Welfare and strength of capitalism

[cjkaupke]

In response to “Joko2599,” a brief history of the 20th century would show that putting more things under public control is never a good idea. Not only does it lead to overreaching, corrupt government, but it doesn’t solve the problem of individualism. In fact, it makes it worse. When the government takes care of everything, individuals feel no obligation to take care of their neighbors, because “The government will do it.” If we want genuine, Christian love of neighbor, we need to let more things be done by individuals, and less by government.

 

[Jozefo]

In response to “Joko2599,” a brief history of the 20th century would show that putting more things under public control is never a good idea. Not only does it lead to overreaching, corrupt government, but it doesn’t solve the problem of individualism. In fact, it makes it worse. When the government takes care of everything, individuals feel no obligation to take care of their neighbors, because “The government will do it.” If we want genuine, Christian love of neighbor, we need to let more things be done by individuals, and less by government.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[SamH]

In response to “Joko2599,” a brief history of the 20th century would show that putting more things under public control is never a good idea. Not only does it lead to overreaching, corrupt government, but it doesn’t solve the problem of individualism. In fact, it makes it worse. When the government takes care of everything, individuals feel no obligation to take care of their neighbors, because “The government will do it.” If we want genuine, Christian love of neighbor, we need to let more things be done by individuals, and less by government.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

You would think that more people would realize this.

 

[Robert_Sock]

In response to “Joko2599,” a brief history of the 20th century would show that putting more things under public control is never a good idea. Not only does it lead to overreaching, corrupt government, but it doesn’t solve the problem of individualism. In fact, it makes it worse. When the government takes care of everything, individuals feel no obligation to take care of their neighbors, because “The government will do it.” If we want genuine, Christian love of neighbor, we need to let more things be done by individuals, and less by government.

Please relate this to the original post. Governments must take the initiative in solving extreme poverty worldwide.

 

[SamH]

What if citizens refused to allocate any tax monies to welfare? Should not the government then step in and do whatever it takes to end extreme poverty?

I was using the term right-wing loosely to mean conservatives.

If citizens refused how would the government step in? Or is your government a totalitarian system. In that case I’d have to wonder how benevolent it would be towards the poor.

 

[SamH]

Please relate this to the original post. Governments must take the initiative in solving extreme poverty worldwide.

It related to welfare and strength of capitalism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Northern Europe has been socialistic for a long time, and yet it only attained its current level of wealth post-WW2, while most of mainland Europe was in the process of rebuilding. In the 19th century people were emigrating from it. So is welfare the cause of its stability, or is it largely coincidental? Europe in general has had much lower violent crime than the American continents for centuries, for example. It is something that long predates the more integrated welfare state of the late 20th century.

Sweden made out famously during WWII. No destruction, and it made a lot of money selling war materials to the Nazis.

Norway and Denmark are not going to be nearly so well off as they are now when the North Sea oil runs out.

And, after all, prosperity at the price of having no future generations is not real prosperity. It’s just profligacy.

 

[cjkaupke]

Since when has any government succeeded in reducing or eradicating poverty? Any examples?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since when has any government succeeded in reducing or eradicating poverty? Any examples?

Well, it can be argued that the colonial government in America did. At the time of the American Revolution, the American colonists were, on average, the wealthiest people on earth, including England. And they were largely self-governing.

They were wealthy because opportunity was relatively open for anyone to “make his fortune” through his efforts. If a man wanted a farm of the sort he could never hope to own in England, he just had to go to the edge of the frontier and create one for himself through daring the hazards and the work. If a man wanted to manufacture tinware, he could work for someone else long enough to buy himself some hammers and some tin. If a man wanted to sell a newspaper, he apprenticed himself to a printer and bought the shop from the printer or his widow in time. If he wanted to sell beer or whiskey, he made it and sold it. Just like that.

Doing all of that required nobody’s permission or leave, as it then did in England. And besides, there was so much going on that labor was at a premium. A lad with any pluck at all could accumulate wages and knowledge and then strike out on his own, and many a plucky lad did exactly that.

It wasn’t so long ago that it was still very much like that in the U.S. There is still some semblance of that left, notwithstanding that we seem to have a current government that really doesn’t like small entrepreneurship and likes labor even less.

 

[SamH]

Sweden made out famously during WWII. No destruction, and it made a lot of money selling war materials to the Nazis.

Norway and Denmark are not going to be nearly so well off as they are now when the North Sea oil runs out.

And, after all, prosperity at the price of having no future generations is not real prosperity. It’s just profligacy.

And the immigration during the 19th and early 20th century that resulted in their under class being relocated to the US. Basically they exported their poverty and made it someone else’s problem.

 

[cjkaupke]

Your example supports my point! It wasn’t a centralized government, but rather individual initiative, that brought colonial Americans higher standards of living. As you yourself said, opportunity is open for everyone who’s willing to work, economic transactions didn’t require anyone’s “permission or leave,” etc. That’s exactly the OPPOSITE of government control. It was not the government, but individuals, that drove the economic prosperity and flourishing of colonial America.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your example supports my point! It wasn’t a centralized government, but rather individual initiative, that brought colonial Americans higher standards of living. As you yourself said, opportunity is open for everyone who’s willing to work, economic transactions didn’t require anyone’s “permission or leave,” etc. That’s exactly the OPPOSITE of government control. It was not the government, but individuals, that drove the economic prosperity and flourishing of colonial America.

:tiphat:

 

[Ridgerunner]

And the immigration during the 19th and early 20th century that resulted in their under class being relocated to the US. Basically they exported their poverty and made it someone else’s problem.

Yup, and if one looks at the excellent farms, manufactories and businesses in the north central U.S.where so many of them settled, one realizes what a difference opportunity can make, even if it’s hard-won in a not-too-friendly climate.

On the other hand, one could say that northern Europe is living off its patrimony, like some spoiled and infertile heir busily going through his dead father’s fortune.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Since when has any government succeeded in reducing or eradicating poverty? Any examples?

Maybe not eradicating poverty, but those nations listed in the original post have been doing a pretty good job.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe not eradicating poverty, but those nations listed in the original post have been doing a pretty good job.

Well, for now. That’s true of the UAE as well. North Sea oil, like Arabian Gulf oil pays for a lot. They’re like Nordic Oil Arabs, but that have no children. The future for them is not so rosy.

 

[Jozefo]

Well, it can be argued that the colonial government in America did. At the time of the American Revolution, the American colonists were, on average, the wealthiest people on earth, including England. And they were largely self-governing.

They were wealthy because opportunity was relatively open for anyone to “make his fortune” through his efforts. If a man wanted a farm of the sort he could never hope to own in England, he just had to go to the edge of the frontier and create one for himself through daring the hazards and the work. If a man wanted to manufacture tinware, he could work for someone else long enough to buy himself some hammers and some tin. If a man wanted to sell a newspaper, he apprenticed himself to a printer and bought the shop from the printer or his widow in time. If he wanted to sell beer or whiskey, he made it and sold it. Just like that.

Doing all of that required nobody’s permission or leave, as it then did in England. And besides, there was so much going on that labor was at a premium. A lad with any pluck at all could accumulate wages and knowledge and then strike out on his own, and many a plucky lad did exactly that.

It wasn’t so long ago that it was still very much like that in the U.S. There is still some semblance of that left, notwithstanding that we seem to have a current government that really doesn’t like small entrepreneurship and likes labor even less.

What little of that left is left in spite of the government actively working against it. It will almost disappear completely with Obamacare coming online. Black market activity will be the only free enterprise left.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Congress and FDR restructured the whole thing in 1933. It was done under emergency powers. The welfare system is a necesssary component of the new system. Without it, people would become less enamored of the currency.

But today we see the result of 80 years of money creation built on credit/debt, and we now know it cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, Congress has been co-opted by business and industry, so I don’t think it’s very likely that meaningful reform will come soon, if at all.

Pretty much agree. But I can’t tell if you’re taking a whack at fractional reserve banking or not. Either way, I definitely agree that too cheap and available credit has caused tremendous problems with our entire economic system.

To solve this problem, it has to begin at the local level in my opinion. People need to take charge of their neighborhoods, and become invested in their neighbors. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen either. I think the US is doomed for the ash heap of history soon.

Yep.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Please relate this to the original post. Governments must take the initiative in solving extreme poverty worldwide.

That doesn’t mean government is the one performing all the tasks. “Taking the initiative” doesn’t mean implementing a bureaucratic welfare state a la Sweden.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That doesn’t mean government is the one performing all the tasks. “Taking the initiative” doesn’t mean implementing a bureaucratic welfare state a la Sweden.

I’m not talking about a welfare state.