Social welfare’s lack of equity

Government’s role in a democratic, market based nation-state is to secure political wealth for the political class while creating an ecosystem within which private capital receives a positive return. Social welfare and safety nets are the least of government’s concerns. Social welfare institutions are the result of agitation on the part of those who are locked out of capital ownership.
 
Ironically, the agitation that creates social welfare programs is based on rules promulgated by the political class. In a number of cases, for example food stamps, these very programs are administered by private, profit seeking firms. By creating these programs, the political class creates another justification for increasing taxes and employing more members of the political class.
 
In addition, the social welfare programs created serve to replace access to real capital by the poor with transfer payments designed to simply maintain their existence. The programs serve to keep the wealth class in charge of capital.
 
Unbeknownst to the millions of voters heading to the polls to vote to sustain social programs is that they are in essence supporting a wealth class that is allegedly opposed to the well being of the poor.
 
Supporters of these programs may argue that social welfare is a condition of America’s social contract. But if the poor are not enjoying access to real productive capital, can we say that the social contract is equitable?

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in capital, Economy, Election2016, libertarian, libertarianism, Political Economy, poverty, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Social welfare’s lack of equity

  1. George Lindley says:

    Unfortunitly most of the people this affects do no read your blog. Best george

  2. kenski2013 says:

    “Government’s role in a democratic, market based nation-state is to secure political wealth for the political class while creating an ecosystem within which private capital receives a positive return. Social welfare and safety nets are the least of government’s concerns. Social welfare institutions are the result of agitation on the part of those who are locked out of capital ownership.’

    I’m don’t agree with that. The Preamble to the US Constitution talks about promoting the “general welfare”, nowhere does it talk about securing political wealth for the political class or helping capitalists receive a “positive return”. I guess if one believes in “trickle down economics” then helping capitalists receive a positive return qualifies as supporting the general welfare, but since in my experience the “trickle down” is more like the rain falling in the desert (it rarely reaches the ground), I don’t see that as government’s responsibility. Providing a stable legal and social environment so business can actually be conducted between businesses and customers does help promote the general welfare. As I said before, trying doing business in countries undergoing political revolutions, or being overrun by terrorists.

    “Social welfare and safety nets are the least of government’s concerns. ”

    Depending on your political philosophy that should or should not be the case. If one believes that it’s “every person for himself/herself” than that statement is true. I think experience shows that if a significant portion of a society is a lot worse off than other portions, eventually the state of the poor has negative effects on others in society–witness the rioting, looting, and arson in places like Ferguson, MO, and other cities in recent years.

    “Social welfare institutions are the result of agitation on the part of those who are locked out of capital ownership”

    Why are some people “locked out of capital ownership”? Is it because there is only so much capital to go around? Is it because capitalists work hard to out-compete others and therefore “walk off with all the capital”, and don’t want to share with others? Is it because some people simply can’t, or don’t know how, to accumulate capital? It’s probably all of the above.

    It would appear that two subsequent statements support some of these latter ideas:

    “In addition, the social welfare programs created serve to replace access to real capital by the poor with transfer payments designed to simply maintain their existence. The programs serve to keep the wealth class in charge of capital.

    Unbeknownst to the millions of voters heading to the polls to vote to sustain social programs is that they are in essence supporting a wealth class that is allegedly opposed to the well being of the poor.”

    There’s nothing “alleged” about that–the evidence will show that at least some of the wealth class don’t care about the poor, and think the poor are fully responsible for being poor, and again, don’t want to help the poor or share the wealth with them.

    As for

    “Supporters of these programs may argue that social welfare is a condition of America’s social contract. But if the poor are not enjoying access to real productive capital, can we say that the social contract is equitable?”

    Of course the social contract is not fully equitable. It’s probably not possible to make anything fully equitable, or completely fair, but when CEOs make 400-900 times what the average street level worker makes, that’s way out of whack–we pay the President of the United States only $400,000 a year, and he’s responsible for a nation of 300+ million people. Why any businessman is worth more than that puzzles me. I think most CEOs, and even small business people who employ others to help them do business, fail to appreciate the fact that without the additional help, they could not be more successful than if they tried to do all the work themselves. For that reason alone they should be willing to share more with their employees.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s