Poverty

[Common Sense]

No, it isn't. The progressive movement exacerbates poverty. The social market economy's good intentions backfire, creating a situation where the incentives to produce are dampened and the result are societies that are fundamentally poorer than they should be without those policies. The social market economy produces poorer societies. EU poverty as defined by the EU is a function of the median. However, by US standards > 30% of the EU is living in poverty. Likewise the government that actually has far greater liberalization than the United States, Switzerland, has far greater income and far, far less poverty. And what's telling is how Switzerland shouldn't compare to Canada at all. Canada has no business being anything less than the single wealthiest country on the planet. And its not, and your government is to blame.

Switzerland is not really comparable to other countries. Much of it's wealth comes from it being a banking hub for centuries. It produces very little more than chocolate and clocks.

Poverty has been on a fairly steady decline, much of that is due to progressive policies. Historically, as Chris points out, poverty was far more rampant. Even in societies with a lot of wealth, there were always large swaths of poor and indigent. Progressives have tried to foster education and created buffers to real poverty. To a large extent it has worked. In other ways it has failed. I think the middle way is best.

[Common Sense]

In the 1920s median income more than doubled. In 1914 median US income was $627, in 1924 it was $1,303 as the price of a Model T went from $490 to $290. It trickles up, it trickles down, it trickles all around, that's how economies work.

What else happened in the 1920's? A huge bust and a mass shift in poverty levels.

[Newpublius]

Switzerland is not really comparable to other countries.

Yes, it is. Its a slightly smaller population in a country that, compared to Canada, simply has no resources.

Historically, as Chris points out, poverty was far more rampant.

Yes, pre-Industrial Revolution, essentially everybody was poor. Frankly, even the nobility were poor by today's standards. Poverty decreased because production per capita increased.

[Common Sense]

Yes, it is. Its a slightly smaller population in a country that, compared to Canada, simply has no resources.



Yes, pre-Industrial Revolution, essentially everybody was poor. Frankly, even the nobility were poor by today's standards. Poverty decreased because production per capita increased.

Again, Switzerland is not comparable. It's a specialized economy full of foreign money. It's essentially a large bank with beautiful mountains. Canada is a wealthy country but we have a pretty small population.

Not just pre industrial revolution. Much of the industrial revolution saw masses of poverty. Poverty in the US didn't really start dropping significantly until the 1950's.

[Newpublius]

Again, Switzerland is not comparable. It's a specialized economy full of foreign money. It's essentially a large bank with beautiful mountains.

The Swiss have all kinds of industries. Your Swiss companion takes the marginal difference he is not paying to the Swiss governments and is expanding his productive capacity and you simply cannot because you don't have it anymore.

Canada is a wealthy country but we have a pretty small population.

Yes, all of the countries are first world countries. Europe, Japan, US, Canada, Switzerland. By comparing with the rest of the world we are all wealthy, but I don't care about all the rest. As between the First World Countries Canada's results are middling at best. Canada (and Australia) are slightly below the US median, essentially if it were a state it'd be a middle income state, the Europeans who have gone just that much farther with this nonsense, are of course generally worse off than Canada

Much of the industrial revolution saw masses of poverty. Poverty in the US didn't really start dropping significantly until the 1950's.

This is a false narrative because there are degrees of poverty. So, by 1900 was their still widespread poverty? Of course, but those poor people were still better fed, better housed and lived longer than in 1850 and 1800.

And even in the depths of the Great Depression, life expectancy increased from 47 (1900) - 61 (1935) years.

Yes, when we look back with entrepreneurial incomes and we look at the urban poverty that existed, we think to ourselves, "Wow, that $#@! is poor"

Indeed, $650 median income is POOR. $1300 is POOR. From our perspective where the median is above $50k. The difference to us seems negligible, but I can assure you there is a really BIG difference between $1300 and $650. It is measured in decades of living.

[Chris]

That doesn't really jibe with history. The 20's saw unprecedented wealth in the US. Robber barons had vast sums of money and the country became very wealthy. There was little if no trickle down to the very poor. That model has never been shown to work. It may look good on paper, but in reality the very poor get left out. Throughout history, hugely wealthy societies have always had large swaths of poor. I do concede that some middle class do see an increase in wealth when the very rich get richer.

In the end I think that it has to be a mix. Certainly wealth generated by trade and production is crucial to adding more capital and opportunity, but without some structure and a social safety net, the very poor would be a larger portion of society.

It certainly doesn't jibe with your history.

Robber barons?



Please.

Trickle down? That's Keynesian, he hadn't written General Theory yet.


Model? What model? What paper?

Throughout history, hugely wealthy societies have always had large swaths of poor.

How does that contradict the point of the OP, that poverty is the norm?


Mix? Mix of what?


Productivy and trade is the only way to generate wealth.


I am for a safety net. Universal Basic Income as Charles Murray lays it out. But to have some wealth to redistribute, don't you need to generate wealth first?

[Chris]

In the 1920s median income more than doubled. In 1914 median US income was $627, in 1924 it was $1,303 as the price of a Model T went from $490 to $290. It trickles up, it trickles down, it trickles all around, that's how economies work.

From 1900 on we observe the course of their prices in terms of the hours of labor that will buy them steadily decrease.

Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller actually got their fortunes from making steel cheaper and transporting oil cheaper than their competitors.

And the government feeding all that money into the economy leads to malinvestment and recessions and depressions.

[Chris]

What else happened in the 1920's? A huge bust and a mass shift in poverty levels.

Because the government was putting money into the economy, manipulating interest rates, causing malinvestment, and, yes, boom, the Great Depression.

[Chris]

Still the point is missed. Poverty is the natural, normal state. To get out of it, you need to produce and trade.

[Shady Slim]

At one point within the geographical bounds of North America, there were people who had been living on this land for centuries. They had at their disposal one of the largest collection of natural resources of anywhere.

On the other side of the world, there were very small countries that were considered wealthy. Portugal, Spain and Italy have no where near the natural resources as North America.

These small countries thrived while the native Americans were dirt poor. Lewis and Clark described throughout their westward expansion journey the miserable conditions these Indians lived in.

So, after centuries of living within the borders of the newly formed U.S., why were these indians still in poverty?

They could only solve short term issues. Unable to look ahead, they were dirt poor.

The white man was superior in creating wealth and being able to understand destiny.

This is proven time after time. Only the white man was able to advance within his civilization. ALL other races whether blacks from Africa, Indians from North America, even those descendant from middle eastern countries contributed very little to the advancement of society.

Oh yes, there were a couple of major discoveries by blacks or middle eastern cultures but the white man is solely responsible for the wealth and advancement of cultures to where we are today.

The Chinese were making discovery after discovery while blacks in Africa still were living in grass huts. Even today, their are cultures and small divisions of populations, mainly in South America who still use spears to throw at monkeys. What has held them back? I would say that little contact with white man has kept them back.

Even up to that magical year of 1492, population of indians in America still lived exactly the same way they did for thousands of years. Only by the white man's intervention were entire cultures able to advance even moderately.