Redstate

...economic activity stopped being about managing scarcity (the original Greek meaning of the word "economy") and started being about managing abundance.

Much food for thought.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

You may hear a new politician saying exactly this in coming years. Listen for it.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

economic activity was never about managing scarcity or abundance: managing those things was the primary reason why people formed governments of various kinds. economic activity was about changing circumstances from those of scarcity to those of abundance, at least for some. the reason why there is controversy over the intersection of politics and economics is that there are different ways of approaching both problems (management and transformation) that result in different results at any particular point in time.

the way that the US measures it economic activity for the purposes of establishing quarterly and annual growth doesn't really offer any indication of how the results of that growth end up being distributed across the whole population. other measures do exist that are more focused on this - which i guess you call envy. there is still fairly reasonable evidence that current economic growth is not providing the benefits to the majority of people that a similar level of growth did back in previous eras. so is 4% today the same as 4% in 1921? in 1992? in 1964? i guess it all depends on what you want to measure. or how much envy you have.

i don't know precisely what your definition of poor is, but if its anywhere vaguely close to the current federal level, i'd love to see you stand before the millions of americans who currently live with less income than that and tell them that the only thing making them poor is their unwillingness to get rid of the government. its so unbearably pathetic and out of touch, and doesn't even begin to touch on the lives of millions of people worldwide whose poverty-stricken lives have almost nothing to do with any government at all.

and doesn't even begin to touch on the lives of millions of people worldwide whose poverty-stricken lives have almost nothing to do with any government at all.

In the pathetic minds of liberals, starving children in the streets of India are on a par with "poor" Americans who own their own homes abd drive their own cars. The most destitute American citizen, a homeless person living in a cardboard box in an American city, has resources, if he/she chooses to use them, far far beyond anything available to a child starving to death in a war-ravaged section of Darfur.

For liberals to suggest that Americans living below the "poverty" line are in some way "more" impoverished because other Americans accumulate a better standard of living is pure hogwash!

i don't know precisely what your definition of poor is

And therein lies the problem. Starting from a position of ignorance makes it pretty hard to refute what you don't know!

The original poster was the one who wrote:

"Nowadays, no one in the world needs to be poor unless he's unwilling to get rid of the rapacious government that preys on him."

It wasn't a liberal who introduced the notion of poor people living elsewhere in the world into the discussion.

As for this notion that liberals think that "poor" means "has less than others" ... last time I looked federal standards for poverty (the ones I was referring to) were defined using the cost of certain basics for living. You might disagree with what is on the list, or how the costs are computed, but I have yet to see anyone point to someone and say "he has less than that other guy, so he's poor". As far as I know, not being poor in the USA means being able to afford a place to live, a way to keep it warm, adequate nutrition to remain in good health, clothing to handle the weather, and arguably health insurance and a few other things. Thats certainly pretty close to my definition of it anyway.

As far as I know, not being poor in the USA means being able to afford a place to live, a way to keep it warm, adequate nutrition to remain in good health, clothing to handle the weather, and arguably health insurance and a few other things. Thats certainly pretty close to my definition of it anyway.

As far as YOU know...

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to do your homework for you, but look through the "recent blogs" listing from last week, and you will find this entire thing was discussed at length!

"Poor" in this country own their own homes, have color TVs, air conditioning, automobiles, and amazingly enough, diabetes, heart disease and obesity! OUR poor look like landed gentry anywhere else in the world!

Here's my definition of "poor": starving, diseased, exposed to the elements, and with no possibility of getting any relief.

If your definition of poor is has less than other people do, then YOU, my friend, are guilty of the sin of envy.

I'd be more than happy to stand up in front of the millions of Americans whom the government (in an act of politics) defines as poor, and tell them:

"Isn't it marvelous that our society is so wealthy that even you, its least affluent members, own your own homes, cars, leather jackets, big-screen televisions, and you have so much caloric food to eat that you're all FAT?"

compassionate conservatism. How do you manage to survive in NYC?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Isn't it marvelous that our society is so wealthy that even you, its least affluent members, own your own homes, cars, leather jackets, big-screen televisions, and you have so much caloric food to eat that you're all FAT?"

And your evidence that this is an accurate portrayal of the poor in the USA comes from ... ? Something other than anecdote and "what iI see looking around the country", I hope.

As for obesity among the poor, the data there isn't particularly compelling either way, but its certainly notable that the market that helps to supply people of lower incomes with food primarily does so by selling them cheap food that contains relatively large amounts of fat (as well as salt and a small number of other ingredients that tend to satiate hunger without contributing much nutritional value). Most people who have tried living at the federal poverty levle have reported that its very hard to get a healthy diet, so obesity being over-represented in this demographic is hardly a cause for celebration in comparing us to the rest of the world.

Obviously actual data is not something you are all that familiar with, but there have been actual studies done on the issue. I'm sure you can find a hundred more just like it if you bother to look.

Most people who have tried living at the federal poverty levle have reported that its very hard to get a healthy diet

Oh really? Based on what? There's no connection between the price of a food item and how healthy it is. McDonald's is not a cheap place to eat. It's much cheaper to prepare your own food. Of course our "poor" aren't actually poor, so they can afford to eat fast food every day if they don't feel like cooking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

In 1921 you walked to the factory to work long hours for small wages. Food was expensive and housing was primitive and often unhealthy. The social safety net was next to non-existent. People went unemployed for long periods of time, and that frequently meant real hunger. Even the rich could not be helped by primitive medical care. Cancer was a painful death sentence, ditto with heart disease and kidney failure.

While the poorer part of our society may be falling behind in relative terms, in absolute terms their situation is the best in American history.

As for the rest of the world, we don't own it, don't control it and thus are not responsible for it. But American generosity makes a big difference there, also.

... wouldn't that mean that a visible, "trickle-down-to-you" 4% economic growth in 1921 was more significant than the same (to whatever extent it really is trickling down) in present times?

It would, and it was.
Because the difference between rich and poor was so extreme then. The difference Now is not Luxury versus struggling for neccessities the way it was in 1921 and before.
The difference between rich and poor in the USA is how Many luxuries each can get ahold of.

"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army

"The socialism-vs-freedom debate used to be about ensuring survival for the poor."
"Now, it's about nothing more than envy. Far less compelling."

I've had a running battle with my liberal labor union bred father and his 8 living brothers/sisters on the socialism issue for many years. Only death will part them and many of the Roosevelt generation from the Democratic party. They simply do not partake in current electronic poltical discussion and are blissfully unaware of what the far left has done to their party. They still get their news from Katie and the gang.
We were discussing the possible loss of Senator Craig and all he wanted to know was "What does he do for the poor?" I told him that the problem with politicians who "help" the poor like Teddy Kennedy is that they stay poor. I appreciate your financial acumen, I find myself coming back to RedState to see what your take is on the latest financial news.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison