Poverty Is Not A Lack Of Money
Adding money does not fix poverty because poverty is not a lack of money. All the plans to fix poverty or to provide goods and services that require the use of money, fail. They will always fail, because the absence of things we need is not due to a lack of money.
To understand this better think of government, any government will do but the national government is perhaps the best example of the problem mankind faces, but rarely understands. The state has no money. The state is the most poverty stricken, the most broke, the most destitute organization in the world.
There is no group with less resources than the national government because it literally has nothing. If the national government wants toilet paper it has to have someone else get the paper and bring it to the toilet and put it in the stall. This paper does not belong to it. The state, as are all governments, is simply a parasite being kept on life support by their pimp.
The state in this scenario is not just a parasite but a prostitute that sells the government by providing a service for a fee the proceeds of which she gives to those who trafficked her for their own ends. The state is the Whore of Babylon.
To keep it simple, the Whore cannot end poverty any more than a prostitute can provide companionship. Her body is not her own.
There are only two scenarios possible, when it comes to reality. Regardless of how complex reality may appear to you, there are only two possible choices. However, these two choices or scenarios are fundamental, and the most impactful choice one can make. Yet, in some ways the choice is made by you before you make it.
Imagine you live in the 1400’s. You are the captain of a ship. You go on a voyage and find a new land. You have two choices; you claim it for your Queen or yourself or some group or other. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that you see it as belonging to the creator; the being that created it. If it belongs to the Creator, you as a person have no claim on it, neither does any other person. It is already owned.
When you see a wallet, or a fruit tree or a forest or anything else, what do you think? Do you think you can own it or claim it or possess it? The fact you think you can own what you see already determines what you would do if you found a new land. The choice was made by your very nature. This is how fundamental the choice is. It is written into your race or Type.
There are two races of humans, or two types of people.
One race believes they can own things. How they establish ownership varies but the fact is, they do think that through power, guile, market activity, or government mandate, or some other process they can become the owner of real property, property they did not create but was created by some other being.
This brings us to money and the state because they state thinks that by creating something called money, they can gain ownership of other things.
The state might use something that has value, such as gold, to make money from. Or, they might make money out of paper. Either way money is formed as an asset, a thing with value. Some people claim paper money has no real or residual value but of course it does, it belongs to someone and took time and energy to create.
Perhaps what the statement is meant to convey is that regardless of how much money is created it creates no new wealth. Money permits sharing but does not increase the number of things that can be shared.
The idea that we can make money work for us to create wealth is misleading, at best. Money may permit us to scam others out of what they own but it cannot work in the classic sense of the term.
Money works for the Type L person, the type that thinks they own or can own or have a right to something they did not create. Type L’s think ownership comes from or is legitimized by power. A Type L subscribes to the Dual Doctrine of Power. Might makes right and the end justifies the means. If an action ends up with the person owning or possessing more assets than they did previously, then the act was justified.
The more Type L’s in an economy the poorer the community.
Type L’s may be immensely wealthy, but they are sponges.
Think of it this way.
We arrive on an unpopulated island with ten others. We have a gun, they do not. Do we claim this as our own land and make the others, peons? Do we take the larger portion? Do we even claim this island as our own as a community? If we do claim it by what right? Is it ours because we have a gun or because we found it first or because we have the numbers and ability to keep others away?
This is important because if we think we own this we may well think we can transfer this ownership and if we think this then we will think giving money to people without property will give them the ability to get property off of people who have property but who are willing to take money in exchange for the property they have.
But think of a pie that six people baked and shared and four had none. Would giving the four people enough money to buy a slice of pie solve the poverty problem?
If ten people had an island would giving one hundred persons, enough money to buy the island solve the problem of poverty for them? How about giving a thousand people money to buy the island or a million people money to buy the island?
The more money we give the more obvious it is that money is useless for ending poverty. It is a Type L solution. It is a solution only if one thinks as a Type L person thinks.
It is why people rob stores and banks and defrauds others. Type L’s think if they can get more of what exists they will solve their poverty problem. But in fact, even millionaires go broke, and fortunes are lost all the time. Stealing may solve your personal poverty problem, but stealing does not solve the poverty problem, at best it shifts it elsewhere. Shifting poverty elsewhere makes the poverty level worse. When stealing takes place values decline and the level of poverty increases.
Places that have high levels of crime are always poor or in decline.
This leads us to conclude that in areas where the majority or sizeable minority believes having money eliminates poverty, poverty as a problem is solved by looking for ways to make more money or acquire more money, perhaps as a person with expertise in alleviating poverty.
Imagine a very wealthy person who has several businesses. He hires many persons who live comfortable lives, but he does not hire everyone. Therefore, the government taxes away his wealth to provide the unemployed with an income. This makes it difficult to run his business and makes it less desirable to work. The rich person can no longer advance his business and his employers spend more time unemployed whenever the chance offers itself. The economy declines and unemployment gradually worsens.
This is not an argument to give no benefits to the poor, it is an argument that giving benefits to the poor is not a solution. The argument is that if you think poverty is wrong and you want to solve it do not look to the state or welfare to solve the problem.
What needs to happen is that we need to make poverty costly to everyone, not just the state and the unemployed. If jack has no job everyone must be worse off because of it. This does not just mean that we pay Jack a living wage if he has no job, it means that we are all benefitted by Jack working, not just a few private companies.
We need to realize the economy is local. Transactions take place at the local level. Wealth is created at the local level. A political jurisdiction is an economy. The political jurisdiction is not just a market it is a business, or commercial entity. Those in the jurisdiction must trust one other and work together for the good of the jurisdiction.
To benefit the jurisdiction when people work, it must be reimagined as a single economic organization, a Citizens Trust.
All citizens within the jurisdiction own a share of the Trust. All citizens work for the Trust; therefore, it benefits the trust to have all citizens be gainfully employed.
A Citizens Trust turns any political jurisdiction into a commercial organization, in which it benefits everyone in the jurisdiction to do what they are good at and to help each citizen to do the job for which they are best suited. The objective being to bring the greatest prosperity to the political jurisdiction which, at the very least, will eliminate poverty.