The seventies make a comeback

[davywavy]

As is commonly known, sister and I live in poverty, so it might come as a surprise to you to learn that people often try and sell us financial services. Not of the "Sign here and get our new low credit rate of 57% for the rest of your pathetic, squalid life!" sort as so often appears from people offering loans to the poverty-stricken, but more sophisticated scammers than that, instead offering stock tips and investment advice. The other day, we received a mailshot from these people, offering us unrivalled access to stock market secrets.
Now this sort of thing tends to make me guffaw merrily before adding the letter to the recycling, but not on this occasion. On this occasion these people made two mistakes: one, they make completely wild and unreasonable statements in their literature, and two, they included a reply-paid envelope.

If you want to read a copy of the mailshot they sent us, you can do so here.

And thanks to their kindly inclusion of a reply paid envelope, we got to reply to them:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your recent letter setting out your reasons for contending that the current economic situation is similar to that prevailing in the early 1970’s.

Although in some ways I would agree that parallels can be drawn between then and now (although there are also notable differences, most obviously an independent Bank of England), one aspect of the 1970’s which I certainly don’t consider due for revival any time soon, and am surprised to see that you apparently do, is that era’s attitude to race. I refer (of course) to your subheading; “6. ASIAN MANUFACTURING IS STEALING OUR JOBS -” beneath which you allude to the problems faced by the Rover car plant in the 1970’s, and draw a present-day parallel with the Chinese manufacturing boom.

Sir, I have spoken to auto engineers working for motor and Diesel companies in Britain and Detroit, and it is the considered opinion of all these (British-born) designers that people did not want to buy Rover cars in the 1970’s because, quite simply, Rover then made a dreadful product.

By comparison, Toyota, for instance, is one of the great car manufacturers of the world. British people did not buy Toyota cars because they were conniving with evil slant-eyed pilferers of work that rightfully belonged to the decent British labourer in a conspiracy to undermine our economy. As you, by using the word ‘stealing’, imply. No. They simply bought Toyota cars because they were better value for money. There was no theft or dishonesty involved, simply global market forces. If you genuinely believe that the Japanese car manufacturers of the ‘Seventies committed some dishonest or underhand act then the British purchasers of the product are also guilty by association and you ought to be including them in your defamatory remarks, unless of course you consider them to be the witless dupes of a cunning and ingenious race, incapable of organising a boycott. In any case, I consider your observation to be distasteful in the extreme, and if this is the sort of thing you feel to have to resort to in order to attract potential customers I trust you will kindly remove my name and address from your mailing list with all due expedience.

Yours sincerely

Well, it passed an evening, anyway.

Comments

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

"sending unwanted junk mail to worthy causes" implies that when Cancer Research or Amnesty International or LACS or some such similar organisation send you a plea for cash plus a nice pre-paid envelope you send it back to them so as to cost them money. Is that really what you mean?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

"Deserving" causes would be better. As in: those causes which deserve it.
My typo, apologies.

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't "sending junk mail to causes I don't like" be more accurate? Your persecution of LACS is purely a value judgement on your part!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As noted in my post on poverty a while ago, many causes use language in a humpty-dumpty-ish fashion: i.e. words mean whatever they want them to mean and nothing more.

LACS' persecuation of hunting is purely a value judgement on their part - and yours too as in your previous comment you described them as a 'worthy cause', when all you happen to do is agree with them.
My point here being that if people I disagree with can use language in a cavlier manner then so can I - and I'm often as good, if not better at it than them. The difference between me and them being that they often use it to bilk people out of time and money on false pretenses (see the notes on Oxfam's use of the word 'poverty' as applied to the UK), and I use it to send them up.
Hurrah for the moral high ground!

Do your homework first!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I didn't express a personal opinion on LACS, I just pointed out your original phrasing was ambiguous.
Again, your view of e.g. poverty and others' view of the matter can be down to which definition you use - that is not necessarily cavalier. Making an assumption that you are right and they are wrong is, however, pretty cavalier!
From Oxfam's website:
"How were these figures calculated?
Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed.
These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it.
And they are a snapshot: they don’t tell us how long people live in poverty.

How does poverty in the UK compare to poverty in other parts of the world?
Oxfam does not argue that the extent or depth of poverty in the UK is similar to that in developing countries.
But not all those living in the wealthier countries of the world fulfil the stereotype of the rich, privileged consumer. Some have been left behind, living in a parallel financial universe, often budgeting on a weekly cash basis, with no bank account, few local shops, and constantly juggling bills and debts.
Through their resilience, by making a supreme effort, and by learning from experience, people may get by.12 But every coping strategy has its costs. It is women who often take on the burden of managing the family budget, putting others’ needs before their own and undermining their physical and mental health by doing so.
Oxfam also believes that the underlying causes of poverty, and the ways poverty affects people’s lives, in the north and south of the world are very similar. Inequalities of power and wealth, and a lack of political will to put the fight against poverty top of the agenda, underpin the reality of continuing poverty in countries all over the world. And the way people living in poverty are treated by others, and often have no voice in decisions affecting their lives, is similar in the UK and elsewhere.
‘Poverty strips you of your dignity.’
‘Poverty affects your self-esteem, your confidence … You feel totally powerless.’
The United Nations Development Programme sees poverty as a lack of capabilities to live a long, healthy and creative life, to be knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard of living, dignity, self-respect, and the respect of others. It sees a ‘life of respect and value’ as a key aim of human development."

I did my homework and got an A+!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You did include LACS in a list which included Amnesty and Cancer Research, so it's not unrealistic on my part to reach certain conclusions about your opinions of the organisation based upon words used within context as presented. A little unfair on yours to criticise me for ambiguity under the circumstances though :)

As for Oxfam; the Office of National Statistics (who introduced the 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01 measurement) described that as being their definition of 'low income', which is a somewhat fairer definition. It was Oxfam who (even in the light of what you say above) unilaterally and seemingly arbitarily introduced the word 'poverty' into the debate, presumably because "1 in 4 lives in poverty" scans better on the adverts than "1 in 4 are low-income". People will dig deeper into their pockets when they see the word poverty - I write adverts for a living, and it's perfectly true.

Oxfam reference the UN:The United Nations Development Programme sees poverty as a lack of capabilities to live a long, healthy and creative life, to be knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard of living, dignity, self-respect, and the respect of others. It sees a ‘life of respect and value’ as a key aim of human development."
, but looking on the UNDP website I can't actually find them saying that anywhere. All I can find is a list of highly laudable goals on their millennium development website.

Personally I'm with Abraham Lincoln - "You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong'; and, mathematically speaking, the only realistic way in our current society to acheive Oxfam's goal of eradicating what they describe as poverty would require the strong to be significantly weakened.

Re: Do your homework first!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

My error - I wasn't quoting Lincoln, I was a quoting Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

Re: Do your homework first!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I used "implies" in my original response, i.e. all I did was present one possible interpretation of your ambiguous statement. It included nothing from myself other than my selection of the meaning that was most interesting to me from the range of possibilities you made available through the ambiguity in your original statement.

The European Union uses a comparative measure which sets a poverty line at 50% of the median income. This is close to that used by Oxfam.
The UK Government does use 60% as its target, so it is the same as Oxfam.

The difference is you are using the term "absolute poverty", they are using the term "relative poverty". You are, therefore, attempting to argue with Oxfam about a different issue.

As for relative poverty in the UK, it is increasing, it is really high relative to every developed country except the US. I don't believe in levelling down, but I also don't think the rich are paying anything like their share either. Levelling up should be the ultimate goal, but a minimum degree of social cohesion is also necessary too.

PS I liked your letter.

Re: Do your homework first!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree that levelling up is the way to go - as Margaret Thatcher once said; "A rising tide lifts all ships"

As to whether what you said was or was not ambiguous, surely the fact that your audience found it so is all the evidence needed? You did present the three organisations without differentiating them, and the implication of that presentation was that the presenter accorded them equal weighting.
I could set up a poll to ask people if they agree with my reading of what you wrote if you like? I found it ambiguous and it didn't give me the message which you wanted it to; I believe that others would feel the same way.

Re: Do your homework first!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, whilst the NAO figures of low income are based on disposable income before housing costs, Oxfam calculates their figures after these costs have been taken into account: "These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed."

The more I read, the more cynical I get about Oxfam, their methods and methodology.

Re: Do your homework first!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

Given that poor people are more likely to get some form of housing benefit whilst richer people are more likely to pay their own housing costs, this means that LESS people will fall below the 60% cut-off under Oxfam's calculation, not more.

So you will now be less cynical about Oxfam.

Re: Do your homework first!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Fair point - I forgot I actually made that same point myself to borusa in my post of a few weeks ago.

I shall limit myself to being incredibly cynical about their use of the word 'poverty'.

Re: Do your homework first!

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you'll continue to manage that admirably. Unfortunately I have actually got some work to do, and you're meant to be taking over the world or similar, so I think we'd best leave this one for awhile.