“[Charles] Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn’t apply to the poor. When we’re poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.
Poverty and wealth, by this logic, don’t just fall along a continuum the way hot and cold or short and tall do. They are instead fundamentally different experiences, each working on the human psyche in its own way. At some point between the two, people stop thinking in terms of goods and start thinking in terms of problems, and that shift has enormous consequences. Perhaps because economists, by and large, are well-off, he suggests, they’ve failed to see the shift at all.”
From Drake Bennett, “The sting of poverty,”at The Boston Globe, March 30, 2008.
If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time.
But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” —Lila Watson
It’s just a little food for thought for those other smart chicks with whom I was discussing the problematic nature of the physical/spiritual duality. I am entranced with the story of Arjuna- especially when it is told through music. I hate the idea of just warfare but find the idea of karma comforting somehow…
me: uh. you’re coming here tomorrow.
Catherine: uhhh fuckyeah :D” —
nothing can replace mountain day
i am what i am