Quote :

"Do you mean this figuratively?"

No, I have it on good account that the street soup kitchens were in operation every day and fed all that came. I'm sure exceptions exist, surely someone somewhere ran out of soup or bread at some point, especially considering the artificially high price of food thanks to government policy.


As for the Grapes of Wrath, do you mean that fictionally? Or does a fictional novel constitute proof of the bodies piling up on street corners?

12/16/2009 1:25:01 AM

It's a fictional re-telling of a real event. The actual conditions of the family were more severe; the book's portrayal is toned-down for the sake of reader sensibilities. Didn't you take Lit classes in high school?

In 1934, there were 110 known cases of death by hunger in NYC. This is in a major city; human condition was highly visible and soup kitchens were accessible.

12/16/2009 11:04:53 AM

Tis indeed quite a sad turn of events, especially when help was readily available. People today die of cold weather and hot weather, it is a sad truth that sometimes people get trapped by their own expectations, thinking their situation is not as dire as it is until it is too late to seek help. That is why today, as back then, many churches organize visits to occasionally check in on the most at risk in their neighborhoods. Clearly then some fell through the cracks at a time of unparalleled need.

The point still stands: moron expects way too much from society, saying charity is a failure because it alone cannot maintain its charges at "a high quality of living". So, the disagreement is over preference, I think a society that keeps people safe from hunger and the elements is more than enough, while moron objects that such charity cases are denied their own bedroom. He clearly forgets that back then, even in good times many people were denied such luxuries. Keep in mind that Americans were substantially poorer back then than we are today. Today, many homeless shelters do provide private bedrooms, just not enough to go around.

That said, this all ignores that the friggin' recession of 1929 should have been over by 1934, but not for good intentions.

12/16/2009 11:25:47 AM

Quote :

"That said, this all ignores that the friggin' recession of 1929 should have been over by 1934, but not for good intentions."

There needs to be a giant asterisk at the end of that statement.

12/16/2009 11:50:01 AM

true. I recommend The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes
Also An Economic History of the United States

12/16/2009 4:03:08 PM

http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/
chart porn.

12/16/2009 4:18:32 PM

i like how forgotten man is the new law with regards to the depression for armchair economists/historians on the right. shock of shocks, the WSJ editorial page doesn't like FDR!

lonesnark, a computer geek who of course thinks he's mastered economics from reading some edgy libertarian economists, is convinced he's never wrong. i mean, those guys treat it like a science or rely on axioms, so they take some research and turn it into laws without realizing they'll never be able to apply the scientific method to any of it.

also, people on the right are more likely to give to charity since many of them are faith-based. they are much less likely to give to advocacy organizations (Amnesty International or groups supporting dumb things like single payer insurance, for example) rather than giving to handout groups. I for one give to 3 groups: EFF, Unicef, and Amnesty. I support the "all hands on" approach that combines structural justice with extra assistance for the especially distraught.

12/17/2009 4:10:04 PM

^per the article they are also more likely to give to secular groups. I imagine this comes from a general outlook in life that you personally are responsible for your fellow man and not just "somebody should do it" ( read the government should tax people and do it).

Though I would also bet if you looked those on the left spent more time physically volunteering than those on the right( building for habitat for humanity etc)

but even if the charities are faith based or run by religious organizations does that somehow make it not count?

12/17/2009 4:19:33 PM

no, not at all. but tithing is regular and seen as more of an obligation than donating to the red cross, thus people are more than likely to do it more regularly and in greater amounts.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 5:57:28 PM

Good work PinkandBlack, attack the messenger. What is wrong with being convinced of an historical perspective by reading the history of it? I guess you don't believe anything you read? Or is it simply your opinion that no one should ever draw opinions of history different from your own?

12/17/2009 9:08:55 PM

^^ I see that as a good thing. We should encourage people to view giving to charity voluntarily as a moral obligation. The charities, on the whole, will be far more effective and efficient in providing help to the people than anything the government could accomplish taxing the people.

12/17/2009 9:56:06 PM

Just be careful which charities you give to. There are many where less than half of what is donated actually makes it to the needy while the rest is eaten up by administrative costs, salaries, etc. Really need to look for the ones that get the highest % of money to the cause whether that's cancer research (Jimmy V fund as an excellent example is at 100% I believe due to a fully funded endowment paying all administrative costs) or feeding the poor.

12/18/2009 11:36:18 PM

Quote :

"i mean, those guys treat it like a science or rely on axioms, so they take some research and turn it into laws without realizing they'll never be able to apply the scientific method to any of it."

lol... sounds like global warming

12/19/2009 7:16:02 AM