There has been enough but inequity/distribution is no different than predator/prey in the animal world.
Linclon was poor, etc. How do you account for the differences in talent and ambition? In reverse, some with advantages become wastrels and good-for-nothings. Why don't the brainy types return to their home countries and contribute to progress? The latest "stimulus" is all about jobs/money but I have yet to hear what's to be done with our country that has been battered by floods, droughts, fires and the effect it is having on prices. (BTW- have you checked out the huge system of dams in Turkey and Syria which affects the rivers/water supply for that region? Why isn't that considered an "act of war"?) On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone know why we keep people poor? I used to imagine it was to > (somehow) keep the rest of us motivated, and I was once swayed by > notions of meritocracy. As biologist, I found lots of similar > situations amongst animals and still believe we are stuck with these > genetic influences in our unconscious - this being most of what we are > as social animals. The conscious-rational is still a small part of > what we are. In animals the poor or subordinate can become the 'rich > leaders' - clown fish even changing sex to do this, almost as if their > genetics keeps some in 'reserve'. I find poverty something we should > eradicate, but when I ask myself what poverty is find a complex. > > My guess in terms of the Macht Politik is that the West has notions of > needing to stay ahead, ensuring relative poverty for many, in order to > have the ability to attract the best brains, innovation and technology > development. This neo-conservatism doesn't appeal to me, but I accept > its logic to some degree. There are things 'out there' to protect > ourselves from -though eventually this logic collapses into itself as > paranoid-schizoid positioning. Beggar-thy-neighbour economics has > been around a long time - and one consequence of the neo-con madness > is that arming China through manufacturing investment and 'Walmart' is > treason. Transferring manufacturing expertise and raising wealth in > China has changed the balance of power. I don't object from my own > perspective, just note the inconsistency of the neo-cons. > > Our economics creates small numbers of very rich people and an elite > of about 20% who rake in about 20 times the income of most of the > rest. We are always told this is the only game in town and the > nightmare of Sino-Soviet experiments is used to show us all > alternatives fail. In fact these systems produced similar elites. > Islamic banking, with its anti-usury, still leaves its poor poor. > > I have no wish to see everyone equipped as mega-consumers of the dross > that helps burn the planet, or to find lager louts where I go on > holiday and I don't go for 'wonderful human nature' solutions. Yet > this system has allowed the human population to triple in my lifetime > and broken every 'promise' of the better world to come. In all of > this, a rich elite controls nearly all the wealth that we can put > monetary value on, and they largely prevent us even arguing as though > our democracies matter - we would like to do this but the banksters > won't like it, the rich will take 'their' money abroad sort of stuff. > Keeping people in poverty and without education has led to a lot of > stuff (like loads of people) the planet can't afford > > We may have gone too far for a remedy, yet we have ideas and bright > people who could change things if we stopped relying on the system we > have. I think this involves eradicating poverty and a lot we > currently think is moral duty in our basic thinking on fairness. We > are being made serfs to accumulated money. We should, instead be > accumulating social capital and finding discipline that is not > enforced by need of making a living.
