on social mobility, and hence, wealth creation. Evidence? Sources?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - bokonist 17y ago
      Yet, when countries like Brazil copied the European-style welfare state they failed to get the same result. And neither Britain, the U.S. nor China had a welfare state during their industrial revolution. Correlation != causation

andreyf 17y ago

People are poor because they are never given the opportunity to create wealth. I create wealth because my parents and various nations' tax payers paid for me to dick around doing just about anything I wanted for the first 22 years of my life, and kindly encouraged me to learn something useful in the process. People are poor because they don't have that opportunity/encouragement.

fnid 17y ago
I used to believe this so I did some tests. I gave opportunities to people at what many would consider the lowest levels of society. I found that even with those opportunities, they continued to treat others with a lack of respect. The kind of lack of respect that makes people not want to help them or even be around them. I even rent-to-owned a house to a family with 5 kids. This family would never have had the opportunity to own a house had I not given them that opportunity. They didn't have a high school diploma, no credit. Judgements against them. Criminal history. So I thought, "If they have the opportunity, will they take it to improve their life? If they have the opportunity to buy and own a home, will they make the most of it?" They destroyed the house. They caused more damage than they paid in rent. It isn't the lack of opportunity. I thought it was, but it isn't. Opportunities are external motivators. It takes internal motivation to succeed. You can't provide that to someone. They have to create it within themselves. It's the people who have that internal motivation who find opportunities and make the most of them.
- rw 17y ago
  See also: socialization, nature vs. nurture, anecdotes != data.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  And what makes you think such motivation isn't environmental? With the right opportunities earlier in life, they may have developed that internal drive.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Well, I certainly agree with your point that economic opportunity alone is insufficient for wealth creation. If element you're pointing out is missing from low-SES communities is that unquantifiable culture, and I agree. Since this puts us way off the track of political correctness, I'll bring up what I consider the shining example of social mobility in the US: American Jews. I would argue that the Jewish community maximizes both economic opportunity and a variety of social pressures - on education, family, and community.