Speaking Truth To Powerlessness

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't suggest that at all.

I did suggest that these poor people didn't do anything to earn that money. If they had, they wouldn't need it to be given to them.

The true value of money is dictated by the effort that went in to earning it. When that effort is zero, the value of that money becomes zero. Bought milk lately?

Double-speak, ffg.............What would 'qualify' as 'earning' the money? Would an inheritance qualify? How about a small business loan? I have a friend that did nothing but apply for a loan, but did amazing things with the money (started and grew his business).

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You are correct. Money is not a cure all. It does not solve the underlying and actual problems. What would you suggest in terms of problem solving?

I'd suggest that we actual start by looking at what it means to be poor. To me, being poor is not a relative measure against society. Rather, being poor is a relative measure against survival.

Also can you define "tangible benefit to society"?

You don't need me to define this. You define it yourself every time you willingly exchange money for a product or service. I do the same. The things I buy have an obvious benefit to me. Buying off the poor, just because they're poor, has no benefit to me. If it has benefit to you, then by all means do it.

How many people do you know, or have you personally known who have absolutely no skills, just out of curiousity?

Not many.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Double-speak, ffg.............What would 'qualify' as 'earning' the money?

See my answer to angelica. You, like her, answer this question yourself everyday.

Would an inheritance qualify?

Of course, but you're thinking about it backwards. It qualifies to the gifter, not the receiver.

How about a small business loan? I have a friend that did nothing but apply for a loan, but did amazing things with the money (started and grew his business).

Did he force the loaner to grant him the loan? If not, then yes he earned it.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

if that is the case - then you are on an upward trend ...

Yes, we are. So is social spending.

either way - there is a correlation between social spending and child poverty rates ...

Yes there certainly is. There is a higher correlation, however, between poverty rates and coffee consumption.

for one of the richest countries in the world to have a child poverty rate close to mexico is embarassing is it not?

Not at all. A country isn't "rich", unless you're talking about natural resources. People are rich. And this country has a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people. Why would either of those things be "embarassing"?

i don't think it is necessarily a function of increasing spending but clearly what is being done now is not nearly enough unless a stat like this is acceptable to people ...

What is being done now is certainly not "nearly enough", if the only measure of success is a stat.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I'd suggest that we actual start by looking at what it means to be poor. To me, being poor is not a relative measure against society. Rather, being poor is a relative measure against survival.

Alright, now you've defined poor. Since you didn't answer my question, and we've been down this road before, are you saying let's leave the poor to their own devices? And I'm not saying that's necessarily a wrong approach. On one level I see the validity in that. In the big picture, I see other aspects to this issue as well.

You don't need me to define this. You define it yourself every time you willingly exchange money for a product or service. I do the same. The things I buy have an obvious benefit to me. Buying off the poor, just because they're poor, has no benefit to me. If it has benefit to you, then by all means do it.

Are you then saying that "tangible benefit" in your mind is only providing a service that is "worth" or given financial compensation? Seriously?

Not many.

Maybe we're not really talking about people with no skills here. Maybe the situation is far, far more complex than that.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Alright, now you've defined poor. Since you didn't answer my question, and we've been down this road before, are you saying let's leave the poor to their own devices?

No. I'm perfectly fine with any help you want to give the poor, or any help I want to give the poor. What I'm not fine with is being forced to help anyone.

I do not believe in social services. I think you're aware of this. I believe in charity. I believe in employment. I believe in education. I believe in entrepenuership.

And I'm not saying that's necessarily a wrong approach. On one level I see the validity in that. In the big picture, I see other aspects to this issue as well.

Ok.

Are you then saying that "tangible benefit" in your mind is only providing a service that is "worth" or given financial compensation?

In economics, yes. In total, certainly not. But we're talking about giving people money here, right? Do you give your boyfriend or friends cash for good conversations?

Seriously?

Yes.

Maybe we're not really talking about people with no skills here. Maybe the situation is far, far more complex than that.

The situation is very complex. Which makes me wonder why the proposed solution -- here's some cash -- is so stupidly simple.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

No. I'm perfectly fine with any help you want to give the poor, or any help I want to give the poor. What I'm not fine with is being forced to help anyone.

I do not believe in social services. I think you're aware of this. I believe in charity. I believe in employment. I believe in education. I believe in entrepenuership.

My specific question was what do you think would be productive in terms of problem solving re: child poverty? I am asking your opinion, not trying to back you into a money-giving corner.

In economics, yes. In total, certainly not.

Here is where I am seeing a huge problem: when we remove economics in a contrived, unrealistic and false vacuum from the totality of life, we distort the value and meaning of the information gleaned in economics, based on the faulty premises it rests upon (false vacuum). For example, you can tune out the non-"tangible" values "poor" people bring to the planet, and the many variables that don't really count in economics. Just like know1 can tune out the life drives inherent to "poor people". And yet the whole-istic REALity is very, very far removed from economics and from logic alone. Including issues such as poverty costing everyone in the long run in other ways that aren't so neatly held by our man-made and contrived structures for interpreting this information. With our existing man-made false and contrived structures, we currently allow this "fallout" to rest on the shoulders of the "poor", helping perpetuate the cycles of low-self esteem by our blame/judgments. And yet we all create and sustain this system, and in reality, we all pay some big costs in one way or another. We just ignore what we can't yet make sense of.

But we're talking about giving people money here, right? Do you give your boyfriend or friends cash for good conversations?

I'm challenging our entire monetary value systems alongside the concept of actual value. I'm not trying to make things of actual value fit our existing structures if the existing structures are faulty and ignorant of much that is of value. That would be a flawed route for me.

The situation is very complex. Which makes me wonder why the proposed solution -- here's some cash -- is so stupidly simple.

In my life as a "poor person", throwing cash at me has not ever solved my problems. Sometimes it's worked as a flimsy bandaid. It's not even close to being a solution.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

My specific question was what do you think would be productive in terms of problem solving re: child poverty? I am asking your opinion, not trying to back you into a money-giving corner.

Hehe...here's the thing: I don't see a child being poor as a "problem" in need of solving. I see starving children as a problem. The solution there is to give them food and to prepare them to earn their own food when they're old enough. I see children living on the street as a problem. The solution there is to give them a roof and to prepare them to build their own someday. I see children who have drug-addicted parents as a problem. The solution there is to give those children an environment outside of that drug-house, and to prepare them to build their own one day.

If you want children to be richer, then give them a job or just give them whatever money you want to. But your question is far too simple to be answered.

Here is where I am seeing a huge problem: when we remove economics in a contrived, unrealistic and false vacuum from the totality of life, we distort the value and meaning of the information gleaned in economics, based on the faulty premises it rests upon (false vacuum).

Completely agree. But that's the whole purpose of "child poverty" statistics.

For example, you can tune out the non-"tangible" values "poor" people bring to the planet, and the many variables that don't really count in economics. Just like know1 can tune out the life drives inherent to "poor people". And yet the whole-istic REALity is very, very far removed from economics and from logic alone.

Hehe...but then why are you using that same economic base as a starting point to separate poor children from rich ones when you define your "problem"?

Including issues such as poverty costing everyone in the long run in other ways that aren't so neatly held by our man-made and contrived structures for interpreting this information. With our existing man-made false and contrived structures, we currently allow this "fallout" to rest on the shoulders of the "poor", helping perpetuate the cycles of low-self esteem by our blame/judgments. And yet we all create and sustain this system, and in reality, we all pay some big costs in one way or another. We just ignore what we can't yet make sense of.

Sure.

I'm challenging our entire monetary value systems alongside the concept of actual value. I'm not trying to make things of actual value fit our existing structures if the existing structures are faulty and ignorant of much that is of value. That would be a flawed route for me.

Ok. Then get rid of money. Don't hold it as a value.

In my life as a "poor person", throwing cash at me has not ever solved my problems. Sometimes it's worked as a flimsy bandaid. It's not even close to being a solution.

Cool.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...here's the thing: I don't see a child being poor as a "problem" in need of solving. I see starving children as a problem. The solution there is to give them food and to prepare them to earn their own food when they're old enough. I see children living on the street as a problem. The solution there is to give them a roof and to prepare them to build their own someday. I see children who have drug-addicted parents as a problem. The solution there is to give those children an environment outside of that drug-house, and to prepare them to build their own one day.

I completely agree.

If you want children to be richer, then give them a job or just give them whatever money you want to. But your question is far too simple to be answered.

I understand the falsity of free money and the false sense of security it offers. I also understand the illusion of "richer" when one is not interactively tied into that process. The intention behind my question was to look at what the real issues are, and to move into generating ideas about real solutions.

Completely agree. But that's the whole purpose of "child poverty" statistics.

I agree.

Hehe...but then why are you using that same economic base as a starting point to separate poor children from rich ones when you define your "problem"?

Did you notice that I used quotes around the word poor throughout my post? Once I came to understand my own personal purposes beyond victimhood in my life, and once I came to move beyond the ugly stigma of "poverty" (and that took HUGE work! and is still not entirely done!) I realised the illusions inherent in the victim/rescuer/persecutor cycles. Therefore in my questions to you here today, I'm not at all concerned with rescuing some less-wealthy people. I am concerned with the values we are de-ascribing to the less-wealthy folks. I'm concerned with the illusion that they have little that is tangible to offer if they don't have money to represent that worth, and I am concerned with the idea that they have no skills if they don't have money to back up their value. My children and I continually talk about how blessed and how rich we've been.

Ok. Then get rid of money. Don't hold it as a value.

So because I'm developing my thinking regarding what I see as faulty systems, you think I should get rid of money and not hold it with value? That sounds a little extreme to me.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

So because I'm developing my thinking regarding what I see as faulty systems, you think I should get rid of money and not hold it with value? That sounds a little extreme to me.

Why would you want to participate in "faulty systems"? If you see money as a flawed approach to dealing with the exchange between human beings, then do something else. That was my only point there.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Why would you want to participate in "faulty systems"? If you see money as a flawed approach to dealing with the exchange between human beings, then do something else. That was my only point there.

Note the part where I am questioning systems and developing my thinking. I'm big on integrative thinking, which includes adjusting and adapting to where I am, including the systems that surround me, while theorising and developing ideas that I can put into the world.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Did you notice that I used quotes around the word poor throughout my post? Once I came to understand my own personal purposes beyond victimhood in my life, and once I came to move beyond the ugly stigma of "poverty" (and that took HUGE work! and is still not entirely done!) I realised the illusions inherent in the victim/rescuer/persecutor cycles. Therefore in my questions to you here today, I'm not at all concerned with rescuing some less-wealthy people. I am concerned with the values we are de-ascribing to the less-wealthy folks. I'm concerned with the illusion that they have little that is tangible to offer if they don't have money to represent that worth, and I am concerned with the idea that they have no skills if they don't have money to back up their value. My children and I continually talk about how blessed and how rich we've been.

Ok. I think I get what you're saying here and agree. When I say that poor people have "little that is tangible to offer", I'm saying they have little that is tangible to offer me in a purely economic sense, which is a direct reply to the original statement that I should provide them with economic means. That's it. I'm not trying to narrow the focus of their worth as people. Rather, the proposed "solution" is doing that. It forces me to evaluate the poor in an economic sense.

Meanwhile, I freely respect many "poor" people, freely exchange many conversations with "poor" people, freely love a few "poor" people, etc etc. These are all non-economic forms of exchange that carry their own seperate measures of worth. Fundamentally, the exchange is the same though. Yet no one is suggesting a "respect tax" for the poor or a "love tax" for the poor, are they?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Note the part where I am questioning systems and developing my thinking. I'm big on integrative thinking, which includes adjusting and adapting to where I am, including the systems that surround me, while theorising and developing ideas that I can put into the world.

Ok -- what I'm trying to get a handle on is why the "money system" is flawed, to you.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. I think I get what you're saying here and agree.

When I say that poor people have "little that is tangible to offer", I'm saying they have little that is tangible to offer me in a purely economic sense, which is a direct reply to the original statement that I should provide them with economic means. That's it. I'm not trying to narrow the focus of their worth as people. Rather, the proposed "solution" is doing that. It forces me to evaluate the poor in an economic sense.

I didn't think you were intending to narrow the focus of "their" worth as people. I'm hyper aware of the ways we all contribute in saying things that can be heard by "poor" people as minimising. And unfortunately I know firsthand how that fuels the cycles. I also agree that looking at "them" as victims continues to reinforce socially accepted bias and prejudice that even "the poor" themselves accept and reinforce. It's very insidious.

Meanwhile, I freely respect many "poor" people, freely exchange many conversations with "poor" people, freely love a few poor people, etc etc.

I know you do.

These are all non-economic forms of exchange that carry their own seperate measures of worth. Fundamentally, the exchange is the same. Yet no one is suggesting a "respect tax" for the poor or a "love tax" for the poor, are they?

I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting those taxes.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I didn't think you were intending to narrow the focus of "their" worth as people. I'm hyper aware of the ways we all contribute in saying things that can be heard by "poor" people as minimising. And unfortunately I know firsthand how that fuels the cycles. I also agree that looking at "them" as victims continues to reinforce socially accepted bias and prejudice that even "the poor" themselves accept and reinforce. It's very insidious.

Certainly.

I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting those taxes.

Of course they aren't. Which is why I get a bit rankled when I'm often accused here of looking at this issue in a purely economic sense.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok -- what I'm trying to get a handle on is why the "money system" is flawed, to you.

I don't have a handle on it, myself. This is not stuff that is solidified for me at all. As a matter of fact, I'm reliant on such conversations to catalyse my awareness. What I do know is that there are natural forces that exist around us that repel us when we are not working effectively, and that embrace us and reward us when we are. Based on tapping into these natural forces, and by growing to understand them and how to create to more potent degrees, I've found my own way to greater and greater degrees of empowerment. So in that sense, I think you and I are on board that one must engage in natural law and learn to work with it rather than expect things handed to one. Unfortunately, for some reason, 99% of people I know don't seem to get that natural intunedness thing. Instead many people have been taught to abide by man-made structures that seek to reflect the natural laws. Ideas such as "capitalism" and what that entails. Or "socialist" practices follow other natural laws and yet capitalism and socialism still merely reflect these laws, and not always accurately, and even when accurately, neither fully reflect the whole picture.

So, as I try to integrate my perceptions, I see the validity in hierarchical climbing types of modes of achievement, as well as the value of lateral based sharing. I see that they go hand in hand. But besides that, I still see many things that either view misses out on mostly because I'm not looking at the contrived systems, I'm looking at the laws I interact with and perceive.

My general bent in life is in nudging, pushing or encouraging people to allow the value back into life--we cannot afford to collapse life into meaningless monotone "objects". In the western world, we look upon non-monied value as almost a weakness. Like it's not logical or something. And due to this, we miss out on connecting with natural law in awareness.

When we have an imbalanced focus on anything, we suffer from imbalance. The money thing is a biggie. We focus on economic value and prioritise that. And at the same time people, due to their conditioning and adherence to the taught structures of value, minimise the inherent value surrounding us. We do this at great cost. And yet, all around us there exists beautiful, amazing and magical principles at work that we are just numbed out of seeing or appreciating. As we more and more open to tapping these principles, we'll find that we have exactly what we need for problem solving any and all of our big issues right at our fingertips at this point in time.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course they aren't. Which is why I get a bit rankled when I'm often accused here of looking at this issue in a purely economic sense.

Communication is so ineffective at getting across the entirety of what backs our ideas.

If you are referring to me thinking you are being purely economic, I have to call out your words as they stand, which is not necessarily how you intend them. And that's not about you, but about the opportunity to further my own purposes. And it's to open up the subject matter to show what I'm seeing and that I think people are missing out on due to our overly and falsely objectified world. I always remember numerous details about your life that you have shared on this board. I see you and your words in the context of who you are, and I don't think I've ever considered you some shallow money focussed guy. Okay, well, wait, at the beginning I did question that about you! I do see that others often misunderstand you, and again, I think it's because they see the words in black and white and miss the context of who you really are.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh.....

Seems odd since child poverty is on the rise in many industrial nations that "give people access to enough money". As a matter of fact, the United States has seen the highest (or close to the highest) decrease in child poverty in the last ten years. Those ten years have also been marked by tougher welfare standards.

Money is not a cure all people. It is not pixie dust. If you simply hand it out to people, "regardless of their" worth, that money will only end up being worth what those people are worth. And that means if you're handing out to people with no skills who provide no tangible benefit to society, that money will end up being worth no more than the paper it's printed on.

I feel that when people have better means to build a more stable life, no matter what past mistakes they made, they will make better decisions and contribute more positively to society. These days when people fuck up they have a hard time picking up the pieces and finding a means build a better life. This only creates a cycle of poverty in families and communities.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I feel that when people have better means to build a more stable life, no matter what past mistakes they made, they will make better decisions and contribute more positively to society.

Me too, at least in general.

These days when people fuck up they have a hard time picking up the pieces and finding a means build a better life.

Sometimes, yes. However, aren't you also incentivizing the fuck-up by rewarding it? Furthermore, picking up the pieces and finding a means to build a better life rarely requires money as a determining factor. It requires effort and morals.

This only creates a cycle of poverty in families and communities.

Of course. So do the choices of those involved. It's not only about money and it's not primarily about money.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I don't have a handle on it, myself. This is not stuff that is solidified for me at all. As a matter of fact, I'm reliant on such conversations to catalyse my awareness. What I do know is that there are natural forces that exist around us that repel us when we are not working effectively, and that embrace us and reward us when we are. Based on tapping into these natural forces, and by growing to understand them and how to create to more potent degrees, I've found my own way to greater and greater degrees of empowerment. So in that sense, I think you and I are on board that one must engage in natural law and learn to work with it rather than expect things handed to one. Unfortunately, for some reason, 99% of people I know don't seem to get that natural intunedness thing. Instead many people have been taught to abide by man-made structures that seek to reflect the natural laws. Ideas such as "capitalism" and what that entails. Or "socialist" practices follow other natural laws and yet capitalism and socialism still merely reflect these laws, and not always accurately, and even when accurately, neither fully reflect the whole picture.

So, as I try to integrate my perceptions, I see the validity in hierarchical climbing types of modes of achievement, as well as the value of lateral based sharing. I see that they go hand in hand. But besides that, I still see many things that either view misses out on mostly because I'm not looking at the contrived systems, I'm looking at the laws I interact with and perceive.

My general bent in life is in nudging, pushing or encouraging people to allow the value back into life--we cannot afford to collapse life into meaningless monotone "objects". In the western world, we look upon non-monied value as almost a weakness. Like it's not logical or something. And due to this, we miss out on connecting with natural law in awareness.

When we have an imbalanced focus on anything, we suffer from imbalance. The money thing is a biggie. We focus on economic value and prioritise that. And at the same time people, due to their conditioning and adherence to the taught structures of value, minimise the inherent value surrounding us. We do this at great cost. And yet, all around us there exists beautiful, amazing and magical principles at work that we are just numbed out of seeing or appreciating. As we more and more open to tapping these principles, we'll find that we have exactly what we need for problem solving any and all of our big issues right at our fingertips at this point in time.

This is all good stuff. I definitely agree with the points you bring up here. We'll have to touch on some of this stuff some more.