The institutionlalisation of povrety.

[danyboy27]

This is a little fallow-up on that Anti-poor rant that is going on in the recent Topic kapitalist created.

It might look like the poor in the first world are ''better off'' than the rest of the world, but this is just a smoke and mirror game.

What happen right now in north america and europe is nothing more, nothing less than the institutionalisation of povrety for the purpose of control.

Dole money, food stamp, public housing,debt aldn loan regulations those things are leverages, attempt to control the poor and make povrety less inpredictible to avoid stuff like the riots of the 20s when masses of destitute people would just fucking loot and burn rich people houses and try to lynch them on the street.

Poor peoples today are either owned by the state trought benefits(do what we say or we cut your lifeline) or owned by banks and corporation trought loan they will never be able to repay, condemning them to do a menial job to pay the minimum fee forever.

Poor people today have been institutionlaized into pretty much the same kind of institutions slave and debt peons where put into in Various ancient civilisations

[RGacky3]

And conservatives would rather have them be owned by Churches through "charity".

[RedGrunt]

I fully agree, capitalism has learned to incorporate welfare and options for the poor and misfortuned to appease or sedate them, another opium of the masses.



I find the poor-houses of the anglo and american societies very insightful into the capitalist system.

[danyboy27]

I fully agree, capitalism has learned to incorporate welfare and options for the poor and misfortuned to appease or sedate them, another opium of the masses.
I find the poor-houses of the anglo and american societies very insightful into the capitalist system.

The goal is not about apeasing the poor, but to keep them in line.
unemployement benefit are usually barely enough to live on, constantly remember you who is the boss, who you must listen if you want to keep on eating and being fed.
Minimum debt fee are more or less based on the same principe; they will take money out of your paycheck, just enough so you can keep on living and pay your debt, a constant reminder of who is your real master.

Bankruptcy laws are a good deterrent for poor people to keep paying their endless debt, beccause the prospect of not being able to borrow money ever again for someone who need to borrow money to pay the rent and electricity is almost a death sentence.

[piet11111]

England's response to the london riots and the consequences for the people arrested is very telling about the future they are planning for the people world-wide.

[RedGrunt]

The goal is not about apeasing the poor, but to keep them in line.
unemployement benefit are usually barely enough to live on, constantly remember you who is the boss, who you must listen if you want to keep on eating and being fed.
Minimum debt fee are more or less based on the same principe; they will take money out of your paycheck, just enough so you can keep on living and pay your debt, a constant reminder of who is your real master.

Bankruptcy laws are a good deterrent for poor people to keep paying their endless debt, beccause the prospect of not being able to borrow money ever again for someone who need to borrow money to pay the rent and electricity is almost a death sentence.

I definitely agree. I used the word appeasement because I was viewing it as a way to stop the poor from being as rebellious due to the fact that they wouldn't even be able to live without such welfare. But it suits the interests of capitalism to have them continue living while also being directly subjugated to the system for mere existence which your post makes clear. I was viewing it very narrowly.

[danyboy27]

England's response to the london riots and the consequences for the people arrested is very telling about the future they are planning for the people world-wide.

they want to take their benefit away, is that right?

A good way to make an exemple and show to the other ''serfs'' of the new world economy to shut up and remain loyal to their masters.

[Judicator]

So now if you deny the poor money to encourage work, you're heartless, and if you give them money, you're "institutionalizing poverty."

Tell a starving third world child that the food a morbidly obese poor person in the US eats is just "smoke and mirrors." If only it were...then we wouldn't be spending $500bil/year on diabetes.

[RGacky3]

So now if you deny the poor money to encourage work, you're heartless, and if you give them money, you're "institutionalizing poverty."


No we are saying its not enough, we have to give them opportunity and we have to reform the structure.

Its not either charity or nothing.

[RGacky3]

BTW, encourage work? There are 5 applicants for every job opening, its not like suddently 20% of the population suddenly got lazy.

[Judicator]

No we are saying its not enough, we have to give them opportunity and we have to reform the structure.

Its not either charity or nothing.

Make work jobs are charity, so now you are quibbling with the particular nature of the charity...fine we can argue about details.


BTW, encourage work? There are 5 applicants for every job opening, its not like suddently 20% of the population suddenly got lazy.

Unemployment benefits are essentially paying people not to work.

[RGacky3]

Make work jobs are charity, so now you are quibbling with the particular nature of the charity...fine we can argue about details.


.. You don't need make work jobs, you could say, lower the work week, you could institute co-determination, you could start state companies esrving the public good and so on.


Unemployment benefits are essentially paying people not to work.

Yeah, so people would rather be unemployed, your an idiot.

[Judicator]

.. You don't need make work jobs, you could say, lower the work week, you could institute co-determination, you could start state companies esrving the public good and so on.


State enterprises...vehicles do deliver charity. Co-determination...legally requiring companies give charity. The work week claim makes the faulty assumption that the total number of labor hours demanded by an economy is fixed.



Yeah, so people would rather be unemployed, your an idiot.


No, people will extend the job search just a little, or even a lot, because it's cheaper to do so. You're simpleminded and can't conceive of the existence of anyone on the margin between working and not working.

[RGacky3]

State enterprises...vehicles do deliver charity. Co-determination...legally requiring companies give charity. The work week claim makes the faulty assumption that the total number of labor hours demanded by an economy is fixed.


Semantics, and I say encorporation, corporate personhood, and property protection is welfare ....


No, people will extend the job search just a little, or even a lot, because it's cheaper to do so. You're simpleminded and can't conceive of the existence of anyone on the margin between working and not working.

Your blind to empirical evidence .... There is no corrolation to unemployment benefits and higher unemployment, infact there is somewhat of an inverse relationship.

Take the country I live in Norway, here you get HUGE unemployment benefits and you have HUGE social benefits, yet you only have 2% unemployment, yet in the US you have terrible socail benefits and you've got 9%.

[Judicator]

Semantics, and I say encorporation, corporate personhood, and property protection is welfare ....

Semantics...I say you're an idiot.


Your blind to empirical evidence .... There is no corrolation to unemployment benefits and higher unemployment, infact there is somewhat of an inverse relationship.

Take the country I live in Norway, here you get HUGE unemployment benefits and you have HUGE social benefits, yet you only have 2% unemployment, yet in the US you have terrible socail benefits and you've got 9%.


When unemployment benefits end for individuals you get a huge spike in the probability that they are employed the next week.

[RGacky3]

Semantics...I say you're an idiot.


And you'd be wrong, your just redefining welfare to make it mean whatever you want.


When unemployment benefits end for individuals you get a huge spike in the probability that they are employed the next week.

Show me the data, because your full of shit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So now if you deny the poor money to encourage work, you're heartless,

Denying the poor money in a misguided attempt to "make them work" fails because 99% of people are poor for reasons that have nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with a socioeconomic system that requires an economic and political underclass in order to function.


and if you give them money, you're "institutionalizing poverty."

Because having to scrape by on a pittance is a barrel of laughs, right? :rolleyes:


Tell a starving third world child that the food a morbidly obese poor person in the US eats is just "smoke and mirrors." If only it were...then we wouldn't be spending $500bil/year on diabetes.

Are you a fucking idiot? Do you realise how cheap (due to subsidy) unhealthy food is in the US? Have you never heard of food deserts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert)?

[danyboy27]

So now if you deny the poor money to encourage work, you're heartless, and if you give them money, you're "institutionalizing poverty."s.
open a history book, look up hundred of years in the past, and go tell me if not giving money to the poor encouraged them to work at any moments of history.

simply cutting the dole only change the name of the slaveowner/lord, from governement controlled to bank or black market controlled slavery.

It dosnt matter if the guy is required to work or not, what matter is control of the individual.

[danyboy27]

Tell a starving third world child that the food a morbidly obese poor person in the US eats is just "smoke and mirrors." If only it were...then we wouldn't be spending $500bil/year on diabetes.

Different countries, different mean of control and slavery.
the parents of Poor starving child in the third world often are required to pay extremely high tax burden and work verry hard to pay back the debt their governement contracted from the IMF and foreign corporations, they are slaves too in that whole scheme of thing.

[danyboy27]

Also, slaveowner/lords have verry different use of a particular slave/serf, it was true back then and still true these day.

Some slaveowner in the middle east use to have ton of slave that did nothing but boast the master ego and fame just by being there in his palace.

Other worked them to the bone to make them build vast amount of wealth.

The state goal of keeping slave/serf on the dole is to keep the situation under control, to avoid riots, chaos and other things that could disturb stability.

buisness and criminal organisations goals in owning slave is to generate profit, regardless of how the slave/serf work it out.

No wonder there are big clashes on unemployement benefit between the market and the state, they have a conflict of interest at stake of who will be the future creditor of this constantly growing poor population of serf/slaves.

[Judicator]

Different countries, different mean of control and slavery.
the parents of Poor starving child in the third world often are required to pay extremely high tax burden and work verry hard to pay back the debt their governement contracted from the IMF and foreign corporations, they are slaves too in that whole scheme of thing.

The IMF is perpetually forgiving debt, allowing corrupt third world governments to exist far far longer than they should.

[danyboy27]

The IMF is perpetually forgiving debt, allowing corrupt third world governments to exist far far longer than they should.
Then again, different environnement, differents mean of control.

Lets say i loan you 2 millions dollars, and after racking over 3 millions dollars in interest, i forgive your debt, who are you more likely to talk too when you will be in dire need of money? me.

you want another 2 millions dollars? fair enough, but you gotta help me a bit, allow me to use your yard to set up a small factory, sell most of your furniture and give me back my 2 millions dollars with 15% interest on a 40 year period.

Beccause the debtor state was so busy paying back the interest of the loan, it was impossible for it to put money in infrastructure, school, road and bridges. So the quick and easy option for any governement in that kind of situation is to borrow money to keep what left of the infrastructure intact for further crumbling, and we are back to square 1.

[Judicator]

Beccause the debtor state was so busy paying back the interest of the loan, it was impossible for it to put money in infrastructure, school, road and bridges. So the quick and easy option for any governement in that kind of situation is to borrow money to keep what left of the infrastructure intact for further crumbling, and we are back to square 1.

Most loans go to the most corrupt nations, rather than those that spend it effectively on infrastructure. Why would you have any incentive to invest in the future if you can just keep defaulting and get another loan to expand your palace?

http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/026205065X has a lot of detail on this point.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya bro, the IMF sucks. And they do everything they say you do... I mean it really gets worse than that. The IMF is really like the most dangerous institution in the world.

It's also a capitalist institution created and implemented by free market supporters to protect the free market. They always call it the "anarchy between countries" because there is no world government... I mean, really the IMF should show anybody paying attention the absolute impossiblity of capitalist anarchy.

[Sputnik_1]

I agree, I am myself from a very poor family and had to move out from poland because of financial reasons. My grandparents worked for their whole lives (mainly in factory) and are just simple working class people that can barely live on the little money they get as their pensions. This system failed them, and I'm not surprised that they lost faith in anything, but at the same time are attached to this state of things as it permits to survive them (not to live, just to survive). So yes, I think that the working class is not much different from past slavery, and the difference between people who are well-off and those who have to struggle to survive every single day can be compared to slaves who had "good master" or the "bad" one.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree. And I really think that's ultimately what killed my friends. We all have working class families. Our parents and grandparents were all hard workers, some former military. And every single one of them were exceptional workers, not missing days, working overtime. And yet they have gone nowhere but 1 step forward and 3 steps back.
What else are people to do but escape from the world and take drugs? The only thing that saved me is my commitment that we can revolutionize the social order.

The system... i really don't care what you call it; capitalism, government, corporatism, or a bunch of individuals expressing self-interest... i really don't care. It doesn't reward hard work or value creation. It rewards stepping on toes and stabbing people in the back. It doesn't respect dignitiy and compassion. It respects money.
I simply can no longer support, as if I ever had, a system that allows any individual to express their will over people without those people's consent. It's the only way I can see to reconnect the individual to society and give him/her something to look forward too.

[danyboy27]

Most loans go to the most corrupt nations, rather than those that spend it effectively on infrastructure. Why would you have any incentive to invest in the future if you can just keep defaulting and get another loan to expand your palace?

http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/026205065X has a lot of detail on this point.

Beccause the most corrupt nations will do whatever the IMF ask them to, unlike those who invest in infrastructures.

Helisabeth warren once said: i was showing to a particular credit company how it would be easy to avoid giving loan to bad, vulnerable creditor, and right after that the man in charge in the room woke up and said: That all good, but if we stop this kind of practice, we wouldnt make any profits at all!.