How Manly Men Can Fight Poverty

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266522980' post='2058882']However, everyone becoming materially poorer in itself will do nothing to fight poverty.[/quote]
I disagree. Poverty is about "haves" and "have nots." Once we stop trying to become the "haves," then we will start looking for practical ways to ensure that everyone has what they need to live. This would not mean that we have to stop having possessions, but it would mean that we have to radically change how we relate to our possessions. For example, a house can be something that you treat as "yours" apart from the rest of society, or it can be something that you own precisely so that you can serve as host in showing hospitality to the stranger at your door. As I said, a society/economy based on poverty does not require us to give up all possessions (though simplicity is vital), but it does require us to radically change how we relate to our possessions.

[quote]Wealth is not a static thing in need of being "fairly" re-distributed, but is created through human labor and ingenuity. When people are able to succeed and create more wealth, everybody is better off. More jobs and opportunity are created, which helps people out of poverty. It's the rich who create jobs for others.[/quote]
What I am questioning is the very idea that "wealth" is what we should be seeking. Wealth works if you're trying it build an empire. But I am not interested in living in a society that is based on becoming the wealthiest and most powerful. In order to truly address poverty as a socioeconomic problem, we have to change our basic socioeconomic principles and structures.

[quote]The truth is that a free market system does in fact create more wealth for people and allows people to rise out of poverty. The most effective thing to help people in countries facing chronic poverty is to create opportunities for people to rise out of poverty. It's the whole "teach a man to fish" principle.
If the social-economic and structures and corrupt politics of a country leave much of its people in destitution and starving, it's good to work to change these things.
[/quote]
I'm more concerned about the so-called "first world" than I am about the so-called "third world." The "third world" at least still has vestiges of traditional cultures of subsistence. We in the first world have completely lost traditional principles of subsistence. We are all about endlessly producing and consuming and generating wealth. Our society is good at creating wealth precisely because we are good at turning products into "needs" (even though they are not really needs) and getting people to consume those supposed "needs." The so-called "first world" wants to re-make the so-called "third world" so that the "third world" values wealth, production, and consumption. But I certainly do not want to make the "third world" more like the "first world." I hope that the third world can avoid (and perhaps even save us from) our mistakes.

I am questioning the very idea that "rising out of poverty" is a good thing. Rising out of destitution is certainly good. But I do not support the first world ideology where wealth, production, and consumption are the driving forces. I believe that we need to build entirely new socioeconomic structures, and that would require us first to value "living" rather than "having."

Certainly, an economy based on poverty would not work in our current socioeconomic structures. That is why poverty must begin in our personal lives. Once we as individuals cease to value wealth, production, and consumption, then we can begin to build new structures that are based on poverty rather than on wealth, that are based on "living" rather than on "having." But until we change our personal lives, then we cannot change socioeconomic structures. Once we change our personal lives, then society and economy can be re-envisioned so as to truly address poverty.

[princessgianna]

Hmm interesting article though since I am not a guy I guess I can't do much to help! So sorry!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='18 February 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1266531858' post='2058974']
I disagree. Poverty is about "haves" and "have nots." Once we stop trying to become the "haves," then we will start looking for practical ways to ensure that everyone has what they need to live. This would not mean that we have to stop having possessions, but it does mean that we have to radically change how we relate to our possessions. For example, a house can be something that you treat as "yours" apart from the rest of society, but it can also be something that you own precisely so that you can serve as host in showing hospitality to the stranger at your door. As I said, a society/economy based on poverty does not require us to give up all possessions (though simplicity is vital), but it does require us to radically change how we relate to our possessions.[/quote]
The best way to help the "have nots" become "haves" is to a) have a system which has economic opportunity which ensures private property rights and economic freedom and b)teach and encourage hard work, thrift, and smart investment.
Many of the most materially successful people in our country through its history started off with next to nothing, often as penniless immigrants, but through hard work, thrift, and smart investments were able to become wealthy. They weren't rich because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
Likewise, the richest nations aren't necessarily those possessing the most natural resources, but those that have the most economic freedom. For instance, Hong Kong has the freest economy and among the highest standards of living in the world, yet has virtually no natural resources.

I honestly have no clue what an "economy based on poverty" would be (other than impoverished), but there needs to be an incentive to create and build wealth if we really want to improve the lot of those suffering from real poverty - to help the "have nots" become "haves."
I agree that charity is a wonderful thing, but I don't think that will be accomplished by changing the economic structure and impoverishing society. If everyone in a society is materially poor, there will be no way for them to help the truly destitute. For instance, if you can't afford a home, you can't provide shelter for the homeless. If you barely have enough to feed your own family, you can't afford to feed the hungry.
It's the "haves" who are actually able to help the "have-nots," whether by providing jobs, knowledge, or by charitable giving.
If you don't first have something, you won't be able to give.

[quote]What I am questioning is the very idea that "wealth" is what we should be seeking. Wealth works if you're trying it build an empire. But I am not interested in living in a society that is based on becoming the wealthiest and most powerful. In order to truly address poverty as a socioeconomic problem, we have to change our basic socioeconomic principles and structures.
[/quote]
As I said, in order to lift people out of poverty, there needs to be wealth, and the opportunity and incentive to build it.
If you want to keep people in poverty, then sure, create a society where no one can gain wealth. Life in such societies is usually not pretty.

[quote]I'm more concerned about the so-called "first world" than I am about the so-called "third world." The "third world" at least still has vestiges of traditional cultures of subsistence. We in the first world have completely lost traditional principles of subsistence. We are all about endlessly producing and consuming and generating wealth. Our society is good at creating wealth precisely because we are good at turning products into "needs" (even though they are not really needs) and getting people to consume those supposed "needs." The so-called "first world" wants to re-make the so-called "third world" so that the "third world" values wealth, production, and consumption. But I certainly do not want to make the "third world" more like the "first world." I hope that the third world can avoid (and perhaps even save us from) our mistakes.

I am questioning the very idea that "rising out of poverty" is a good thing. Rising out of destitution is certainly good. But I do not support the first world ideology where wealth, production, and consumption are the driving forces. I believe that we need to build entirely new socioeconomic structures, and that requires us first to value "living" rather than "having."

Certainly, an economy based on poverty would not work in our current socioeconomic structures. That is why poverty must begin in our personal lives. Once we as individuals cease to value wealth, production, and consumption, then we can begin to build new structures that are based on poverty rather than on wealth, that are based on "living" rather than on "having." But until we change our personal lives, then we cannot change socioeconomic structures. Once we change our personal lives, then society and economy can be re-envisioned so as to truly address poverty.
[/quote]
In countries with a thriving economy, and a surplus of material wealth (such as "first world" countries) very few people starve to death.
In countries with bad economic systems and no surplus of wealth, the poor face starvation. That's the reality in many third-world nations, and the poor in such countries are often dependent on the charity of rich "first world" nations to help them out.

Living in a subsistence economy means people have just enough to subsist on. In places where people actually do live at a subsistence level, if the crops are bad that year, if there is a drought or a flood or a blight, people literally go hungry.
This rarely happens in wealthy countries where people have a surplus of material goods.

Wealth, production, and consumption are driving forces behind a healthy economy, in which there are plenty of goods to go around. No, they shouldn't be the ultimate end of our lives, but you can't have economic well-being without them. Just as eating and drinking shouldn't be the ultimate end of our lives, but producing and consuming food and water is necessary for the physical health and well-being of our bodies.

If you have an "economy based on poverty," you'll simply have poverty. Real poverty, with babies dying of starvation, beggars living on the street rotting with leprosy, unchecked disease, and fathers forced to sell their daughters into prostitution to keep afloat.
Romanticize it if you must, but such things are the ugly reality in impoverished third-world countries with subsistence economies.

Giving people economic freedom and opportunity is the best way to help them out of poverty, and this has lately greatly raised the living standards of countless people in India and other countries rising from third-world status. I doubt any of them have any wish to return to a subsistence economy based on poverty.

More true charity and "poverty of spirit" is needed, but not a change to some subsistence economic structure which does not allow the creation of wealth.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1266545201' post='2059096']I agree that charity is a wonderful thing, but I don't think that will be accomplished by changing the economic structure and impoverishing society. If everyone in a society is materially poor, there will be no way for them to help the truly destitute. For instance, if you can't afford a home, you can't provide shelter for the homeless. If you barely have enough to feed your own family, you can't afford to feed the hungry.
It's the "haves" who are actually able to help the "have-nots," whether by providing jobs, knowledge, or by charitable giving.
If you don't first have something, you won't be able to give.[/quote]
Just to be clear, I am not talking about charity. Charity cannot change socioeconomic structures. I am all for charity, but true charity is about personal relationships, not about socioeconomic structures. Feeding a homeless man is a great and holy thing, but it is not going to solve poverty as a socioeconomic problem, and it's not meant to.

Also, I agree with you that we have to "have" things. As I said, poverty (in the sense that I am using it) does not mean a renunciation of possessions. But two of the main problems in our society are 1) That we desire to have more than we need, and 2) We see "having" as something that is absolutely private, and we create a duality between "private" and "public." We have lost any sense of "having" which is both private and public. For example, in ancient societies, hospitality was not merely an act of generosity, it was seen an obligation. A person who had land had an obligation to welcome the stranger who was without land. A person could not show hospitality without having a home, and yet this "having" was not an individualistic possession, because "having" implied responsibilities with what they had. These ancient societies were not Socialist. There wasn't a government forcing people to share their homes; the duty for hospitality was based on basic socioeconomic principles. Land was necessary for subsistence; hence, those who had land had an obligation to open up their home/community to the stranger who was without land.

This example of ancient hospitality illustrates my point about the need to change our basic socioeconomic principles. Once you establish your principles (e.g., based on subsistent poverty, community, etc.), then your socioeconomic structures will be built based on those principles. Our current socioeconomic structures are based on our current socioeconomic principles (e.g., endless production and consumption). We have to change our basic socioeconomic principles in order to re-envision society/economy in a way that creates a sustainable society and that truly addresses poverty.

[quote]If you have an "economy based on poverty," you'll simply have poverty. Real poverty, with babies dying of starvation, beggars living on the street rotting with leprosy, unchecked disease, and fathers forced to sell their daughters into prostitution to keep afloat.
Romanticize it if you must, but such things are the ugly reality in impoverished third-world countries with subsistence economies.[/quote]
You are assuming that an economy based on poverty would operate in today's socioeconomic structures. The whole point is that society needs NEW socioeconomic structures in order to truly address poverty.

[quote]Giving people economic freedom and opportunity is the best way to help them out of poverty, and this has lately greatly raised the living standards of countless people in India and other countries rising from third-world status. I doubt any of them have any wish to return to a subsistence economy based on poverty.[/quote]
So long as freedom is understood in "first world" terms, where freedom means endless production and consumption, then the real problem is not going to be solved. I don't care about countries "rising from third-world status" because I reject the idea that the answer to these countries' problems is to re-make them in the image of the so-called "first world." I reject the very idea of there being a "first world" and a "third world," because this suggests that the "first world" is somehow a model for other countries to follow. The so-called "first world" is too wealthy and too powerful to see its own mistakes for what they are, and the so-called "third world" is in the process of repeating these mistakes because they want to be like the so-called "first world."

[quote]More true charity and "poverty of spirit" is needed, but not a change to some subsistence economic structure which does not allow the creation of wealth.[/quote]
What I am talking about is not about "allowing" or "not allowing" anything. Voluntary poverty must be a personal choice. Once we begin to hold subsistent poverty as a socioeconomic principle, then our socioeconomic structures will be re-envisioned so as to be in line with the desire to "live" rather than to "have."

The "first world" wants to re-make the "third world" in its socioeconomic image, but I contend that this will only ensure that both the "first world" and the "third world" go hand-in-hand to destruction.

The "first world" is being consumed by its wealth, because the socioeconomic structures of the "first world" are based on endless production and consumption (at the root of which is greed, materialism, etc.). Unless there is a radical change in the "first world's" socioeconomic principles, the future will not be pretty. Fast-food restaurants are a useful example of the "first world" socioeconomic structures. Fast-food restaurants provide the things that you mention: wealth, jobs, etc. But fast-food restaurants serve a culture very different from a subsistent culture. Look at the culture that makes us such voracious consumers of fast-food restaurants: we are a culture where families no longer eat together, we are morbidly obese, we are zombies who consume things based on the power that brand-names and advertising hold over us, etc.

So, yes, our fast-food restaurants provide jobs and help generate wealth. But the society that undergirds fast-food restaurants is not sustainable. Fast-food restaurants are just one example of how our socioeconomic structures are going to kill us (whether by the breakdown of the family or by plain old heart attacks). It's so sad to me to see American fast-food restaurants in Central America. It goes to show how "third world" countries are slowly being re-made in the image of the "first world." This "first world" way of life will destroy the "third world" just as it is destroying the "first world," unless we change before it's too late.

When I speak of a culture of subsistence, I do not mean a return to some idyllic past. I mean a socioeconomic culture where things like poverty (i.e., simplicity), restraint, community, etc. are the foundations of society. What form would such a society take? I don't know. I'm not trying to plan some utopian society; it would be up to us to figure out new socioeconomic structures when the time comes; there are many possible solutions. But we have to re-envision society based on principles other than endless production, consumption, and wealth. I do believe strongly that our current society is unsustainable, and we are headed for disaster unless we change our socioeconomic principles and our socioeconomic structures.

Henry David Thoreau relates an interesting story in "Walden," which I think illustrates much of what I'm discussing (though I am wary of Thoreau's individualism):

[quote]Meanwhile my host told me his story, how hard he worked "bogging" for a neighboring farmer, turning up a meadow with a spade or bog hoe at the rate of ten dollars an acre and the use of the land with manure for one year, and his little broad-faced son worked cheerfully at his father's side the while, not knowing how poor a bargain the latter had made. I tried to help him with my experience, telling him that he was one of my nearest neighbors, and that I too, who came a-fishing here, and looked like a loafer, was getting my living like himself; that I lived in a tight, light, and clean house, which hardly cost more than the annual rent of such a ruin as his commonly amounts to; and how, if he chose, he might in a month or two build himself a palace of his own; that I did not use tea, nor coffee, nor butter, nor milk, nor fresh meat, and so did not have to work to get them; again, as I did not work hard, I did not have to eat hard, and it cost me but a trifle for my food; but as he began with tea, and coffee, and butter, and milk, and beef, he had to work hard to pay for them, and when he had worked hard he had to eat hard again to repair the waste of his system - and so it was as broad as it was long, indeed it was broader than it was long, for he was discontented and wasted his life into the bargain; and yet he had rated it as a gain in coming to America, that here you could get tea, and coffee, and meat every day. But the only true America is that country where you are at liberty to pursue such a mode of life as may enable you to do without these, and where the state does not endeavor to compel you to sustain the slavery and war and other superfluous expenses which directly or indirectly result from the use of such things. For I purposely talked to him as if he were a philosopher, or desired to be one. I should be glad if all the meadows on the earth were left in a wild state, if that were the consequence of men's beginning to redeem themselves. A man will not need to study history to find out what is best for his own culture. But alas! the culture of an Irishman is an enterprise to be undertaken with a sort of moral bog hoe. I told him, that as he worked so hard at bogging, he required thick boots and stout clothing, which yet were soon soiled and worn out, but I wore light shoes and thin clothing, which cost not half so much, though he might think that I was dressed like a gentleman (which, however, was not the case), and in an hour or two, without labor, but as a recreation, I could, if I wished, catch as many fish as I should want for two days, or earn enough money to support me a week. If he and his family would live simply, they might all go a-huckleberrying in the summer for their amusement. John heaved a sigh at this, and his wife stared with arms a-kimbo, and both appeared to be wondering if they had capital enough to begin such a course with, or arithmetic enough to carry it through. It was sailing by dead reckoning to them, and they saw not clearly how to make their port so; therefore I suppose they still take life bravely, after their fashion, face to face, giving it tooth and nail, not having skill to split its massive columns with any fine entering wedge, and rout it in detail;- thinking to deal with it roughly, as one should handle a thistle. But they fight at an overwhelming disadvantage- living, John Field, alas! without arithmetic, and failing so.

...

Let the thunder rumble; what if it threaten ruin to farmers' crops? that is not its errand to thee. Take shelter under the cloud, while they flee to carts and sheds. Let not to get a living be thy trade, but thy sport. Enjoy the land, but own it not. Through want of enterprise and faith men are where they are, buying and selling, and spending their lives like serfs.

...

Before I had reached the pond some fresh impulse had brought out John Field, with altered mind, letting go "bogging" ere this sunset. But he, poor man, disturbed only a couple of fins while I was catching a fair string, and he said it was his luck; but when we changed seats in the boat luck changed seats too. Poor John Field!- I trust he does not read this, unless he will improve by it- thinking to live by some derivative old-country mode in this primitive new country- to catch perch with shiners. It is good bait sometimes, I allow. With his horizon all his own, yet he a poor man, born to be poor, with his inherited Irish poverty or poor life, his Adam's grandmother and boggy ways, not to rise in this world, he nor his posterity, till their wading webbed bog-trotting feet get talaria to their heels.[/quote]

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='17 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1266448386' post='2058525']
I saw this article and thought it would be appropriate since Lent is a season for almsgiving.


[/quote]

Some good suggestions there. Thanks for the article. You'll get my plus vote for the day, Rexi as soon as I have one.

S.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Skinzo