I recently received an email and the permission to reprint that message (anonymously).
The email comes from a former professor (the one who defended a Kos Kid in a comments section a few posts back)...what follows is his message in response to my previous post on What Poverty IS...and What it is NOT, and my response to him;
His email;
JC,
Why do you continue to constantly do this?
Demagogue to the gullible like this?
I sometimes wonder if you just like being provocative. What you’re doing here is potentially very dangerous.
To start with, I find much of your argument disingenuous, especially the portion about our “dynamic economy” – the old “expanding pie” versus the “fixed pie” model.
While it’s true that the economy is somewhat dynamic and the money supply is somewhat elastic, your argument here is very much overblown. Even you’d acknowledge that there really is only a fixed amount of “hard assets” available at any given time, right?
And since there is only a fixed amount of currency available at any given time, it's then very true that “the more person A takes in, the less available for persons B, C, D, E, F, etc.”
So, in that sense, we really ARE dealing with a “zero sum game,” aren’t we? At least in terms of the currency available at any given time that can be used for income, we are.
With that in mind, I think you’d have to agree that we do need a referee (and only government can fit this bill) to step in from time to time to make sure that there is a fair distribution of that currency, so that a few avaricious people don’t glom all the “hard assets” (especially INCOME) for themselves.
And to claim, as you seem to, that “the poor CHOOSE free time over more productive pursuits” is not merely naïvely simplistic, but grossly insensitive and offensive, as well and borders upon demonizing the less fortunate as parasites and pariahs.
(anonymous)
(anonymous)
My Response:
Well, first of all, currency or the money supply DOES indeed fluctuate both significantly and quite often (many times within the same year, actually)...so, there’s THAT to indicate my position is not really “overblown, as you state.” (Here’s a chart of the fluctuations in the U.S. money supply between 1960 and 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Changes_in_US_money_supply_1960-2007.gif)
Moreover, currency and especially INCOME is NOT the sole, or even primary parameter of wealth. The truly wealthy or “super-rich” DO NOT rely upon income for the bulk of their wealth.
Investments grow the economy and in the process, create the vast majority of the new jobs and new opportunities for others. So, NO, we are NOT dealing with a “zero sum game” at all.
When the costs/risks get too high, investors simply stop investing and producers cut back on production and everyone suffers as the economy shrinks in response.
And yes, whether you find it “offensive” or not, specific behaviors and yes, CHOICES are what create BOTH wealth and poverty....and there are indeed myriad forms of wealth, one of which is free/“leisure time,” which producers sacrifice in order to produce, and non-producers maximize at their own peril.
How is telling the truth “dangerous”?
I do believe your argument in this case is inherently flawed by your apparent view that the market process (a/k/a “Capitalism”) is hopelessly and inherently unfair...I believe that the argument I’ve offered here shows that when the full scope and purview of what is called “wealth” is taken into consideration, the market process is NOT really “unfair” at all.
JMK
