As a die-hard materialist, I am quite fond of the impact consumerism has had on society. It gives intelligent people the chance to improve their means while idiots cause their own destruction. You can squirrel away funds in a savings account or max out your credit cards; you can pay your bills or go into debt. You are the master of your fate by way of how you handle your finances, and whether you rise to the top or declare bankruptcy is entirely your responsibility.
Or at least, ideally it would be. The US is remarkably good in this regard, but imperfect. In many places it is still very difficult for hardworking, determined, worthy individuals to achieve their dreams due to poverty or discrimination. I find this tragic, not out of sympathy, but because it could be holding back some of the greatest and most amazing people of our time from making history. Jacobean economics teaches us that it is small businesses trying to find a foothold in the market that are the most innovative and contribute the most; why should that not also apply to individuals finding a foothold in society?
An important distinction to make here is that I do not advocate charity. I recommend giving everyone the chance to prove themselves by giving them everything they need to improve their situation. But improving the plight of the poor for them will not permanently alleviate the issue, and if the money or gifts run out, many poor families will be right back where they started. I shall illustrate with an example from Africa.
Counterintuitively, sending east African nations like Ethiopia and Sudan food packages can actually make the situation worse: If free food comes from outside, local farmers will lose their customer base and be unable to support themselves, ultimately harming the economy. If more food packages are sent to help the farmers, they will no longer have any reason to work, and their product will deteriorate. When the food packages run out, everyone will turn to the farmers for food, but the farmers won't have any either, and a famine will ensue--worse than before, in fact, because prior to the food packages at least the farmers had food, but now no one does. Quite a few places in Africa have suffered from food packages in this way.
The ultimate result is that the area's entire economy becomes dependent on the generosity of foreign nations without ever being able to give anything back. Nasty!
Closer to home, simply handing out money to people below the poverty line may alleviate the problem, but only temporarily, and it's easy for dishonest people to take advantage of the system. At 8% of the national budget, it's nowhere near as dollar-sucking as Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, or our own national debt, but $116 billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at, and the process can always be improved. What could help?
Turn handouts into jobs. The government has money, poor people don't, and nearly everybody agrees that the country could do with A Good Cleaning-- and More Community Service--. Put three and three together, and you get the government paying poor people to help make our country a beautiful place! Everybody benefits!
You could pay people to work at charities like the Salvation Army or Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity, the latter case also solving the problem of decent housing for the homeless into the bargain. It would even give the workers good working experience that could help them get jobs in the private sector later. This also handily solves the (quite baseless) accusations of "welfare queens" from conservatives, because it would be honest pay for honest work.
In fact, this strategy was put to use by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. It was called the New Deal, and was successful enough to propel Roosevelt in four consecutive terms of office, 1933-1945. (He died early on during the fourth, which is why it's only twelve years.) It worked then; why not now?
