When I’m in Europe giving speeches and participating in conferences, it’s quite common that folks on the left will attempt to discredit my views by asserting that Americans are selfish and greedy.
Since I’m generally sympathetic to Ayn Rand’s writings, I don’t see anything wrong with people striving to make themselves better off. Moreover, Adam Smith noted back in 1776 that the desire to earn more money leads other people to make our lives better. One of his most famous observations is that, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
But, for the sake of argument, let’s accept the premise of my statist friends in Europe and simply look at whether their assertion is correct. Are Americans more selfish and greedy that their counterparts across the ocean?
The most obvious way of testing this proposition is to compare rates and levels of voluntary charity. Selfish and greedy people presumably will cling to their money while compassionate and socially conscious people will share their blessings with others.
So how does the United State compare to other nations? Well, I’m not a big fan of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, but the bureaucrats in Paris are quite good at collecting statistics from member nations and producing apples-to-apples comparisons.
And if you look at rates of “voluntary private social expenditure” among nations, it turns out that Americans are easily the most generous people in the developed world.
Wow, people in the United States are so generous that their voluntary giving amounts to 10.2 percent of gross domestic product. The only other nations that even crack 5 percent of GDP are the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Most of the supposedly compassionate welfare states have dismal levels of charitable giving. Voluntary social expenditure in major European nations such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain averages less than 2 percent of GDP.
It’s also worth noting that these numbers actually understate the charity gap between Americans and folks from other nations. Economic output in the United States is about 30 percent higher than it is in the rest of the developed world, so charitable giving by Americans actually represents a much bigger slice of a much bigger pie.
Statists might respond by asserting that Europeans express their generosity through the public sector. I reject that comparison since – as I explained when criticizing a Michael Gerson column – it’s wrong to equate government coercion with private charity.
But even if you have the European mindset that government should be a vehicle for redistribution, the OECD numbers show that there’s not much difference between the United States and other developed nations. According to the OECD data, government redistributes 20 percent of GDP in America compared to an average of 21.9 percent of GDP for all OECD nations. And since there’s strong evidence that government redistribution undermines progress in the fight against poverty, I actually wish there was a big gap between America and other nations!
And don’t forget, by the way, that 20 percent of U.S. GDP is a lot more money than 21.9 percent of GDP in other nations, so government in the United States spends more on redistribution, on average, than other OECD governments. Indeed, I’ve already shared healthcare numbers making that same point.
P.S. It’s also worth sharing the data showing that proponents of small government in the United States are far more generous than those who favor a big welfare state.
[…] compassionate to give away other people’s money. Then I shame them by showing data on how Americans are far more generous in terms of trying to help others with their own […]
This is perfectly obvious.
Andrew, here are some thoughts in case they help. I’m fairly new to the site and don’t know if Dan ever replies.
A government program that hands a poor person $100 has obviously made them less poor. Duh. Dan is not saying otherwise. His point is that the official US poverty rate declined sharply in the decades before the 1960’s Great Society programs began, but has stagnated in the 11-15% range ever since. The official definition of poverty excludes many government programs, so what this really suggests is that bigger government has halted progress toward self-sufficiency among the poor.
On the second point, I don’t think your guy understands what Dan means. Dan is saying that any government anti-poverty program is rooted in coercion because it is funded by forced taxation. We may agree that we want government to do some anti-poverty spending, but that does not make it generous or compassionate. True generosity and compassion can only come from voluntary donations like charity. It is NOT generous or compassionate for Ann to reach into Bob’s pocket, steal $100, and give that to Charley. Ann can only be generous with her own money.
I think Dan knows his stuff, and you can trust what he says.
https://caseforcapitalism.wordpress.com/
I posted your comment on my FB wall and got this response. Would love to know your thoughts:
Uh oh… bias check:
The author notes the poverty rate in the article and says that government redistribution doesn’t reduce poverty. This isn’t true. Taxes and transfers play a huge role in reducing poverty. Here is a chart from a few years back as well as a link to the most recent data (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=IDD).
He also says that voluntary private social expenditure is the only viable measure for generosity and compassion. That’s pure unmitigated crap. Any realistic factor for a society’s level of compassion ought to be based on how that society treats the least fortunate amongst them. Clearly, the US has failed to meet this test as well as other countries.
Dan: the category “voluntary private social expenditure” does not mean charitable giving. That is NOT what the OECD is talking about. In “The Social Expenditure database: An Interpretive Guide” they define the term and what it includes. I quote: “Voluntary private social expenditure: benefits accruing from privately operated programmes that involve the redistribution of resources across households and include benefits provided by NGOs, and benefit accruing from tax advantaged individual plans and collective (often employment-related) support arrangements, such as for example, pensions, childcare support, and, in the US, employment-related health plans.”
Pensions and health plans would obviously cover most of this. But that is not charity, it is “benefits” in lieu of salary and benefits that are usually tax exempt.
[…] to help the less fortunate with our own time and/or money. Indeed, I’m proud that Americans are much more likely to be genuinely generous than people from other countries (and it’s also worth noting that people from conservative states […]
[…] to help the less fortunate with our own time and/or money. Indeed, I’m proud that Americans are much more likely to be genuinely generous than people from other countries (and it’s also worth noting that people from conservative states […]
[…] help the less fortunate with our own time and/or money. Indeed, I’m proud that Americans are much more likely to be genuinely generous than people from other countries (and it’s also worth noting that people from conservative […]
[…] nation sees itself as the most compassionate (though if you look at real data, all European nations lag the USA in real compassion). Meanwhile, the prize for self-doubt (or perhaps self-awareness?) goes to the Italians, who […]
Were it not for the military power and leadership maintained by the US at titanic expense, Europeans would be contentedly enjoying their steadily rising chocolate rations.
[…] it’s worth noting that supposedly selfish capitalists in America give far more to charity than supposedly compassionate Europeans. And you won’t be surprised to learn that people is […]
If you ask a liberal, they would claim that they are more compassionate than conservatives. This would not be entirely accurate.
[…] is correct and genuine compassion is defined as helping others with your own money, then Americans have much bigger hearts than their European […]
[…] Is statism really compassionate when it gives people an excuse to be stingy, as we see in Europe? […]
Joseph Marcucilli Beware of Malignant Envy. Trace it, face it and erase it or your hatred and rage will consume you.
Meanwhile — and by any measure — Americans and America are three or four or five times more generous to those in need than are any other peoples or nations.
And the “crash of 2008” (actually but a monetary crisis) was caused by ‘Euopeonized’ fascist-socialist “Democrats” forcing banks to lend to millions who were unable to repay their loans. Kinda what the Euro-peon North has done to the PIIGS! (And good luck with that)
Lee Reynolds: — Comparing government to the Mob is decidedly unfair!
To the Mob! (Otherwise, Spot On!)
Your Gordon Gecko argument that greed is good may be true for butchers and bakers because they produce something we want or need.Wall Street pushes paper, deals in default swaps derivatives and financial institutions too big to fail that brought down the entire economy.I think the Adam Smith quote will satisfy your readers because they are trapped in the Ayn Rand ideological crap but history is history and you glossed over the crash of 2008.
Statistics are based the criteria we use.If I have one dollar to my name and give 10 cents to charity that is 10% of my total wealth?If you look at the total wealth of America to the amount given it is far less than most countries.
This Article proves just how brainwashed Americans have become, Welfare is the government establishment of the ACTS of Christian Charity. this is exactly what the colonist left Europe for. remember “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?” of course it is not charity anymore now it is government established forced Acts of Charity. Care for the poor is care for the poor, healthcare is healthcare, education is education, they are one in the same government established the Christian ACT of charity in the social security ACT. See– http://awakelive.wordpress.com
[…] who will use coercion to redistribute other people’s money. I should have used the opportunity to cite the data showing that Americans are far more compassionate – in the right sense – than their European […]
[…] who will use coercion to redistribute other people’s money. I should have used the opportunity tocite the data showing that Americans are far more compassionate – in the right sense – than their European […]
[…] will use coercion to redistribute other people’s money. I should have used the opportunity to cite the data showing that Americans are far more compassionate – in the right sense – than their […]
[…] we really want to help the less fortunate, private charity does a far better job – and Americans (unlike Europeans) still have the genuine compassion that exists when you spend your own […]
[…] we really want to help the less fortunate, private charity does a far better job – and Americans (unlike Europeans) still have the genuine compassion that exists when you spend your own […]
[…] want to help the less fortunate, private charity does a far better job – and Americans (unlike Europeans) still have the genuine compassion that exists when you spend your own […]
[…] 8. And it’s absurd that Europeans claim they’re more compassionate when Americans do far more to help the less fortunate. […]
[…] Americans give more charity […]
[…] are more compassionate than socialist […]
Hi, There is actually a cause to be made for government charity. Not everybody is born with all the necessary capabilities to survive or thrive in modern society. Yes, he can wait for personal (family) charity to kick in and I’m sure this is what happens in the States more than in Europe. But, as a system, we can also describe situations where the government should take care. I agree that this directly competes with genuine compassionate charity. in Europe we have choosen to be as “inclusive” as possible: as few as possible people should be left out, even if this means that quite a few not-needing people take advantage of the system. I do believe that looking at data regarding “left-outs”, that we will see Europe performing better than the US. For the rest, excellent article, interesting point of view and certainly agree on the effects of collective charity on personal charity.
[…] Americans Are Far More Compassionate than “Socially Conscious” Europeans […]
Liberals can be hypocrites at times.
[…] Americans Are Far More Compassionate than “Socially Conscious” Europeans […]
[…] (such as the American Federal government in the Obama era) look smaller than it actually is. Related news…the higher the GDP can be claimed to be, the smaller will be the percentage that Americans […]
This reflects the diference between real compassion, and phony leftist compassion.
Real compassion is:
1. Done with your own money and time, voluntarily donated.
2. The person donating the money and time decides where it goes.
3. The person receiving the help knows it is charity and says thank you.
4. The person donating expects no tangible reward, beyond feeling good, maybe getting some praise for their generosity, and perhaps receiving blessings from God.
Phony leftist compassion is:
1. Done with taxpayers money, forcib;ly extracted.
2. Politicians and burocrats decides where it goes.
3. The person getting the help fells entitled, not thankful.
4. The politicians get rewarded with votes, and the burocrats get cushy jobs.
[…] ought to goggle when they find out that Americans are near on twice as charitable as anybody else. Why, I’m just about the red-bloodedest, 100 per cent American feller around and ain’t […]
The importance of redistribution to the redistributionist arises, not through the act of charity, nor through the betterment of the receiver, but from the redistributionist wresting away control of the actual (involuntary) giver’s wealth.
Capitalism rewards the successful capitalist. The committed redistributionist finds it unfair that the crass ability to make money is rewarded with power and influence in our society while “proper social outlook” is under-appreciated.
Knowing fully that “proper social outlook” ought to guarantee his place as one of humanity’s leaders, but resenting that it hasn’t worked that way, the redistributionist seeks to wrest away that power by taking control of the crass wealth that others of lesser intellect seem to value.
Not surprising. Once government becomes the supreme arbiter of morality, the individual no longer feels guilty about being selfish, nor do they feel obliged to take personal action when it comes to helping others.
Great piece – Great subject – Greatest-ever Nation!
God save America!
The media and the lefties worship the Euros because they are closer to outright collectivism than we are.
Redistribution: See theft.
Every time I hear some lefty wanting to use the power of the state to enslave productive people, I’m reminded of the mob and their use of extortion and violence to extract money from businesses in on their turf in the form of the “mob tax.” I don’t see a difference, except in scale.
Government so corrupted is no longer merely illegitimate, but is in fact a criminal enterprise and should be treated accordingly.
“Government charity” is an oxymoron, hypocracy, crutch and bribe. The “giver” (taxpayer) feels exploited, the receiver feels entitled, and neither feels “uplifted.” Real charity is personal, preferably face to face, inspiring both giver and receiver, growing a stronger, more loving, peaceful and productive society. Big government advocates hate real charity because it empowers individualism, lessens dependency, and weakens their grip on political power.
Dan — Thanks for a terrific post. This theme needs to be kept in the foreground, and it’s nice to have some neutral statistics with which to do that.