Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

 The poor. Love and compassion. Hope and change. The usual bromides from politicians, bureaucrats, and poseurs. There are many problems with the noun 'poor' and the adverb 'poverty'. Most of those who poster platitudes about 'those in need' have never been poor, spent much time with the poor; or worse, redefine 'poverty' to include those who are not poor with the intention of expanding government, dependency, and hence for themselves and their 'concerned and compassionate' party, ensure a lot of votes and sympathetic if not panegyric media coverage.

For those of us who have been 'poor', there is a black and white reality which informs what is poverty, and what is the best way of helping a household or a person, who are poor, but want to escape their conditions.

-Society has a duty to provide schooling and some welfare support, but the individual has a duty to use these resources properly.

-Poverty is largely cultural. To escape it, you need to escape all the destructive aspects of a negative culture which confines people to a life of destitution.

-Education, job skills, positive attitudes, hard work and staying married are the foundations of escaping poverty.

Life is not uni-directional. The 'poor' have a responsibility to want to help themselves and improve their lives. If they show this maturity society will help them. If they reject responsibility society has no obligation towards these people, other than to make sure they don't perish or cause social dislocation. Life and processes are bi-directional.

The above is confirmed by common sense and many reports. The Financial Post ran a study on income mobility, destroying the myth that once you are poor, you remain poor. In a dynamic society, people both rise and fall. The 'poor' in fact are getting richer as both a share of national income and total income, than the 'rich' top 10 %.

Wailing Marxists and self-interested deniers of reality will of course 'object' to the above. But facts are black and white.

Speaking of which Thomas Sowell and Walt Williams – 2 Black economists – have analyzed poverty in the US and debunk all they main-stream media and politically correct and cherished lies. Sowell states the following in condemning the 'run away rhetoric' about the poor:

“Nearly three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle, and nearly one-third own more than one motor vehicle. And the average poor American has more living space than the general population of London, Paris and other cities in Europe.

The real triumph of words over reality, however, is in expensive government programs for “the elderly,” including Medicare. The image often invoked is the person who is both ill and elderly, and who has to choose between food and medications.”

We have redefined 'poverty' to mean almost nothing. When half of the poor own large assets they are not poor. In fact probably no more than 8-10 % of the population might be poor at any one time, and they don't usually stay poor forever – unless they are milking the welfare state for their living.

Williams provides more clues to the not-so-celebrated manipulation of numbers by the media, politicians and government around 'poverty'. Living standards have gone up considerably since 1950. What was once considered 'poor' no longer exists.

“In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. .....

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.”

I took pictures of the 'poor' area around Tottenham High Road in London, a place of riots in the summer of 2011. It was not a 'poor' area, populated by BMWs, Audis and other nice looking cars parked in front of 'subsidized' housing. Most of the minority residents were walking around with iPhones and Blackberry's. Since when is owning a smart phone a designation of poverty ?

Culture is King. It is culture that causes poverty and crime, not poverty which initiates crime. If the culture mandates violence, hate, illiteracy, gangs, drugs and a loser-mentality, you will produce plenty of losers and poor. If culture is King why do societies pander to the poor and reinforce through the money-wasting government bureaucracy, what does not work ? Why for example do alcoholics receive a large monthly stipend for being 'disabled' ? Why does society want to destroy heterosexual families and marriages if marriage is the surest way out of poverty ?

“What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.”

The poor do suffer – from a broken, infected, and life-destroying anti-culture. The best that society can do is teach the obvious and help people change their culture. Get at least a basic education. Stay off of drugs and alcohol. Learn to work hard. Learn to think. Improve your skills. Have a positive attitude. Become involved in the community. Stay healthy.

You don't need an MBA to know the above. But the current welfare state is pretty good at ignoring the facts. What solves poverty is a dynamic society which creates jobs and wealth. The poor will benefit more than the rich in such a culture. Keep in mind as well the glaring fact that 60% of the average government program for the poor, be it in health care or in poor relief, is eaten up by the bureaucrats and their pensions, salaries and offices. This is not compassion but an abdication of duty on the one hand, and hypocrisy as most of us preen and pose about the poor, on the other.