If this is Communism, where do I sign?

[davywavy]

I've been debating over on raggedhalo's journal (again) about politics and economic theory. No surprises there; when one of the basic contentions being made is that the public sector is wildly corrupt and inefficient but it is better to raise taxes to cover the ensuing shortfall than to deal with the corruption and inefficiency you can expect my blood pressure to go up dramatically.
During the course of the debating, the old Communist Manifesto line about "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" was trotted out as 'basic social contract'. On the face of it, the statement seems quite unexceptionable - but when you try and pin it down, it becomes quite a slippy concept indeed. You see the question I ask is: whose definition of the word 'need' are we going to accept? Certainly nobody I asked in the debate who supported the idea that we have a moral requirement to support the needs of others was prepared to define 'need' in absolute terms, instead prevaricating furiously whenever I really asked the question.
So I set out to look elsewhere for definitions of human needs. What are human needs, and who defines them?

The United Nations defines poverty thus: They state that any person lacking any two of the following list is, according to the UN, living in poverty: Access to adequate food, access to potable water, access to shelter, access to healthcare and access to education. I think there's a basic definition of 'need' there which we can all get behind, although a definition of what level of education (am I in poverty if I can't get to postgraduate education?) counts is still needed.
Looking closer to home, I checked out Oxfam and the Government's Social Exclusion unit.
Oxfam make a big deal about how 1 person in 4 in the UK lives in Poverty. This is a staggering number - more than 15 million people. The front page of their website makes quite a to-do about eradicating poverty. But what is "poverty" in those terms? Digging through their website, we find that Oxfam defines poverty as: "Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01."

Go back and read that again, and think about what it means.
It means that, according to Oxfam, who are leading a poverty eradication campaign, poverty itself can never be eradicated. Simple maths tells us that a proportion of the population will always live under a set point of the median income, because that's what the median means. In other words, if you're working for Oxfam in poverty reduction, then you've got a job for life. I'm sure it's only the cynic in me that suggests this thought might have crossed the mind of whoever set this somewhat arbitary standard of 'poverty'.

But what of the Social Exclusion unit? They too are trying to end poverty - but finding how they define 'poverty' is bloody hard. Anyone would think they didn't want you to know. Eventually, I tracked down some studies (carried out by the Joseph Rowntree foundation) they were basing their statistics of poverty on, and found some of their definitions. They, like the UN, set a list of criteria of what poverty 'is'. However, their criteria differ quite markedly from the UN; their list includes things like 'Not owning or having access to a car' and 'not owning your own home'.

What is most striking about both the Oxfam and SEU definitions of poverty (and thus 'need') is that I, personally, meet their criteria for poverty. When Oxfam or government statistics are trotted out to tell you how many people live in poverty in this country, their criteria are so broad that they catch me in there.
So, the next time an Oxfam worker collars you in the street and demands you set up a standing order to help them eradicate poverty in the UK because (adopts meaningful and portentious tone of voice) "One person in four lives in poverty", just remember what the true face of poverty in the UK looks like. It looks like mine, and I'm stuffing a jammy Wagon Wheel into it whilst I'm typing this.
As I'm in poverty, can I have a handout now, please?

These catch-all, broad definitions of 'need' and 'poverty' only serve to undermine the genuine problems of a very small proportion of the population and instead all they tell me is that when people say 'from each according to his needs', those 'needs' are a very moveable concept indeed, and the definitions given seem more designed to keep the people doing the defining in comfy jobs than to actually solve any genuine problems.
What strikes me even more is that the definitions are being defined completely arbitarily; I can make up any definition to 'need' and 'poverty' and then tell you that I want to do something about them - and most people, because they never consider the assumtions being made and the definitions being used, will go along quite happily, unaware that they're being bilked.
So; if socialists can make up their own definitions of 'need', then two can play at that game:
it strikes me that what most people need is a firm kick up the arse and, thanks to my kickboxing, I have the ability to give it to them. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs indeed.

So if you'd all line up and bend over, I've got some percussive rectal encouragement to get on with.
Why did nobody ever tell me before that Communism could be this much fun?

Comments

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I need to go back to bed, I tried to read what you wrote but it made my brain hurt...


maybe I'll try again later

[gwaunquest.livejournal.com]

This works very well - the measure of poverty- until you try to get some real help. Then you find out that you- as opposed to you the statistic- don't qualify for a long string of labouriously worked out reasons.I've always been firmly of the opinion that these bodies only exist to provide employment, not to help the people who realy need help.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Ten points!

The measures of poverty are arbitary and meaningless and change dramatically; the JRF has a study which indicates that the number of people living in poverty in the UK increased dramatically between 1983 and 1999 - shocking until you consider that the definition of poverty also changed dramatically, and if the 1983 measures of standards of living are used then poverty actually fell.
But acknowledging that doesn't keep people in jobs in rather nice charity offices writing holier-than-thou reports full of moral outrage, does it?

[commlal.livejournal.com]

Probably changes the same way unemployment does. David was unemployed (by my reconings "Did not have a job") and yet did not count as unemployed. Why? Because he lived with me, even though we wernt married. Bah and piffle.

That also means for a large percentage of my life in poverty, yet my mother couldnt get any benifits.

Damn I hate it when I agree with you.

To each according to her needs

[(Anonymous)]

I wish you'd linked directly to the Oxfam "how do I find out if I'm poor" section. I've been trying to find out if I'm poor too. It's not easy is it?

Anyhow, it looks as if I might be ... I can tick a few of their boxes too (no TV, budgeting on a weekly cash basis, I daresay our flat would count as "inadequately heated" if your moaning & shivering is anything to go by) so next time you're moved to help the poor, remember, charity begins at home.

Your rent goes up next month.

H

Re: To each according to her needs

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

'scuse me? I'm poorer than you and therefore, by definition, morally superior to boot. I don't own my own home, you capitalist scum - and because you own property and I don't, that means you stole it from me. As we know, money is a limited resource and there's only a fixed, unchanging amount of it in the whole world. There'll never be any more.*

^{*Ill thought out argument (c)jonnyargles}

Re: To each according to her needs

[(Anonymous)]

Pah, what cobblers. As all your readers know, you are a company director, and therefore a bloated, cigar-smoking plutocrat reclining on a groaning pile of the oppressed masses, such as my worthy self. I therefore put it to you that I, not you, am the Victim in the Victim/Oppressor relationship which as we know, characterises all interpersonal pairings within a free market economy. Give me back my money, you capitalist swine.

H

Re: To each according to her needs

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Pah, to your money. With a single global currency that posit would hold true. Unfortunately, as post-WWI germany found out when it starved all the pensioners with hyperinflation, the currency of a country alters in relation to other countries. The League of Nations say we have to pay them DM200,000? Fine, let's devalue our country's currency, and screw those on a fixed income!

Money is a short-hand term for barter. I cannot raise a sheep on my back garden, but I can cut hair. I could offer to cut the hair of a sheep farmer for some wool, or I could 'nest' the reward for hair cutting which could either then be used to buy wool or other products or services.

The only way 'money' is increased is by people deciding that some services are more deserving of 'nesting tokens' than others - usually as a desire to not have to do so much work or endure a lack of luxuries themselves. This is called profit. In many cases, the item or service has no additional intrinsic value, but is merely sold as it it were a more expensive product that it actually was.

The end result is - that like pyramid schemes - someone at the end of the money cycle ends up being exploited. At the moment, the biggest losers are probably workers in China, African farmers with trade sanctions or people who sign up for that HILARIOUS Crazy Frog Ringtone and then get charged £10 a month until they realise what's happening.

I've never claimed any moral superiority is inherent in the poor; a lot of them are bastards. Most of them are bastards because of their upbringing, but some are just naturally gits. I do think it's naive, though, to say that the only reason people haven't made it as chairman of ICI is because they're lazy.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Actually, that definition of poverty can be eradicated by the complete redistribution of all wealth. :-p

See, you are a socialist!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Someone once told me that if we redistributed all the money in the world, everyone would have £2,000,000. My reply was "And by the end of the week, I'd have ten million, and four suckers would have nothing."

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

However, complete redistribution still wouldn't solve Oxfam's definition; they use 'disposable income' as their term, and, as some people consume more resources in the form of utilities (heat, light, etc), then their bills will necessarily be higher and those people will still have a lower disposable income.

You'd have to regulate to everyone an equal amount of heating, lighting and so on, into perpetuity, irrespective of their personal requirements or wants.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Wow...now you're a communist! You have been talking to inksuldrak, haven't you? *grin*

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The more I think about it, the more this arbitary definition of poverty appeals to me. From now on, I'm defining "poverty" as 'David not having enough cool stuf and girls', and I'm going to devote my life to combatting it.

Maths clarification

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

"The median is a number that separates the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution from the lower half. More precisely 1/2 of the population will have values less than or equal to the median and 1/2 of the population will have values equal to or greater than the median"
"Oxfam defines poverty as: "Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01.""
Therefore, providing your distribution curve is quite tight around the median, (i.e. at no individual value is below 60% of the median value) you succeed in achieving Oxfam's goal. If you have widely spread difference between your values (i.e. really poor people relative to median income) then you fail.
Oxfam are really measuring how wide the gap is between the rich and poor. Nordic countries will be much closer to achieving the metric than somewhere like Britain with a huge and increasing gap between the richest and the poorest.

Re: Maths clarification

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

But this is a false definition of poverty; it doesn't matter how rich the person at the top of the scale is if the person at the bottom doesn't meet any reasonable definition of poverty due to the standard of living of society being high.

The people at the very bottom don't meet those criteria, but to create an arbitary definition of poverty which basically means I live within their criteria is not only misleading, I consider it downright untruthful and even personally offensive, despite by usual abhorrence to taking the language of the victim.
The number of people within this country who meet any reasonable definitions of 'poverty' is a tiny minority, and I'd like to see this acknowldged.

Re: Maths clarification

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I was replying to your "Simple maths tells us that a proportion of the population will always live under a set point of the median income, because that's what the median means.", not your wider argument.
That statement is wrong (maybe you are poor in the maths education sense!)
Unfortunately I don't have time to take apart your wider argument.

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

Actually it is possible to eradicate poverty by Oxfam's definition. all you need is a suitably tight distribution of wages below the median. For example, if every person in the country is paid the same wage, then no-one is poor by Oxfam's definition, since they are all on 100% of the median wage. (Median, incidentally for those that don't know, is the point at which 50% of the population are earning less and 50% more. Interestingly, Oxfam's definition is not actually socialist in the convential sense, since it is completely independent of the distribution of wages above the 50% point. Thus a society in which all men are paid 100x that of all women has no poverty by Oxfam's definition. (Men and women not picked to make a sexual politics point, just because there are slightly more than 50% women so thus all women would be earning 100% of the median wage in this situation.)

The essential point that Oxfam misses is that to a large extent poverty is not a relative phenomenon. In this country, barring cock ups, every citizen's basic needs are provided for. I am extremely dubious of any British citizen who claims to be living in poverty since to my mind poverty does not denote not having enough money to buy a pint of beer so much as not having the means to acquire enough food to live on (and a few other things). Even people who are 50,000 pounds in debt do not have these needs provided for, although they may be unwilling to admit that they need to sell their house in order to live at an acceptable standard. But that's another essential defining factor of poverty - you can't *choose* to live in poverty. If there's some way out that you're not taking because it seems unacceptable to you, then you aren't living in poverty.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Not quite so; their definition is based on median disposable income. As some people will need more basic utilities like water or energy, their utility bills will be higher and their disposable income will be lower.

As noted above, the only way to eradicate poverty within Oxfams definition is to divide up water, energy and either give them away free (and who will pay for it?), or divide them completely equally irrespective of individual requirements.

Beyond that, I agree. The number of people living in poverty isn't 15,000,000 in this country. That's a prfoundly dishonest statement, and it fucks me off.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

At what point is the income they are using on utilities etc disposable and at what point is it necessary? I have no doubt I use significantly more electricity and water than I need in order to survive, or even to exist comfortably. The differential is probably much larger in reality than it needs to be, as the individual needs for things like water are relatively similar. If you have chosen to live in a large house with leaky pipes and expensive heating bills are you then poorer than someone who has the same income as you but lives in a bedsit, has a five minute shower every day, and puts on an extra jumper? Or have you chosen to use disposable income on added utility costs? It's a stupid definition - people who have significantly greater wealth under that system would be classified as in poverty, while someone with a relatively low income, no major financial commitments (but significantly less long term financial security) is "comfortable".

While obviously circumstance can be a major factor, one of the biggest problems in terms of these campaigns to "eradicate poverty" is an almost total de-emphasising of personal responsibility. It's a consistent problem in this country I feel - poverty, debt, unemployment are always the fault of something else. Now on lots of occasions that might be the case, but equally on lots of occasions it is a case of people making a greater effort to sort things out for themselves. Problem is, by de-emphasising the personal responsibility there is significantly less motivation for people to do so - it's not their fault so why should they do anything to solve the problem?

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

Frankly I've never understood why charities shoot themselves in the foot like that. It certainly makes me take Oxfam less seriously.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Simple maths tells us that a proportion of the population will always live under a set point of the median income, because that's what the median means.

Personally, I think you're a lot smarter than me, and I fully admit I don't understand economics. However, it strikes me that you're incorect.

Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01

Oxfam arn't talking about the Median, there talking about 60% of it. That's 40% under the average. It is possiable to get rid of that kind of inequality. And frankly, it seems a suitable enough definition to me.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Flattered by the cleverness compliment and all, but I'm unconvinced by it :)

Both Colin and Christi above give the maths on the median definition; it's not a fair definition of poverty either in absolute terms is the general consensus of opinion.
I know they're talking about 40% under the average and I repeat: that's me. In your wildest dreams, do you think I live in poverty? I certainly don't.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Woudl you be happier if that definition was the average for the plannet?

[goose-entity.livejournal.com]

perhaps if I paraphrase, the idiocy of the Oxfam statement will become clearer?

"Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01"

Paraphrased:
"Poverty is defined as being 60 per cent of a moving target which we have arbitrarily set at a time in the past for no real reason" - I have ranted elsewhere that lack of a colour television (which is one of the UK government definitions!) does not mean that you live in *poverty*.

The preamble to the wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median - is quite good, especially the comment "At most, half the population have values less than the median and at most half have values greater than the median.". What this means is that the median will ALWAYS divide a population, IRRESPECTIVE of what the *total* is. So, a median point is a cheat.

Remember - "truth, lies, damned lies, and statistics" ;)

Does that help?

Economics

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

I discovered something recently.
A subject that is blowing my mind and is changing the way I look at things.

This subject is Economics.

Economics is NOT a subject to do with the economy. That is part of it, but you can be a great economist and not really give a toss about it.
Capitalism does not hold exculsivity over maths you see.

It's a hard subject.

But it gets mixed in with politics. Politics corrupts economics. Economists are humans, they have political views.
They approach the raw data with said political views in mind.
As such they find results which suit them.

They dilute economics with political bias.
What Oxfam are doing is merely trying to compete with those economists who present alternative models showing everyone is getting richer and the world is better off.
What Oxfam did was wrong; but by the same measure what economists who support globalisation do is wrong (for example). Both sides are guilty of applying very specific filters to their criteria for data.
It devalues economics.

Maths, proper maths, has no political filter.

I say- ALL politicalically biased economists, both left and right, should be stripped of their degrees and re-named sociologists.

ECONOMICS has NO political bias. It rips apart both left and right wing polemics. It tears a hole in the most precious held political beliefs of the past 60 years, which have manipulated economics to justify their political view point.

This is merely one skirmish in a much greater battle.