BS: Why do we need poverty?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:47 PM

No, Jim, not ABSOLUTE equality. By no means. That is most certainly not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting a moderate degree of equality.

As they said in Shangri-La: "We believe in moderation. We are moderately honest, moderately chaste, moderately hardworking, etc... :-)

Those who attempt to achieve absolutism of any sort in a society are no boon to humanity, I can assure you. Extremism IS a vice, even if Barry Goldwater didn't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:47 PM

If the accordion playing Bee-Dub is making a large profit, he should at least pay them enough for basic survival. But he is still greedy if he is makig a lot of money from their efforts, but is only paying them subsistance wages. The operative word is "exploitation". Is he exploiting people, or is he paying them a fair wage? Paying a fair wage on the large profits we are theorizing about would not necessitate paying them the same amount as he pays himself, but it wouldn't necessarily preclude it, either.

I think another big part of the problem is the stock market. When corporate CEOs make decisions that are good for short term profits (as they so often do), rather than for long term health of the enterprise, we see the people at the bottom, the ones witout whose efforts the wealth could not be created, suffering the most.

Probably the most humane and sustainable systems for production of goods are the empolyee-owned companies... the ones in which the company was being sold and the employees got together and found a way to buy the company instead of it being completely sold out from under them to some predatory corporate interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:40 PM

I don't think anyone said that, Jim. But he should at least pay them a decent wage. Rational self-interest dictates this.

Henry Ford (not exactly a flaming liberal) was taken to task by some of his confreres for paying his workers the unheard of (until then) sum of $5.00 a day. He responded by saying, "I want to pay my workers enough so they can buy the automobiles we're manufacturing."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

It just occurred to me that the reason Bee-dub is evil is that he actually tries to keep paying those who work for him less so that they will quit working for him and go into the military. Cripes, what an evil genius!

Wonder where he got his MBA.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:37 PM

Oops. I saw "evil Dubya" instead of "evil Bee-Dub. Give me a minute while I revise.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:35 PM

He should pay them at least enough for basic survival. If he is makig a lot of money from their efforts, he ought to pay them more than basic survival. The operative word is "exploitation". Is he exploiting people, or is he paying them a fair wage? In the case of the military, I would say most of them are being exploited. If they were being paid proportional to the amount of profit the war profiteers are making as a result of their sacrifices, many of them would not need to be getting food stamps in order for their families to survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:31 PM

So, should the evil Bee-dub (evil because I like to think of him that way) pay anyone who works for him exactly the same thing he pays himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:27 PM

Another reason the US needs poverty is so that a large number of young people who are just entering the work force for the first time will not have any alternatives other than to join the military. This is for the endless war scenario that our government has in mind for us. The US is becoming nothing more than a breeding ground for the warrior class of the "New World Order".

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:15 PM

Which reminds me of my mother's wise words:

"If you continually compare yourself to others you will always feel that you don't have enough. There will always be those who have more and those who have less. Be grateful for what you have!"

I think poverty is highly subjective but I would like to live in a world where everyone had clean water and clean air, nutritous food and adequate shelter and medical care. I think it is possible and believe it is worth the effort. Given that all people would have their basic needs met, I think that they can provide their own luxuries.

I think the wealthy should stop looking at the world in terms of finite resources and begin to contribute to the well being of others. They just mind find that the 'tricle down' theory is false economy. Lets try 'trickle up' and see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 03:01 PM

When Bee-Dubya-El makes his pots and sells them, he is making his wealth himself. He did need some capital in the beginning to buy his kilns and other essentials for making pottery. He got that by having a wage paying job prior to becoming a potter; one that must have paid him enough for him to have the discretionary income that enabled him to buy his equipment.

If Bee-Dubya-El were to employ his neighbors, paying them incomes that were below the subsistance level (just because he could get away with it because they were financially desperate and willing to starve slowly rather than all at once), to make his pots for him and he then sold them for a large profit over his costs, then he would be greedy. And since his empolyees would not even be getting paid subsistance level wages, they would not ever be able to save money to buy their own pottery-making equipment so as to enable themselves to create their own wealth as Bee-Dubya-El does.

I think this is a much more accurate summation of the reason we have so many working poor in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 02:35 PM

So, by that reasoning, unless you can guarantee absolute equity, you will always have absolute poverty -- even in the face of a lack of need.

People are funny. We seem to only understand certain things by contrast. But lessening the degree of contrast does not lessen the accuity with which the inequity is percieved. In fact, unless it's readily evident why they, not we, succeeded, we're just as inclined to resent our peer's success (after all, they're nuthin' special -- just one of us) as we are to resent those who are at an extremely opposite end of circumstances. Our lack of understanding for how they got to that extreme (and we didn't) allows us to more easily demonize them -- but it doesn't seem to make us resent them more than we resent our peers.

We don't have to be taught to envy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 02:17 PM

"you haven't even wined and dined me yet."

You should live so long, Jim!

It's got the barb thingy. Get ready for a really memorable experience...

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 02:13 PM

Among people who share equally, and with a good heart, there is little or no perception of poverty, even though material goods may be very limited. Among people who place great want alongside great excess in a single community....there IS a perception of poverty.

An interesting demonstration of this was done recently with monkeys in a research lab. They discovered that when some monkeys were rewarded with better stuff (more tasty fruit) for doing the same work, the monkeys who received the less desirable food got mad and refused to do ANY work at all for it. They perceived that they were being treated unfairly. They didn't like it.

The French people who cut off the heads of their king and queen apparently didn't like it either. Poverty is perceived in the face of massive inequity. It is the awareness of an unfair distribution of material goods on an arbitrary basis.

Society needs every worker in order to function. Every worker ought to receive a reasonably good reward. Every child ought to receive a reasonably good level of support. In this way one achieves social justice, stability, and harmony.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 02:09 PM

Flirt with me all you want Mr Hawk, but fireplace pokers are not my choice of recreational devices. Besides, you haven't even wined and dined me yet.

By the way, does the poker have that "barb" thingy, or is it just the straight kind? I'd like to refine tonight's nightmare if I might.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 02:04 PM

Jim, if you would be willing to bend over, I would be happy to assist you with the placement of this iron fireplace poker here... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:57 PM

When I was raising my children, we lived below the poverty line but we always had plenty to eat, a roof over our heads and medical care when necessary. It was a struggle to provide, but we did it and I managed put myself through university and establish a career.

Oddly, my children (who are now grown) never realized that we were poor. We have talked about this many times. We were living in a rural situation most of the time and owning a car, a t.v. and other luxuries that others consider the basics, were non-existent. As long as we were clean and well-mended, we were able to fit into the community and nobody really knew that we were strugggling financially.

Hesperis has a good point when she says: " Poverty itself may not need to be eradicated, only redefined."

I was discussing this very point with a friend from Jamaica. We were actually considering a Masters Thesis entitled, Re-defining poverty. Poverty is real but how you are able to cope with it may determine your actual level of poverty.

At one point, a counsellor told me that a woman who is suddenly single after living a life of affluence is much more likely to feel impoverished than a woman who had been dealing with poverty all of her life. Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:56 PM

"It is a great deal of intelligent consciousness and experience of the artisan"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!

*phew*

You had me going there for a minute. Then I read "intelligent" and realized that you had changed the subject.

I was talking about Bee-Dubya-Ell.

(by the way -- that still doesn't explain which poor are going to suffer because BWL sold the pot -- or do they only suffer if BWL gets "wealthy" selling his pots?)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:37 PM

The pot that sells for $200 is not just the sum of the physical materials used in its construction. It is a great deal of intelligent consciousness and experience of the artisan, given visible form. If well done, that is worth a lot of money.

Same as a well made guitar or any other thing that is well made.

The crime of modern mass marketing capitalism is not that things are marketed which are expensive, but that people are manipulated through advertising to place importance on an artificial lifestyle that makes no sense and doesn't even make them happy. They are encouraged to seek happiness where it cannot be found, and they are encouraged to be self-destructive at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:27 PM

When Bee-Dubya-Ell takes $0.20 worth of clay, $0.0001 worth of glaze, $0.10 worth of electricity and makes a pot that sells for $200. Is it he who is greedy? Which piece of "poor folks pie" did he rob in order to enrich himself -- the person who spent the $200? What makes the discrepency between the $200 pot and the $0.3001 materials that went into it? If BeeDub can sell it for $2,000 is he even greedier? If BeeDub gave away all of his pottery and was, instead, supported by Gov't stipend as "The official potter and broke-dick mamalucka of the united states of america" (here-to-fore OPBDMUSA, or "Opie" for short), would that stipend not affect the poor?

When you tune up your guitar and go down to the local bar or coffee house and play for $20 in tips, what poor person's $20 is that? --and doesn't your guitar go severely out of tune if you do it in that order?

What if I don't want to play the economic game -- instead, choose to live simply, and, by that choice always fall below the "poverty line". Should that reflect poorly on BeeDub because he pocketted the $2K from that pot sale? (I hope so -- I like it when things reflect poorly on BeeDub)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:02 PM

Don,

Thanks for the link to the Technocracy site. I had heard about them back int he 70's and forgotten about them completely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:36 AM

6 - I haven't experienced it, but I have witnessed it, and no, there is no excuse for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:27 AM

Don,

Thanks for the link to the Technocracy site. I had heard about them back int he 70's and forgotten about them completely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: number 6
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:23 AM

Has anyone who posted to this thread really experienced absolute poverty. Absolute Poverty meaning completely being destitute beyond all control. Lacking and being denied all the basic ammenities of food, shelter, medicare. I'm not refering to the 'salad days' of our youth, the poverty of our university days or whatever. I bet none of us have. I know I haven't. But I can sympathize to those that do live this miserable life and existance, the unfortunate ones on this planet who are gripped and controled by the poverty imposed on them. All rhetoric and reason as to why we need poverty, as to why there is poverty is an insult to humanity. There is no reason, need or excuse for absolute poverty.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:58 PM

I very much doubt that capitalism will collapse. Far more likely that it will expand considerably. It's doing so right now, specially on the part of China.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:44 PM

Yes, everyone does not have the same needs, even basic needs such as nutrition are different for individuals. But nutrition itself is a basic need that everyone does share.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Piers
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:31 AM

Thank you Don, that is very interesting. I would have to class them as a utopian cult though. Whilst there is definetly a strong Marxist and socialist influence (e.g. is the 'money—>capital—>money formula' is a paraphrase of Marx's M-C-M (Das Kapital, chap 4)? But the C stands for commodity not capital, not that it makes sense unless compared to commodity->money->commodity (money as a simple exchange), money->commodity->money is buying something to sell it, capitalism).

A fundamental flaw in their goal of acheiving technocracy is that they believe capitalism will collapse. This is an erroneous idea, often attributed to Marx (check this out for further info: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf). They also assume that scientific opinion is always the same and that calculation of production values based on energy will never generate conflicts, and if it did who's in charge?. I suspect that they percieve a need for a single calculating mechanism in response to von Mises' 'economic calculation argument' against socialism - but that is another story. They also seem to assume that people will be able to accept having an equal share of everything, an idea that Marx specifically ridiculed in Critique of the Gotha Programme, i.e. that everybody has the same needs. I also can't quite see in their writings why technocracy should only apply to North America and not other developed parts of the world. There is also certain amount of hypocrisy, despite wanting to get rid of subjective things like politics and religion they appeal to 'patriotic North Americans'.

Whilst I agree, broadly, with their analysis of the inherent poverty in capitalism and that this can only be acheived by abolishing capitalism. I do not agree that common/social ownership could be run by technocracy but that common/social ownership of the means of production can only be acheived by common/social control, i.e. through democratic decision making.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 05:30 PM

Very interesting, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM

As fir housing go to any large city in the US and you'll find lots of people without it. The homeless rate is climbing like a shyrocket in America. Health care? Most folks are either going without entirely or darned sick before seeking help. Why? It's very costly. Food? Since school food proframs have been slashed under the current "compassionate" conservative lots of kids just don't get even one real balanced meal per day...

Comparing the US to Third World counteies might make some folks feel less guilty but when we compare our poverty rates with the rates of other developed countries, the US has nothing to brag about and all the reason in te world to be ashamed...

And to the Bush-heads here, I can take you down to Washington, D.C. and show you folks who are living in cardboard boxes within a 1/2 mile of the nation's capitol...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 05:12 PM

A modest proposal:

I remember back in the Thirties when I was a little wee kid, there was an organization called Technocracy, Inc. It was dismissed by most people as some sort of futuristic, Utopian social scheme, or as a cult, sect, or collection of pseudo-scientific crackpots. Nevertheless, some of them were the original Scientists and Engineers for Social Responsibility. Being way ahead of their time—and thinking outside the box—their theories appear to read like science fiction.

I didn't learn what they were really about until back in the early Sixties, when a drinking buddy of mine said that he was going to a lecture of Technocracy, Inc., and would I like to join him. That drinking buddy was Jerry Pournelle.

Yes, the science fiction writer. Back then, I didn't even know he was interested in writing, and I didn't find out until a few years after he and Roberta left for California and I started seeing his stuff appearing in Analog and his books showing up on paperback racks. Anyway, Jerry was pretty conservative (characterized himself as far to the right of Attila the Hun), and he and I had many a good discussion (argument) about politics and such. Shows that two people can disagree strenuously about a lot of things, but still be good friends. I haven't seen him since 1985 or so, but I check his website from time to time to see what he's up to lately. He now refers to himself as a "paleo-conservative" as distinct from a "neo-conservative." (Got that, DougR?)

Anyway, we took in the lecture. In the question and answer period, Jerry asked some very pointed questions. Afterwards, we went to the notorious Blue Moon Tavern (our customary watering-hole) and kicked it around. Jerry was a bit perturbed. He was trying to blow holes in it. There was something about it that he didn't like. Although in no way is it related to Marxism, communism, or socialism, it seems distressingly left-wing. The idea of managing and distributing goods and services in a way that everybody would have everything they need, and some people might not have to even work unless called upon to do so (and even then, they would work at jobs they like and are well-suited for), even if the whole idea was scientifically sound, somehow offended his conservative viewpoint. At the end of the evening, he allowed as how there had to be a flaw, but so far he couldn't find. "Might just work," he mused, uncomfortably. He may have changed his mind since then, but that, I don't know.

In the thread "Why do we need money," Little Hawk mentions Earth society as portrayed in Star Trek: The Next Generation a couple of times (for example, HERE). A consummation devoutly to be wished. It strikes me that, with some minor modifications and updating, the ideas extended by the advocates of Technocracy, Inc. way back in the Thirties have the potential of bringing that about.

One writer on Technocracy, Inc. puts it this way:   Before dismissing Technocracy, one should review their work on economics needing to be energy based, actual credits based on the total value of physical energy available in an industrialized society. Not wage based. In other words they call for abolishing the wage system! Technocracy opposes Capitalism's "money—>capital—>money" formula, or as we might call it today, the "Casino Capitalism of the Stock Market." They oppose this money economy, or "price economy," as they call it, and propose replacing it with an energy economy.

These days, if you mention Technocracy, Inc., most people have never heard of it. Those who have think of it as a crazy Utopian scheme from back in the Thirties. And those who know a lot about it, especially if they have a vested interest in the present system, can get downright hostile and abusive.

I'm not advocating it (yet, anyway), but don't think it should be dismissed without giving it a good look. The idea is still drifting around out there, and those who do advocate it have a website.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 12:25 PM

True enough about the housing code. The housing code is supposedly there to protect people...and it does...but it also condemns people below a certain poverty level by making it impossible for them to afford to build a legal shelter.

In Trinidad, the poor people have mostly built themselves little shacks, all of which would totally fail our North American housing codes...and they are allowed to. They also are usually squatting on public land or some land they found somewhere. They would not be allowed to do that in North America either.

North America is a jail for poor people, who generally have little or no hope of either providing for themselves effectively or ever getting out of the hole they're in.

In Trinidad, you can be dirt poor and STILL build yourself a little house somewhere, and no one will come and stop you from doing it. I noticed that Trinidadians are, on the whole, more relaxed and happy than North Americans, and I'll tell you why...they're freer than North Americans, because they are far less regulated by laws, rules, and restrictions. We North Americans are living in a place that more and more resembles Orwell's 1984, year by year...and it's all done to service a moneyed elite and keep the money rolling in.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: mg
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 11:44 PM

you're right about the housing codes..at least in some respects..like you used to in USA not be eligible for a VHA loan for a house unless the sink and toilet were the same color. Is that necessary? And if we didn't build with wood, but with cement or stone, there would be far less fire danger and flood danger..but more earthquake damage it seems...less insect damage and dry rot. And there should be higher density housing in some areas with plenty of green space and agricultural space surrounding it. We don't all need yards and as long as there is safety and soundproofing we can live stacked up on top of each other. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 11:22 PM

I think the US justifies it by reasoning that people here who are in poverty still have a higher standard of living.

But it's a secondhand standard. Nothing wrong with that, just that if people didn't throw so much perfectly working stuff out then the poor here wouldn't have all those things. True poverty is a lack of health, a lack of food, and a lack of housing... we have all those here.

And, you can't sell secondhand stuff for food either, because it's crappy and nobody will buy it. So you end up drowning in stuff that other people didn't want and you STILL can't eat. I doubt there are many people who realize that.

And as for housing... we have higher standards of housing. That means that people can't build a simple shelter without paying for permits and inspections and making sure it's up to code. A risk of fire is not quite as important as a definite death from cold!

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 07:57 AM

It shouldn't come down to one's ability to make money. Or even one gtoup of people's ability to make money. What I can't understand is how my country, with all of its wealth, justifies such a hihg percentage of folks living in poverty compared to other developed countries. And I'm not buying the argument that the US is rich becuase it has so many poor people.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Piers
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 04:15 AM

Amos, I can see you know standing amongst a bunch of half-starved people preaching about 'organising, developing, enterprising and training'. Christ, talk about kissing the foot that kicks you. You don't need to know too much about economics to know that employment rates are directly related to productivity (profitability) which goes up and down because of repeated cycles of boom and recession, which is integral to capitalism.

You are living in some fantasy world if you think that capitalists are the most clever, inventive or visionary and they all got to be capitalists by doing that and it is there just reward. It's nothing but propaganda to justify the inequality of capitalism. There are many brilliant musicians on mudcat who are poor, brilliant inventors and scientists are poor too. People who a good at making money get to be rich. Bill Gates isn't a computer programmer, Richard Branson doesn't fly aeroplanes they make money and that's it. And it is this system that keeps the rest of us in poverty, even in the 'developed' countries we are still wageslaves, in the 'developing' millions don't have their basic needs, purely because there is no profit in producing food for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 12:13 AM

Oh come on, folks. You can have all the buildings in a city block turned over to a population of 1000 poor people, and out of that 1000, 9990 will manage to figure out that living in the buildings will work. But how many will study out how to use those resources as a basis for production which can be exported, to support the community?

It takes an idea, an imagined scenario followed up by a LOT of persuasion and energetic pushing and figgering and making things happen to get a group of people to start producing something. It takes more ideas and creative energy to make it well, and to sell it.

Until a small number of visionairies and organizers figgers out how to do it, it usually doesn't happen -- no organizing, no justice no exchange, no distribution of the non-wealth.

Those insights and methods are valuable products; they don't just come from trees. They are as valuable and more valuable than the routine productive effort of someone who works a mill--at least, harder to replace.

Poverty above all else is a failure of imagination and communication. At least when it occurs among the basically able it is.

Add imagination and communication and any group of poor people with a little bit of help can start up an economic cycle that will feed themselves.

That's the direction of help that is needed, IMHO. Organizing, developing, enterprising and training.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Kaleea
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:56 PM

Geez, if we didn't have people in poverty, who else would the uppity--I mean rich--people look down own & blame for all the problems of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:50 PM

Capitalism cannot survive without poverty. Simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:09 PM

Rich people have more time and more opportunity to gather information. They are more likely to become academic in nature. They are more likely to travel and to be exposed to different ideas. Thus, although they are not born more intelligent than the poor, they are in a situation which is more likely to develop their knowledge and bring forth their awareness of the opportunities in life.

Example: I was born in a middle class family from upper middle class roots.   In my family books and art and education and culture were very much emphasized. This certainly helped to steer me into book reading, into getting good marks in school, and into expecting to move up in life. When you expect to move up, you are more likely to.

I knew kids in school who were from much more working class families, families in which books were barely even thought of. They were more into physical stuff than I was. They were less into thinking and more into acting. This meant that they were better at sports, better at the rough and tumble of life, but not nearly as good as me at academics or writing or thinking. They were not growing up in a setting that encouraged gathering knowledge or thinking for its own sake, and I was.

And that is the classic divide between working class people and the bosses...or the artists...or the academics and intellectuals.

It starts early in life. If your kid is mainly into watching TV, playing video games, playing sports, socializing, and such...then your kid is being prepared for a working class existence...and will likely end up among the exploited. That has nothing to do with basic intelligence. Intelligence can be stifled or it can be encouraged. A life built on TV watching and playing Nintendo is quite likely to stifle intelligence and independent thought in most people.

"Rich" people are keenly aware that their background has provided them with a wider range of possibilities than most poorer people. If they are inclined to use those possibilities, then they can do a lot with them. Thus, they instinctively tend to feel "smarter" than poor people. They're not really smarter, they're just better prepared to use their intelligence.

The tragedy of the poor in any nation is mainly that they are not as aware of possibilities as they could be, had they grown up in a family that was not already locked into a working class lifestyle.

So...classes tend to perpetuate themselves.

The way to overcome this is to raise everyone to a basically good level of material existence, education, and medical care, as was attempted in Cuba after 1959...then take it from there. That necessitates some form of socialism. It is NOT going to happen in a purely free market system. Such a system acts to perpetuate the divide between rich and poor in order to maximize profit.

I will qualify the above by pointing out that, yes, there are some individuals who will break the pattern of their class...and move either up or down in class...but most people will basically repeat the established pattern they are most familiar with as youngsters.

Poor people may seem less intelligent to the rich...but they are simply shaped that way by what they are exposed to when they are quite young. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

A society that abandons its poor perpetuates its poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 10:28 PM

It's interesting... there is no ONE Boss Hog... but reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad I learned that the rich think that the poor will always be poor because they don't have the intelligence to realize that working for an hourly wage isn't going to get you rich... only ownership of property will make you rich, because property makes money (and other people) work for you instead of you working for other people.

It basically justifies an attitude of bigotry towards the poor as being less intelligent than the rich. (Although it does contain useful financial information.) But how many poor people do you know who could even get a mortgage and put the plans laid out so very clearly in Rich Dad, Poor Dad in place? How many creative people actually have their creative property working for them instead of them just creating it?

So the message of the book is that to be rich you must earn money from many people of lower intelligence working to make money for you. If that's not purposeful exploitation then what is? I'm sure that's not the intention of the book but that attitude is definitely in there. Makes you wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: mg
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:34 PM

oh for heavens sake. I'm not going to say that Boss Hog does not exist, and I am not going to tell you the tooth fairy does not either. So may she does exist. Like the Wizard of Oz. More smoke and mirrors than not. And think what this message does to the young people and more easily persuaded of society...and that is the biggest problem, although I can out doom and gloom any 20 of you here..the message that things are hopeless and the rich are out to get the poor. The message we should be giving everyone is to stay off drugs, stay healthy, acquire skills, live simply, grow food, be flexible because things are going to change faster than we can. Poverty cycles can be broken, poverty behaviors that both cause and are caused by poverty in a viscious circle can be changed. Things are not constantly hopeless, or at least we don't know for sure and have to act as though they aren't. Cynics and doom and gloomers are not raising the level of consciousness on this planet, although they do serve their purpose and could be, in fact, are, right about many things. But they seem not to take into account the incredible resiliance and creativity of the human race..do some of you not listen to the songs you sing? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:46 PM

The poor have risen on many occasions, but usually found themselves being ruled over by a gang of thugs formed by the leaders from their own ranks, soon enough...since violence begets more violence.

Examples: the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution.

It's only rarely that people of genuine idealism, coupled with mercy and compassion, lead a revolution. Gandhi was one such, and he led a peaceful revolution which succeeded, but did not succeed perfectly by any means. It fractured between Muslims and Hindus and resulted in violence and partition of India into India and Pakistan.

The common people in the Soviet Union, with Gorbachev's strong encouragement, transformed and finally brought down the old system, but then turned to the demagogue Boris Yeltsin (because he promised them totally unrealistic things), and saw their society lose most of its social services and security and get taken over by crooks and mafia scoundrels. It is now sliding back into being an authoritarian state.

The common people in other places like Czechoslovakia and East Germany managed a peaceful changeover, but for many the economic situation has worsened, while for some it has improved.

The poor people in Cuba benefited greatly from the Revolution, if you look at the lives of the average Cubans before and after. That was one revolution that fairly much lived up to its stated ideals. It had the bad luck to be embargoed and basically besieged by a superpower.

Bobert - I couldn't agree more about the so-called "Christians" out there who support Boss Hog, as you put it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:05 PM

In any country that is going to have grossly rich people yer gonna have to have lots of poor folks to keep them grossly rich.

Actually, as a few folks have allready pointed out, Boss Hog likes to keep lots of poor folks around to keep the middle class at bay. The middle class scares the heck out of Boss Hog 'cause the middle class is a *real* threat to making the grossly rich merely rich. Yeah, if the middle class ever feels a level of sucurity, it *will* stand up to Boss Hog and try to pry away a greater share of the wealth that it and the poor folks create. Should that happen then those living in poverty will get kicked up outtta poverty...

But, if there was a real World Court, the leadership of United States, given the US's wealth, would certainl;y be awaiting trial.

And what make me sick is these crooks and thieves going around saying they are Christain??? My butt!!!! Jesus teaches us that we will be judged on how we treat our poor... Oh yeah, these so called Chrisains never made it into the New Testament, with the exception of "Rule Boy" Paul, the tax collector...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:32 PM

Or for someone to raise the poor together to have control over this power.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM

The only chance of real change is for someone to have the power who is actually intelligent enough and unselfish enough to USE that power for the benefit of all. Such things have happened, but only rarely in our history.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:42 PM

Whosoever controls money/gas/electric/oil....has the power!
Power is all! Every Government knows that to rule you have to keep the people in their place. Poverty is a sure way as the people are largely dependent on the "state" and easily controlled as a consequence..........unless the poor revolt as in the French revolution....but what happens then? A new regime takes over and becomes richer as the poor become poorer....Ah well, that's life eh??? or is it?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:05 PM

Ah, I see now what you mean, Piers.

But surely even as there will always be some people who can't take care of themselves, there will always be people who want to have more than other people and have a knack for making that happen. That's not going to go away. Also, people are still going to want some goods that are not local. So trade would also still be necessary.

I do not see anything wrong with wealth in and of itself, particularly for those who are brilliant at meeting the needs of other people without exploitation. What is not necessary is degradation of human beings as only commodities. But as long as the poor do not hold the means of production of the resources they need to live, there will be exploitation of the commodities they represent to some people...

Housing, food, health care, and work in these fields: these are important. So these are the ones that must be owned by those that use them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 02:40 PM

Hesperis,
I don't think anyone who wants a moneyless society wants to replace it with a barter. We are questioning the need for trade at all.

I can't quite see what you are actually suggesting we can do to take care of people's basic needs. However, it is irrelevant because however well meaning one is, the idea that you can get rid of poverty without getting rid of the rich is flawed. The problems of people's basic needs not being met is an inherent part of capitalism. Ownership of the means of production is not some abstract question. We are all dependent on the means of production, they are the means of living - producing and distributing food, health, housing and entertainment. In capitalism, ownership of the means of production is vested in a minority and the basis for production is the ability to yield surplus. If the means of production could be brought under social control, that is democratic operation on the basis of meeting needs, then the fruits of our labour can be distributed according to need. In capitalism goods and services are available, as you suggest, for those who can afford it - that is a can't pay, can't have basis. Socialism would do away with the inequality this creates. Without the fetters of 'no profit, no production' we could have enough basics plus not-so basic goods and services for everyone and there would be no need to ration, i.e. trade. This may sound like a wacky idea, but it is a lot more realistic than ending poverty through free trade, fair trade, the welfare state or charity. The counter-productive behaviours of the rich, the tyranny of the rich over the poor, poverty will be with us as long as they control the means of living.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 02:35 PM

WE do not NEED poverty.

The rich (in general) WANT to see poverty, because it makes those anxious to excape it more compliant - production economy or service economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: hesperis
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:28 PM

There was poverty before the capitalist system... however it was much more localized. If your crops didn't do well, you starved. Money enables an exchange of goods and services at a much higher level of abstraction, and also enables people to become specialized... which raises the quality of life for all those who can afford those specialized services.

And it is money that could help to alleviate true poverty - which I define as the lack of health, basic food, basic housing and basic contribution to society. Money simply allows a greater overall wealth than is possible in a simple barter system. It has the potential to be used in a way to enable more human beings to have the basics. Then once more human beings have the basics, there will be more human beings capable of contributing real value to the local and global society.

Poverty itself may not need to be eradicated, only redefined. What if the poor were those who were well off healthwise but didn't own a means of production? There would still be rich people, there would still be rewards for great achievement in business or life. People would still want to be more than poor. But the poor would not be hopeless of achieving even their basic needs. It is hopelessness that leads to most of the counter-productive behaviours of the poor, although it is still a personal choice and some avoid falling into those behaviours. What if anything less than that was seen as a failure of society, not a failure of the individual? How is a child supposed to grow into a contributing adult when malnourished for decades? How is that a failure of that child?

There are always some people who cannot support themselves... under the current system. If their basic needs were taken care of, what gifts would they be able to offer society in exchange, what talents and usefulnesses would flower under adequate watering? This would make success and wealth on a larger scale than has ever happened in history, more than paying for any programs necessary to put that basic level of support in place.

So why is it not happening already?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need poverty?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:52 PM

Something quite notable has happened since the collapse of Communism in Russia...triggered mainly by their inability to afford a high-tech arms race with the USA, and thus their inability to properly modernize their civilian infrastructure...and aggravated by their totalitarian and archaic political system.

What has happened is the opposite of what was predicted in the exulting capitalist press. What was predicted was a "Peace Dividend"! Remember that? Ah, yes, things were supposed to get much better for everyone now that the Cold War was over, because all that money spent on arms would now go to improving societies.

That was the big lie. The Peace Dividend never happened. With the Communist bloc removed from the scene...thus vanishing as an effective political opposition...the capitalist societies began dismantling and downsizing their social services, while continuing massive spending on weapons and preparation for future wars...with whom, was the question? A new enemy must be found in order to justify such spending.

A new enemy had already been nicely incubated by the CIA in its successful attempt to bring down the Soviet Union. That new enemy was the militant Muslim fundamentalists, most notably concentrated in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. They had been handy for attacking Russia. They would now prove handy for provoking further crises, and for taking over or gaining access to parts of the World where there is a hell of a lot of oil...namely, the Middle East and the Caspian region.

The Peace Dividend never happened. We were on a war kick under Reagan, and we have continued on a war kick ever since. The Bush administration has done this more openly than any other, having been given the perfect excuse to by 911. They are building an overseas oil empire under the guise of fighting terrorism. They are committing terrorism on a far larger scale than anyone else is.

Every civilian population in the World has been robbed by this cynical and destructive program of promising one thing and delivering another thing entirely. Eastern Europeans were promised freedom and prosperity. They got some freedom, all right...along with a catastrophic loss of jobs, a sharp rise in poverty, a huge rise in crime, and a huge rise in corruption. There's no going back now...they must struggle through and build a new society for themselves. It won't be easy. They were lied to. So were the rest of us.

Without a viable socialist alternative in the World, the capitalist systems will be happy to privatize everything they possibly can, do away with as many social services as possible, and worsen the gap between rich and poor in most places. The results will not be good, not good at all. It's a recipe for war and revolution in many places. Poverty and excess, side by side, are the hallmark of the ruling system in the World at this time.