I tend to be skeptical of things like opportunity zones, because they are distortions and because they don't eliminate the underlying problems that prompt them. If a set of laws and rules stifles growth and opportunity, the answer is to ease that set rather than carve out some exceptions.
Yet we continue to have more and more welfare programs and more “social safety nets “. It is another example of most people knowing that something isn’t effective yet legislators and bureaucrats want to stay in power so they continue to build on these failures.
Excellent article, Peter. Kinda goes against what the Bible says: "The Lord loves a happy giver!" (But, the Bible also praises the servant who invested 10 sheckels and doubled it!)
I like that Bono is doing what he can to identify the issue and is probably donating his own money. However, charity is not sustainable. Freedom and markets are sustainable.
I don't mind someone giving away his money after he's run out of productive ideas for it. It's his to give, it generates positive feelings, and there are people out there who just need a leg up to get onto the path of self-sustainment and productivity.
This reminds me of a natural progression that occurs whenever giving, charitable or otherwise, is done without conditions. It begins as help, which breeds expectation. If you helped me out once, why wouldn't you do it again? The precedent is set unless the original gift comes with terms.
The expectation then morphs into dependency; the longer you give, the more the recipient relies on that generosity. This gradually evolves into entitlement; the giving has occurred for so long with no expectation of any action in return that the recipient sees the money is something that is owed to him.
The last step is resentment. On the part of the recipient more than the donor. Even subconsciously, the recipient understands he has been lulled into a type of slavery (which is too harsh but I don't have a 'lighter' word at the moment) by his own hand, but his anger will be directed outward rather than inward. Inward might spark a moment of clarity and a desire to be free, but freedom can be hard; a person has to work and stuff, and it's so much easier to sit back and take someone else's money.
I just realized how much Bono disappeared on the world stage a decade ago.
Sounds like we should do more opportunity zones?
I tend to be skeptical of things like opportunity zones, because they are distortions and because they don't eliminate the underlying problems that prompt them. If a set of laws and rules stifles growth and opportunity, the answer is to ease that set rather than carve out some exceptions.
Yet we continue to have more and more welfare programs and more “social safety nets “. It is another example of most people knowing that something isn’t effective yet legislators and bureaucrats want to stay in power so they continue to build on these failures.
There are a LOT of people who feel rather than think, and who don't want to let go of that "feel" even when you argue logic that counters it.
Excellent article, Peter. Kinda goes against what the Bible says: "The Lord loves a happy giver!" (But, the Bible also praises the servant who invested 10 sheckels and doubled it!)
The Bible exalts poverty, and it doesn't show any understanding of mutually beneficial voluntary transactions (i.e. capitalism).
I like that Bono is doing what he can to identify the issue and is probably donating his own money. However, charity is not sustainable. Freedom and markets are sustainable.
I don't mind someone giving away his money after he's run out of productive ideas for it. It's his to give, it generates positive feelings, and there are people out there who just need a leg up to get onto the path of self-sustainment and productivity.
This reminds me of a natural progression that occurs whenever giving, charitable or otherwise, is done without conditions. It begins as help, which breeds expectation. If you helped me out once, why wouldn't you do it again? The precedent is set unless the original gift comes with terms.
The expectation then morphs into dependency; the longer you give, the more the recipient relies on that generosity. This gradually evolves into entitlement; the giving has occurred for so long with no expectation of any action in return that the recipient sees the money is something that is owed to him.
The last step is resentment. On the part of the recipient more than the donor. Even subconsciously, the recipient understands he has been lulled into a type of slavery (which is too harsh but I don't have a 'lighter' word at the moment) by his own hand, but his anger will be directed outward rather than inward. Inward might spark a moment of clarity and a desire to be free, but freedom can be hard; a person has to work and stuff, and it's so much easier to sit back and take someone else's money.