Terje wrote to Mollydukes: "... unless we measure progress with some degree of objectivity we are unable to know whether our policies are working or not."

You have ignored my examples which show that the GDP and the ABS's measures of increases in the cost of living do NOT objectively measure our progress. Again, as only one of many examples, how is it that, if real wages have more than doubled since the 1960's, as PS claims, that two incomes rather than one income, are now usually necessary to pay the cost of rent or a mortgage for a typical family home?

I don't know where your example of Niger comes from. Clearly incompetent and corrupt govenments are one contributing cause to poverty in some Third World countries, but no society, either in the Industrialised West or the Third World, can function without raising taxes.

A more significant contributor to Third World poverty can be found in John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Perkins' job was to write fraudulent forecasts of claimed economic benefits that could would result from expensive infrastructure projects (e.g. dams). These reports would convince Third World governments to make huge loans in order to fund these projects.

They would subsequently find that the expected economic benefits would not materialise, but would still be left with massive debts that they could not repay. The IMF would then force a country in these circumstances, in return for debt relief, to reorganise its economy in order to suit the interests of US corporations, that is privatisation, deregulation, removeal of tariffs, reduction in spending in areas such as health, education, etc.

Frankly, the supposed concern about third world poverty from some contributors to this forum, who evidently approve of multi-million dollar annual salaries for CEOs in this country, whilst many third world workers who work for them, receive around $1 or less per hour seems, to me, to be hypocritical.

Terje

Capitalism is driven by human behaviour, and as such there are do-gooders and do-badders. My point was that Peter Saunders seemed to be suggesting that everything good about our current way of life came from capitalism. This is not the case. There are many good things that came from 'leftist' policies and leftist people.

For another fuzzy anecdote, as my old grandma said, "moderation in all things' and Peter and his fellow neo-libs at the CIS are erring on the side of 'too much' capitalism.

The essence of capitalism is *not* finding new and better ways to do things. This can happen and - read my lips - I am not attempting to do away with capitalism - got that? So while this can and does happen, there are also many negative effects of capitalism.

Lets be aware of the cons as well as the pro's and not get carried away and see neo-liberalism as the religion that will save us.

Anincident in Brisbane recently reminded me of the need for contining social income support by the government. I was near Eagle street where a man obviously down on his luck was trying to sell copies of "Big Issue" ( a magazine on social issues sold by the unemployed and sponsored by Anita Roddrick of the Body Shop). I bought a copy for three dollars.
Well less than a minute later a group of very well dressed men and two women in designer suits & italian shoes walked past and he spruked "Get your copy of the 'Big Issue." Well there was no one else around and most of them stared right through the man as though he wasn't there. Seconds later a heard one of the men grunt. "get a real Job!".
Well the group then proceded to enter "Char Char Char" Restaurant, and have lunch. A place where entrees start around $25 and mains $45.
This is the problem I have with allowing market forces to maintain all members of society. Proponents argue the trickly down effect to sustain the livelyhood's of all persons. It is clear that an average worker cannot support a wife and two children in relative comfort.(ref the Harvester case)
More likely the male works shift work around the clock 24/7 and his wife works full or part time also. The partners meet each other when they are dog tired to sleep wash and eat convenience food.
Similarly there are people who have insufficent or no work(past their use by date of 45) have the option of doing casual cleaning or taxi driving in 12 hour shifts; 3.00 am to 3.00 pm.
This does not take into account single mothers or the disabled.
To date Ive heard nothing from Big or Small business beating down the government door to genuinely help older workers out of the welfare trap, or to put another disabled worker through training or similar.
All you hear about is them crowing for another tax cut so they can go from a six series to a seven series BMW.

QUOTE: You have ignored my examples which show that the GDP and the ABS's measures of increases in the cost of living do NOT objectively measure our progress. Again, as only one of many examples, how is it that, if real wages have more than doubled since the 1960's, as PS claims, that two incomes rather than one income, are now usually necessary to pay the cost of rent or a mortgage for a typical family home?

RESPONSE:-

I did not ignore these points. I just did not see them as relevant to my point.

When I said that poverty should be measured in an absolute sence I think you presumed that I meant by a specific amount of dollar income. This is not what I meant at all.

An objective measure of poverty might look at calories in the diet, access to shelter, and social inclusion. It might even include not being able to buy Nike shoes. The point is that it should be objective in the sence that if we say that from 1970 to 1990 poverty increased then the same absolute measure in 1970 should be used as in 1990.

If our measure of poverty is merely relativistic such that poverty in 1970 is earning 25% of the 1970 median salary and poverty in 1990 is earning 25% of the 1990 median salary then we are not comparing apples for apples.

Define poverty however you see fit, however don't move the goalposts over time and then use the outcome of this shift to claim some trend in poverty

I think both measures have their place. My problem is that poverty is a loaded word that in most people's mind refers more to an absolute notion. I shudder when I hear someone spouting that some huge number of people in Australia lives in "poverty", knowing that many people who listen will think it refers to an absolutist, rather than relative, position.

And I suspect, with no evidence, that this distinction is deliberately hidden by many commentators on poverty when making public pronouncements. After all, the spectre of absolute poverty is rather more newsworthy than suggesting that some people's incomes rise slower than others.

Terje wrote: "I did not ignore these points. I just did not see them as relevant to my point."

No, you were ignoring them as you and your fellow neo-liberal ideologues choose to ignore all the overwhelming evidence out there which does not conform to your world view.

If you say that housing affordability is not relevant to objectively measuring poverty, then I would suggest that millions of Australians out there suffering from acute housing stress would beg to disagree. (By the way, if anyone out there is curious to see how another group of neo-liberal economists, working for two major banks, blatantly cooked up figures to 'prove' that housing had remained affordable by 2003, in complete defiance of the experiences of so many ordinary Australians, check out this story : http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1335462.htm)

My points about the GDP are relevant because the whole of Peter Saunders' case for his agenda of welfare bashing - sorry, 'reform' - which has now, most unfortunately, been largely implemented by this Government, is based upon his claims that "Australians have become twice as wealthy in the last thirty years" (AWF, p6) that all Australians have shared significantly in this additional wealth. If this must be case, and given that Australia could not have been considered poverty stricken in the 1960's, how could anyone possibly be truly poor today? Clearly, anyone who argues that we should be alarmed by the existing levels of poverty today will just never be satisfied.

Many on social welfare may not be in poverty, if they own their own home, or have access to some of the few remaining pockets of Government housing left in this country, but many others, who are not in these circumstances, whether working or not, not will definitely be, by any reasonable measure, due to the obscene housing hyper-inflation of the past 30 years (which PS perversely applauded in this article, last year : http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2369) amongst other factors.

(To be continued)