Mind the Income Gap

It disturbs me when fellow conservatives make insensitive comments about the poor.   Many of them are too busy making money to read much history, but, if they did, they would know that Marie Antoinette did not live long after she dismissively said, “Let them eat cake!”, when told the peasants had no bread.   Whether or not she really did say that is irrelevant – people believed she said it and she soon had an appointment with Madame Guillotine!

128 years later the Russian Revolution began with a bread riot in the capital Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg).  Both the Bourbons and the Romanovs lost their thrones.

It’s the height of arrogance for us to think that, because we have supposedly matured to a better form of government, it cannot happen here.  When people are hungry, they won’t care about constitutional niceties.  If they are not fed, they will get violent and will then turn on those with the food.

Marie Antoinette might have survived if she had been familiar with the economic Rule of Inequality, an economic law by which you can accurately predict the likelihood of civil disturbance right up to and including revolution.  Simplified, what it says is that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more likely revolution becomes.   And, if there’s a revolution, the wealthy will lose everything, so the wealthy do have a definite interest in the welfare of the poor.

A nineteenth century Conservative leader of Great Britain saw this clearly.  Benjamin Disraeli wrote the novel “Sybil; or the Two Nations” in 1845.  He was extremely concerned about the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots.   Disraeli showed that Conservatives can do a great deal to help the poor.

China has tried to address this problem.  Frightened at the prospect of revolution as the wealthy rather vulgarly display their wealth in front of peasants who barely eke out a living. The Chinese government is trying to rectify the imbalance.

The only industrialized nation in the world that has a wider gap between rich and poor is the United States.  Yet, in the last election, the issue of poverty was not even addressed.

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, sounded rather like the late decapitated French queen when he talked of the “47%”, the voters who depend on government, saying they would never vote for him.   Even the Democratic leader, the current president, had nothing positive to say about the poor.  They are largely forgotten.

The United States and China are not the only countries with this problem.  It is a worldwide phenomenon that has already caused riots and revolutions in some countries.

Jesus Christ said: “the poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11).  That’s very true.  The Rule of Inequality refers, rather, to the widening gap between rich and poor, a gap we see widening with almost every announcement on the economy.

As a fiscal conservative, I do believe government should live within its means.  But if, as some suggest, government programs like food stamps, WIC (food for Women, Infants and Children), Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the really poor, are abolished or greatly reduced, this could trigger off the revolution Marie Antoinette did not see coming!

Put bluntly, abolishing food stamps will mean riots in the streets of our big cities.  Again, that’s how the world’s worst revolution started, in Russia in February 1917.

This does not mean, either, that government programs are the best way to alleviate poverty.   The New Republic magazine showed two decades ago that the Salvation Army is far more cost-effective in caring for the poor, than is the federal government.

But that’s a separate issue.  The reality is that the poor do need help – or we will all suffer the consequences.

Conservative churches in the United States never seem to address this issue.  They tend to focus on abortion and same-sex marriage, both of which are unbiblical.  But they should remember that a major reason for God’s condemnation of ancient Israel and a reason why He let their nations be brought down, was because they exploited and neglected the poor.  Maybe a reason why churches won’t address this issue is because too many of their members are involved in exploitation – people who appease their conscience by making generous donations to the church!

Note the following condemnation of supposedly dedicated people who fast, but oppress the poor while they fast.   “You seem eager for God to come near you.  Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers.  Yet is not this the kind of fasting I, your Lord, have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice…to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them?” (Isaiah 58: 2-7).

Also note: Prov. 14:31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

One way in which the poor are exploited is through usury.   Millions of people are heavily in debt.  It’s too easy to say that they brought it on themselves.  It would be better to look at what the Bible says.  What many Christians do not realize is that usury, the charging of interest, is condemned in the Bible.  “If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him…Take no usury or interest from him….”  (Leviticus 25:35-36).  In stark contrast to this biblical instruction, our cities are full of “Cash Advance” stores that charge exorbitant rates of interest.  The more interest people have to pay on loans, the less money they have to spend, hence the recession!

It wasn’t until 1694 that a Christian country, England, allowed interest to be charged, when the Bank of England was founded.  Before that, Christians were not involved in banking.  That was the preserve of Jews.  This practice often led to pogroms against the Jews.  In York, England, in 1190, all the Jews in the city were killed, when town officials stirred up the people in order to get out from under their own debt obligations.

Today, we see people’s debts constantly rising.  Student loan debt is at an all-time high.  Many students will never be able to pay off their debt and will never be able to buy a house, marry or start a family.  In spite of this, our society encourages people to get deeper into debt.

What’s needed is a biblical Year of Jubilee.  The peoples of ancient Israel were instructed to cancel all debts once every fifty years.  You can read about this in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 25.  The result of the Year of Jubilee was that nobody could become too wealthy or too poor.  Instead of the Year of Jubilee, we have a depression or a recession approximately once every fifty years.  The Great Recession of 2008 was brought on by too much debt.  We have not been able to get back to where we were before 2008 and we won’t be able to until we cancel all debts.

It’s an ancient idea but it remains the best way forward for western nations today!



  1. You say: “What’s needed is a biblical Year of Jubilee….” Yes indeed in theory! But which year is that exactly? (One scheduled for 2045/2046). And, since it would require national legislation at least, you have no chance. A much better chance of success is Leviticus 25 agrarian-related individual responsibilities that fulfill the every 7th. year Sabbatical cycles…. next one from Aviv 1, 2016 to Aviv 1, 2017 apparently….. all according to

  2. Excellent comments and I especially appreciated the historical perspective.

    Your remarks that, “The result of the Year of Jubilee was that nobody could become too wealthy or too poor. Instead of the Year of Jubilee, we have a depression or a recession approximately once every fifty years.” are very telling. As is, “The only industrialized nation in the world that has a wider gap between rich and poor is the United States.”

  3. Hi Melvin:

    Good article. The gap is getting bigger for me…ha.
    Gotten any good attention and notice by any news outfits from your site yet?
    Hope all is well.

    Best Regards,

  4. Do you think the huge increase in numbers receiving food stamps indicates that not only are there more “poor amongst us” but also that there might be some corruption?

  5. I have no doubt there is corruption in the food stamp program. I refer to my comment on the Salvation Army — they do a better job helping the poor than does the government. While government programs always lend themselves to abuse, simply abolishing them would trigger major unrest that would threaten us all. Greater discussion is needed to decide how best to help people, while eradicating abuses in the system. MR

  6. There’s always a moral problem with the welfare state, even if so many of us may benefit from it at one time or another. That is, if charity is made involuntary by law, then it’s not especially virtuous since it becomes a violation of the 8th Commandment. That is, if indeed the libertarian/Ayn Randian analysis that “taxation is theft” is true, then the whole project of redistributing wealth (however efficiently or inefficiently) is morally problematic. After all, we would morally condemn a real life Robin Hood who truly and legitimately robbed the rich to help the poor. From a Christian perspective, the good end (or goal) doesn’t justify the means (or method). A key problem here is that the envy of the poor gets far less attention and condemnation than the greed of the rich. Yet rivers of blood were spilled by socialist/Marxist ideologies in the name of helping the poor. Furthermore, the elites of such countries still lived very well, such as the Nomenklatura of the Soviet Union. They certainly didn’t have the same standard of living as average workers and peasants. The socialist and communist nations normally created far more misery and poverty than other nations in similar situations than had more capitalist systems. China’s transition towards a more capitalist economy has greatly decreased the poverty of the country compared to when Mao ruled and killed perhaps 30 million people with his “Great Leap Forward” program. So then, here’s a thought experiment to consider. Which is worse? A society in which everyone has an income of $100? Or a society in which 90% have $1000 but 10% have $10,000? Which one has less misery and poverty in it? Another way to look at it is what consumer goods do the purported “poor” have in many Western countries, especially America, compared to the rich of their own countries or the poor in other countries. Do they have indoor plumbing, hot and cold running water, electricity, refrigerators, TVs, meat in their daily diet, DVD players, cars, 10 changes of clothes, dryers, washers, etc.? How much better off are the rich if they have a Cadillac or Rolls Royce, but the average man has a Chevy? In practical terms, how much of a different does the wealth of Bill Gates make, when he goes out to drive or eat or turns on the lights, etc., compared to most middle class and even poor Americans?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s