The “Root” Cause of Poverty

America has spent $25 trillion in its war against poverty

GEORGE NOGA
FEB 25, 2024

This is a companion post to my offering of last week declaring victory in America’s war against poverty. If you missed that post, it is available on Substack and on my website: www.mllg.us. The above headline notwithstanding, poverty has no root cause; it is the natural condition of mankind. We begin in paleolithic times.

The Natural Condition of Mankind

At the dawn of civilization our ancestors subsisted as hunters-fishers-gatherers. There was no economy per se. People were divided into small families or clans, each of which functioned as a putative economic unit. They coexisted with other such units, mostly peaceably, sometimes not. Their lives, short and brutish, were on a bare subsistence level – wholly dependent on the fickle bounty of the sea, the exigencies of the hunt and the caprice of nature.

What economic lessons can we sophists of the twenty-first century glean from such primitive people? What, if anything, can they teach us? Surprisingly, they teach us an ineffaceable economic truth applicable across all time and space, i.e. the natural and normal condition of mankind is poverty. There is no known instance where any aboriginal population existed in any state other than poverty.

Most people understand the natural condition of man is poverty, but fail to grasp its implications. Progressives prattle about the root causes of poverty and even have declared war against it. America has spent $25 trillion since it declared war on poverty in 1964. In 60 years of that war, poverty has not been reduced one whit.

Those who consternate about the causes of poverty are wasting their time. They are asking the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: what causes wealth and how can we bring it about. Wealth is not a natural condition of mankind and is rare throughout the sweep of human history. Wealth creation must be understood and fostered. It is only by understanding wealth that poverty can be alleviated.

Progressives assert that, for example, lack of education creates poverty. This is a posteriori reasoning. People are born uneducated. To create wealth they need to become educated. Education creates wealth; ignorance does not create poverty.

What Causes Wealth?

Harken back to our paleolithic fishermen ancestors. They struggled to spear enough fish to survive, until a nascent capitalist thought of a net. Since capital did not yet exist anywhere to finance the construction of this fisherman’s net, he had no choice but to create his own. He worked every waking hour for months accumulating enough extra fish (his capital) to allow him the time to construct his net.

The net worked as planned and our budding capitalist now generated a surplus of fish to trade for other goods – in the process giving birth to the division of labor. His capital investment made him wealthier than the others in his clan – but it also made everyone else better off. He now generated capital which could be used by other entrepreneurs in his clan to increase the prosperity and well being of everyone.

Capitalism Creates Prosperity and Eliminates Poverty

What worked for our capitalist paleolithic fisherman is the same thing that worked for the capitalists who founded Wal-Mart, Amazon, Tesla, Apple and Microsoft. They have become immensely wealthy, but in the process they have enriched all our lives and increased our productivity. Not one of these successes was created by government or socialism. Who has done more to benefit the common man – Henry Ford, Steve Jobs and Sam Walton – or any king, president or commissar?

Capitalism has created a cornucopia of wealth unprecedented in human history. Extreme poverty worldwide is nearly eliminated and every metric of human well being is improving. Average folks live better than monarchs a few decades ago. Luxuries a short time ago are selling for ridiculously cheap prices at Wal-Mart and Costco.

To continue to improve the lives of everyone and to end poverty, we must shed our shibboleths. Unlike our stone age ancestors, we do not blame poverty on deities, animal spirits or the position of stars. Today, progressives and the media blame poverty on bogeymen like greed, multi-national corporations, western civilization, capitalism, fossil fuels, racism, free trade and lack of diversity, equity and inclusion.

In the twenty-first century we understand how to create wealth and eliminate poverty, but we fail to do so because of obeisance to the false gods of progressivism.

© 2024 George Noga
More Liberty – Less Government, Post Office Box 916381
Longwood, FL 32791-6381, Email: mllg@cfl.rr.com

Part II of our series, Inequality in America, focuses of inequality of income.

By: George Noga – May 8, 2016

There are numerous and mind-numbing statistical methods for calculating income inequality. The Census Bureau alone reports the Gini coefficient, Theil index and MLD (mean logarithmic deviation). Many of these statistics do indeed show more inequality now than in past decades; however, peeking inside the numbers is revealing. Note: Most data herein are from US Census Bureau and BLS reports published in 2013-2014.

By every measure extant, inequality rose more under Clinton than Reagan – Theil at double and MLD at triple the rate. The same is true with Obama’s first six years vs Bush 43. The Gini coefficient rose triple the rate under Obama; MLD rose 37% more; and Theil is up sharply while it fell under Bush 43. It is not a giant leap to deduce that most of the putative increase in income inequality results from progressive policies.

Despite all the esoteric statistics, we really know very little about income inequality because all the data are – to use a highly technical term – crapola! Every study is fatally flawed by inconsistencies and limitations affecting source data; the major flaws are:

Statistics are based on AGI (adjusted gross income) and not on all income. Much income is not included in AGI, such as contributions to IRA and 401(k) plans. AGI excludes the non-taxable portion of Social Security, EITC, Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP. Every one of these, if included in AGI, would significantly reduce inequality.
Data use household instead of individual income. This renders all comparisons between time periods and income quintiles meaningless because the number of people per household changes over time and also changes between quintiles. For example, the number of one-person households has sharply increased in recent years (mostly in the bottom income quintile) making it appear there is more inequality among households even though, in reality, there is much, much less inequality among individuals.
Quintiles are inconsistent. The top quintile has 3.2 people per household whereas the bottom quintile has 1.7; the income in the top quintile must be spread among twice as many people as the bottom quintile. It also means there are 25 million more people in the top quintile versus the bottom. Use of household data paints a deeply flawed picture of increased inequality between income cohorts – inequality that doesn’t exist.
Aggregate statistics don’t compare the same groups. Statistics showing inequality increasing over time don’t track the same people. New people (most poor immigrants) keep entering the back of the line, skewing all data downward. If they tracked the exact same people (and excluded new people), the data would show decreasing inequality.

Does our tax system result in inequality? In one word, no. The US has one of the most progressive tax regimens in the world. Even Social Security and Medicare are somewhat progressive when taking (as should be done) the benefits into account. Moreover, increasing marginal tax rates on the wealthy would not result in their paying more in taxes – a principle well documented and even codified in Hauser’s Law.

No discussion of income inequality would be complete without genuflecting to the so-called gender gap. However, economic analysis shows that the gap between incomes of men and women completely disappears when properly adjusting for level of education, type of degree, experience, hours worked and level of danger.

The Census Bureau also reports data on spending by income quintile. The lowest quintile spends $2 for every $1 of reported income. Some of this comes from the underground economy – which logically is the province mostly of that cohort. If we were to gauge inequality based on actual spending rather than on fatally flawed measures of income, the effect would be a signal decrease in inequality in America.

The next post in this series on May 15th addresses the $15 minimum wage.

Tag: Wealth