tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post5074200390605294838..comments2024-03-29T05:05:01.273+11:00Comments on Thinking Out Aloud: Why do the poor remain with us?Lorenzohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-16308534274658430142013-01-23T09:48:59.997+11:002013-01-23T09:48:59.997+11:00I guess Denmark doesn't exist in this world-vi...I guess Denmark doesn't exist in this world-view? <br /><br />The USA is 'off the scale' compared to the likes of Denmark with regard to any number of social pathologies. The Gini index is not fixed by some 'iron law' of economics but is to a great extent the result of the precise outcome of political antagonisms with societies. <br /><br />It is no accident that the share of wealth of the top 1% in the USA has exploded over the period in which neo-liberalism has dominated public policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-89105475478113788062012-06-27T06:18:35.557+10:002012-06-27T06:18:35.557+10:00There are some economic calculation issues there m...There are some economic calculation issues there methinks :)Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-28685923781933659892012-06-26T13:57:08.184+10:002012-06-26T13:57:08.184+10:00An interesting aspect of Star Trek is a 150 years ...An interesting aspect of Star Trek is a 150 years in the future, there is no concept of money. <br /><br />People do their jobs because they take pride in their work, satisfaction in their accomplishments, and work hard because they do not want to let down their peers or society but they receive no monetary compensation. Mises would not be a trekker.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the officers do seem to have larger quarters. <br /><br />If a crew member (few of whom ever survive a trip to the surface of planet with Kirk) has quarters that are less than 60% of the size of their officers, if that poverty by the normal definition! is that inequality, albeit at warp speed?Jim Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-56439166190461682522011-03-29T18:22:50.469+11:002011-03-29T18:22:50.469+11:00Rising inequality from a surge in incomes at the t...Rising inequality from a surge in incomes at the top end is not particularly germane to the issue of the persistence of poverty.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-26494528083421667762011-03-27T12:33:56.671+11:002011-03-27T12:33:56.671+11:00I think you missed something we live in an age whe...I think you missed something we live in an age when the distribution of wealth is unequal and getting more so. Attached is a graph of USA income distribution. Greed and corporatism is rampant - even more rampant than prior to the 1930s crash. <br />This all assumes wealth is measured by paper money. Issuance of paper is now under almost total control of a paper aristocracy that also includes Governments that benefit from money creation. <br />On the idea that failure is guaranteed by success - the more complete the success the more likely failure is guaranteed - expect even more mayhem soon!!!<br />Sorry I cannot find how to attach the graph - you will have to take my word for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-46655012885333106252011-03-07T18:18:33.119+11:002011-03-07T18:18:33.119+11:00LE: Yes, a fine piece thank you for referring me t...LE: Yes, a fine piece thank you for referring me to it.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-78136849352525049972011-03-06T11:09:01.749+11:002011-03-06T11:09:01.749+11:00Here's something by Noel Pearson which resonat...Here's something by Noel Pearson which resonates with this post: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/proof-of-welfares-multiple-failings/story-e6frg6zo-1226016136858Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-65065103435758066052011-03-05T19:53:50.804+11:002011-03-05T19:53:50.804+11:00Creating unnecessary poverty is a major reason why...Creating unnecessary poverty is a major reason why major economic downturns matter, and it is important to know what causes them. Even so, the striking thing about post Industrial Revolution economic growth in the Anglosphere is its long-term reliability (particularly, but not only, <a href="http://mercatus.org/video/deirdre-mccloskey-bourgeois-dignity" rel="nofollow">in the US</a>). The 1930s Depression was not "capitalism" taking away prosperity but bad public policy.<br /><br />The disabled was a group I did overlook, mainly because I took them rather for granted as a genuine problem case (hence the comment about "otherwise pays those who cannot be independent enough not to be poor"). Those who are not competent to look after themselves are even more so.<br /><br />On indigenous Australians, I have already <a href="http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2010/07/helmland-follies-case-study-in-how-aid.html" rel="nofollow">posted at length</a> on them, but indigenous minorities are not a general feature of Western countries (only settler societies Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US plus the Lapps as an odd case). <br /><br />Except where it comes from mental incapacity, homelessness is a creation of public policy. Otherwise, the genuine poverty you are pointing to is generally from wildly dysfunctional family dynamics (which indigenous communities are particularly prone to). The problem is, such dysfunction <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/" rel="nofollow">can be contagious</a>. And yes, a difficult policy and social issue.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-13478417356914357892011-03-05T09:07:38.521+11:002011-03-05T09:07:38.521+11:00Somehow I missed this post at the time. My grandpa...Somehow I missed this post at the time. My grandparents come from genuinely poor backgrounds. So, for example, my maternal grandmother recalls that they used to have one egg for the whole household as a treat. Her father used to get it because he was the worker. The children used to fight over who got the top off the egg. My maternal grandfather lived in a shack with a dirt floor. They used to supplement their food by fishing, prawning and looking for oysters (he still has a life-long love of seafood, which I have inherited). If one looks at how their families got into that condition, it also has a lot to do with capitalism and the Great Depression. For no fault of their own, their families were devastated by the stock market crash. So capitalism can create prosperity, but it can also take it away. <br /><br />There is still genuine poverty in Australia today (in the sense of not having enough to eat, suffering poverty induced illness, not having anywhere to live). One group in particular who suffer from this are indigenous people. Another group is the mentally ill who end up living on the streets. In the case of the former, welfare really hasn't done much to help indigenous people; arguably, despite best intentions, it has made things worse. To be honest, I really don't know what the solution is, but it has to come from within the indigenous community itself. In the case of the latter, I think there needs to be better intervention to help people with mental illness (the vast majority of those who live on the streets have a mental illness). <br /><br />With the mentally ill, I'd say that they are poor through no fault of their own - they have a condition which makes it impossible to succeed. With respect indigenous people, again, I think the poverty and cultural disconnect is a function of being colonised and having one's culture trashed in part by a vastly different culture. Perhaps the way in which many indigenous people live today would be "rich" if compared to a hunter gatherer society, but it's pretty shocking in a modern industrial society.<br /><br />I dunno, I'm just thinking out aloud about the difficulties in making generalisations. Capitalism can make people poor when it has a downswing. Welfare can entrench people in positions of dependency (indigenous people). But in other circumstances, I think it can help (eg, better provision of care for the mentally ill)Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-66919946894106751582011-01-08T19:42:47.996+11:002011-01-08T19:42:47.996+11:00My pleasure, thank you :)
As you may have gathere...My pleasure, thank you :)<br /><br />As you may have gathered, it is an area of interest and your highly intelligent empiricism is something I very much appreciate.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-60098211261005322212011-01-08T18:00:10.178+11:002011-01-08T18:00:10.178+11:00Lorenzo. This is off topic, but thanks very much f...Lorenzo. This is off topic, but thanks very much for your excellent comments on my blog. You really raised the standard of discussion.<br /><br />Cheers LeithLeith van Onselenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02398609396035352262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-84258451547269294462011-01-08T13:25:29.395+11:002011-01-08T13:25:29.395+11:00fiat-knox; you managed to get the history of the w...fiat-knox; you managed to get the history of the welfare state quite wrong: forms of it started before WWI. You seem to have no grasp of economic history: as poverty became less common it became more a public policy issue while both World Wars were, after a brief hiatus, followed by economic booms (the 1920s and the 1950s, 1960s). Your analysis of current economic problems also makes little sense: lots of very wealthy people are patently very happy to continue to invest away.<br /><br />Kay: there is something to what you say, but some people also are in genuinely difficult circumstances -- for example, the chronically ill or disabled.<br /><br />Anon: the inequality which motivates need not between rich and poor. Plenty of millionaires work away trying to become billionaires. As for the apparently omnipotent advertising companies, first many ad campaigns fail. Second, give your fellows more credit, cynicism about ads is the modern condition. People get lots of genuine enjoyment out of their gadgets and things. Also, people are living longer, doing more, etc. Things are hardly so drear as all that.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-64286950753685952952011-01-08T06:07:01.590+11:002011-01-08T06:07:01.590+11:00capitalism doesn't need the unequality between...capitalism doesn't need the unequality between rich and poor? if this would be true, where would be the motivation for the tail to get up to the head? also many wouldn't feel like being poor, if they wouldn't be raped with advertisements of goods they cannot afford at every single moment in their life, you only have to get outside (beside ads in online media) to be manipulated to feel like somethings missing in your life. 90% (just a guess) of goods human mankind is able to use at the moment would be obsolete without the existence of advertising companies or advanced psychological based manipulation called marketingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-47482728555033997522011-01-08T05:56:54.973+11:002011-01-08T05:56:54.973+11:00People are poor because they choose to be, or rath...People are poor because they choose to be, or rather, they've found a comfort zone within poverty. As long as you have a source of income, it is possible to save and work towards becoming wealthy, no matter what amount you get paid. Becoming wealthy is not about getting paid more or passing laws to improve economic conditions. It requires that a person spends less than he earns. Plan ahead and the unexpected bills won't hurt so badly. All it takes is 5%-10% per paycheck.<br /><br />But of course, media does not tell us this. It tells us to spend and spend and spend some more, because the way you are right now isn't okay. For example, do you NEED a smartphone? It makes your life easier, but it is so standard now that you rarely find people without cellphones. And it's just a convenience, not a necessity! <br /><br />People are poor because they don't know how to become wealthy and with Gov't agencies to help them out, they don't have to do the thinking. They can always go to the backup plan and take advantage of someone doing the work for them. Yay!-Krishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15832780619857737865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-57054865941848480492011-01-08T05:07:10.007+11:002011-01-08T05:07:10.007+11:00>> "In the US, if one completes high sc...>> "In the US, if one completes high school, gets and stays married, gets and stays employed (even starting at a minimum wage job) and avoids becoming involved in crime, one’s chances of staying poor are small."<br /><br />And yet even such people become poor, often through no fault of their own. Sickness might strike down a family member and treatment may eat away at the family's financial reserves. The breadwinner might get lucky and stay with a firm, only to see that firm go bankrupt when the market changes unexpectedly. Even a blessed event such as an unexpected pregnancy can still ruin a carefully-planned lifestyle, and sometimes, people just get unlucky and find themselves on the wrong side of a traffic accident, or caught in a crossfire (staying away from crime is no guarantee that crime won't come after you) and you end up with a family short its major breadwinner.<br /><br />The welfare state was invented because soldiers were coming back from two World Wars and, later, Vietnam with no chance of having a steady income in civilian life. When 99% of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1% of society and so much of the resource that "makes the world go round" has wound up in the hands of a handful of people who really have no need of much more cash beyond the first ten million, you end up in a situation where the economies of the world are getting stalled through a lack of those funds - the money is just not where it should be to keep the wheels of the free market greased and running.<br /><br />The poor are there because there are now too many around for the rich to just ignore them any more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-77795083918911793142011-01-07T14:43:26.388+11:002011-01-07T14:43:26.388+11:00Catsidhe: some of those factors are out of an indi...Catsidhe: some of those factors are out of an individual's control and some are not. See the rest of the post. And failing any of them does not guarantee poverty, it just makes it much more likely. <br /><br />Lgude: we will see how much is actually delivered. But I agree, progressive politics are losing their edge, particularly in the US where people can, for example, compare California to Texas and see what works and what does not. The looming unravelling (or, at least, serious "adjustment") of the European welfare state will have its effects too.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-7899945918002891242011-01-07T01:42:04.919+11:002011-01-07T01:42:04.919+11:00Well yes, "Good luck with that." but I d...Well yes, "Good luck with that." but I don't think the situation is entirely hopeless. As a voter in both Australia and the US I think both electorates have become quite skillful at blocking the 'progressive' agenda. In America Obama and Pelosi pushed the 'progressive' agenda and it created a massive pushback - even the partial creation of a new political party. In Australia I think it fair to say that fashionable 'progressivism' is shared by the Greens and the left of the Labor party. The handcuffing that the Australian electorate recently handed the pols was breathtaking - coming close to a hopelessly hung parliament. In the end it forced a Labor left PM to form government with not just the lone Green but with some disaffected members of Australia's most conservative major party. In my view, this was a subtle and virtuoso performance by the Australian electorate. It may not have accomplished much positive, but it sure poked some sticks into the spokes of big government (for those of you who like a horse drawn metaphor). Kidding aside I think the spectacle of 'progressives' actually getting in power and being harshly rejected by the US electorate is a sign that ordinary people are wise to the 'progressive' intelligentsia who are essentially trying to flog the threadbare remnants of the 20th century's well intentioned but failed ideas. Finding the way forward will be the part that requires the most luck. It will take nothing less than a new politics - a new way of balancing the interests of the individual and the group. And in such a way that it works both economically and socially. Not laissez faire capitalism, not socialism - even the half baked variety. Put another way many electorates understand the problem, the difficulty will be in winding back the bureaucratic sector (and their allies in both academia and in establishments like Wall St.)These are cartels which the electorates will either drive from their privileged position or rising societies like India or China will put them out of business. Although I don't think it goes far enough the Roadmap for America put forward by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is a mainstream Republican alternative gaining traction against the 'progressives' in the US. The Tea Party will require that the Republican party go further or it has a real chance of replacing it. Again I agree with the idea it will require plenty of luck, but as an American I know that the people are angry enough to actually do something. I see the Tea Party as largely made up 'small government' Republicans who are as disgusted with Bush's spending as they are with Obama's. They could be the core of a new majority that will indeed do things like eliminate entire government departments. For example, there are plenty of voters who have that attitude but who will never vote Republican - those who cling to Guns and God and voted for Hillary, not Obama, in the primaries. But the Jacksonians are an historical remnant. The Hispanics are a more hopeful group for building a new majority. In the swing state of Florida 49% of the electorate voted for Cuban American Marco Rubio running as as a Tea Party Republican who defeated the mainstream Republican governor running as an independent (30%) and a former Clinton Democratic Congressman running on the Democratic side (20%). (The governor had been the favorite for the Republican nomination but jumped ship and ran as an independent when it became clear that Rubio was going to beat him in the Republican primary) Hispanics have traditionally voted Democratic - 60% to 70%m but I think that could change too. Like almost all immigrants they do not come to America to lose. The Hispanics have strong family values and are incredibly hard workers. As the welfare state (think California) runs out of resources they may well be the decisive element in a new electoral majority.lgudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12774491337993415578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-25170856679235426142011-01-05T17:07:55.728+11:002011-01-05T17:07:55.728+11:00“In the US, if one completes high school, gets and...“<i>In the US, if one completes high school, gets and stays married, gets and stays employed (even starting at a minimum wage job) and avoids becoming involved in crime, one’s chances of staying poor are small.</i>”<br /><br />You do realise how big an ‘if’ that really is, right? And how much of it is dependant on circumstances utterly outside the control of any given individual?<br /><br />And remember, also, that that is an ‘and’ statement. If <i>any one</i> of those conditions fail (and they can fail for any number of reasons: the death of a spouse, implication in or unwitting connection to someone else's crime, outright injustice, the almost axiomatic insecurity of those same minimum wage jobs, ill health on the part of anyone in the family, &c, &c, &c), then the chances of breaking even drop to vanishingly small, let alone of getting ahead.Catsidhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07272218280125862151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-34312502902979097412011-01-05T16:25:45.149+11:002011-01-05T16:25:45.149+11:00Despisis: by checking the statistics.
Peter: corr...Despisis: by checking the statistics.<br /><br />Peter: correct, I forgot to put that caveat in, I have now.<br /><br />Venice's public health measures came from living on a group of small islands -- they were all in it together. It was also why the Serene Republic adopted the first quarantine measures.<br /><br />As to the Roman influence on the English poor laws, I doubt it. I suspect it was more a state take over of Church charity, a product of the Reformation, just as was the state take over of marriage laws.<br /><br />On underclass, these definitional fights tend to be tail-chasers where people argue past each other.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-53752449823932800152011-01-05T12:42:41.404+11:002011-01-05T12:42:41.404+11:00Lorenzo, we just finished a debate over at Catalla...Lorenzo, we just finished a debate over at Catallaxy. I argued - using data - there was no "underclass" in Austrlia. The Leftists - using no data - showed they NEED an underclass to justify their silly views.<br /><br />http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/12/28/bogan-intellectuals/#comment-146266Peter Pattonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-33176869880075279402011-01-05T10:21:07.305+11:002011-01-05T10:21:07.305+11:00Indeed, the first public welfare measures – Veneti...<i>Indeed, the first public welfare measures – Venetian public health measures, English poor law provisions – grew up in the most commercial societies in part precisely because they were the richest societies.</i><br /><br />This is not strictly true. The world's first [I think] and greatest welfare state was undoubtedly Imperial Rome from 58 BC onwards. In fact, it was the size of the Roman welfare State that eventually killed Imperial Rome. By the middle of the 2nd century AD, taxes of the wealthy had virtually obliterated the bourgeoisie. In the 3rd century AD, Rome had become an authoritarian - despotic - military socialist state. <br /><br />It would be very interesting to see how Venetian and English welfare state policies were influenced by ancient Rome. Ditto, Bismarck.Peter Pattonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-86428093430829955472011-01-04T21:22:48.026+11:002011-01-04T21:22:48.026+11:00otherwise pays those who cannot be independent eno...<i>otherwise pays those who cannot be independent enough not to be poor</i><br /><br />How do we know that the current level of poverty doesn't already reflect those who lack the capacity to be economically independent?desipisnoreply@blogger.com