Re: [A-List] On the Role of Gold

["Anne Williamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

I repeat - poverty is the natural state of mankind.  A man born into nature
is poor, he must forage for food, shelter, and a covering of some sort lest
he burn from the sun, or freeze in the cold.  The structures the most
primitive
family could provide must still be maintained, even if they are not improved
upon.
Wealth - as in infrastructure and the ability to produce - must be created,
and man
has succeeded in doing so.  It matters not whether he was born into France
in
the 16th century, or Ecuador just last year - his natural state is poverty,
and
only through the wealth created earlier did any creature ever escape being
born
impoverished. Maybe the real question is whether or not man, whose natural
state is poverty, is doomed to die in poverty? If not, why not?

Anne
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry & Stan Goff <sherrynstan@xxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] On the Role of Gold


>
> > Henry chastized me over the weekend (in a post I just read) for saying
> that
> > the playing field is never going to be level at any given time.  He
first
> > equated my statement to the idea that there will always be poor people.
> >
>
> "Yes, there are always the poor," has for some time been a refrain of the
> rich.  This reflects your own statement that "poverty is the natural
> condition of humanity," of course.  Let's think about that.
>
> > Well, there always have been and I am aware of no society ever that has
> > eliminated poverty.
>
> Let's historicize this a bit, and get to the particulars.  Pick a time and
> place, and let's take a look at the actual, historically specific
structure
> of poverty, then we can ask the questio, was anyone weilding the power in
> that society interested in eliminating poverty... or was their position
> constructed upon the type of poverty that was structured into the system?
>
> Poverty is the natural state of mankind; what is
> > remarkable is the number of people and nations that have created wealth.
>
> Support that statement.  Begin by defining poverty.  As soon as you try,
you
> have to become historically specific.  Poverty in this period is
> qualitatively different than poverty 500 years ago.  Poverty in the USA is
> qualitatively different than poverty in Honduras or Sri Lanka or Tanzania.
> Then we have to ask what is the "natural condition" of homo sapiens.
> Natural.  You see how tricky this gets?  Are we now become unnatural?
>
> I'm short on time, but I think this is an important discussion.
>
> Take care,
>
> Stan
>
>
>