Riches and Poverty

Some friends and I were discussing a news article we all saw about some rich couple that decided to cut down on personal possessions and live simply. We were all trying to localize what it was about the article that bothered us.

Part of it was that their focus on lack of material possessions was still a focus on materialism; they had but flipped the coin on the same problem they had when they owned more. Plus, I think being poor doesn't just mean owning less--being poor means enjoying a fundamental less amount of security. This rich couple, though they owned less, could still buy as much as they want if occasion arose--in other words, they could afford to own less. Anyone whose been in the homes of the poor will note how much stuff they own, because the less you have, the more desperately you cling to what's left.

A real poor person is constantly worried, is constantly insecure--that they can't pay the rent, pay for groceries, pay the health insurance, even support their family. No matter how few personal possessions this rich couple limit themselves to, they are still not actually poor, because they are still secure.

Of course, 2008 should've made abundantly clear that nothing is less secure than money; and really, I should be encouraging more rich people to be less materialistic, not more. I remember reading this columnist responding to folks who rail against the hypocrisy and condescending attitude of "limousine liberals," who claim to care for the poor while continuing in the most ostentatious displays of materialism and performing the most patronizing forms of charity-work.

But as this columnist said, "I worry less about 'limousine liberals' than I do 'limousine conservatives'", people who actively oppose unions, industry regulation, welfare, and any other number of protections for the poor. So, maybe this couple is being a little (and probably unconsciously) condescending to the actual poor who have real problems, but I still prefer that form of rich person to those who spend millions on their wardrobe while millions more starve.

It's like when someone inevitably lambasts the supposed hypocrisy of Ghandi for fighting violently in South Africa or denying modern medicine to his wife but not himself, or Mother Theresa for secretly being an atheist. To such people I can only say: Dude, at the end of the day, Ghandi liberated the entire Indian sub-continent from British oppression, and Mother Theresa dedicated her life to helping the poor of Calcutta--what have you done today? I'll take my fallable, human saints over their self-righteous detractors any day.

Likewise, I'll take any day my Warren Buffet and Bill Gates for dedicating 99% of their net worth to charitable non-profits, recognizing that they can still live more than comfortable on only 1% of their respective billions (and admittedly confessing that Bill Gates won me over a little when he released a swarm of mosquitoes into a conference center full of investors for eradicating malaria in Africa; it's the sort of insane thing I'd probably do to if I was an eccentric billionaire). All Steve Jobs is make iphones that drop receptions when you hold them normal, and suites of incompatible programs.

But then, on the same token, I can't help but remember Desmond Tutu's saying: "When I feed the poor they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist." So, as much as I applaud, say, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates , I still must wonder why Buffet and Gates have so many billions in the first place, while billions of human beings live on less than $2 a day. As an MBA friend of mine said recently, "You can maybe become a millionaire without selling your soul, but not a billionaire."

Maybe the fundamental issue is that wealth cannot be based on riches themselves, for riches are not themselves secure; the D&C calls "eternal life the greatest of all gifts," because eternal life is "to triumph over all your enemies, even death." Get rid of as many or few material possessions as you desire; make as little or much money as you deem necessary; our focus on money is simply answering the wrong question, for the rich are those who are secure at last, in other words, the secure are those who gain eternal life.