Wealth and Poverty

This book which most of us, who read books like this, read 20 years ago should be reread again today. The prescience and accuracy of its viewpoints are worth prolonged cogitation for members on either side of the aisle. Perhaps it could be recommended reading along with the cliff notes of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"? Okay, at least for Graduate students in the social sciences? Gilder points out that we have been misled by popular economics as it relates to how we increase wealth and curtail poverty. He then introduces the concept of Supply-Side Economics to the general reader. He fulminates about how misguided policy has undermined the true source of wealth that is to be found in such nonmaterial forces as creativity, technological adventure, and the motivation to strike out for new territory in economic enterprise. He talks about how the blunting of incentives and the efforts to redistribute the wealth, in a just fashion, only serve to keep the poor in poverty. He contrasts this with his description of the true capitalist as one who invests energy and money today for a return he may or may not receive in the future. Is this not the model for describing the difference between children and adults? Is it not a model for delayed gratification one which most of the world eschews? They instead opt for a metaphorical traffic jam at the waterhole of natural resources with the alpha chimp and his cohorts ripping off the biggest piece.When Gilder talks about the LEFT getting it exactly backwards it reminds me of what Balint Vazsonyi writes about in his book "America's 30 Years War: Who's winning?" He says, "contrary to the prevailing (classic Marxist-Leninist) thinking that economic conditions provide the foundations and everything else is "superstructure", the truth is the other way around. Our spectacular economic success is the result of a unique legal-moral foundation upon which a successful political system has been built". To show how deep the roots of misguided economic thinking go consider that even Christianity is built on a communistic notion of sharing, and an abhorrence for profit that is seemingly earned on the backs of the laborers. This results in men of the cloth, all to often economically illiterate ones, preaching the wrong formulae to the poor. Basically, "you're poor because they're rich". This Liberation theology is echoed in Marx's backward reading of human nature and the economic consequences of risk and reward. Gilder sets us straight. Amazing isn't it? We still have academics teaching this LEFT-wing nonsense in respected universities across America while their acolytes storm the barriers in Seattle, Washington, Genoa, etc; all in an attempt to wipe out a system that has brought greater wealth to more people than any other in human history, something even Marx himself acknowledged. Too me, it's about a pursuit of power and money at the top that is coupled with a reliance that those further down the pyramid of

At some point in the last 15 years, the meaning of three key terms changed: "need" now means wanting someone else's money; "greed" means wanting to keep your own; and "compassion" is when a politician wants to arrange the transfer. You're actually accused of "lacking compassion" if you object to this kind of redistribution. According to George Gilder's marvelous "Wealth and Poverty," this so-called "compassion" is nothing but a very misleading, pious moral high ground. One of the chief critiques of capitalism over the years by socialists, liberals, clergymen, and--most notably--the poor has not been of its practical achievements, but rather the perception of its moral character. Most of them have got the idea that the source of wealth comes from sinful, anti-Judeo-Christian avarice. Wealth, they often assert, comes from "taking," and therefore the way to combat poverty is to "take" it back and redistribute it. But as Gilder explains, the essence of capitalism is "giving." Capitalists "give" of themselves without a predetermined return. That is to say, they make investments without a predetermined return; and a gift is not something given necessarily without any return. It's perfectly consistent with the Bible, in which you often gave alms in the hope of some form of return; perhaps a blessing. It's risking your life to create comething without any assurance of return. (Liberals confuse this with gambling, which is a zero-sum game. That's why it's not "risking." Capitalists are giving of "themselves" without a predetermined return. Not just putting down some money and making no effort and having no moral engagement in the activities they're pursuing. That's the difference between gambling and capitalism.) Also, the mechanism of the market neutralizes greed because selfish individuals are forced to find ways of servicing the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange. It's true that various people often approach economic exchanges with motives that fall short of the Biblical ideal Gilder discusses here. But no matter how selfish a person's motives may be, as long as the rights of the other parties are protected, the greed of the first individual cannot harm them. As long as greedy individuals are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to exchange their holdings. Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed. Unlike socialism, capitalism recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it recommends. One of these conditions is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange what one owns for something else. And, believe it or not, capitalism also presupposes a system of morality. Capitalism should be thought of as a system of voluntary relationships within

This is a great book. Welfare replaces community and family with government for the price of a few bucks a month. The result is NO guidance to prevent unwed teen mothers, crime, drugs, and no role models to inspire learning and family/community bonds. The end result is we get people very much alone just making it up as they go along (and not being very successful at it). Misguided well-intentioned welfare has increased the suffering in this country to an astronomical level. Why? Because of misguided guilt-ridden middle class and the politicians what take advantage of them.Think back to pre-welfare. You had fraternal organizations that provided guidance and charity (but not welfare and tolerance of slacking off). Everything from group health insurance, mortgages, business loans, to daycare was provided within the group. You were part of an extended family and subtle peer pressure kept you honest and provided a plan to follow. They darn sure wouldn't have allowed their sons to gang bang (most gangbanging happens because their isn't any way out). All this was replaced by government welfare.Any linking of corporate welfare (a business entity) and personal welfare is about as misguided as they come. I hate statist corporate welfare!Charity is needed -- not beurocratic welfare! Write on!

During the Reagan Revolution this modest, simply stated summary became the "little red book" for those who ascribe to the approach to economics that the fountain of progress, on all fronts, resides in the principal that money is best left in the hands of the entrepreneur, the individual citizen, who will ferret out opportunity in the most obscure and untapped parts of the economy; as opposed to those who ascribe to the Keynesian approach of taxation and redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, the tag, supply side, was given to Gilder's insight. In reality Gilder describes a demand side approach to economics in which the individual becomes the bird dog, finding and investing in the new and often unknown demands that society needs to advance, as opposed to the demand stimulus coming from the unimaginative, and atavistic bureaucrats of the central government.

I read this book some years ago. I have always considered it to be a definitive book on the subject of supply side economics. Mr. Guilder makes the salient point that capitalism starts with giving. Socialist take note. Every high school student should have read this book, prior to graduation. I am buying the book today for my high school aged daughter.