My beliefs are too radical to share : alleviation of ' poverty ' can at best be a spin off or a secondary effect !
What we should be able to ensure is the availability of opportunity for every individual, young or old, to take the ' next ' step from wherever they are ... in educating oneself, in discovering the world, its people, culture, problems and beauty, and in discovering one's capabilities, taking it a shade higher, more daring and scarce or value - adding, to be able to please oneself, know oneself better. For the rest, we should be allowing the earth and the environment to recuperate over a period of five decades or more. I've no solution for this damned conspiracy in our nature to ' perpetuate ' our seed. But, this mindless transfer of valuation of anything or being in terms of money and profit alone is untenable, a disease if I may say that needs massive correction. It's a rant. But to cap it, I may point out that both ' - isms ' are not upto what needs to be done imo. The ' third ' may include parts of both, but would have to be quite another - bound to happiness, for us all and all being everywhere, and our capacity to deserve it ! Human Greed is a definite threat in my perspective. On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:37 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. > > Is this fact a signal that neither capitalism nor socialism can > alleviate poverty? (Simone Weil inspiration.) > > I've lived below the income poverty line many years of my life but > seemed to get by through frugality and some grants in a pinch. I was > never poor in spirit or appearance so that helped and probably dates > to my years at convent boarding schools and their insistence on order > and being content with simple surroundings like an alcove or a strict > schedule of worship, schooling, exercise, study and sleep. The outside > world could not intrude within the walls and ravine. Brief switch to > the garish world... on to camp for two months and somewhat the same > routine though filled with sports and crafts. > > We were not allowed much money at all nor were we allowed to work. The > girls, that is. The boys worked to pay for dates and whatevers, I > guess. We were supposed to live on our husband's income but could > bring a "dowry" of goods. Now, of course, all this has changed in > American culture and even with my own children. Women want careers and > financial independence which may be the result of seeing their moms > left in the lurch or dependent. Or experiencing it themselves. > > On Sep 17, 9:06 am, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rigs, are you informed there are 43 million ' poor ' people in the US ? > > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't disagree but thought we were talking about feeding the world, > > > i.e. third world countries with starvation and crop failures. > > > > > On Sep 16, 10:34 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 16 Sep., 14:13, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > . The problem is first of all incompetant or criminal rulers > > > > > > > of third world countries down to the tribe chiefs. > > > > > > The "third world" has no monopoly of incompetence or criminality in > > > > rulers. > > > > > > Francis > > > > -- > > ASHOK TEWARI -- ASHOK TEWARI
