From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #142 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, June 7 2005 Volume 14 : Number 142 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Christopher Gross ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Jason Brown ] stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Capuchin ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:50:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, great white shark wrote: > government the welfare state is increasingly being whittled away - with > a consequent creation of more inequality and lack of services for us > poor plebs on the bottom of the rung and the eventual loss of many Is it just me, or is someone with Internet access by definition not on the bottom rung of the social ladder? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:59:42 -0500 (CDT) From: adams@boutell.com Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height >> government the welfare state is increasingly being whittled away - with >> a consequent creation of more inequality and lack of services for us >> poor plebs on the bottom of the rung and the eventual loss of many > > Is it just me, or is someone with Internet access by definition not on the > bottom rung of the social ladder? well, seeing as some of the people on the bottom rung of the social ladder like to hang out all day in the public library (since there are places to sleep and pee comfortably there), I'd say they have more internet access than a lot of people who are slightly higher on the social ladder. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:37:41 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, great white shark wrote: > >>government the welfare state is increasingly being whittled away - with >>a consequent creation of more inequality and lack of services for us >>poor plebs on the bottom of the rung and the eventual loss of many > > Is it just me, or is someone with Internet access by definition not on the > bottom rung of the social ladder? I wouldn't say so, though it is, along with a lot of other similar services, freely available in a lot of places (such as, from the response, most public libraries). One glaring, glaring issue I have is with the way those standing on, or hanging from "bottom rung" in the States are defined. I'm not saying that there aren't people in this country living in abject poverty--far from it--however Gov't stated numbers on those "living at or below the poverty level" are grossly overestimated. Someone in this country at or below the "poverty level" can--and is, in many cases--living a world away from the rest of the world's definition of poverty. Hell, the poverty-stricken in the States live at a standard that is above the average European. Not the average poor European, but the average every-day European. The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. How do I know? I live in one of the poorer sections of Atlanta. I see it every day. It practically drives me to violence when I hear someone crying poverty while driving a piece of shit car with fucking spinners on it. What other country do you know of that would define you as "living in poverty" if you had a couple hundred K in the bank and lived in a paid-for multi-million dollar house? If your annual income falls below the poverty level (not your bank or property holdings, ignoring your net worth), guess what? You've joined those "living in poverty." Driving up the rolls of those living "at or below the poverty level" is a shell game bent on convincing rubes to pony up cash for government services. Are there the genuinely destitute among us? Certainly. Is it as bad as the press would like us to believe? Not by a long shot. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:30:17 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On 6/7/05, FSThomas wrote: > The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air > conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs > and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. How do I know? I live in > one of the poorer sections of Atlanta. I see it every day. It > practically drives me to violence when I hear someone crying poverty > while driving a piece of shit car with fucking spinners on it. > > What other country do you know of that would define you as "living in > poverty" if you had a couple hundred K in the bank and lived in a > paid-for multi-million dollar house? Erewhon? Zembla? I have never in my life heard of anyone with "a couple hundred K in the bank" and "liv[ing] in a paid-for multi-million dollar house" defined as "living in poverty." If there are such people - who fit (supposedly) into the technical def. of poverty based on annual income - - there are surely very, very few, few enough percentage-wise to make no difference. That is, if such people exist, that they exist is trivially relevant to the argument - no more relevant than the fact that probably, somewhere, there's a wacked-out person drawing several million a year in stock dividends who lives in a cardboard box on the streets. How bad does it have to be to be bad? That is, what's the investment in pointing out that "some" people officially counted as poor aren't poor by normal standards...rather than addressing the argument? Why is it more important to deflate the statistics than recognize their essential truth? Speaking of which, has the Pentagon offered an official apology to _Newsweek_ yet? I mean, "flushing down the toilet" isn't different in effect from "being pissed on," is it. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:36:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Hell, the > poverty-stricken in the States live at a standard that is above the > average European. Not the average poor European, but the average > every-day European. > > The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air > conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs > and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not sure if you meant the second paragraph to refer directly to the first. If you did: it's my impression that "average every-day Europeans" have cell phones, TVs, microwaves, and cupboards full of junk food. Maybe not as many cars as in America, but then, cars are both cheaper and harder to avoid needing over here. (Admittedly I don't have that much first-hand experience, but then do you? Or was that based more on something you read on a conservative blog?) Sebastian, any comments? Of course even if America's poor people are living better than European teachers and dentists and plumbers, that's not saying they live *well*. I mean, judging from conservative commentary I've heard, the EU isn't much different from North Korea.... > What other country do you know of that would define you as "living in > poverty" if you had a couple hundred K in the bank and lived in a > paid-for multi-million dollar house? If your annual income falls below > the poverty level (not your bank or property holdings, ignoring your net > worth), guess what? You've joined those "living in poverty." And so roughly what fraction of those living in poverty are cases like this? - --Chris "I hardly know any Bush voters, so he must not have gotten any votes" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > One glaring, glaring issue I have is with the way those standing on, or > hanging from "bottom rung" in the States are defined. I'm not saying > that there aren't people in this country living in abject poverty--far > from it--however Gov't stated numbers on those "living at or below the > poverty level" are grossly overestimated. Um, not "estimated" at all. Census numbers are by actual count. And we're looking at a national average of almost around 11% at or below the poverty line. > Someone in this country at or below the "poverty level" can--and is, in > many cases--living a world away from the rest of the world's definition > of poverty. And why does that matter at all? Does that mean we can slack a little and bring it down a little more before it's intolerable? The purpose of civilization is to bring up the level for all people. If we set that arbitrary mark of "poverty" somewhere just above where, say, you live, we should still be committed 100% to bringing all people above that mark. Of course, capitalism can't do that. Capitalism requires a certain percentage of people to be out of work and miserable, so that wages stay low and profit margins are maximized. If everyone is gainfully employed and meaningfully engaged, you can't play them off one another. And without the risk of starvation and homelessness, how do you get folks to work in your polluting factories? You might have to internalize some of those external costs and that just can't happen. > Hell, the poverty-stricken in the States live at a standard that is > above the average European. Not the average poor European, but the > average every-day European. And on what do you base that assertion? Are you looking purely at household income or are you also considering quality of life considerations such as health coverage (which might not be part of income concerns), working hours (for the working poor), availability of daycare, quality of low-income housing, etc.? > The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air > conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs > and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. Well, maybe that's part of the reason they're so poor! > How do I know? I live in one of the poorer sections of Atlanta. I see > it every day. It practically drives me to violence when I hear someone > crying poverty while driving a piece of shit car with fucking spinners > on it. Those spinners cost about as much as one trip to the dentist. And for all that crap, you can blame the capitalists and their "stimulation of demand" coupled with the necessity for "economic growth". If they don't introduce a few new necessities into everyone's life every few years, people stop consuming and get happy with what they have. That will kill a capitalist system. And just so you know, only the rich folks I know have cell phones or cars, nobody has air conditioning, and everyone (even the rich folks) have mostly bare cupboards (since the rich folks eat out). So I guess the average must be EXACTLY in between, seeing as how our anecdotal evidence is totally representative. > What other country do you know of that would define you as "living in > poverty" if you had a couple hundred K in the bank and lived in a > paid-for multi-million dollar house? Um, they don't do that here. Sorry. > If your annual income falls below the poverty level (not your bank or > property holdings, ignoring your net worth), guess what? You've joined > those "living in poverty." Well, seeing as how less than 2% of the population has total assets equalling or exceeding US$1M, it can't hurt the stats that much. > Driving up the rolls of those living "at or below the poverty level" is > a shell game bent on convincing rubes to pony up cash for government > services. And those government services are designed to make people's lives better. So why balk? It's when they want more money for killing and imprisoning people that I get chafed. > Are there the genuinely destitute among us? Certainly. Is it as bad as > the press would like us to believe? Not by a long shot. The press doesn't even begin to cover it. Unemployment numbers are grossly deflated. You're right that income numbers don't usually reflect wealth, so we miss the point when we talk about the "middle class" and don't note that the middle fifth of the population, income-wise, has not wealth to survive for TWO MONTHS without their current income. In other words, they're one misfortune away from poverty. (The bottom two fifths, 40% of the population, has no wealth at all. It's a tightrope act to keep afloat.) If we measured quality of life instead of "standard of living"... if we measured how much people enjoyed what they had instead of how much they buy, we'd have a better picture of the failings of our culture. The USA has the highest percentage of depressed people in the top 20%. Our RICH people are miserable. What do you suppose that says about our poor and working poor? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > The purpose of civilization is to bring up the level for all people. It is? > Those spinners cost about as much as one trip to the dentist. > > And for all that crap, you can blame the capitalists and their > "stimulation of demand" coupled with the necessity for "economic growth". > If they don't introduce a few new necessities into everyone's life every > few years, people stop consuming and get happy with what they have. That > will kill a capitalist system. So it's the capitalists' fault that people buy spinners for their cars? Funny, I thought it was the people's own choice. > > Driving up the rolls of those living "at or below the poverty level" is > > a shell game bent on convincing rubes to pony up cash for government > > services. > > And those government services are designed to make people's lives better. *Designed* is the operative word > It's when they want more money for killing and imprisoning people that I > get chafed. Me too! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:52:58 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Jeff wrote: > > I have never in my life heard of anyone with "a couple hundred K in > the bank" and "liv[ing] in a paid-for multi-million dollar house" > defined as "living in poverty." If there are such people - who fit > (supposedly) into the technical def. of poverty based on annual income > - there are surely very, very few, few enough percentage-wise to make > no difference. That is, if such people exist, that they exist is > trivially relevant to the argument - no more relevant than the fact > that probably, somewhere, there's a wacked-out person drawing several > million a year in stock dividends who lives in a cardboard box on the > streets. Anyone. Any. One who files a tax return stating an income under the poverty index is rated by the US Government as "living in poverty." No questions asked about the value of your home, your balances in the bank, nothing. That's how the numbers are so high. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:58:42 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Capuchin wrote: > The purpose of civilization is to bring up the level for all people. If > we set that arbitrary mark of "poverty" somewhere just above where, say, > you live, we should still be committed 100% to bringing all people above > that mark. I would counter with the purpose of *this* civilization is to be a society where it is within everyone's grasp to bring up their *own* level, the Government not withstanding. It's not the Government's *job* to bring you up, but rather their duty, according to the Constitution, to stay the Hell out of your way while you're on the way to making yourself all you can be. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:00:48 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Capuchin wrote: > Are you looking purely at household income or are you also considering > quality of life considerations such as ... working hours (for the working poor) Would you consider France's failed attempt at capping the work week a good example of improving the quality of life for the working poor? - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:08:03 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Heaven holds a place for those who pray? Reap: Anne Bancroft ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:09:07 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On 6/7/05, FSThomas wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > > > I have never in my life heard of anyone with "a couple hundred K in > > the bank" and "liv[ing] in a paid-for multi-million dollar house" > > defined as "living in poverty." If there are such people - who fit > > (supposedly) into the technical def. of poverty based on annual income > > - there are surely very, very few, few enough percentage-wise to make > > no difference. That is, if such people exist, that they exist is > > trivially relevant to the argument - no more relevant than the fact > > that probably, somewhere, there's a wacked-out person drawing several > > million a year in stock dividends who lives in a cardboard box on the > > streets. > > Anyone. Any. One who files a tax return stating an income under the > poverty index is rated by the US Government as "living in poverty." > No questions asked about the value of your home, your balances in the > bank, nothing. Um, sorry the US Census is just not that simplistic. This not a single number statistic. In fact a massive survey of income tax returns are not part of their methadology. For more information see: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/guidance081904.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:20:24 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On 6/7/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > > > And for all that crap, you can blame the capitalists and their > > "stimulation of demand" coupled with the necessity for "economic growth". > > If they don't introduce a few new necessities into everyone's life every > > few years, people stop consuming and get happy with what they have. That > > will kill a capitalist system. > > So it's the capitalists' fault that people buy spinners for their cars? > Funny, I thought it was the people's own choice. One of the chief problems facing the growth of wealth in the early part of the 20th century was that in "civilized" nations, there were adequate resources to meet the basic needs of every person. What that meant was that in a country like the US at that time, with its history of the "Protestant work ethic" and its resultant ethos of thrift, it was going to be very difficult to continue growth if people couldn't be persuaded to save less, spend more, and (essentially) become consumers rather than mere providers and savers. Among the greatest triumphs of human ingenuity has been advertisers' success in transforming the prevailing ethos in the US from that thrifty, practical orientation to a nation in which (indeed) even many of the poor are first concerned with having the right brand names and consumer baubles to adorn their persons and belongings - primarily so their own "branding" is perceived as something, anything, other than Poor Person(tm). (Ironically, this doesn't work: flashy jewelry is generally the province of the lower-middle-class and poor, for instance... At least, ads for jewelers around here pretty clearly are aimed at the NASCAR demographic.) In other words: sure, it's people's choices to buy that crap...but where did those preferences, those perceived needs - hell, that crap - come from in the first place? Advertising 101 is to persuade people that they need things that they, objectively in terms of their survival, do not need. If all companies could sell was what people needed, the economy would go plop within a few weeks. Now, you might regard this as a great, wonderful thing, that we can build castles in the air, live in them, and borrow against their equity to buy overinflated SUVs in the air - but there's something just a bit troubling about the inherent insustainability of the whole thing. At some level, it reminds me of the joke three of us came up with in college: I'd write Phil a check for a million dollars, Phil would write Geir a check for a million dollars, and Geir would write me a check for a million dollars...and we'd try to deposit them simultaneously such that all three cleared. We didn't actually do this of course - even as dumb college students we knew there was such a thing as fraud - and it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. So yes, in a sense it is "the capitalists' fault" that people buy those things: the system depends upon luxury purchases (luxury here defined rather puritanically as anything not necessary to one's survival), and so it makes damned sure that the "choice" *not* to buy those things is regarded as freakish if not impossible. (Whole 'nother subject: that the monetary income a person needs to survive in, say, a rural setting where they can grown their own food & make their own clothing is considerably less than in a highly monetarized place like downtown LA, for example - so comparisons of US poverty levels in strictly monetary terms to the same in other nations is grossly misleading w/o taking into account radically different costs, standards, and situations of living.) - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: stop me before I buy again On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > In other words: sure, it's people's choices to buy that crap...but > where did those preferences, those perceived needs - hell, that crap - > come from in the first place? Advertising 101 is to persuade people > that they need things that they, objectively in terms of their > survival, do not need. If all companies could sell was what people > needed, the economy would go plop within a few weeks. Hey, I don't buy everything I'm advertised. I'm not going to blame my consumption patterns on anyone else than myself. Nobody's holding a gun to my head. > So yes, in a sense it is "the capitalists' fault" that people buy > those things: the system depends upon luxury purchases (luxury here > defined rather puritanically as anything not necessary to one's > survival), and so it makes damned sure that the "choice" *not* to buy > those things is regarded as freakish if not impossible. So we're weak and need the government to protect us from the baddies! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:52:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Hey, I don't buy everything I'm advertised. I'm not going to blame my > consumption patterns on anyone else than myself. Nobody's holding a gun > to my head. Have you seen "The Corporation"? The interview with the woman who does market research for childrens' products is highly enlightening. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. But the entire capitalist world is holding peer pressure against you. And peer pressure makes people put guns to their own heads. (And it's not even real peer pressure, but an illusion of peer pressure by the creation of false peers on television and in print.) >> So yes, in a sense it is "the capitalists' fault" that people buy those >> things: the system depends upon luxury purchases (luxury here defined >> rather puritanically as anything not necessary to one's survival), and >> so it makes damned sure that the "choice" *not* to buy those things is >> regarded as freakish if not impossible. > > So we're weak and need the government to protect us from the baddies! No, Benjamin. We're strong and the government props up the baddies against us. If it weren't for massive subsidies, almost no capitalist industry could survive. The public cost of private security of opulence aside, the public still pays the way for almost all of the Fortune 500. Concentrated power is extremely dangerous whether that's an agency constructed for ostensibly public or private interests. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Anyone. Any. One who files a tax return stating an income under the > poverty index is rated by the US Government as "living in poverty." > > No questions asked about the value of your home, your balances in the > bank, nothing. > > That's how the numbers are so high. Who makes this stuff up and then lies to you about it? Jason's links should be enlightening, but I'm genuinely curious. Where did you get the idea that this is what took place? Did someone actually print that lie or did you just guess and pretend it's true because it made sense to you? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:58:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > I would counter with the purpose of *this* civilization is to be a > society where it is within everyone's grasp to bring up their *own* > level, the Government not withstanding. But that's not even social, Ferris. How can the purpose of civilization be to undermine civilization? > It's not the Government's *job* to bring you up, but rather their duty, > according to the Constitution, to stay the Hell out of your way while > you're on the way to making yourself all you can be. So we band together to keep out of each others' way? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. We didn't leave the jungle in order to institutionalize the law of the jungle. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Would you consider France's failed attempt at capping the work week a > good example of improving the quality of life for the working poor? France successfully capped the work week. But the industrialists don't like it and are waging an all-out war to raise the bar. I firmly believe that this country, right now, would benefit enormously from the institution of the 30 hour work week. Unemployment would go down and quality of life would go up. Although, honestly, I think we'd get just about the same boost from simply adhering to the spirit of the labor laws as they are written. Overtime pay was meant to be a penalty to employers, not a normal cost of hiring a worker, for example. American worker productivity goes up more than 12% per year, but real wages are falling and at a thirty-year low and working hours are rising. We have more people doing more work for less money than at any time in the 20th century. Where are the benefits? Even the conservatives think life was better in the 1950s! J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:50:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Hey, I don't buy everything I'm advertised. I'm not going to blame my > > consumption patterns on anyone else than myself. Nobody's holding a gun > > to my head. > > Have you seen "The Corporation"? The interview with the woman who does > market research for childrens' products is highly enlightening. Yes, I have, and I didn't much care for it. Too biased. > Nobody's holding a gun to your head. But the entire capitalist world is > holding peer pressure against you. And peer pressure makes people put > guns to their own heads. (And it's not even real peer pressure, but an > illusion of peer pressure by the creation of false peers on television and > in print.) People believe too much they see and read. > Concentrated power is extremely dangerous whether that's an agency > constructed for ostensibly public or private interests. Agreed there! I just don't trust the government much more than the corporations. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #142 ********************************