Tackling the causes of poverty

Now, what news on the Rialto?
Post Reply
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by manolo »

Folks,

A UK church magazine (manna issue 12) recently published an article on tackling poverty. This was in the form of an interview with the sociologist Ruth Levitas.

The interview started with the usual question about affordability.

Levitas replies,

“There is plenty of money. The problem is who has it. The share of national income in the UK has risen for people in the top 10% since 1979 from 20% of the total to 30%. If you restored that share to 1979 levels and redistributed it, you could raise every man, woman and child out of poverty at a stroke.”

Asked what we can do, Levitas replies,

“We need to keep raising the issues and chip away at the idea that poverty results from the behaviour of the poor. We need to keep reiterating the facts and the impact of government policy.”

Can our churches help?

“Churches are enormously important. They provide a nationwide network of places and congregations, which can meet immediate, local need. But they also have the potential to exert political and moral pressure at a national level and address the causes of this present crisis.”

IMHO, the Church is wise to seek to seek the advice of professionals in this issue and to take note of such advice. Levitas has quite correctly identified the root cause of the reappearance of poverty in the UK, as set out in the first paragraph above. A change in distribution of wealth has impacted the lowest earners, and this can only be addressed by government policy in the form of more equitable distribution. The case is clear.

Anyone disagree?

Alex.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Endovelico »

For many (most) people, income should (must) be related to productivity. Your productivity is low - because of intellectual limitations or lack of skills - and you end up poor. If you want to stop being poor you must increase your productivity. The trouble is that poverty tends to be self-sustained. If you are poor you will have trouble acquiring the skills and the state of mind needed to be more productive. But if you want to pay people more than what their productivity justifies, that will be seen as unacceptable socialism and promoting laziness. Besides being unacceptable to firms which cannot pay more than what they receive from their workers.

A way out might be providing free housing, health care and education to poorer people, so that their low income wouldn't impair their chances of acquiring the skills needed to become more productive, and allow them to use their limited income to feed themselves properly and not be in constant fear. Intellectual shortcomings would still keep some people in relative poverty, but a non-life threatening sort of poverty.
Simple Minded

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Simple Minded »

Kudos Alex for recognizing that face-to-face interaction is the only effective way to help people.

Lets ignore for the moment that huge programs are often money laundering/political payoff schemes or rife with corruption and fraud.

Only organizations/individuals with limited resources attempt to properly manage those resources. ie: Once Fred proves that he will spend the cash you give him on drugs and porn, you don't waste your cash on Fred, you give him groceries. He may choose to trade the groceries for drugs & porn, but at least he has to work harder to do so. At some point you may cut Fred out of the program in order to give those resources to Sarah who is not hell-bent on destroying herself or her children. On the federal level, proper management of limited resources is easily demonized as ______ism for political ends.

"God helps those who help themselves."

On the institutional/national level, lack of personal knowledge of the recipients, makes it a real challenge is to help people without providing perverse incentives that make self-destruction lucrative. Check out Theodore Dalrymple. Human nature is ubiquitous.

Not sure what the labels are on your side of the pond, but you do realize that in America, you would be labeled a right wing extremist, don't you?

Ignoring the label, helping the destitute still feels good though doesn't it? Selfishness is often a virtue....

After a while, the label itself becomes a badge of honor.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote: On the institutional/national level, lack of personal knowledge of the recipients, makes it a real challenge is to help people without providing perverse incentives that make self-destruction lucrative. Check out Theodore Dalrymple. Human nature is ubiquitous.
SM,

The main point Levitas is making is that 'personal knowledge of the recipients' is irrelevant to the root cause of poverty. The structural change in wealth has changed numbers at a macro level. The top 10% now take 30% of wealth as against 20% back in the late 70s.

That 10% of the nation's wealth could (as she says) sort the problem immediately. Of course the poorest people have always been the ones at the bottom of the heap, by definition, but Levitas is saying that the bottom of the heap doesn't have to be as bad as it is now.

There are some folks who claim that the bottom of the heap has to be bad, to make the losers fight their way out. It doesn't work like that and it never has. OK, a few hard asses can kick their way out, but the vast majority of decent hard working poor folks will stay that way because of the system of structural inequality in capitalism. You can't cheat the house.

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Tackling poverty? Get rid of left wing economic policies.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Endovelico »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Tackling poverty? Get rid of left wing economic policies.
Would unbridled capitalism solve poverty? Maybe for the survivors once all "incapable" people had died of starvation...
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Enki »

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
Nonsense.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Endovelico wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:Tackling poverty? Get rid of left wing economic policies.
Would unbridled capitalism solve poverty? Maybe for the survivors once all "incapable" people had died of starvation...
Dead from leftism by starvation: 50-100 million
Dead from capitalism by starvation: Can't really find a number, it is so small.

I'll take the capitalist solution 100 times out of 100.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

Enki wrote:
Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
Nonsense.
Support your statement. Do you think people are endowed with equal intelligence and ability? Or do you think that differences exist but that they do not lead to greater accumulation of wealth by the stronger and more clever?
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

The Poor Are a Principal Part of the Problem of Poverty.

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:Folks,

A UK church magazine (manna issue 12) recently published an article on tackling poverty. This was in the form of an interview with the sociologist Ruth Levitas.

The interview started with the usual question about affordability.

Levitas replies,

“There is plenty of money. The problem is who has it. The share of national income in the UK has risen for people in the top 10% since 1979 from 20% of the total to 30%. If you restored that share to 1979 levels and redistributed it, you could raise every man, woman and child out of poverty at a stroke.”

Asked what we can do, Levitas replies,

“We need to keep raising the issues and chip away at the idea that poverty results from the behaviour of the poor. We need to keep reiterating the facts and the impact of government policy.”

Can our churches help?

“Churches are enormously important. They provide a nationwide network of places and congregations, which can meet immediate, local need. But they also have the potential to exert political and moral pressure at a national level and address the causes of this present crisis.”

IMHO, the Church is wise to seek to seek the advice of professionals in this issue and to take note of such advice. Levitas has quite correctly identified the root cause of the reappearance of poverty in the UK, as set out in the first paragraph above. A change in distribution of wealth has impacted the lowest earners, and this can only be addressed by government policy in the form of more equitable distribution. The case is clear.

Anyone disagree?

Alex.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo.

Anyone disagree?
Yes..........

To a degree...........

And about degrees.........*

“We need to keep raising the issues and chip away at the idea that poverty results from the behaviour of the poor.
The behavior of the poor (past, present and future) is VERY much a LARGE PART of the reason that the problem of poverty exists......

At least here in Uz........

And it is IMVHO usually the part of the problem that the poor have the most power to change.......

Can be things as simple as being there on time and not doing drugs which will damage you physically or legally and keep you from passing the drug test for that job you need....

And making yourself presentable and REALLY looking for a job instead of spending all of your time on the internet and staying on disability: Clan member recently deceased :roll:


The poor may not have the power to set trade, immigration or banking policy but they should have the ability to say no to buying a house or other things they know they cannot afford.......

One thing that some churches do is to offer courses in financial responsibility such as Crown's or Dave Ramsey's: The gist is save, budget and don't get in debt. And yes, giving to the Church is part too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Ramsey


This is not to say that the Poor are solely responsible for poverty.........


Misfortune can play a large role even if one tries to prepare as happened to Job in Uz.............

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et2701.htm

Still best to prepare.......


And IMHO Banksters, the FIRE economy and our mis-leaders in Washington currently play a large role too..........

But so do we as a majority or at least a plurality of us elected the mis-leaders.


Another job of the churches is to improve the level of morality among our leaders and us generally.....


*Dave Ramsey recently did a rant on his radio show about useless/personally destructive degrees..........

3FKPvRhX3Lg
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by manolo »

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
Juggernaut,

I tend to agree with you. The intelligence and ability to get money out of other people has always been part of enrichment and impoverishment. People are divided by how far they are prepared to go, and how clever they are, in screwing others for money. As W.C Field's said "Never give a sucker an even break." This is a well trodden path to enrichment for some and impoverishment for others.

There is an old country song, 'Long Corn Dodger' which sums up the game nicely.

http://web.lyon.edu/wolfcollection/song ... g1246.html

The right in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the left and are silent on their own kind. The left in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the right and are silent on their own kind. Others say that they are all dodgers.

In the song there are no exceptions, but I have met exceptions to the rule from time to time and in different walks of life. I wouldn't want to live in a world in which there were only dodgers, and I believe I don't.

Alex.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Socializing Semi-Feral Chaos Monkeys & Kittens

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:
Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
Juggernaut,

I tend to agree with you. The intelligence and ability to get money out of other people has always been part of enrichment and impoverishment. People are divided by how far they are prepared to go, and how clever they are, in screwing others for money. As W.C Field's said "Never give a sucker an even break." This is a well trodden path to enrichment for some and impoverishment for others.

There is an old country song, 'Long Corn Dodger' which sums up the game nicely.

http://web.lyon.edu/wolfcollection/song ... g1246.html

The right in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the left and are silent on their own kind. The left in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the right and are silent on their own kind. Others say that they are all dodgers.

In the song there are no exceptions, but I have met exceptions to the rule from time to time and in different walks of life. I wouldn't want to live in a world in which there were only dodgers, and I believe I don't.

Alex.
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Alex.
In the song there are no exceptions, but I have met exceptions to the rule from time to time and in different walks of life. I wouldn't want to live in a world in which there were only dodgers, and I believe I don't.
I agree....

IMVHO we are pretty near all at base Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys in our own peculiar ways...

But G_d & Christ can change that as even a Chaos Monkey like me can similarly sometimes socialize ;) a feral kitten into a friendly house cat...


The Jews contend that there are at least 36 righteous men & women for whose sake He does not terminate the experiment called the Earth....*

There is some basis for that idea..... Sodom & Gomorrah for example lacked sufficient righteous.....

But that doesn't mean that most of us including me aren't still Chaos Monkeys contending against our semi-feral nature and still can sin.....

Mostly IMVHO that G_d loves us...... And is willing to work with us to tame the feral.......



*I am NOT one of them....
Last edited by monster_gardener on Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

manolo wrote:
Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The cause of poverty is the unequal endowment of intelligence and ability among men. You cannot 'tackle the cause' of that, you can only try to mitigate its consequences.
Juggernaut,

I tend to agree with you. The intelligence and ability to get money out of other people has always been part of enrichment and impoverishment. People are divided by how far they are prepared to go, and how clever they are, in screwing others for money. As W.C Field's said "Never give a sucker an even break." This is a well trodden path to enrichment for some and impoverishment for others.

There is an old country song, 'Long Corn Dodger' which sums up the game nicely.

http://web.lyon.edu/wolfcollection/song ... g1246.html

The right in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the left and are silent on their own kind. The left in politics will claim that the worst dodgers are to be found on the right and are silent on their own kind. Others say that they are all dodgers.

In the song there are no exceptions, but I have met exceptions to the rule from time to time and in different walks of life. I wouldn't want to live in a world in which there were only dodgers, and I believe I don't.

Alex.
No one screws anyone out of more money than gov't.
Censorship isn't necessary
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote: No one screws anyone out of more money than gov't.
Mr P,

I have paid my National Insurance over the years and appreciated the returns now and then. About six years ago I had some very serious ill health and since then have enjoyed top notch NHS medical services, and that is ongoing. I wouldn't like to add up the costs of my health care over these years but it exceeds my total insurance payments many times over. Of course, I could afford private health care if I fancied it, but for poorer folks this is not an option.

Would I have resented my premiums going to fund a poorer person's health needs? No.

When paying our taxes I think we need to be cognizant of what we (and others) are getting for the money, what comes back into the household and local communities. Taxes/services are a two way thing IMHO, and some people do forget that.

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Your country is going bankrupt, and you can't blame tax cuts for the rich or military spending so what do you think was the cause;

We have national care here called medicare for retirees. Recently a gentleman I go to church with, a retiree, had a $400,000 open heart surgery. His lifetime input was probably I don't know, not even $50,000. Maybe half that, I don't know.

So 50,000 in, 400,000 out, and he's just getting started. Think about that for a moment.

My thoughts, 1) this is what the kids call a "Ponzi/e scheme" and 2) this is a recipe for insolvency since we will have a worsening retiree/worker ratio going forward. In fact, Obama even said Medicare was bankrupt and cut 3/4 of a trillion dollars from it during Obamacare, guaranteeing an early grave for millions of people.

So what is the morality of a program that forces people to be dependent on that program, and then the government forces it into insolvency, so regardless of what you put in you won't be able to draw a dime out? What kind of morality is that?

I just don't have the cruelty to be a leftist, sorry.

As for your insurance, I've had nothing but positive experiences with private hc, and if you want to increase subsidy to the poor you can do that without single payer. But I don't think anyone is actually concerned about the poor or they would point that out.

You will find polls overwhelmingly where Americans want to keep their private insurance, even liberal Democrats.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Endovelico »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Recently a gentleman I go to church with, a retiree, had a $400,000 open heart surgery. His lifetime input was probably I don't know, not even $50,000. Maybe half that, I don't know.
A $400,000 open heart surgery? I wonder what justifies such price. The use of the facilities? The equipment? Materials used during surgery? The surgeon's skills? Time taken by the operation team (how many doctors and nurses)?... The real costs of such surgery, including amortization of medical education and liability insurance, might not even reach one tenth of that. In Cuba they may do it for 1% of that amount. Drawing conclusions from such a preposterous situation is not right. Start paying people the real value of their inputs, and health costs will come down very significantly.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

The government prevents that from happening. The government is the problem.

Edit, to be clear, it was for total cost, meaning all precare, the surgery, and post care. But AFAIK there was nothing out of the ordinary regarding the whole of his case.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Endovelico »

From a newsletter by one of my favourite analysts (John Mauldin):
Image

...President Obama appears to be extremely reluctant to name Janet Yellen as Ben Bernanke's replacement. The longer he delays, the greater is the chance that he could surprise markets with a different choice for the most powerful non-military job in the world. Even after the withdrawal of Larry Summers from consideration for the position, Mr. Obama seems in no hurry to announce his choice. I believe there is an explanation for this that has not been discussed in the media. One of Mr. Obama's major economic policy goals is to address the growing gap between rich and poor in America. While some would like to leave this issue to the free market to solve, the reality is that growing wealth disparities are evidence of the fact that the market is anything but "free" and that both monetary and fiscal (primarily tax) policy are heavily weighted in favor of those who own and control capital. Under Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve, the wealth disparity has grown at a record pace largely as a result of policies that were adopted during the depths of the financial crisis to rescue the financial system from collapse. These policies necessarily involved bailing out the banks and other large financial interests. But they have been kept in place far too long and have disproportionately benefited owners of financial assets and those able to borrow money at record low interest rates. The latest evidence of the effect of these policies is found in a study by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. Professor Saez analyzed recent IRS data and discovered that the incomes of the top 1% of Americans rose by 19.6% in 2012 while the income of the bottom 99% grew by only 1%. The result is that the top 1% accounted for 19.3% of total household income in 2012, their highest share since 1928. If capital gains are included, the top one percent's income share has risen from 18.1% in 2009 to 22.5% in 2012. The 1%/99% is not just a political caricature; it is a social and economic reality...

(my bold)
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Tackling the causes of poverty

Post by Mr. Perfect »

...President Obama appears to be extremely reluctant to name Janet Yellen as Ben Bernanke's replacement. The longer he delays, the greater is the chance that he could surprise markets with a different choice for the most powerful non-military job in the world. Even after the withdrawal of Larry Summers from consideration for the position, Mr. Obama seems in no hurry to announce his choice. I believe there is an explanation for this that has not been discussed in the media. One of Mr. Obama's major economic policy goals is to address the growing gap between rich and poor in America.
Derr, Mr. Obama created the disparity, why would he want to fix it. His goal was to create it.
While some would like to leave this issue to the free market to solve, the reality is that growing wealth disparities are evidence of the fact that the market is anything but "free" and that both monetary and fiscal (primarily tax) policy are heavily weighted in favor of those who own and control capital. Under Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve, the wealth disparity has grown at a record pace largely as a result of policies that were adopted during the depths of the financial crisis to rescue the financial system from collapse. These policies necessarily involved bailing out the banks and other large financial interests.
Necessarily? This guys is just another tool of the establishment.
But they have been kept in place far too long and have disproportionately benefited owners of financial assets and those able to borrow money at record low interest rates. The latest evidence of the effect of these policies is found in a study by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. Professor Saez analyzed recent IRS data and discovered that the incomes of the top 1% of Americans rose by 19.6% in 2012 while the income of the bottom 99% grew by only 1%. The result is that the top 1% accounted for 19.3% of total household income in 2012, their highest share since 1928. If capital gains are included, the top one percent's income share has risen from 18.1% in 2009 to 22.5% in 2012. The 1%/99% is not just a political caricature; it is a social and economic reality...

(my bold)
[/quote]
The natural result of electing leftists and Democrats.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply