An accurate look into the monopoly of poverty

I was not 100% sure where to post this but I am sure GCC will be fine.

This is an interesting quote from a man called Robert Phillipe Noonan(Tressell) that I wanted to share to those who are new to it.

Some information for those interested:

Noonan was born in Dublin, Ireland, the illegitimate son of Samuel Croker, a senior member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He was baptised and raised a Roman Catholic by his mother Mary Noonan. His father, who wasn't Catholic, had his own family, but attempted to provide for Robert until his death in 1875.[1][2] By 1875 Noonan was living in London. He was recorded on the 1881 England Census, under his step-father Sebastian Zumbühl's surname, living at 27 Elmore Street, Islington, London. Noonan had, in the words of his daughter, Kathleen, "a very good education" and could speak a variety of languages. However, when he was sixteen, he showed signs of a radical political consciousness, and left his family, declaring he "would not live on the family income derived largely from absentee landlordism". It was around this time he changed his surname to his mother's maiden name.[2]

The Quote (Also including the extended literature in normal font):

“Poverty is not caused by men and women getting married; it's not caused by machinery; it's not caused by "over-production"; it's not caused by drink or laziness; and it's not caused by "over-population". It's caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it's right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?" And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on "Christian Duty" in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers. And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of th gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you'll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to "justice" in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.”

His comparision of Food and Air is, in my opinion, the best way of explaining just how sick being homeless/poor/starving is in a supposedly civilised society where the earth can provide enough for all if shared. If air had been somehow monopolised years ago, around the same time as food, perhaps we would indeed be signing on at the local welfare office for our weekly supply of air. Also smashing the Gasometer for air is a good comparision to robbing a supermarket for food I feel. Both justified.

en.wikipedia.org...

We are livestock being milked for the benefit of a very tiny % of the population. The work force of the proletarian masses is being exploited by a very tiny % of the population, like any other resource they exploit. We are given the illusion of choice through elections, and through 47 different models of smartphones that all do the same things and are all designed to fail at some point, but all the very important choices are already decided: war, economy, education, where we should go from here and what we should do as a species, etc, all of that is already decided and the proletarian masses have no say in it. And this is all masked by an apparent modernity that is just truly made of failing gadgets, propaganda and pokemon go.

It is a fairly easy statement to say that we produce enough food to feed the world and I agree with it but the over riding factor is that certain areas of the planet are poor due to there own doing, giving them a endless supple of food will not make a ounce of difference. One country that springs to mind as having every right to be poor is Japan as within living memory it was devastated yet look at it now leading the way in many technologies.

We have populations around the world that are pumping out copious amounts of children that will go on to burden the family, and I am firmly against abortion but I do say to take responsibility for one's actions. How many people are poor due to the Catholic church for instance??.

I have been to far to many countries where a person cannot be bothered to spend time learning how to farm to feed them self yet they have the latest Iphone, a person really does not need a lot to survive but priorities in many things I have experienced are lacking.

We do indeed live in a world of haves and have not's, you are far better getting yourself out a poverty than expecting help to always be handed to you. As a species we are based on survival of the fittest, you will always people at the higher end and the lower end it will never change.


RA

a reply to: slider1982

I see where your coming from but it isn't just about giving people and endless supply of food. For example some of the poorest countrys where thousands upon thousands die of starvation are outsourcing food to western countrys, It is ludicrous.

Instead of helping to restore cultivated land back to africa for example, big coorporations are much more interested in exploiting them for their own benefit. Heres some ideas into helping africa, notice most if not all are useless ideas because it relies on coorporation and rich government losing money.

www.theguardian.com...

Im not a "hippy" or some kind of extremist, I just know basic necessitys such as food and medicine could be supplied worldwide, to all that need such. The only thing stopping this is mass greed and the interests of power and profit. You can't blame a country like africa for being exploited by the rich man. They are powerless to stop them as they can't even feed themselves let alone revolt.

As a species we are based on survival of the fittest, you will always people at the higher end and the lower end it will never change.

We are not based on that at all, Maybe in the past when we were banging rocks together but now we have evolved more than any lifeform we know of. Instead of using our gifts, whether great of small, for the betterment of all we just use them for money, power, and the latest gadgets/cars/clothes... etc. You can have nice things and still change the world, You can't have all the nice things because everyone else suffers.

a reply to: WhatGoldStandard


I think that when you live in the areas you speak of maybe you will get a better idea, and that is to not undermine your post, far from it but example. A few years ago there was a group that where supplying school children in the third world USB pens that had a basic operating system on them so the children could get online using older computers in which to aid their learning. What happened do you think within a week of these USB's been given out?.. The elders of the village had taken them and sold them.

I was working in the Caribbean when the Haiti earthquake hit, aid workers soon found out that they could not work without security in tow as the aid workers where being robbed, and not for food and water but personal effects.

I am currently in the Philippines which is a perfect situation of poverty out of choice, a family that cannot feed themselves goes on and has three children in as many years, you then have children that are starving, and this situation is what I was referring to with my "catholic church" comment.

I know it is not PC to state but a majority of the world is very much still uneducated and savage, we are a million miles away from a caring society that can work together. If you want a diiferent type of holiday next year head to Nigeria which is a perfect place to see African economics in action, if you do not have money and influence there and you are not trying to short the next man you will not last. Oh and as a outsider I would recommend you speak with a security firm before you travel esp in the outskirts of Lagos.


RA

a reply to: slider1982

I would sell a USB aswell if I was hungry, Its worthless to me in comparision to food and water. What does a poor man need with a USB and no food. If they was'nt poor then it was greed, both of which I am arguing against.

In regards to the carribbean theft is usually the case of have and have nots. I understand you were there to help so maybe they could of picked targets more suitable than those trying to aid their country. I have been homeless in the past, perhaps I will be homeless again as this job searching over the last few months have been pretty sparse and savings don't last long unemployed. But if I am made homeless again I would not hesitate to steal EVERYTHING I needed from big corps such as supermarkets, so I could'nt judge the thiefs really, just a bad choice in target.

Philippines, I would say you should'nt paint poverty with a borad brush. Having children when poor Is a pretty stupid thing to do, of course if your poor prevention and abortion would most likely be out of reach and human urges are hard to resist for some, especially if you had nothing else. But you can't generalise everyone as doing that.

I completely agree that alot of places are uneducated and pretty much savage. The problem is again greed. If resources were shared out by all instead of massively hoarded by some you could increase the spread of education, culture, morals, ethics, History and fair law etc... But power and greed once again kill this lovely idealogy dead. So many people wanting to control and gather not enough willing to coorperate and share.

a reply to: WhatGoldStandard


Who said they where starving to sell the USB's???? Did I say they where buying food or water with the proceeds?.

You can take a horse to water you cannot make it drink.

If you struggle with employment but have a skill or craft offer your services to a charity and head overseas to see for yourself what the situation is. Manila needs care works right now for the thousands of starving and homeless children.



RA

a reply to: slider1982

Yeah you did'nt read the full first paragraph. I did say if not for food it was closer to greed and therefore a part of what I am arguing against

I would sell a USB aswell if I was hungry, Its worthless to me in comparision to food and water. What does a poor man need with a USB and no food. If they was'nt poor then it was greed, both of which I am arguing against.

You can't make a horse drink but you could a foul. Once you introduce new standards of living into a society as a whole, those people would begin to adapt and the new generation would become more familar with their new surroundings than the old and a new populace begins.

a reply to: WhatGoldStandard

In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?"

Even though I know better, I often think the same way as him.

That is, my first thought is to think it is the "landlords'" fault. Then I see that, "no, the lords do nothing but sit up in their house - they do not do their own bidding - it is the field bosses, or other such publicans who do their bidding."

And then I remember, "oh right, it isn't them, either. It is their will or that spirit that has them."

a reply to: WhatGoldStandard

It's quite the efficient system they've got going, huh? The masses get poorer, weaker, more desperate, all while serving the needs of the elite few. Baffling how it's gotten so bad, but even more so to look at how much things are getting worse

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Yeah we all know world change is pretty much fictional, not because we don't have the means or ability, but because we lack the unification of the majority to instigate such changes. Aslong as we bicker, fight and stay divided there is no power in numbers and those in charge of these monopolies know this and, in my opinion, are constantly stoking the fire of hateful Ism's to mantain and build upon the large % of wealth and power they currently have.

a reply to: slider1982

"As a species we are based on survival of the fittest..." . That may well be true for animals living in the wild, but not humans. As soon as they figured out how to grow food, build shelter and came up with the idea of money they were beyond survival of the fittest. It was survival of the greediest, the meanest, the most willing to take from those they manipulated - base animal instincts in a creature capable of so much more.

Those base animal urges are the failsafe that keeps knocking humans back - the division, the wars, poverty, etc.

So intelligent, so creative, so much capacity for making a world (aside from natural disasters) perfect for all - and it all ends up a giant case of bad management - because just as it is in the business world - smart people don't run the show - greedy people run the show. It is the way is is, is not a truth. It is the way it is because we allow it to be.

You need better managers

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: slider1982

"As a species we are based on survival of the fittest..." . That may well be true for animals living in the wild, but not humans. As soon as they figured out how to grow food, build shelter and came up with the idea of money they were beyond survival of the fittest. It was survival of the greediest, the meanest, the most willing to take from those they manipulated - base animal instincts in a creature capable of so much more.

Those base animal urges are the failsafe that keeps knocking humans back - the division, the wars, poverty, etc.

So intelligent, so creative, so much capacity for making a world (aside from natural disasters) perfect for all - and it all ends up a giant case of bad management - because just as it is in the business world - smart people don't run the show - greedy people run the show. It is the way is is, is not a truth. It is the way it is because we allow it to be.

You need better managers

You have answered the question yourself here, my statement regarding survival of the fittest is not in relation to one mans village killing the other. How do you think the super powerful got there?. Regardless of their moral compass it is fairly rare for someone of low IQ to have the means or the foresight to be able to rule so many people or commodities I feel for some in this thread it is a rude awakening to the Human ego.

It will not be the most stupid person in society that gets to rule it far from it, it will be the person that has the highest IQ or "savvy" to be able to manipulate to the masses. They will know how to play the game.

I will also call BS on what many call the invasion mostly of peoples with European heritage into the third world, and my basis for this is look at Papua New Guinea. Overall this location is untouched by outside influence and what do you have?. It has a wealth of natural resources such as Coffee yet what you have there is a "tribe" mentality that see's the nation as one of the most dangerous in the world with ruthless gangs that rob,rape and overall just act liked f#cking morons. And the few people that have gone there as prospectors that employ the local females (as women there are lower than second class citizens) run the risk of constant attack and even struggle to get their produce from source to manufacturing plants due to the gangs. Now the flip side is if they had any idea what they are sitting on they would become civilized and then put plans in place to create a network that could see this country becoming very very wealthy and in turn that will give the local population far more chances to earn money to buy sh1t they do not need like iphones and Jordans.

After all no one is starving there, they have a perfect climate with good amounts of rain making food production very easy, they have a close world leader in Australia next door in which to do business I could go on and on..

The world is so far from perfect it is not even worth a discussion, yet when you still have people that are given everything they need, look at what people get for free in Europe, but a person always wants more greed is implanted into our make up. If I have more coconuts than the next person then there is a less likely risk of me starving. These same fundamentals still exist all be it in different ways and that is why we have the haves and have not's. The haves just find more ways to make sure they will not starve.


RA

a reply to: WhatGoldStandard

The problem is not a lack of anything - the problem is an abundance of greed.

Let me ask you: what is the difference between a monopoly and the property rights of an individual? Really, what is the difference? What you're doing, I think, is putting the others before the individual, and yet, the others are, themselves, individuals. So really, there is no difference.

So really, what could be done? Just as I illustrated in the post above, the problem is not the proverbial hands of the lords (your so-called divided / my so-called tax collectors) and the problem is not the lords (or the minds/heads themselves dictating that they should own everything). Again: the problem is the spirit of greed.

And what could we possibly do with that? We know both good and evil, so even if we did eradicate or breed out the the conception of unjust ownership (corrupt knowledge of ownership) someone else (someone looking to inherit without labor) is just going to come along and reimagine it within a generation, right?

And that is what I was eluding to, but I did not spell it out for you: Robert Tressell, myself, and you were no better than the ones we were pointing figures at. We were not meek, we were looking to inherent, or gain property, without labor pains and so it is that same spirit of greed that was working in us. Yep... that same spirit that has buried itself deep into the mind of lords, and into the hands of tax collecting enforcers, is the same one that is buried itself into the hearts of the troubled impoverished (those looking for unlabored inheritance).

-Like it or not, our curse is labor pains. The only people who are just are the meek - the people who give their work to the just and unjust alike.

p.s. I haven't fully grasped it either, but it has something to do with the fact that, to be blameless, we must give our work to the just and unjust alike (like God does). i.e. If we give only to those we love, we are no better than they are - we would be just as selfish.

tl;dr:You think that by being born we are justified? You think that we should not have labor pains? So do they (that's the problem.)

First let me say that was a well written (spoken) passage; it’s a good point of argument.


However I don’t think the analogy is correct. The very think that makes air impossible to monopolize is the thing that makes it different than the water or the minerals of the earth.

As I sit here and type this there is no natural water for me to drink; I would have to walk miles to find any natural water and then I would have to worry about its safety for me to drink. And In that time I would not be accomplishing the other important tasks I need to do today.

Yet there is a bottle of water on my desk; it was bottled by someone who took the time to go to the natural source of the water, took the time to test the water for safety, took the time to bottle the water and took the time to deliver the water to me. And In the same time while this person was supplying me with my need for water I was able to accomplishing the other important tasks I need to do today.

The same cannot be said for the air I breath; it is way more abundant than the water and it doesn’t take me any time to find it and consume it on my own.

Why should not the person who bottled my water be compensated for his work? Just as I am compensated for my work accomplishing the other important tasks that benefit both me and that person?

The same can be said for the abundance of food; sure just like with water it’s easy to say that it is abundant and wonder why not everyone has it. But then like above (and even harder) that food would not exist if not for the labor of some other person growing it, packaging it and shipping it to everyone else.

Now if the author is calling for humanity to live a more isolated and agrarian lifestyle; where we catch our own water, and grow our own food and breath our own air and dispense with the convenience of societal living than maybe he has a point. But what do we give up?

Now don’t get me wrong there is of course a down side to our way of living. Some individual can become too powerful and their greed can lead them to scarify their fellow man for money/power. But society has to deal with that as it comes … unfortunately of late we haven’t been doing a good job of it.

Also don’t get me wrong; if we could someone erase all greed from men’s hearts and replace it with altruism and live in a utopian socialistic society where we feed every man woman and child despite their ability to contribute that would be assume … Unfortunately that is not a vision of realty and an impossible goal as it goes against the very innate nature of human existence. There have been grand experiments in trying to create this utopia and they have all failed when the population size grows any more than a few dozen people.

originally posted by: slider1982
You have answered the question yourself here, my statement regarding survival of the fittest is not in relation to one mans village killing the other. How do you think the super powerful got there?. Regardless of their moral compass it is fairly rare for someone of low IQ to have the means or the foresight to be able to rule so many people or commodities I feel for some in this thread it is a rude awakening to the Human ego.

This isn't true at all, those of average and below average intelligence are most often the managers. It is very rare that the smartest person is actually the one in charge. Life isn't a meritocracy, Survival of the Fittest being one implementation of that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: slider1982
You have answered the question yourself here, my statement regarding survival of the fittest is not in relation to one mans village killing the other. How do you think the super powerful got there?. Regardless of their moral compass it is fairly rare for someone of low IQ to have the means or the foresight to be able to rule so many people or commodities I feel for some in this thread it is a rude awakening to the Human ego.

This isn't true at all, those of average and below average intelligence are most often the managers.

I am not talking about the minion middle men in Walmart, I mean the Oil executives ,Gas, Arms, technology etc etc.. I am talking about the top 1% that have power over everything.. 98% of the population can work at a job if they wish. Only 1% have the entrepreneur instincts to produce a working company and even far less to produce the mega wealth such as Apple, Microsoft or Virgin for example.


RA