This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE01C9.1DB02550
charset="iso-8859-1"
There will be no shift without a considerable fight. The Praetorian guard
of the business community, the Fraser Institute, has been pushing this line
on the definition of poverty for years, thus far without success. Obviously,
with the federal 'Liberals' now apparently onside with the Fraser Institute,
the need for organized resistance on this particular issue is obvious - not
easy but not impossible.
The Reaganite premier of Ontario, one of the most populous provinces in this
country, has done a wonderful job in getting people educated and agitated
around these issues (unions, women, teachers, students, healthcare workers,
the poor - we had the momentum and the mandate for a general strike, but the
Union leadership sold us out), although he is, amazingly enough, still up
there in the polls. This is due largely to his claim that he has
single-handedly improved the economy, by means of his hard work in improving
the 'business climate' ; (Any improvement in indicators is, of course, due
to the thus-far booming American economy). If the Asian flu is still
contagious for another 6-8 months, we may just be able to send him packing,
then we can concentrate on the Reaganite Liberals at the federal level
By the way, how is poverty defined in the U.S (in general terms). It's
often useful to be able to compare our social programs to the U'S's e.g.
healthcare. It helps to deflate the Hollywood image.
On a related note. 'what are we doing here?' I agreed completely with
Michael's comments and his useful suggestion to focus for example, on the
relatively hidden issue of overcapacity. My take on it is that we need to
emphasize the 'political' in political-economy, do the hard economic
analysis of potentially mobilizable issues, (jobs, income levels &
disparities, healthcare, education, social safety net) tie it to an exposure
of the agents of the ruling class who are actively demolishing any last
vestige of the post-war welfare state, and use that information to energize
popular campaigns. I have an old clipping from Z magazine 'Dr Rockefeller
will see you now' that I'll try to get scanned as an example of a good
analysis of the powers behind the assault on Medicare.
Activist talk a lot about the corporate agenda up here. It's the only way
to try to give some kind of cohesion to what's happening when we're
discussing issues with the politically unsophisticated - i.e. the majority.
We're being hit by a blizzard of regressive changes daily, to the extent
that it's difficult to respond one by one
[Robert Mac Diarmid]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Devine
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 3:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:698] Re: redefining the poor out of existence
It sounds like Canada is shifting over to the US way of defining
poverty. Is this true?
But being officials who represented a wide array of governments,
they were reluctant to endorse the potato peeling and mouldy bread standard.
So they declared this to be one extreme.
Then they declared Statscan's LICO the other extreme. And they came
up with a definition of poverty that sat in the middle, based on what they
thought a poor family should eat, wear and spend on rent.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE01C9.1DB02550
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>There=20
will be no shift without a considerable fight. The Praetorian =
guard of the=20
business community, the Fraser Institute, has been pushing this line on =
the=20
definition of poverty for years, thus far without success. Obviously, =
with the=20
federal 'Liberals' now apparently onside with the Fraser Institute, the =
need for=20
organized resistance on this particular issue is obvious - not easy but =
not=20
impossible.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>The=20
Reaganite premier of Ontario, one of the most populous provinces in this =
country, has done a wonderful job in getting people educated and =
agitated=20
around these issues (unions, women, teachers, students, healthcare =
workers, the=20
poor - we had the momentum and the mandate for a general strike, but the =
Union=20
leadership sold us out), although he is, amazingly enough, still up =
there in the=20
polls. This is due largely to his claim that he has =
single-handedly=20
improved the economy, by means of his hard work in improving the =
'business=20
climate' ; (Any improvement in indicators is, of course, due to the =
thus-far=20
booming American economy). If the Asian flu is still contagious =
for=20
another 6-8 months, we may just be able to send him packing, then we can =
concentrate on the Reaganite Liberals at the federal =
level</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>By the=20
way, how is poverty defined in the U.S (in general terms). It's =
often=20
useful to be able to compare our social programs to the U'S's e.g.=20
healthcare. It helps to deflate the Hollywood =
image.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>On a=20
related note. 'what are we doing here?' I agreed completely with =
Michael's=20
comments and his useful suggestion to focus for example, on the =
relatively=20
hidden issue of overcapacity. My take on it is that we need to =
emphasize=20
the 'political' in political-economy, do the hard economic analysis of=20
potentially mobilizable issues, (jobs, income levels & disparities,=20
healthcare, education, social safety net) tie it to an exposure of the =
agents of=20
the ruling class who are actively demolishing any last vestige of the =
post-war=20
welfare state, and use that information to energize popular =
campaigns. I=20
have an old clipping from Z magazine 'Dr Rockefeller will see you now' =
that I'll=20
try to get scanned as an example of a good analysis of the powers behind =
the=20
assault on Medicare.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Activist talk a lot about the corporate agenda up here. =
It's the=20
only way to try to give some kind of cohesion to what's happening when =
we're=20
discussing issues with the politically unsophisticated - i.e. the=20
majority. We're being hit by a blizzard of regressive =
changes daily,=20
to the extent that it's difficult to respond one by =
one</FONT></SPAN><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2><BR><SPAN =
class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>[Robert Mac=20
Diarmid] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D416451420-27101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2> </FONT></SPAN>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]<B>On Behalf Of</B> James=20
Devine<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 27, 1998 3:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [PEN-L:698] Re: redefining =
the poor=20
out of existence<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type =3D cite cite></BLOCKQUOTE>It sounds like Canada is =
shifting=20
over to the US way of defining poverty. Is this true?<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type =3D cite cite>But being officials who represented a =
wide=20
array of governments, they were reluctant to endorse the potato =
peeling=20
and mouldy bread standard. So they declared this to be one =
extreme.=20
<BR><BR>Then they declared Statscan's LICO the other extreme. =
And they=20
came up with a definition of poverty that sat in the middle, =
based on=20
what they thought a poor family should eat, wear and spend on =
rent.=20
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & <A=20
href=3D"http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html" EUDORA =
=3D=20
=
AUTOURL>http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html</A></DIV></BL=
OCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE01C9.1DB02550--
[PEN-L:703] RE: Re: redefining the poor out of existence; what are we doing here
Robert Mac Diarmid Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:44:50 -0500boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE01C9.1DB02550"
