Creating and Amassing Wealth is Murder

While trying to relax during a hectic day and have a nice, peaceful cup of coffee, I picked up the Pacific Northwest Inlander- Spokane, WA's weekly alternative newspaper.

While I am a fan of open debate and differing opinions (no matter how ridiculous some may be) one article by author Jacob H. Fries caught my eye. In it, there were two theses posed:

#1- Poverty is Violence- Synopsis: Poverty is lack of resources to meet basic needs, lack of resources can lead to malnutrition, malnutrition leads to physical harm, physical harm is violence- therefore poverty is violence.

#2- Poverty is Violence Waged by the Privileged Upon the Poor- Synopsis: Poverty is lack of resources, privilege is access to resources, excess resources are gained in a system of privilege, resources are finite, millions of people starve to death each year (here's where "the children" sentence of every emotional, illogical argument is thrown in), poverty is caused by a privileged minority, amassing resources (wealth) prevents others from meeting basic needs, therefore- participating in the amassing of resources beyond one's immediate, basic needs is murder.

To top it all off, these theses were taught to high school students, by the author, in a three week "civic leadership" course. Needless to say, I was no longer "relaxing" with my cup of coffee.

First, let's look at the real roots of poverty. Poverty is a condition, like obesity, that has obvious cures. It can be temporary, or it can be permanent, depending on several factors. However, in all but a fraction of cases, poverty is caused by two things- 1) Choices and decisions made by individuals; and/or 2) Governmental interference.

In the United States for example, most poverty is a combination of the two aforementioned issues- personal choices and government. The decision to waste money, not to save, get involved in unhealthy substances, thoughtlessly procreate, be lazy, expect to be taken care of, etc., accounts for much of the poverty in this country. Then, our government steps in to encourage and create even more poverty. All forms of social welfare (from food stamps to housing programs to social security) disincentivize thrift and investment. Social welfare programs create dependency. Social welfare programs take money out of the private sector and inefficiently redistribute it- money that would have been better used, and more beneficial to society as a whole, in the private sector. In other words, government steals wealth from the productive members of society to give it to the unproductive in society- as well as overpay a cadre of bureaucrats. Instead of "helping" society, this stunts and harms society overall in a myriad of ways. The cost of the action taken was at the cost of another action, or even inaction and in this case is a less effective and efficent method (can you say American Reinvestment and Recovery Act?). In economics, it is called opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costs).

In other examples around the world, poverty is a direct result of governments and the thugs that run them. Famine in Africa is not a weather related or population related issue- it is a direct result of oppressive government.

The answer? Free markets and capitalism. I know- both dirty words these days in muddled minds of our fellow citizens, politicians and the media. So let me explain...

First, surviving beyond one's basic needs in any society is only possible because of money and amassing wealth. Both are obtained best and most ethically in a free market system like we once had in the United States. As an aside, if you think we have free market capitalism today or any time in the recent future- you are sadly mistaken. Without the powerful engine of capitalism and free markets, the entire world would be much poorer and in much more poverty than it is today. While resources are finite, wealth is not. Wealth is cultivated and grown through savings, investment, production and innovation. It is that free market process that has created more wealth, for everybody, than would have existed otherwise.

Without free markets helping people to create and amass wealth, we would have less food on the planet than we do today. We would have fewer medicines in the world today. We would have worse methods of health care in the world than we do today. Without individuals amassing wealth beyond one's basic needs, we would have far more poverty in the world. Just because someone consumes more here in the United States, it has no direct correlation to the lack that someone in Africa might experience. If the poverty stricken areas of Africa were allowed freedom and the right to personal property, as well as an uninhibited free market system, prosperity would eventually follow. However, that would be dangerous to the authoritarian regimes in power, so it is not allowed to happen. To blame me for poverty because I am amassing wealth beyond my basic needs, and then to call it murder, is ignorant. But then again, history and economics haven't been sufficiently taugh in most our schools for decades, so massive ignorance be expected. And so you know, I am not trying to be insulting, just writing as clearly and accurately as possible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant).

By the way, in the article Mr. Fries cites United Nations (U.N.) statistics. I implore him and anyone else to question U.N. statistics and realize that the U.N. is doing more to perpetuate poverty than any other organization on the planet. Their aversion to real liberty, free markets and capitalism- and their love of socialistic and authoritarian governmental structure- kill more people each year than most wars throughout history. So, by Mr. Fries logic, would I have to refer to Ted Turner as a murderer because he donated $1 billion to the U.N. a few years ago?

Am I saying that if somebody consumes more than the average person is helping society and all of our fellow citizens on the planet? The short answer is yes. Willing transactions- givng one form of wealth for another- helps everyone in the chain of production. While they are universally hated now (almost makes me want to buy one!), the production and purchase of a Hummers (the vehicle) is resposible for keeping an untold number of people out of poverty!

While we as a nation have been on a credit driven nightmare of a ride (that will continue to get worse by the way- but that's a different posting), investment, production and consumption helps us all live better, fuller, healthier lives. The caveat being you must consume below your means- meaning don't consume through the use of credit and don't consume using savings needed for longer term needs. However, the answer is not to stop progress and achievement on a massive scale. It is the same achievement and progress through amassing wealth that has saved lives- not ended them.

While the end of the Inlander article by Mr. Fries conveys a good message (help out when you can, use your gifts and resources responsibly, help lift up others), the path to get there was illogical and ignores volumes of history and basic economics. In my opinion, it was also reckless and dangerous to "teach" to a group of young people such harmful theses. Anyone who follows his line of thinking will do more to create poverty and hurt society as a whole than help.

In fact, anyone who subscribes to the two theses at the beginning of this post- and foolishly acts on them in any way- could potentially have more blood on their hands than they realize. The article ends by asking us to consider- "Am I doing enough?" Well, depending on what you might do if you think the two theses above are accurate, I contend you might be doing too much- and should stop now before you unintentionally hurt anyone else.

Poverty is a complex issue, but let's not take misguided notions seriously. The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions...

-EJB