The Conspiracies Of Poverty

I live in an American city, a big American city called Chicago, and I see the ravages of poverty every day. There are still Vietnam vets, their legs blown off by charley, sitting on State street panhandling. Some of them are barely sane enough to know that they need money.

I met a girl when I was up in Milwaukee last week, she graduated from North Division High School (a school with a graduation rate of less than 50%) with a 3.9 GPA. She lived in an area of town nicknamed Little Beruit, where a guy was beaten to death by kids with rocks two years ago, just because the kids felt like it. But she had a job, she was working at Wallgreens, and probably would be for a while longer, because even though she got into college, she couldn't afford it. She wanted to be a child psychologist.

I voulenteer a lot, soup kitches are my favorite place to donate my time, people seem so thankful just to get a hot meal and a smile, especially durring the winter. I met a girl there once who was a prostitute, she was taking care of her brother's kids after he got killed by the Black Gangsta Deciples in a gang war. She said to me once that she got paid less because she made her Johns wear condoms. She'd also taken two guns away from her brother's oldest kid, he was around 12. Eventually she got a job as a stripper and stopped comming to the kitchen.

I stopped watching the local news last year, I was sick of hearing about all the murders, rapes and thefts. Every damn night it was the same thing, sombody was shot, their blood drained into the gutter, and their life ended. All that changed was the name and locaton. On one of the last local newscasts I caught I saw that Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in America, I'd believe it, everyone seems to know someone who's gone, it's like a war.


This is American Poverty, I live in Chicago and see it everyday. I think there is a conspiracy to keep poverty in America. When was the last time anyone mentoned the War On Poverty that America has supposedly been fighting since Ike was in office? Instead we hear about tax cuts to those making over $200K a year, and the glory of trickle-down economics. Surprising also is how many of the poor are overseas fighting now, they didn't have any say in the wars that are being fought, be it fighting terror or fighting in Iraq, they still fight for a better life for people halfway around the world. When is Jenna Bush going to become an army of one and fight for her dady's war in Iraq?

I've also lived in Europe, and the huge problem of the underprivilaged here is not mirrored across the Atlantic. America is a country where you can see the riches of the first world and the hopelessness of the third world by going only two or three miles.

I want to know what everyone thinks, why does America, the richest country on earth, have such a problem with poverty? Is there a conspiracy in your mind?

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

In my opinion, most modern western societies seem to be based on social darwinism with a healthy dose of individualism. In Europe and Canada this is tempered by a strong sense of the greater public good or the "commons", hence the social programs. From what I know of the US and its history anything "social" is evil communism and an effort to impose limits on absolute individualism. Selfishness, an inability to empathize, and a society where rich=good play a major role in why the situation is perceived to be the other person�s fault. Add that to a political process built on money and the poor will always be left to fend for themselves.

I don't think there's a conspiracy, since there's no benefit to the rich in trying to keep everyone else poor. It if the poor get richer, so do the rich, and everybody benefits.

There is also a lot of poverty on Europe too, although the situation is quite different. Possibly down the more socialist leanings, and partly due do geographic differences. The UK for example is much smaller and densely populated than the US. Different strata of society are in much more close contact, which helps reduce ignorance, and offers many more opportunities for people better their circumstances.

I grew up in the same area and saw right away that if I did not get out I would end up the same way. The inner cities must be burnt to the ground and everyone spread out to smaller towns that is the only way to end the social plague that is the south side. Also keep in mind that many of the homeless that you speak of are there by there own means and if we put them in a new house they would be homeless again in a couple of years. They survive from your pitty and there own with no self respect or motivation. Dont get me wrong there are the mentaly ill but that is another issue.

I guess you can't match a user name with the content of their opinions around here.

No self respect and ambition?
In a system stacked againts them? They have given up. That's all. When you have no future why make the effort. Would you hire a homeless person to give them a leg up? Or would you hire the teenager for their first job?

There by their own choice?
Nobody I know of would choose such an extremely marginalised existence.

www.zongoo.com...

In 1971, Johan Galtung published a landmark paper called "A Structural Theory of Imperialism". Galtung conceptualises the world as a system of centres and peripheries in which the centres exploit the peripheries by extracting raw materials, processing these materials, and selling the processed products back to the peripheries. Because the processed goods are bought at a far greater cost than the raw materials, the periphery finds it extremely difficult to find enough capital to develop the infrastructure necessary to process its own raw materials. Therefore, it is always running at a loss.

Although I very much support free-market economics, I remember reading this paper and being very impressed with it. Galtung has a complex theory and supports it with facts, which is in contrast to most leftists who, I perceive, promote simplistic conspiracy theories supported by half-truths.

I would recommend FreeMason's brilliant solution to this problem:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: It might not be clear from the source I quoted why Galtung's work is relevant here, but basically there is a local periphery (e.g. poor neighbourhoods of Chicago) in the global centre (e.g. the US). I highly recommend this paper, though I don't personally agree with it.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]

I do agree that the sense of commons in the EU helps keep some of the worst poverty in check, not to say that nations like the UK do not suffer from unemployment, but the government takes much better care of her citizens than the US government. I doubt that you could find anything quite like the Robert Taylors (horrid housing projects that used to exist in Chicago) in Europe, the public outrage would put a quick end to that.

As for "getting out" I did not grow up in the slums of Chicago, I'm actually a college student so that accounts for my poor-ness. I do understand what you are saying about escaping the poverty though, you have to fight your way out, tooth and nail. Getting out of the cycle of poverty has to be one of the hardest things anyone can do in America, and I have nothing but the greatest respect for anyone who has done it.

As for the rest of your post, maybe, I sort of see where you're comming from that putting people in smaller towns, although if you've ever been through the mountains in West Virginia and Pennsylvania you see some terrible poverty in the small towns too. Kind of extreme about burning the inner cities, in Milwaukee they are slowly bulldozing them instead.

Most of the homeless I have talked to also seem to have some form of mental or psychological condition that lands them on the streets, there are also lots of single mothers and children too though. It's all terribly sad.

[edit] I also reccomend the book "Nickled and Dimed" for anyone who supports the unregulated free market system. This should be a real eye-opener.

Well Blessed Be All
~Astral

[edit on 7/8/2004 by The Astral City]

Wow.
Heirtobokassa

Thanks for the article. Definitely a keeper for future dissemination. I will savour it again slowly with a couple more reads.

Oh and thanks for the link. I understand.

Lets keep an eye on that FreeMason shall we.
He is in need of tutelage.

Originally posted by muppet
I don't think there's a conspiracy, since there's no benefit to the rich in trying to keep everyone else poor. It if the poor get richer, so do the rich, and everybody benefits.

Ummmmm.....I don't think so. I would like to hear your explanation on just how that is supposed to work. You see there is only so much money to be divided up between everyone. Therefor if the Poor are getting richer, then the Rich are then getting Poorer. It's like dividing up 100 into 10 people. Everyone can get 10. Or 3 can get 30 each while the other 7 divide up the other 10 between them.

Yes the Rich want to keep the Poor being Poor, because as long as others are Poor and need money, they will do what the Rich person wants them to do to earn money. Now, the Rich therefor need to pay just enough so that the poor will accept it, but not so much that the poor become Rich themselves, because if that happens they will no longer need to do what the Rich tell them to do. They will be self sufficient and stable on their own. The Rich need to keep others doing the work without becoming Rich on their own for one, cause then someone else who is Rich can challenge them with equal Power(Wealth) and threaten their Control. Also, they would loose a worker and need to replace them with someone else. This is not a difficult concept is it???

Now, poor doesn't mean Broke though. As even the Rich need some movement withing the economy, even if it is all just a collaborative illusion, and keep others believing in it otherwise the truth will be revealed. That is the fact that Monetary Value is based on Faith and Belief of something that isn't not a Real thing but just an idea.

It's like a big game we all play like Monopoly or Life with little paper squares with numbers on them that represent Real Value where none exists. You can't eat a dollar but you can buy a burger for a dollar. So if you're hungry the Real Value is the Burger not the Dollar. But since we all keep believing in the Game and that the Dollar is worth the same as the Burger, we put the value on the Dollar and it works out.

Now, the interesting thing to think about is the fact that even the Burger has no value if you aren't hungry. Because when you take 'Value' a step further, you realize that Value is completely Subjective and Changes all the time.

IT'S FICTION GUYS!!! IT'S A BIG ILLUSION THAT WE ARE ALL PLAYING OUR LITTLE PARTS IN!! I know it's self evident for some while for others it's something that no matter how many different ways they look at it, they simply do not realize the Awesome Ramifications of what that 'Really Means'.

It gets better too, especially when you start talking about things like Interest. As in the Interest paid on things such as Loans, Credit, etc. Ever wonder how it is that every country has some kind of National Debt, if they aren't already just flat out Poverty Struck Already. Just how do you think that could happen anyway? How can every Nation Owe so much money? Who do they Owe it to? Shouldn't there be some Country or Entity that all that money is going to that would be obvious? Even a better example is the fact that America alone has a total Debt in the Trillions. Yet we don't even have that much money. Even if everyone gave all their Actual Real Money to pay it off we are short by a Really Really long way. Imagine just how it is that such a thing could even be possible.

Then there is the fact of Price Increases. What are those based on do you think??? Is an apple of 30 years ago really that much different than an apple of today that the price of it changes to such a degree??? Ever tried to figure out just why things seem so unbalanced??? Is there just too many people maybe??? Not enough food??? Sure is a lot that is wasted, left to rot, used for who the hell knows what purpose. All kinds of things to consider. It doesn't line up when you start looking into it. Why, I'm not exactly 100% sure of yet myself even. But there is seriously a problem or many problems actually. IMO, many of them are intentional too. The reason for that once again comes back to 'Controlling the Lives of All Those who are playing the Game as Slaves'.

I see mOjOm is a tutor as well.

I will learn much around here. An that makes me

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by muppet
I don't think there's a conspiracy, since there's no benefit to the rich in trying to keep everyone else poor. It if the poor get richer, so do the rich, and everybody benefits.

Ummmmm.....I don't think so. I would like to hear your explanation on just how that is supposed to work. You see there is only so much money to be divided up between everyone. Therefor if the Poor are getting richer, then the Rich are then getting Poorer. It's like dividing up 100 into 10 people. Everyone can get 10. Or 3 can get 30 each while the other 7 divide up the other 10 between them.

Yes the Rich want to keep the Poor being Poor, because as long as others are Poor and need money, they will do what the Rich person wants them to do to earn money. Now, the Rich therefor need to pay just enough so that the poor will accept it, but not so much that the poor become Rich themselves, because if that happens they will no longer need to do what the Rich tell them to do. They will be self sufficient and stable on their own. The Rich need to keep others doing the work without becoming Rich on their own for one, cause then someone else who is Rich can challenge them with equal Power(Wealth) and threaten their Control. Also, they would loose a worker and need to replace them with someone else. This is not a difficult concept is it???

Hi mOjOm,

You've covered a few different issues there, but I'll answer the main issue you raised. Your premise that there is a limited amount of money to go round is a false one.

Money, certainly since the abandonment of the gold standard, is literally created on demand, in the form of debt.

The government could print 100 billion genuine dollars tomorrow and distribute them to the poor if it wished. It doesn't because this would lead to inflation.Ok this is an extreme example, but the same principle applies in real life. More money in the economy, if it isn't matched with more production of goods and services within that economy, causes inflation.

Do the rich decide to keep wages low for everyone else? of course not! If by "rich" you mean the business owners, well if you have a pension scheme, that's you and me. We are the business owners, and everyone else who has a stake in the stock market. If wages were increased, not only would inflation rise, but our investments, savings and pension plans would shrink as company profits fall. That's not good for anyone, not even the rich!

My veiw may seem harsh and misguided but it is with a lot of forethought that has brought me to these conclusions. Our inner cities and the hill country have become one big social program that just keeps the poor where they are. Social programs to me are just modern day slavery for the poor because they do not force people to fight for what they want. When the government gives money to those areas and the people in them, the industries that do come there pay a lower wage because they know the government will pick up the rest. This keeps the average person from getting ahead unless they are willing to get a second job or move and start over. I feel very little pitty however for the 300 pound welfare mother that has 5 kids by 5 men and has given up so to speak because I know many of them. The slavery of poverty today is both encouraged and welcomed by the masses due to ignorance that we think these social programs are there to help people. If you give these people Drugs,Booze and low pay you keep them right where you want them and if you throw them a social bone in the form of a check you will get there vote.

you seem to forget that there is poverty in a capitalist society

Originally posted by factfinder38
My veiw ...

I agree factfinder.
A good description of the present situation. Can't agree with your solution though.

B.T.W. I'm also not pretending to have any solutions of my own to this complex issue.

I have been thru area's of the windy city as well as several other's.

The conspiracy ought to be the taxes on items like cigarrettes, and lesser quality liquors not commonly consumed by the higher classes, and lottery tickets with outrageous odds that the states do not even allow their private casino's to operate under.

Those, as well as many other's, unfairly and over perportunatly, tax the likely demographic group that would be patronizing such products.

Call it sin tax's? Sure it's gotta be a sin, taking more than necessary monies from persons less likely to be able support their miserable habits that they cannot break from.

Bleeding heart? No, becouse I have watched established income producing families, drop to poverty in no time becouse of some major event, with little as any safety net. And it's disappointing how hard and fast that can happen.

The lottery as a tax?...Of course it is, and it really only taxes the poor and they are the ones most likely to view playing as an attempt to get out of a despirate situation. When I buy lotto tickets, the social class demographic groups are readily apparent, while I wait in line. I play for what the heck,...just a couple of bucks.

But while an unfortunate homeless chain-smoking alcoholic kinda hopes for that one magic number. And meanwhile reletive to his income and consumption patterns, he is paying alot of taxes, with no writeoff or personal exemptions.

Free help and food? The establishments that pay for this activity, does this without question to provide a needed service(s). Without questions, by their own decree's, and therefore shouldnt be weighed against such a person based on their personal spending and habits.


The poverty class has virtually no representation anywhere especially in taxation, and are producing considerable state and federal incomes.

And can you believe there are places that still tax basic foods?!!! Tax to Eat !! So many tax processes need to be changed, as they are damaging more the people that need the most.

Originally posted by muppet
Hi mOjOm,

You've covered a few different issues there, but I'll answer the main issue you raised. Your premise that there is a limited amount of money to go round is a false one.

Money, certainly since the abandonment of the gold standard, is literally created on demand, in the form of debt.

The government could print 100 billion genuine dollars tomorrow and distribute them to the poor if it wished. It doesn't because this would lead to inflation.Ok this is an extreme example, but the same principle applies in real life. More money in the economy, if it isn't matched with more production of goods and services within that economy, causes inflation.

Do the rich decide to keep wages low for everyone else? of course not! If by "rich" you mean the business owners, well if you have a pension scheme, that's you and me. We are the business owners, and everyone else who has a stake in the stock market. If wages were increased, not only would inflation rise, but our investments, savings and pension plans would shrink as company profits fall. That's not good for anyone, not even the rich!

Hello Muppet,

Yes, I realize that we can and do Literally Create the Money at will. I suppose I should have said it differently. The reason that just printing more does no good is because of the method used to Regulate it's Buying Power or Value. It still applies in the same idea however as far as what I was getting at and explained in detail more fully throughout my post.

The point is that in a system like we have, it requires that their be sufficient desire for the acquisition of more 'Value' with which we use to force action. Literally, it works like Electrical Power in the same sense. Power creates Activity and Money is Power. Money can be used as Power because it has Value, whether Real or Imagined. Ownership is also Imagined, however Possession is Real. For Example:

Workers in a field pick fruit for a few dollars. They use those dollars to buy things, such as food like they are picking for example. They continue to trade their 'Work' for Dollars because they believe that the 'Owner' has control, when he really doesn't. At any given time all the workers have to do is realize that they actually 'Possess' the Real Value which is the Fruit itself. They don't really need the dollars which they trade since in Reality they already Possess, at least in part, what they will use the dollars to purchase. The 'Owner' in Reality 'Possesses' nothing but paper squares which have No Real Value except in the Imagined Game.

Now the 'Owner' knows this, so he agrees to pay the Workers Dollars so they can not only buy fruit for food but water and shoes. (I know the examples are simple but it's the idea that's important here so simple works fine.) Well, the 'Owner' also 'Owns' the Water Plant and the Shoe Production Plant and Store let's say. He pays each section of workers just enough so they can all each afford just enough Fruit, Water and Shoe's, but still need to Work more to continue to buy consumables in the future. Yet he also controls the Value and the Workers as their Money Earned all returns to the same place.

So even though he 'Possesses' only Worthless Paper, he's created a System where it has Value Equal to the Actual Products it Buys. Those Products are actually in the Possession of the Workers though. But they 'Believe' in the System of Ownership which holds them in a position where they Believe they 'Possess' nothing, when in reality they 'Possess' more value than what they are working for.

If they realize that the 'Rich' Payer/Owner has nothing of value, they would stop doing what they are told and the Payer/Owner would be without any power but the power of himself and what he'll do for what he finds Valuable enough to go after.

That is what I mean when I say the Rich do in fact need the Poor to stay as they are. It comes down to the fact that 'The System' of Money which is based on Imagined or Non Specified Value being locked to something controllable like Dollars. In an imaginary system or game setting like that, Ownership is possible and gives the illusion of Possessing beyond any Real Possible Means. It can be done because it's all Beliefs in Concepts and not Real things. Nobody could Actually Possess the Real Value of Billions of Dollars worth of Property, Products, etc. but they can possess Billions of Fictional Number Values that Others Believe is Equal to the Actual Things Themselves.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The Rich need the Poor to be Poor because with that 'Class System' there is no Control of Direction other than the direction of Individual Will. If the direction is to be the joint effort of many in such a 'Reality' it would only be so by the Combination of a Collective Free Will Choices of Like Interest. However, it is possible to Alter the Perception of Reality in order to Control the Will of Others by Using Beliefs to Control those who Believe.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson along a similar idea that may help as well.

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. - The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826

Side Note: Also, I agree 'Rich and Poor' aren't exactly the best terms but it's easy and fits for this post without getting too many other 'Terms' mixed in just yet.

I have a cousin who had made it to the point of doing her stint as a student teacher, she loved it until she was pulled into the office with the principle and the teacher she was working with and told she was doing fine except for one thing, the students were divided up in groups, one group came from the parents with higher incomes, the middle group, and the lower income group and she was told she was spending too much time with the low and middle group, she was to work with them only when the higher group did not need her, she was told that the higher income kids would probably go to college the other two groups would learn what they could basically on their own but it did not matter since they were not going anywheres in life anyway. My cousin argued that some of those kids were really smart and deserved just as much of a chance to learn as the others but she was told no that was not the way the system worked. Now think back to elementary school, remember those little groups you were put in at a table. I do I recall it very clearly. None of us noticed it too much except that one group made better grades and got more attention and dressed better than the other groups. There are a lot of jobs the rich don't want but they are necessary jobs and you need workers for them, where do you find these workers? If we all are given an equal opportunity at the beginning there might be too many people for the higher paying jobs so keep them down to their level by leaving them uneducated and fill those vacancies for factory workers and janitors, etc. . The ones that do make it beyond their raising so to speak are the exception to the rule. My cousin quit and never became a teacher, she said she hated the thought of failing any of the children, I wish she had gone on and finished but she was one of those exceptions to the rule and refused to play the game. I'm not saying that all teachers are told this but society itself has the deck stacked, they have rules they have to play by and those little groups which are such a part of elementary school is set up to put us in our place whether the teachers realize it or not. I'm not attacking the teachers out there for I believe the exceptions to the rules are there due to the teachers hard work. The deck is stcked and the only way to change it is to strive to make sure our kids have every chance to suceed whether that be through working with our children ourselves or getting tutors because if you are poor the school system is not set up to help your child suceed.

Originally posted by mOjOm
Now, poor doesn't mean Broke though. As even the Rich need some movement withing the economy, even if it is all just a collaborative illusion, and keep others believing in it otherwise the truth will be revealed. That is the fact that Monetary Value is based on Faith and Belief of something that isn't not a Real thing but just an idea.

So? You prefer the barter system? What is Money? Yes, the source is investopedia.com, which one could assume is biased toward investors, but it explains why the "big game" is efficient. Economists don't argue that it isn't an "ILLUSION."

Now, the interesting thing to think about is the fact that even the Burger has no value if you aren't hungry. Because when you take 'Value' a step further, you realize that Value is completely Subjective and Changes all the time.

That's why some people choose to buy a burger and some don't. So what?

Ever wonder how it is that every country has some kind of National Debt, if they aren't already just flat out Poverty Struck Already. Just how do you think that could happen anyway?

What are you talking about??? Every government has revenue (taxes) and expenses (spending). When expenses exceed revenue, they have to borrow the difference. I'm not debating whether or not the IMF/World Bank have facilitated loans to dictators and then made the people of poor countries pay -- that's a different issue. But the concept of national debt is separate, and what's the big deal?

How can every Nation Owe so much money? Who do they Owe it to? Shouldn't there be some Country or Entity that all that money is going to that would be obvious?

They owe it to the people who hold the bonds -- those are the people who made the loans, after all.

Even if everyone gave all their Actual Real Money to pay it off we are short by a Really Really long way.

First you said that money wasn't real, and now you try to make some argument involving Actual Real Money. I suggest you learn more about economics. The paper and coin money in circulation is a small percent of the money supply, for good reason.

Is an apple of 30 years ago really that much different than an apple of today that the price of it changes to such a degree??? Ever tried to figure out just why things seem so unbalanced???

Again, if you knew what money really was you wouldn't be asking this. It seems that you are the one under the "ILLUSION." Money is a relative concept. We don't have to worry about the time-traveler who comes from 1974 to 2004 and can't afford an apple, because there isn't such a person.

Originally posted by mOjOm
The 'Owner' in Reality 'Possesses' nothing but paper squares which have No Real Value except in the Imagined Game.

More of the same...

So even though he 'Possesses' only Worthless Paper, he's created a System where it has Value Equal to the Actual Products it Buys. Those Products are actually in the Possession of the Workers though. But they 'Believe' in the System of Ownership which holds them in a position where they Believe they 'Possess' nothing, when in reality they 'Possess' more value than what they are working for.

Someone owns the land on which the fruit was grown. It is arguable that the workers themselves, or someone else, rightfully owns the land, but that's a separate issue. Given that a particular person, the owner, legally owns the land (and this owner could be the workers themselves if they own the land...), he has claim to the value that the fruit represent.

The workers will gladly accept payment in dollars rather than fruit, because they prefer the monetary system to bartering, assuming they're not masochists.

It can be done because it's all Beliefs in Concepts and not Real things. Nobody could Actually Possess the Real Value of Billions of Dollars worth of Property, Products, etc. but they can possess Billions of Fictional Number Values that Others Believe is Equal to the Actual Things Themselves.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that billions of dollars of property doesn't exist in this world except in numerical/paper/coin form, you're wrong. If you're saying the people who own that stuff are not the rightful owners, that's a different issue.

If the poor become less poor, in general it would be through the creation of value, which raises everyone's standard of living. The "Beliefs" revolving around the "ILLUSION" of money affect everyone, rich and poor.

Side Note: When you start every other word with a capital letter, do you think it makes your claims any more legitimate?

Wow, this is getting interesting in here!

To cover the ground that I missed, factfinder, I agree with your view of the way things are 100%, you have put some serious thought into this. Although I think you're a bit heavy handed, your ideas deserve viewing.

HeirToBokassa, well I'm not inline with your ideas regarding free-market economies, an FreeMason's solution is just cold, evil and insane.

KrazyIvan, I know there is poverty in capitolism, it's one of the inherent flaws in unregulated capitolism. It's also one of the reasons we have regulations on capitolism.

Blessed Be
~Astral