Are the rich more virtuous than the poor?

[Simpleton]

weeklystandard.com/articles/mind-gap_633403.html

Although Charles Murray has studied American, not Catholic virtues, I think it is still worth asking: What if it really is the case that the poor are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the last century to relieve their suffering have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?

This question isn’t worth asking because it is ridiculous. The simple fact is there are going to be a large number of poor people who are poor because of bad moral choices just like there is going to be a large number of rich people who became rich from bad moral choices. Poverty and prosperity are not indications of one’s holiness or lack thereof.

 

[Lujack]

Well, let’s look at the two points in greater detail, then.

It can’t be the case that climing out of poverty without help is as impossible as you suggest because people have been climbing out of poverty since time immemorial. The main means that people climb out of poverty is through hard work of one sort of another.

On the second point, this is certainly something that anyone genuinely concerned with poverty should be interested in: why is poverty so persistent? What keeps people in poverty in a world of opportunity?

Yes, hard work is a necessary component to climbing out of poverty (or to success in general). But it isn’t a sufficient component. A hard working steel worker still lost his job in the 1980’s. A hard working Okie still lost his farm in the Dust Bowl. You need to be in the right place at the right time (or more limitingly, you need to not be in the wrong places at the wrong times).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

All right, this was silly enough to draw me back in. Just because Marxism, Marx’s theory of government and solution to the problems he saw, is not taken seriously (and rightly so) does not mean that his analysis of the problems he saw are not taken seriously.

Marx is a tremendously important economic thinker who has had great impact on economic thinking. And to compare his writings to Hitler and the Marquis de Sade…that’s completely asinine. Marx had legitimate thoughts about society that are very much worth reading, even if his proposed governmental system is wrong. There’s also nothing hateful and violent in any of Marx’s work on the scale of Mein Kampf; Karl Marx was cold in the ground well before the Russian Revolution.

Good heavens, social scientists and economists should have studied Marx in detail! He’s important to their field! That doesn’t mean treating his work as dogma-that would be moronic. However, the issues and questions Marx raises are important parts of social science and economics; survey econ 101 courses spend a significant time on Marx, and anyone who wants to claim to be an expert in the field should be well read in him.

Claiming to be an expert in that area without being familiar with Marx is like claiming to be an expert on the Roman Empire without being familiar with Gibbon. Are there tremendous flaws in Gibbon’s work? Yes, absolutely. Do you need to be familiar with Gibbon to intelligently discuss the subject? Again, yes, absolutely.

The main difference between Marx and Hitler was that Hitler was both thinker and doer wheres Marx left the doing to others like Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. Marx is certainly important to historians (and those who continue to share his ideology) but there is no reason that someone doing research in social science or even economics should relate their work to his as kama3 demanded.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, hard work is a necessary component to climbing out of poverty (or to success in general). But it isn’t a sufficient component. A hard working steel worker still lost his job in the 1980’s. A hard working Okie still lost his farm in the Dust Bowl. You need to be in the right place at the right time (or more limitingly, you need to not be in the wrong places at the wrong times).

I think you are confusing generalities and specifics. If, for example, I say that those who practice will do better in sports it doesn’t mean that practice guarantees winning or event that the preson who practices the hardest is going to win.

That said, it is certainly the case that it is sufficient in enough cases that most of mankind climbed out of poverty through hard work alone.

Most importantly, if hard work is necessary and it is absent then no amount of help is going to make a difference.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This question isn’t worth asking because it is ridiculous. The simple fact is there are going to be a large number of poor people who are poor because of bad moral choices just like there is going to be a large number of rich people who became rich from bad moral choices. Poverty and prosperity are not indications of one’s holiness or lack thereof.

You know, it would help if before jumping in to express your opinion you spent some minimal amount of time understanding the issue.

Right there in the part you quoted I made the distinction between holiness and the virtues that Murray is studying.

Ok, you don’t have time to read the book. Ok, you’re too lazy to read the referenced review. Alright, you have better things to do than read through all the posts in the thread.

But at least read the text you are quoting!

 

[Lujack]

The main difference between Marx and Hitler was that Hitler was both thinker and doer wheres Marx left the doing to others like Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. Marx is certainly important to historians (and those who continue to share his ideology) but there is no reason that someone doing research in social science or even economics should relate their work to his as kama3 demanded.

There are so many ridiculous things going on here. First of all, Castro is certainly an awful dictator, but to lump him with Pol Pot and Mao is utterly ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to blame Marx for every death related to communism; all the man did was write, and he was cold in the ground a long time before Lenin climbed aboard his sealed train to St. Petersburg. To say that Marx “left the doing” to Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao is also crazy because he was dead before they were born! He was probably dead before their fathers were born.

Finally, your claim that Murray has probably not studied Marx in any detail is absolutely absurd-anyone who gets a doctorate in economics or sociology is familiar with Marx’s writings. Econ 101 classes spend time on Marx. If Murray isn’t familiar with those arguments of Marx’s that Kama3 noted, he is woefully unqualified.

I have very little respect for Murray’s work, but I have no doubt that he would be familiar with those ideas and have a comment of some kind to make on them; for me to think otherwise would be to assume almost cartoonish incompetence on his part. It would be like a Roman historian not being familiar in the least with Gibbon.

 

[Lochias]

Well, let’s look at the two points in greater detail, then.

It can’t be the case that climing out of poverty without help is as impossible as you suggest because people have been climbing out of poverty since time immemorial. The main means that people climb out of poverty is through hard work of one sort of another.

On the second point, this is certainly something that anyone genuinely concerned with poverty should be interested in: why is poverty so persistent? What keeps people in poverty in a world of opportunity?

It may not be impossible for everyone, but it is not possible for everyone without some form of help. My sister and mother (who live together) have, together, advanced diabetes and tonic-clonic seizure disorders with all of the accompanying detrimental side effects thereof: memory loss, bone rot, fatigue, constant sickness. They have, between them, around 700 dollars a month, plus what I and other family members can provide. They have one aging truck between them to get everywhere they need to go.

My sister is doing her level best and her hardest to get a degree and try to gain a larger and reliable income. She is hindered by constant and gruesome seizures which state healthcare has left untreated. She has one neuro-specialist who sees her once a year, forgets which medications he has proscribed her, and has recently sent her to the ER with a toxic drug interaction after proscribing her two medicines which, according to all sources we can find, should never be taken together. She is denied food stamps because this doctor will not take the time to see her more than once a year and sign the paper she needs.

My mother’s diabetes is attacking her bones; she has ribs that move, as though they were ball-and-socket joints. She can barely walk. Recently, she has begun coming down with constant UTIs, which her doctor proscribes antibiotics for and then sends her on her way. She cannot take the truck because my sister currently needs it for her schooling. No one will hire her in her state of health.

They are now both severely depressed, and it is affecting their health in even more ways. State medical and medicaid will not help to pay for counseling, and my sister at least cannot take antidepressants because they would interfere with her seizure medication.

Tell, me, O wise sir, just where is this “world of opportunity” I hear you and others speak of? Are there unicorns there, and dancing candy trees, too?

 

[Simpleton]

You know, it would help if before jumping in to express your opinion you spent some minimal amount of time understanding the issue.

Right there in the part you quoted I made the distinction between holiness and the virtues that Murray is studying.

Ok, you don’t have time to read the book. Ok, you’re too lazy to read the referenced review. Alright, you have better things to do than read through all the posts in the thread.

But at least read the text you are quoting!

Thanks for your advice.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thanks for your advice.

I’m sorry if I seem short tempered but you were not the first.

 

[Lujack]

I think you are confusing generalities and specifics. If, for example, I say that those who practice will do better in sports it doesn’t mean that practice guarantees winning or event that the preson who practices the hardest is going to win.

That said, it is certainly the case that it is sufficient in enough cases that most of mankind climbed out of poverty through hard work alone.

Most importantly, if hard work is necessary and it is absent then no amount of help is going to make a difference.

That’s nonsense. Most of mankind did not climb out of material poverty through hard work alone. For example, had it not been for Norman Borlaug, millions upon millions of people in the Third World would have starved to death, no matter how many countless hours they spent tilling their fields.

And I’d question that “hard work alone” does it-places like Bahrain grew fantastically wealthy because there was oil there. Yes, they worked hard-but had there not been oil, they wouldn’t have gotten wealthy. People in Bhutan work hard, but they are poor because the land is resource-poor. Are you going to argue that the Bahrainis worked harder than the Bhutanis?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are so many ridiculous things going on here. First of all, Castro is certainly an awful dictator, but to lump him with Pol Pot and Mao is utterly ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to blame Marx for every death related to communism; all the man did was write, and he was cold in the ground a long time before Lenin climbed aboard his sealed train to St. Petersburg. To say that Marx “left the doing” to Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao is also crazy because he was dead before they were born! He was probably dead before their fathers were born.

If you want to draw distinctions between Marxist dictators, be my guest. But each of these fellows followed Marxism to it’s logical conclusion.

Finally, your claim that Murray has probably not studied Marx in any detail is absolutely absurd-anyone who gets a doctorate in economics or sociology is familiar with Marx’s writings. Econ 101 classes spend time on Marx. If Murray isn’t familiar with those arguments of Marx’s that Kama3 noted, he is woefully unqualified.

There is a difference between being “familiar” with and studying in detail, not to mention explaining one work in Marxist terms. Marxism is not the standard theory of sociology or economics.

 

[Lujack]

It may not be impossible for everyone, but it is not possible for everyone without some form of help. My sister and mother (who live together) have, together, advanced diabetes and tonic-clonic seizure disorders with all of the accompanying detrimental side effects thereof: memory loss, bone rot, fatigue, constant sickness. They have, between them, around 700 dollars a month, plus what I and other family members can provide. They have one aging truck between them to get everywhere they need to go.

My sister is doing her level best and her hardest to get a degree and try to gain a larger and reliable income. She is hindered by constant and gruesome seizures which state healthcare has left untreated. She has one neuro-specialist who sees her once a year, forgets which medications he has proscribed her, and has recently sent her to the ER with a toxic drug interaction after proscribing her two medicines which, according to all sources we can find, should never be taken together. She is denied food stamps because this doctor will not take the time to see her more than once a year and sign the paper she needs.

My mother’s diabetes is attacking her bones; she has ribs that move, as though they were ball-and-socket joints. She can barely walk. Recently, she has begun coming down with constant UTIs, which her doctor proscribes antibiotics for and then sends her on her way. She cannot take the truck because my sister currently needs it for her schooling. No one will hire her in her state of health.

They are now both severely depressed, and it is affecting their health in even more ways. State medical and medicaid will not help to pay for counseling, and my sister at least cannot take antidepressants because they would interfere with her seizure medication.

Tell, me, O wise sir, just where is this “world of opportunity” I hear you and others speak of? Are there unicorns there, and dancing candy trees, too?

Don’t you know that if they had kept a job, stayed in school, and gotten married before having kids everything would have worked out okay? Either that, or you’ll be dismissed as an outlier because the brilliant Murray can’t be wrong.

Your story is a sadly common one; you have all the sympathies I can give, not that the words of some name on an internet forum is going to make it better. I’m truly sorry.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It may not be impossible for everyone, but it is not possible for everyone without some form of help.

At the very least, there are certainly those who will do better with help in one form or another.

Tell, me, O wise sir, just where is this “world of opportunity” I hear you and others speak of?

It is always instructive to watch the how immigrants from genuinely poor countries do when they come to America, for example.

 

[Lochias]

Don’t you know that if they had kept a job, stayed in school, and gotten married before having kids everything would have worked out okay? Either that, or you’ll be dismissed as an outlier because the brilliant Murray can’t be wrong.

Your story is a sadly common one; you have all the sympathies I can give, not that the words of some name on an internet forum is going to make it better. I’m truly sorry.

I appreciate the sympathies. Indeed, it is a common story, and my heart aches for them, and for those who choose to pretend that there is no real problem at all.

 

[Lujack]

If you want to draw distinctions between Marxist dictators, be my guest. But each of these fellows followed Marxism to it’s logical conclusion.

Yes, I think I very much will draw distinctions between Pol Pot, Mao, and Castro. Pol Pot and Mao rank among the greatest monsters of history; Castro is a fairly standard dictator who is notable because of his longevity, the fact that he achieved his longevity in the shadow of the United States, and his flair for the dramatic. And if they each followed Marxism to its logical conclusion, then how come the regimes ended up looking so vastly different?

There is a difference between being “familiar” with and studying in detail, not to mention explaining one work in Marxist terms. Marxism is not the standard theory of sociology or economics.

Keep moving those goalposts!

“Answering Marxist arguments” is different than “explaining one’s work in Marxist terms”. And it is true that there is a difference between being familiar with and studying in detail, but I would think that a purported expert in his field will have a deeper understanding of Marx than what you could glean from an economics 101 class!

 

[Lochias]

At the very least, there are certainly those who will do better with help in one form or another.

It is always instructive to watch the how immigrants from genuinely poor countries do when they come to America, for example.

You do know that those immigrants are granted help and funds that my family will never, ever see? You’re still wrong. You’re so wrong, my face hurts. I can’t see past all the Wrong in the room. You’re traveling at the speed of Wrong.

Deliberate obtuseness does not become you, sir, not at all.

 

[Lujack]

At the very least, there are certainly those who will do better with help in one form or another.

It is always instructive to watch the how immigrants from genuinely poor countries do when they come to America, for example.

Wow, you’re even colder and more uncaring than your hero Charles Murray. But wasn’t just a few pages ago that you were accusing the Irish of being lazy and shiftless when they first came to America? And now immigrants from genuinely poor countries are paragons of virtue…its almost like you keep moving the goalposts or something.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s nonsense. Most of mankind did not climb out of material poverty through hard work alone. For example, had it not been for Norman Borlaug, millions upon millions of people in the Third World would have starved to death, no matter how many countless hours they spent tilling their fields.

Borlaug lived in the 20th century. Do you think that people were trapped in poverty before he came along?

But I think you do have an important point here: one of the main ingredients of human development has been the dispersion of ideas, technology, etc. Is that what you call “help”?

And I’d question that “hard work alone” does it-places like Bahrain grew fantastically wealthy because there was oil there. Yes, they worked hard-but had there not been oil, they wouldn’t have gotten wealthy. People in Bhutan work hard, but they are poor because the land is resource-poor. Are you going to argue that the Bahrainis worked harder than the Bhutanis?

We could spend all day discussing how work is mixed with natural resources, ideas, etc. But at the end of the day, we’re still left with the fact that mankind lifted itself out of poverty.

 

[Lochias]

At the very least, there are certainly those who will do better with help in one form or another.

…and further, you will never, ever know how much work my family has put in, for themselves and others. I scrape all the help I can give them, but it’s like trying to fill a bucket, one drop at a time.

You should be ashamed.

 

[Lochias]

We could spend all day discussing how work is mixed with natural resources, ideas, etc. But at the end of the day, we’re still left with the fact that mankind lifted itself out of poverty.

No, we’re left with the fact that no person does what they do without help. Are you telling me that you crawled out of your mother’s womb yourself and started working at the age of two days to make yourself a real, American man?