Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 1, 2015 - 08:34am PT
|
“The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied...but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which a beggar is a reminder of nothing.”
― John Berger
Wealth can only exist in contrast to poverty. Without poverty, there is no definition of wealth. The wealthy need to propagate poverty and do.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Wealth is nothing unless you've experienced poverty....Charge it on your American Excess card...
|
|
Port
Trad climber
Norwalk, CT
|
|
So what's Mr. Berger's solution then?
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
Having lived with some of the richest and some of the poorest people on the entire planet I have noticed that material poverty and wealth do not strongly influence quality of life.
There are more important things.
(easy for a wealthy person to say but I don't think that makes it any less true)
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2015 - 09:37am PT
|
A solution would imply that something is wrong or perhaps that something wrong can be fixed. In North America even the poorest are wealthy by some standards - starvation isn't a problem for our poor but obesity is.
There will always be those who are wealthy and those who are poor but they define each other or perhaps define themselves. 50 years ago some farmer in a remote Himalayan village was very wealthy because he had everything he could imagine, then somebody showed up with a radio or a camera or sugar whatever and then he may have have felt poor.
The wealthiest person in the middle ages might be considered poor today. Didn't have a car, the internet, packaged food, access to healthcare, lettuce in January....
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
The Berger quote is hogwash. Go back to the 1500's. There was a very, very small group called royalty. Also the rulers of the church. Virtually everyone else was dirt poor. Scarcity? The church and the King took everything.
Do you think a person like Bill Gates or other very successful people are rich at the expense of others? Most successful people create wealth, meaning they grow the economy, some a lot some not so much. The creation of wealth is not a zero sum deal. If the economy doesn't grow then all the money the Fed prints just makes each slice of the pie, each dollar, smaller. If you don't think this is happening today compare your grocery bill to what it was 3 or 4 years ago.
Poor people in developed nations today are far better off than peasants under serfdom. Poor people in Africa today are destitute, hopeless. Big contributors to this are governments which are corrupt beyond imagination and the Catholic Church which teaches that birth control is a sin.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
I think the Pope has a few kids..? Saw him a few days ago in a tiny economy car without the plexi glass shield...
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2015 - 09:57am PT
|
Alright, Ksolem votes to define wealth as having more money than others have.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2015 - 10:13am PT
|
I'm not sure what wealth is but some people do measure it by money or friends or happiness or whatever. Something to have more of.
I thought the Berger quote was interesting because it made me wonder about how the ultra rich might measure wealth. Berger seems to think the rich are measuring wealth by power over others which aligns with my perception of politics today. Power over people not making things better for people.
Perhaps the wealthiest person is the one who is satisfied with what he has. Not many of them around.
So Locker, are you wealthy? I hope so by whatever measure appeals to you.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Alright, Ksolem votes to define wealth as having more money than others have.
Huh? Kris doesn't define wealth, but by treating its changes (correctly) as a non-zero-sum game, he implicitly precludes the definition stated above.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Wealth can only exist in contrast to poverty. Without poverty, there is no definition of wealth. The wealthy need to propagate poverty and do.
Ridiculous!
The poverty/wealth spectrum is a continuum. The above quote implies a binary relation. Furthermore, you can well imagine a society in which everybody has more than they need and exactly the same amount (of whatever) as everybody else. That is not logically impossible. So, being imaginable, you can indeed imagine and have "wealth" without a shred of poverty.
The OP quote is more "poor, downtrodden proletariat" garbage.
There IS a problem here, and it has nothing to do with the battle cries of class warfare! Runaway corporate power, lobbying, universal corruption in government, and a two-party system neither of which WANT to fix the previous items in the list... these are the economic banes of our time.
There will always be "poor". There will always be "wealthy". There is NO problem in that fact alone. The problem arises when the "poor" who aspire to be "wealthy" have no means by which to "move up". That is not the case in the US now, although it is getting harder and harder.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2015 - 11:01am PT
|
How about you Banquo???...
I think so. I have pretty much everything I want. I sometimes think of things I want but decide the burden of having them wouldn't be worth it. I can afford a new car or even several but don't seem to want one. I eat good food, drink good drink. My wife and kids apparently still love me. However, I doubt most people would call me wealthy and I still think it would be fun to win the Mega Millions lottery. I do have to work but not that much and it is nice to have something to do.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 1, 2015 - 11:03am PT
|
The poverty/wealth spectrum is a continuum.
I guess you vote that money measures wealth also. Sadly, if it does, I think it is becoming more of a polarity than a continuum as the middle class vanishes.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I guess you vote that money measures wealth also.
No, not the case. I have not specified. The quote is ridiculous in its own right.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Banquo, yer a lousy, if well meaning, troll who hides behind ambiguity and
less than rigorous refining of yer question. I ask you, was Robespierre wealthy?
|
|
Scottnorthwest
Trad climber
Sumner Washington
|
|
Some of my richest days were when I was penniless.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Alright, Ksolem votes to define wealth as having more money than others have.
It is.
But wealth does not guarantee happiness, personal fulfillment, good friends, being comfortable in your own skin, being talented at something, making others feel good, being funny, having a great family, love and so forth.
Some people say having those things defines is wealth. I can't disagree. I was responding to the OP which is clearly contrasting wealth and poverty in terms of $.
Cheers
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
One big problem you have with definitions is that "money" is actually an abstraction. If you are referring to coins and paper notes as "money," you are deeply confused.
The confusion is akin to the number/numeral confusion. "1" is NOT the number 1; it is a symbolic representation of it. Paper notes are NOT money; they are a symbolic representation of it.
And in our era, paper notes are not even a RELIABLE representation of it. As a famous economist said, "Government is the only entity that can take two valuable commodities, such as paper and ink, and by their mere combination render the product worthless."
In the USA today, paper money is "worth" exactly, precisely what people believe that it is. That is the belief that grounds "purchasing power" whereby those worthless entities are converted into tangible goods/services that have actual value inherent in them.
Economics is, at core, barter. "Money" is the value inherent in goods/services that are bartered. Paper notes are a distant representation of value, allowing the bearer to carry around abstracted IOUs exchangeable for valuable goods/services.
And that brief introduction provides the basis of "wealth disparity" that will ALWAYS exist: The "poor" are simply those who possess goods/services that are less-valued and/or in lessor quantities than the "wealthy." But in our society, the "poor" CAN (and many do) "upgrade" their slate of goods/services by, for example, getting educated. They can also SPEND less by, for example, not producing more and more kids they have no way to pay for.
In this country, the old adage is still true: "Go to school, work hard, and you can be successful." If anything, the skids are greased for the "poor" to work this plan, as the "poor" can get subsidies/scholarships/grants to get educated that the "wealthy" (namely: poorer middle-class people) cannot get. Of course, the whole "buckle down and work hard" plan takes discipline and perseverance.
Far easier to just moan and snivel about "wealth disparity," blame the "wealthy" for "keeping us down," vote Democrat (hoping for yet more and more wealth redistribution), and pop out another kid while watching mind-destroying daytime TV.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Actually, madbolter1, the government gives paper dollars value, because it requires that we pay taxes in dollars, and makes dollars legal tender for all debts.
Money also has an inherent value as a medioum of exchange, since it is convenient to carry, etc. This makes exchange cheaper, since we don't need to carry the goods we would otherwise need for direct barter.
I was surprised during my incarceration, however, at what prisoners used as their "money." Actual legal tender (i.e. coins and bills) were contraband, so I thought stamps, being acceptable for prisoners to own and carry, and made in recognizable denominations and easily protable, would be the likely medium of exchange. Instead, packages of tuna served as the medium. I never figured out why.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Actually, madbolter1, the government gives paper dollars value, because it requires that we pay taxes in dollars, and makes dollars legal tender for all debts.
Making some entity "legal tender" is not what gives it value. That fact is amply revealed by nations that have experienced hyper-inflation. The government can work whatever machinations it pleases, but the second the public loses belief in the abstraction, its "value" plummets. The government can standardize a MEANS of exchange, but it cannot "give value" to that means.
Money also has an inherent value as a medioum of exchange, since it is convenient to carry, etc. This makes exchange cheaper, since we don't need to carry the goods we would otherwise need for direct barter.
That is indeed a "value," but not a "monetary" one. The "makes exchange cheaper" point is negligible. Electronic transactions are the cheapest possible (other than a handshake and memory), yet conversion to largely electronic exchanges has not significantly contributed to the real value of the bartered goods/services.
Instead, packages of tuna served as the medium. I never figured out why.
The "figuring out why" question is even more pressing with things like shells, beads, or paper notes.
In the end, ANY standardized "legal tender" WORKS. But that's not the point about what money IS.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!