I was saying that economics explains the gap--not victimization.
Firstly, it is absurd to consider that wealth creates poverty, per se. There are, however, considerations.
Firstly, the rich are not always the engineers of productivity. The intelligent and the moneyed are not necessarily synonymous.
Now let us consider some natural differences between the rich and the poor. Clearly, the rich have more choices and therefor more good choices--hence opportunity. For instance, one in extreme poverty still needs to bring food home to his/her hovel. Whereas the wealthy fellow may drive his car a mile to the discount supermarket (and knock off ten other errands at the same time), our desperate fellow must choose between paying exorbitant prices at the nearby "convenience" store or he/she must bus it to the discount supermarket and hire a taxi back to carry the bags. Hell...why not just grab a case of beer downstairs and skip a few meals!? <g>
Another consideration is social and Government policy which supports the self interest of whichever people represent this communal "self". Clearly, the ability to skew social policy, capital gains exemptions, and so forth is related to influence and a good supply of trading chips in many categories. These chips need not directly reference money.
OK, so we are having some fun here, aren't we? But am I saying that the rich "owe" anything to the poor? No...except for the caveat that a level playing field without insider trading and such would be desirable for all classes of people.
What about compassion. Don't we owe the poor compassion? Again, I see no logical debt of compassion between people operating in a free market with freedom from coercion. However, I think it very stupid to forego compassion and exceedingly dim to allow the poor to become excessively marginalized when a collective compassion (what some call compassionate conservatism) would improve the freedom and security of all persons. Those powerless in the dominant culture will often seek power in a subculture of drugs, muggings, thefts of all kinds, and assaults on property and persons. It is a dull sense of self interest which fails to see the selfishness involved in giving a hand up to a troubled or impoverished kid before he gets a gun up in your face.
Then we have the money spent to keep people fed and housed in prison. Just because prostitutes earn a good buck, it doesn't make them happy people. Most of them go bankrupt every two hours except on Christmas day. But now I am free associating and digressing.
I think I will go and sit in the hot tub and contemplate the universe. What was it Whitman said? Something about contemplating the animals? Well...I can do some of that as well while I get rid of some of these aches.
Capitalism has advanced humanity from almost universal impoverishment, starvation, and lack of exploitable resources. It has created a middle class of humanity who do not need to eat stone soup. Having said this, there is no good reason to ignore the desperate poor or to consider how to keep corruption from government and to keep people from all classes from being exploited due to economic leverage. Exploitation is NOT capitalism--it is corruption...and it exists from the slum landlords up to the Canadian Senator who spent the whole year in Hawaii while collecting his bloody paycheck while being a leech. And don't accuse me of being envious, please! ;-)
Btw...much flow of money IS a zero sum game...trading in futures, for instance |
