Why Do We Act Like Poverty is Something New?
by John Reit (March 17, 2006)

The "crisis of poverty" (or, "poverty crisis") is a term that's become so popular with those who support a socialist agenda for the United States. Before we examine the subject, let's take a look at the word, "crisis." According to dicitionary.reference.com, the definition of crisis is: (1a) A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point. (1b) An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving impending abrupt or decisive change. (2) A sudden change in the course of a disease of fever, toward either improvement or deterioration. (3) An emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person's life. (4) The point of a story or drama when a conflict reaches its highest tension and must be resolved. So when we refer to poverty as a "crisis," by definition, we assume that it is an abrupt change in the human condition that needs an immediate solution. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me start by saying that I'm not a historian. My degree is in Film with a minor in English. I took one American history class in college - and it only covered the period from 1877 to the present (1993 at the time). I have read books on history - not an overall view, but books dealing with certain subjects that gave historical perspectives. So, you could say that I have an average historical education.

Yet I'm pretty sure there is no point in human history when poverty did not exist. And still, there are those who act like being poor is something completely new to the human race. As if, right up until the 19th century, the common man rode around in diamond-crusted carriages on streets paved with gold, and would keep warm at night by burning his excess cash. Then came the Industrial Revolution - when the greedy entrepreneurs stripped our streets of their gold and replaced them with dirt and gravel, enslaved the common man and forced him to work in their factories and live in atrocious conditions in America's cities, while all along keeping all their profits in a big safe with a big dollar sign on it.

The fact is that those enslaved workers - who did live in dirty apartments and did work for mere dollars a day - still lived better than any other common man in history. The Industrial Revolution produced unprecedented income to ordinary people like no other period in history. They no longer had to endure backbreaking work on the farm for 14 hours a day for half of the pay. They had more leisure time and could purchase things like clothing, running water, books, furniture, an abundance of food, etc. They no longer had to build their own houses, sew their own apparel, find their own water, make their own furniture, or grow their own food. Capitalism brought about the opportunity of prosperity (however you wish to measure it) to everyone.

Even Karl Marx recognized it. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx points out that modern conveniences and wealth would not have been built without the necessary evil of capitalism. He knew there was no other way to achieve it. Ultimately, Marx's goal was to use the methods of industrial production in a collective organization to serve the people equally. Was there an unfair distribution of wealth? Probably. Marx certainly thought so. But as Marx knew, the wealth didn't appear out of thin air. It took the intelligence and motivation of the industrialists to set things in motion.

And it was the common man that reaped the rewards. Just like today, those who had neither the aptitude nor the knowledge of how to start a business, create jobs, invest capital, and make crucial everyday decisions that affect the very future of that business relied on those who did.

The fact is that as long as there has been man, there has been poverty. And until very recently, most people have been subject to it. This is not the case today. Before capitalism came along, you were either part of the 1% of society that was rich, or you were part of the 99% that was poor. Now there is a thriving group of consumers known as the middle class - people who are performing jobs that would have never existed prior to capitalism. Even most of those considered the "working poor" own at least one car, a home, a microwave oven, a dishwasher, a cell phone, DVD player, and so on. And with the right investments and life decisions, even they can retire comfortably.

Are there still those living in poverty? Sure. Will there always be people living in poverty? Absolutely. Yet there are still those who react to it as if this is a new phenomenon. What's worse, they believe that there is a viable solution other than allowing capitalism to thrive and create jobs. Instead of praising those who provide employment and opportunity, they scorn them for not providing a lifestyle equal to the most well to do in society. Instead of protecting and nurturing the golden goose, they constantly threaten its life.

Free markets were never meant to be the cure for poverty. Capitalism never came with a guarantee that those who produce the wealth would then take their profits and equally distribute it among those who do not. By its nature, it merely allows for the opportunity to prosper - and the fact is that most do. If we can ever get the liberals to accept this fact, this country will be on a much better path.