Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Poverty Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Postby JohnDenver » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 01:53:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'T')his works OK for single twentysomethings who don't have kids. Parents with children need more space and privacy.


Privacy can be a minus in raising kids. Raising kids in an extended family, or amongst a group of parents in the neighborhood, is a lot easier on the parents. It's good for kids too to have different adults and children to interact with.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby JohnDenver » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 02:23:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', 'Y')ea, when those people sell there 3 year old kids into sexual slavery for a $50 they are only doing what their ancestors were always doing... drool drool.... fart... drool...


Like I said, "poverty" is a borderline racist concept.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby johnmarkos » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 02:24:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'S')ome solutions are better than others.


Okay, then let's go back to the indios again. Is their culture a problem we have to solve? You seem to be saying: "Yes, we should just do it gently."

Not really. I'm not really thinking about them. I'm thinking about the urban poor in places like Sao Paolo, Mexico City, or Calcutta. These people are already have-nots in the larger economy. The few people who fit the description you're talking about -- those who have little exposure to modern life -- are kind of an edge case in reality. Anyway, I don't know enough about them (or about poverty in general) to speculate. I'm going out on a limb here by trying to make some theoretical generalizations, mostly to try to understand where you're going with this topic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') see their "poverty" not as a negative, but as a positive. It's a virtue to be emulated. We should be learning what they have to teach us, not the other way around. It is affluence which is putting our future at risk, not poverty. Affluence is the negative.


Whose poverty? That of people with little contact with modern culture? You're beginning to sound like a primitivist. What about evading the next rock? That'll take money and modern technology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, the microcredit movement, which gives small loans to poor people so they can start their own businesses, doesn't pretend to know what's best for those people.


Actually it does. It is openly based on the notion that capitalism, money, growth and paying interest are best for those people, i.e. that it is best for those people to be mobilized into the very thought process which is at the root of peak oil.

I'm not suggesting making loans to people in the Amazon, far from modern culture. The people I'm talking about as eligible for microcredit loans are already part of the larger economy. They're already mobilized into the ethos you're talking about.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t empowers them to make their own choices.


Yes, provided that occurs within the framework of the money/growth economy. They don't get any options on that point.
No, and neither do I, not unless the structure of our reality changes significantly. We were born into that framework. Most of the six and a half billion people on the planet are economic creatures and have been for their whole lives.

Anyway, that's the reality we live in. I'm not saying it's a good reality but I'm wary of advocating scrapping the whole thing.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Postby johnmarkos » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 02:28:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'P')rivacy can be a minus in raising kids. Raising kids in an extended family, or amongst a group of parents in the neighborhood, is a lot easier on the parents. It's good for kids too to have different adults and children to interact with.

You're right. We should be open to arrangements other than the nuclear family, which turns out to be a rather wasteful way to live. Returning to the extended family and the old neighborhood might not be such a bad thing.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Postby johnmarkos » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 03:02:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I') see their "poverty" not as a negative, but as a positive. It's a virtue to be emulated. We should be learning what they have to teach us, not the other way around. It is affluence which is putting our future at risk, not poverty. Affluence is the negative.

I reacted a little quickly and harshly to this paragraph. I think I'm a little shocked at the transformation you seem to be going through. What happened to the pro-growth environmentalist who wants to build solar collectors on the moon?

I can admit the possibility that small, remote cultures who have had little contact with modernity have something to teach us. I'm not sure what that is but I don't dismiss the idea.

I agree that affluence (the accumulation of energy-wasting consumer goods) is a huge negative that's endangering our future. I don't know how to stop the runaway train but I agree with you that it's a big problem. As for a better alternative, I can imagine a comfortable, healthy, fulfilling life that does not involve the accumulation of huge mounds of consumer crap.

At one point you mentioned that you were, "Viscerally opposed to powerdown." Has your opinion changed?
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Postby agni » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 04:23:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', 'Y')ea, when those people sell there 3 year old kids into sexual slavery for a $50 they are only doing what their ancestors were always doing... drool drool.... fart... drool...


Like I said, "poverty" is a borderline racist concept.


Which it may be, but I won't agree with you just because you use a charged word like 'racist' into it. You probably haven't seen real poverty, (I am only guessing here), I grew up in India, in a fairly affluent family but you can't really always avoid the poverty. When I was in Bombay I once witnessed a street vendor kicking a near dead guy in front of his shop to move because he was afraid that the guy might die in front of his shop making it his responsibility to move the body. There is nothing uplifting in poverty for a family to lose a kid because they couldn't buy a medicine worth 50 cents or where the mother has to whore herself to pay for his (a girl child might not be worth it) medicine or a person to bleed to death because they dont have money to make an emergency call. As far as I see, race doesn't really enter into the equation here.

-A
User avatar
agni
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Postby I_Like_Plants » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 07:56:43

I read Ehrenreich's book and I admire her for "walking the walk" if only for a brief time, but I think if she'd given herself a 6 months or a year, she'd have learned a few tricks, like you get brown or grey etc shoes because when they get ratty looking, you get 2 marking pens and color 'em black, done right they look really good and you get 2X the life out of them. You look for stuff being thrown out that's useful, give-aways, etc. Work in a restaurant, you'll always eat. I used to, as a kid, help my mom clean hotel rooms because the rooms had fridges in them, and the people would leave food in there. I'd get food I'd never have gotten at home, an afternoon making beds etc after school in exchange for a full stomach was a rare, good, deal. Ehrenreich cleaned houses, there's always chance to "liberate" a bite to eat, just don't take stuff the people care about. Leave the t-bone alone, clean up that bowl of leftover mac and cheese. For a place to live, there are always rooms to rent, no one I ever knew lived in a hotel, rooming houses are not a thing of the past in the US, just kind of underground.

And I've lived on $6000 a year and less, and it's not easy but it's do-able, even at our pre-Crash prices in the US. You walk, bike, or bus if it's cheap enough but often a bike is your best transportation deal. You cook at home, scrounge, don't drink or smoke, know all the libraries, and in general it's not bad. What I look back fondly on is, NO DEBT.
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ

Postby Doly » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 08:31:35

I have a number of friends living in that sort of situation (and I'm myself not too far from it). What you have to realise is that there is an enormous amout of stuff that you can get second-hand or even given to you. And there's a number of ways of getting cheap to free food. People who have lived for a while like that know the tricks. When I look around in my flat, I'm surprised at how little things I have that I have bought first-hand.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Postby I_Like_Plants » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 09:43:41

Where I grew up, there was no free food, not for whites. Where I am now, yes, you are right, there is, right now, no reason for the kind of near-starvation I saw, and was a part of, growing up. Even store-owners etc who are not white, will give to whites who are poor, something that seemed impossible. But it happens, I have seen it! There is just so much, that no one begrudges anyone much of anything, if they need it. It's amazing.

I've seen, grown up in, and survived, somehow, conditions that are a lot harder, and conditions we'll probably see again, and worse, if the shit hits the fan.
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ

Postby JoeW » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 11:00:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')h, they are creating wealth. They are helping society by increasing its net equity. The rich allow the middle class to exist. They subsidize our lifestyle, not the other way around. The rich who sit around and collect income reinvest that money and help the stock market or they spend it and help the economy. Alternatively, they could stick it in a mattress and cause deflation, which will lower the cost of goods and services for everyone else. Whatever they do with the money is good for the economy. I don't really have a problem with people who live off their invested income (the Capitalist Class).

And besides, wealth has to be created before it can be inherited. If someone is super wealthy, it means that somewhere along the lines someone in his family worked his butt off so that his children could live in affluence.

I respect that opinion, TJC, but I disagree. Not every large inheritance has a lot of hard work behind it. Lottery winners, crooks, and large legal settlements come to mind. Your love of capitalism is patriotic if you are an American, I suppose, but consider this: society wouldn't work if everyone was a capitalist. Society would work if everyone was a worker. Society requires workers. Society doesn't require individuals sitting on their ass.
I have never understood the difference between a capitalist sitting on his ass and a welfare recipient sitting on his ass. The biggest difference is that most of the capitalist's unearned income comes from the poor, while most of the welfare recipient's unearned income comes from the wealthy.
I'm not saying that capitalism is wrong. It's not about right or wrong, but rather making sure that we have a system that works and makes sense. Capitalism works great, but it results in exponential accumulation of wealth by a very few individuals (the capitalists) and there are consequences of this that can be disruptive to society as a whole. In the USA, there are tax policies and and social programs that mitigate these effects (again, I'm not making a judgment right here that these things are right or wrong).
In effect, my disagreement with your statement is that the capitalist is somehow a noble individual, or that his mere presence is somehow beneficial to society, when in fact it is not. The economy is measured by the value of goods and services produced. If you're consuming but not producing, then you're a drag on society.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair
Top

Postby Raxozanne » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 11:22:16

I have been doing a bit of research into allergies (because I am really suffering with hayfever at the moment). I discovered that before 1800 allergies were a rarity. It is a 'Western' epidemic and has increased dramatically in the past 50 years with lots of children with asthma and food allergies now. Pollution and global warming are implicated but the main culprit appears to be the high level of hygiene we live in.

Maybe humans were made to live in the 'dirt' and on the land. I suppose living in the dirt isnt synonymous with poverty but the undeveloped world doesn't suffer from allergies as we are now so maybe their lifestyle is more like man was made for.
Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Postby Ludi » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 11:25:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', ' ')The economy is measured by the value of goods and services produced.


But is the economy the measure of all things? What about the value of peoples' lives?

By what you're saying," society would work if everyone was a worker," society will never work, because not all people can or will work. And what is meant by "work" anyway? What work must they do and how hard must they work? Should everyone work as hard as everyone else, or should some people work harder? How much harder should they work? Who determines these standards?
Ludi
 
Top

Postby JoeW » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 13:24:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', ' ')The economy is measured by the value of goods and services produced.


But is the economy the measure of all things? What about the value of peoples' lives?

By what you're saying," society would work if everyone was a worker," society will never work, because not all people can or will work. And what is meant by "work" anyway? What work must they do and how hard must they work? Should everyone work as hard as everyone else, or should some people work harder? How much harder should they work? Who determines these standards?


Well, this is digging deeper than I had expected. I suppose that a system where everyone contributes in accordance with their ability to do so would make sense to a rational person. The failures of societies who have attempted to do this are well-documented (google communism), so it is not clear that such a system could ever be successful, as far as I am concerned. Capitalism is the most successful model going. I'm not suggesting that it be supplanted by some other system in the US or anywhere, because there is nothing better to replace it with.
Communism is based on the belief that people are basically good and want to contribute to society and have only their fair share of community property.
Capitalism is based on the belief that people are inherently greedy and will always do whatever it takes to maximize their personal wealth.
History speaks for itself and says much about the true nature of mankind.
To pretend that the capitalist benefits society at large is to ignore the results of capitalism in the US prior to minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair
Top

Postby Raxozanne » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 15:02:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '
')Capitalism is based on the belief that people are inherently greedy and will always do whatever it takes to maximize their personal wealth.
History speaks for itself and says much about the true nature of mankind.
To pretend that the capitalist benefits society at large is to ignore the results of capitalism in the US prior to minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc.


So man is really a smart greedy ape?
OMG why didn't God just make Elves instead......
Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Postby lorenzo » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 15:32:36

Just an oblique remark. An interesting approach to the political economy of nations is the new "science of happiness". Famous economists are beginning to approach social systems from this perspective. (See prof Richard Layard's bestselling latest work: "Happiness. Lessons from a New Science").

It won't take long before the "human development index" (a standard used by many policy makers to assess the social conditions of societies, including ultra-complex notions such as "poverty"), is replaced or accompanied by a "universal happiness index".

Many poor nations score very well. Many rich nations score terribly.
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby Tyler_JC » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 15:40:20

This thread is cornering my inner Objectivist and before I start quoting John Galt, I'm going to leave...and I'll quote Fransico instead. :razz:

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."

-Fransico's Money Speech
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Dezakin » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 15:51:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ommunism is based on the belief that people are basically good and want to contribute to society and have only their fair share of community property.

Its not quite that. Its more the belief that the state can be a fair resource management allocator, and that the economy can be effectively planned. You can't rationally be a communist if you believe that any state set up to arbitrate will be inherantly corrupt or inefficient even if you believe that people are basically good and want to contribute to society only taking their fair share.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apitalism is based on the belief that people are inherently greedy and will always do whatever it takes to maximize their personal wealth.

Well, capitalism is based on the premise that markets are efficient resource allocators assuming that people are inheritly self interested (greedy I suppose) and rational. Many economic models model the world poorly because people are behaving irrationally even if they are attempting to be self interested.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o pretend that the capitalist benefits society at large is to ignore the results of capitalism in the US prior to minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc.

Or reflexively, to pretend that it doesnt is to ignore the results of large infrastructure buildup and resource allocation that make our lives of relative wealth and prosperity possible today. One can just as easily argue that life sucked for the poor back then because everyone was poorer rather than some state decree. And then we're on the same old debate of what the role of the state is and how much power we should trust the state with, rights of minorities, role of democracy, and so on untill the heat death of the universe.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby JohnDenver » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 22:18:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', 'Y')ea, when those people sell there 3 year old kids into sexual slavery for a $50 they are only doing what their ancestors were always doing... drool drool.... fart... drool...


Like I said, "poverty" is a borderline racist concept.


Which it may be, but I won't agree with you just because you use a charged word like 'racist' into it.


The point you are making is similar to racism because you are attempting smear an entire group of people (i.e. the poor) with shallow stereotypes. Apparently, you don't believe there is anything to learn from the poor, and that is why you are disagreeing with me. We have nothing to learn from the poor, because they are all selling their 3-year-olds as sex slaves for $50, and getting kicked while they die in the streets of Bombay.

But let's think about it for a moment. The original stat posted in this thread quoted a figure of 3 billion people living in poverty today. That's half the people on the earth. It undoubtedly contains virtually all of Africa, huge swaths of the Philippines and Indonesia, Chinese peasants, the Gaza Strip, indios in the Amazon, Kalahari bushmen, and the dying undercastes of India, as well as the European Christian nuns, like Mother Theresa, who took it upon themselves to tend to those poor souls.

If you think you have nothing to learn from Africa etc., I believe it is fair to call that borderline racism. In fact, I find it astounding that you point to India, with its caste system, to show that "race doesn't really enter into the equation". Yah, maybe not race per se, but caste is a quasi-racist institution if there ever was one.

Oh, and by the way, I don't give a crap if you've ever "seen real poverty", as if that minor accomplishment gave you any credibility. We've all "seen" real poverty on television. In fact, I recently saw a Japanese TV show where they went out and lived with a family in the African country side. They were living in crappy little hovels, and drinking their morning coffee with sand and mud in it. The Africans were smiling the whole time. That's how they struck me: smiling, cheerful people.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby JohnDenver » Wed 15 Jun 2005, 22:29:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ommunism is based on the belief that people are basically good and want to contribute to society and have only their fair share of community property.

Its not quite that. Its more the belief that the state can be a fair resource management allocator, and that the economy can be effectively planned.


It's more complex than that. Even capitalist states immediately revert to a planned economy in times of war. Does that mean they are communists at heart? That they believe in the market when it suits them, but believe in the planned economy when performance really counts?

You could say the same thing about multinational corporations. They're planned, command economies. The internal resources are allocated by fiat, not by price. Imagine the U.S. as one big corporation. It would be a communist country.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby smallpoxgirl » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 01:40:51

Wow! Great thread JD! Would have never figured you and me to agree on something like this.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John Denver', 'P')overty confuses me. We're supposed to mobilize and get rid of poverty, but weren't the indians living in poverty?


I think what you are hitting at is the essential concept of indigenism.

Capitalist says "Industrial society is good. I have the money. Don't change anything."

Leftist/Communist says"Industrial society is good, but the way the goods are being split up is unfair. Some people aren't getting enough goods (i.e they are in poverty). The government should decide the distribution of goods."

Indigenist says "Things such as community integrity, ecological integrity, self sufficiency, and self-determination are more important than goods. They can't be quantified and assigned a price and thus don't get taken into consideration in an industrial society. If someone has those things, then goods are unimportant."

I saw a study one time where they looked at all the materials that the average person in a certain tribe would have hunted or gathered in a year. Berries, pelts, meat, etc. They added up what it would cost to buy those things and it came to like $60,000. The capitalist and the leftist both look at the indigenous person and say he poor because he doesn't have any money or any manufactured goods. The indigenist looks at him and see a very wealthy man.

This has been a tremendous problem with the neoliberal agenda. The neo-liberals looks at Mexico's subsistance farmers and see poverty. They don't have any money. They don't have any manufactured goods. Never mind that they have communally owned land, strong communities, and an ability to make or barter for most every thing that they need. So the neo-liberals pressure the Mexican government to break up the communal land holdings to "allow" the farmers to sell their land and make money. Combined with a drop in the price of farm goods due to NAFTA and suddenly the farmers end up selling their land to agribusiness companies. The former farmers now have no place to live, no way of feeding themselves, and no intact community to turn to. These are the people that end up in the machiadoras making Gap T-shirts for $0.10 per hour. It's only once they are forced to rely on the market economy to meet their needs that those people really become poor.

I think poverty has two meanings. In some parts of the world, poverty means lack of housing, food, or water. Working in the machiadoras is a much worse lifestyle than being a Ute with a functioning tribe. Those people are, I think, unargueably in poverty. Beyond meeting basic needs, poverty is relative. We are taught through many means, notably advertising, to value ourselves based on our possessions and consumer goods. We have so adopted this definition that we see it as cruel to deprive someone else of consumer goods. Having adopted this definition of our value as a person, we looks at those around us to try to decide how valuable we are. Someone that might seem very poor in certain parts of the US could be a king in Nigeria. In the US that person will experience poverty(the mental state) whereas in Nigeria they might be quite happy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('agni', 'T')here is nothing uplifting in poverty for a family to lose a kid because they couldn't buy a medicine worth 50 cents or where the mother has to whore herself to pay for his (a girl child might not be worth it) medicine or a person to bleed to death because they dont have money to make an emergency call

I think you're setting up an impossible standard here. Modern medicine will soak up as much money as you throw at it. Oregon had a very beautiful system for providing medical care for everyone in the state. Then a kid "needed" a transplant operation, and everyone pitched a fit because the state was "letting" the kid die. They hired a lawyer, and the whole system fell apart. Medicine is just like everything else. It is a relative need. If you live in a society where everyone has scabies, it never dawns on you to complain about them. If you live in a society where no one has scabies, you rush to the doctor when you get them. If need be, you prostitute yourself to get your child treated.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron