Did you know that since 1970, the percentage of humanity living in extreme poverty has fallen 80 percent? How did that happen? Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, explains.
RebelPundit Filmmakers Jeremy Segal and Andrew Marcus follow Chicago community organizer, Paul McKinley, on a tour of the south side neighborhood, Washington Park, where they find local residents opposed to a pastor’s calls to remove George Washington’s name and statue from the park.
More bait-n-switch via TOWNHALL:
This is merely two short audio clips from two separate economists and their recent studies for their books. The first audio is Michael Medved asking Edward Conard a question in regards to his book, The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class. (As an aside, Larry Elder used this audio in his Tuesday Sept 20th, 2016 show as part of his opening segment)
This next clip is from Thomas Sowell being interviewed by Larry Elder for the recent release of Dr. Sowell’s book, Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective.
Part of my reasoning for uploading these was a caller called into the show and challenged The Sage that the reason for black woes was white supremacism. I included in the Michael Medved YouTube desscription the additional information:
See Also: “Why Capitalism Works“
Capitalism, the exchange of markets did this:
- Since Deng Xiaoping began instituting market reforms in the late 1970s, China has been among the most rapidly growing economies in the world, regularly exceeding 10 percent GDP growth annually. This growth has led to a substantial increase in real living standards and a marked decline in poverty. Between 1981 and 2008, the proportion of China’s population living on less than $1.25/day is estimated to have fallen from 85% to 13.1%, meaning that roughly 600 million people were taken out of poverty.
Wealth and Wealth Creation IS NOT a zero sum game!
There are three kinds of games: win-lose, lose-lose, and win-win. Win-lose games, like basketball, are sometimes called “zero-sum games.” When the Celtics and the Bulls compete, if the Celtics are up, then the Bulls are down, and vice versa. The scales balance. It’s a zero-sum.
Besides lose-lose games, which most of us avoid, there are positive-sum or win-win games. In these games, some players may end up better off than others, but everyone ends up at least the same if not better off than they were at the beginning.
Millions of people think that free trade is a dog-eat-dog competition, where winners always create losers. This is the zero-sum game myth, which leads many to think that the government should somehow redistribute wealth. While some competition is a part of any economy, of course, an exchange that is free on both sides, in which no one is forced or tricked into participating, is a win-win game. When I pay my barber $18 for a haircut, I value the haircut more than the $18. My barber values the $18 more than the time and effort it took her to cut my hair. We’re both better off. Win-win….
…This leads nicely into the third point: wealth is not a zero sum game. This is economist jargon meaning everyone can win. Look again at the chart Gary Burtless put together. You will note that all segments of American society saw their incomes rise except the top one percent. If we had the data to do the chart again through 2014, we would see that everybody had higher incomes than fifteen years ago.
And this win-win idea is not just in terms of income. In a capitalist society, people get rich by making somebody else better off. J. K. Rowling became one of the richest women in the world by writing the Harry Potter series of books. All the people who bought the books believed that the books were worth more than the sale price otherwise they would not have bought it. Thus, J.K. Rowling wins and all her readers win. Both sides of a voluntary transaction are made better off. As long as government coercion is not involved, when you see someone getting rich, you know a lot of people are being made happy….
This post is connected with another that is similar in it’s point.
A couple recommended resources:
- Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, by Jay Richards;
- The Virtues of Capitalism: A Moral Case for Free Markets, by Scott Rae and Austin Hill;
- Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism: America’s Charity Divide ~ Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, by Arthur Brooks;
- The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution, by Barry Asmus and Wayne Grudem;
- Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture, by Jonathan Morrow;
- God vs. Socialism, by Joel McDurmon;
- Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus A Socialist? (PDF) by Lawrence W. Reed (Audio Book [free])
Listen to an insightful presentation by Jay Richards at the family Research Council (starts at the 20-second mark): “God, Capitalism, and You.” I also uploaded an interview of Wayne Grudem by Dennis Prager about his book, The Poverty of Nations.
Economics is a moral issue. It is critical for Christians to understand that when it comes to economics, good intentions don’t necessarily translate into good outcomes. This means that it is actually possible to do harm to people while intending good if we adopt bad economic policy. See more here.
Well, my cruise to Hawaii and back (2013) went as well as one could expect. One of my favorite parts was being “buzzed” by the USS Vinson (Carrier) on our last sea day. Not only did we see a floating military airport, F-18’s, Sea-Hawks, and E-2C Hawkeyes… but we also saw a pod of whales and dolphins.
A great trip.
But I wouldn’t post just this on my blog… which is called “Religio-Political Talk”! I mean, Who cares about Hawaii!?
I wanted to recount a conversation, really a landslide of a conversation I had with an older gentleman (Walter) in a jacuzzi on board the ship. Now, many of the people on board were vets of some sort on a twilight cruise to Pearl Harbor… so political views lined up with most on board. Conversations — when political — were for the most part neutral or in agreement. And the many Canadians and Brits on board are suffering from the same political correctness in not dealing with immigration and Islamic radicals. We are in the same boat, so-to-speak. But while talking to a police officer from SoCal on vacation with his beautiful family, an older gentleman got into the jacuzzi and proceeded to blame — in general conversation — everything on Bush and Republicans. His ability to weave politics indiscriminately into conversation was amazing! I was impressed.
At first I decided to ignore the references, I took his age into account. However, after a while I caved and proceed to challenge him on many points he made. One topic was welfare, and I pointed out that more people are on food stamps than the population of Spain, he mentioned that many single mothers needed help… to which I used an analogy to help explain how social programs assisted in making single-parenthood an option.
I asked if he agreed with my analogy. He said yes. I then referenced shortly Thomas Sowell’s interaction with an official from the welfare administration and pointed out that in effect the government is doing precisely what my analogy he agreed with promotes… that is, making it very easy for men to choose to leave their families because they know the government will feed their children, pointing out — as Larry Elder points out — that 75% of black children are born into homes without a father. Mentioning that THIS is why the poverty and crime levels are so high in these neighborhoods. NOT because of racism as he had eluded to, but because of subsidizing irresponsibility and fatherlessness!
He also intimated that the banks were also racist in their ravaging the poor by loans for homes they couldn’t afford. I pointed out that Bush and McCain tried to reform Fannie and Freddie a total of 17-times and each time were shut down by Democrats. Walter, the gentleman in the hot-tub, hadn’t heard that before, and I mentioned that Bill Clinton himself blames the Democrats, while still others rewrite history.
Conversation went to education and educational costs. Here is where we had a sharp disagreement. Walter said the schools only get $5,000 or so per student to teach them. I mentioned that each student in L.A. gets about $13,000 spent on them. Actually, I was wrong, it is closer to $30,000 dollars a year. But every point of disagreement or complaint Walter had focused around racism. Which led me to my final point of the discussion with his. I asked him why he was so sensitive to the topic of race/racism. He responded that he had a family member who passed in a concentration camp during WWII, mentioning his Jewish roots. Awesome!
This led me to my favorite analogy, which I asked Walter to allow me time to build. He agreed, revealing ultimately his political inconsistencies:
- This post has an updated analogy incorporating Trump, here: Democratic Antisemitism/Racism
He confirmed my suspicion. I then shared my knowledge of Obama.
Do you know the next thing out of Walter’s mouth was?
✫ “Didn’t Bush speak in a church that forbid interracial marriage?”
I responded that no, it was a speech at Bob Jones University…
At this point Walter started to get out of the hot-tub finishing with “well, that’s just your opinion.” (Meaning, my carefully laid out facts and years of study combined with an analogy was hogwash.) Walter went his way, and even avoided me when he saw me in the international caffe — even though our conversation was calm, rational, and reasoned. I even asked him permission twice to make my analogies, being polite and respecting his age. Walter is a great example of how Democrats ignore following their own concerns to their logical conclusions, when applied to their own candidate. Sad.
All my pics are usually linked for clicking… for the uninitiated.
This is a posted pic from FaceBook, and here is my response to this all too often used mantra:
My (or others smarter than myself) two cents.
Programs initiated as part of the War on Poverty account for roughly 70 percent of all public assistance programs today. Estimates of the total cost of the War on Poverty over fifty years range between $15 trillion and $19.8 trillion in today’s dollars. This substantial investment appears to have yielded minimal benefits for poverty reduction. On the day Johnson introduced the war on poverty, the poverty rate in the US stood at roughly 14 percent. It is now approximately 16 percent and has never fallen below 11 percent. (Cornell University)
Also, this from a very old post of mine back when my blog was on a free site instead of my current .com
If you can remember back to the 2000 election here in the U. S. and the blue state, red state scenario of which voted for Gore and which voted for Bush, I’m sure you do, even if another country. Once in a while stats are done to see which part of the country (which states in fact) give more to charity per-capita than other states. Do you know which of the top twenty states gives the most to charity? You got it, Bush country! Every single one of the red states in that top-twenty are the middle-income fly-over states. Guess how many red-states got the lower twenty of giving? Two. Eighteen States that were in the lowest giving ratio to charity were Gore states. This is even more interesting with a few recent poles. Just under 66-percent republicans go to church one-to-two times a week. Just fewer than 66-percent democrats do not even go to church once a week. DRAT those nasty/greedy religious/conservatives!
So the question becomes this for the ineffable — damn near anti-Semitic — person pictured above… what does he consider Christian? 90% of one’s income to go to the government for redistribution? 80%? 70%? When does one stop being a Christian? Kinda a sliding scale (income giving) for those who define what being a Christian is… I mean, what is “is”?
And a civics 101 lesson, our government was set up to grind to a halt… the whole “checks and balances thingy.” I would hate for the parties to get along.
An after thought.
Keep in mind as well that every dollar given to, say, the Salvation Army, about 82-cents gets to the person in need. The exact opposite it true for government. About 30-cents of every dollar spent makes it to the needy individual.
So, would reducing the charitable giving write-off from 39.6% to what Obama would like to see (28%):
a) hurt the poor,
or b) help the poor?
Using Carter’s formula, then, would you be more of a Christian if you wanted to keep the status-quo, or, less of a Christian if you wanted to drop it to twenty-eight percent?
Riddle me this Bat-Man:
From video description:
The WASHINGTON EXAMINER notes this economic factor: