Have you dreamed - as a young man - of a rich and successful life? About a family house, about a large property, about wealth and satisfaction? Don't you have it? Then hear why.
Edited July 12, 7
I grew up among the Roma, my father is a Roma, my sister too… and in fact a large part of those who raised me somehow. Therefore, I will analyze the issues of poverty from the perspective of the Roma and similar - from the perspective of socially excluded groups. Although in general the causes are the same for everyone.
Today's governments - especially in the Western world - are striving for a so-called "welfare state" to ensure a "dignified life" for all. Social spending forms a significant part of budgets, and social systems are constantly expanding over time, with some exceptions. So why are we all still poor? Why do we feel a shortage when we redistribute so much?
Long live poverty!
The problem is in the general concept of how to fight "poverty".
Imagine that the government wants to fight the car industry. And so to prevent its spread, it will start subsidizing car production. On auta will give a more favorable VAT rate, carmakers will start paying extra to their employees… and so on.
Of course, government action is pointless. They automotive subsidizeSo they do the exact opposite of what they want to do. By subsidizing the car industry, they are helping to expand it, they are not fighting against it.
We cannot fight the expansion of the car industry by subsidizing it, that is perhaps clear to everyone.
Now let's look at another government that will set itself the goal of "fighting poverty." What will today's modern government begin to do?
They usually extend the social system, the benefits that flow to those who are poor by some criteria. They give them more money to make they did not suffer from their poverty.
Money - like everything else - is somehow precious to man. This rarity is determined, among other things, by the effort behind obtaining them.
Otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for a miner, otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for consumers of social benefits, otherwise rare is a thousand crowns for multibillionaires. And yet it is still a thousand crowns!
What about such a miner? The miner works for several hours from Monday to Friday somewhere in the mine, the work is strenuous, demanding. His salary is 20 net per month. A thousand crowns is somehow rare for him.
What about such a recipient of social benefits? It can also be the miner, for example he is actually entitled to some social benefit. What is behind this money? Filling in any papers? Time spent in the office? Will a thousand crowns of social benefits for a miner be more or less rare than a thousand crowns of a salary for a miner's work? It can be expected that the rarity will be lower, because there is not so much effort to obtain it.
What if this thousand crowns are mixed with the thousand crowns obtained by mining work? Then will reduce the general rarity of thousands of crowns for a given miner. What will that mean?
Imagine that you can buy a pen for 5 CZK or 200 CZK. How will you treat the pens? It can be expected that you will pay much less attention to the ballpoint pen for CZK 5 than to the ballpoint pen for CZK 200. Why?
Because its purchase price is so low that it will probably not be worth you to look after it. It is very likely that you will lose it soon. And that you don't either it won't matter.
Imagine that the pen will be free. You will definitely not watch it as much as a pen for 1000 crowns.
Tedy the lower the rarity of the farm for us, the more vaguely we handle it. So the lower the rarity of a thousand crowns for us, the more vaguely we treat it, the lower the rarity of money for us, the more vaguely we handle it.
The less effort we need to make money, the less efficiently we spend it. The idea that social benefits that make up "money without effort" will help the socially weak to live better is thus completely wrong.
In other words, I know a lot of Roma families, who receive social benefits and are not doing better than before. On the other hand, I know several Roma families who do not receive (or only minimally) social benefits and are better off than before.
I know a lot of families (not just Roma!), who are poor, miserable, and who receive social benefits, but are families who have always had cigarettes, alcohol, computers, or the Internet, but seldom had rent, water, sewer, or electricity payments.
These are families where there are healthy and work-capable people who, instead of trying to increase their income or spending structure (and that they would be able to do so), constantly call on the state to give them additional social benefits - to educate children. , for the payment of medical care and more.
And yet they have three computers at home, a super-fast internet connection, a pile of cigarettes and alcohol is not a problem. How is it possible?
These people he cannot dispose of the money entrusted to them. Why? Because money is not scarce for them, because it is easily available. Through the social system.
The money they receive de facto "for free" does not invest (in the vast majority) in their development and increase their income, but in maintaining their current comfort. Today's social system eliminates motivation.
These people are so accustomed to their comfortable lives that as soon as they are in danger of losing their benefits, they riot. And in an incredible way. They would not only lose their comfort, but also the possibility of free money. They are like junkies who are constantly talking about how they will end their addiction, but as soon as possible, they run away, they don't want to.
But what is the worst? The fact that children, the next generation, grow up in this environment. You are used to this way and it is it is very difficult and expensive to get out of this spiral. It costs the state a lot of money - first it "pays them poverty" and then it spends a lot of money to get them out of it.
And in the end, he will show them as an example of how the state "can care". The fact that he got them into that horrible situation no longer says.
Let's not subsidize poverty
Let us now return to the example with the government and the car industry. Although it is quite clear to us in the automotive industry how contradictory the government is (contrary to its words), we will not notice it at first glance in the social system.
A compulsory social system that is de facto state monopoly it is obscured by terms such as "solidarity", "goodwill", "care" and more.
But that's a gigantic nonsense! There is no solidarity, goodwill and care without voluntariness! From the law compulsory social system thus it is neither solidarity nor full of "good will" nor an expression of "care."
From the law a compulsory social system is just a government subsidy for poverty! By subsidizing something with the money of all of us, we cannot fight it! As written in the example with cars, we cannot fight the expansion of the car industry by subsidizing it, so we cannot fight the spread of poverty by subsidizing it, that is perhaps clear to everyone!
However, the governments of the vast majority of the world's countries are doing just that - subsidizing poverty, helping to spread the problem they are "fighting" themselves - as a result governments are fighting against themselves!
That's unbelievable absurd.
To really put an end to poverty, we must reduce social systems. Yes, for a while in the short term, it will make the situation worse - just like a detox junkie is sick for a while. But in the future, it would be an incredibly good deed.
Yes, there will always be those who have less than anyone else. But that does not mean that they are poor. The goal is perhaps not for everyone to have the same, but for as few people as possible to be poor. Let's try!
Please, let's not subsidize poverty.