Why America chose debt over welfare

Dylan Matthews: The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. My first obsession in public policy was the problem of poverty in the rich world: why, in a nation as wealthy as the United States, do people still have to endure homelessness and hunger? It’s a particularly big question for the US specifically, where poverty rates (especially if defined in “relative” terms) are significantly higher than in peer countries. The most provocative and mind-expanding explanation comes from this 2012 book by sociologist Monica Prasad. America's unusual level of poverty is ultimately the result, she claims, of our outrageous levels of agricultural productivity in the late 19th century. That surge in production led to an agrarian populist movement which demanded not a strong safety net but extensive access to credit. Loans and government redistribution are both ways that people are able to spend money they don't immediately have access to, and the US chose to embrace debt over social insurance, with far-reaching consequences to this day. The value to me, though, is less in the argument’s specifics than in its ability to demonstrate the importance of seemingly ancient policy decisions in shaping the structure of American society today. That suggested that setting up better policy basics now, the way AGF’s grantees seek to, could prove massively high-value.