PDA

View Full Version : build a wall round the poor



luka
19-02-2012, 02:42 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/14/italy.worlddispatch
The Serenissima housing estate. A large and ugly barrier has been erected to help protect local residents from the run-down apartment blocks, largely filled with immigrants. Stretching for 84 metres, three metres high and made of thick steel panels, there is a police checkpoint at the entrance as well as CCTV cameras. The project has been welcomed by local people but is highly controversial. The barricade has already been dubbed Padua's Berlin wall and has reignited a debate about how to treat foreign migrants.

see also isreal, mexico-us border, australian 'off-shore solutions', fortress eu
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html
An apartment in this publicly owned housing is also known as a logement, a lodging, which aptly conveys the social status and degree of political influence of those expected to rent them. The cités are thus social marginalization made concrete: bureaucratically planned from their windows to their roofs, with no history of their own or organic connection to anything that previously existed on their sites, they convey the impression that, in the event of serious trouble, they could be cut off from the rest of the world by switching off the trains and by blockading with a tank or two the highways that pass through them, (usually with a concrete wall on either side), from the rest of France to the better parts of Paris. I recalled the words of an Afrikaner in South Africa, who explained to me the principle according to which only a single road connected black townships to the white cities: once it was sealed off by an armored car, “the blacks can foul only their own nest.”
gated communities, city of quartz, cities under siege, escape from new york, etc etc

luka
19-02-2012, 03:52 AM
US-Iraqi forces will supposedly clear militias from civilian streets which will then be walled off and the occupants issued with ID cards. Only the occupants will be allowed into these "gated communities" and there will be continuous patrolling by US-Iraqi forces. There are likely to be pass systems, "visitor" registration and restrictions on movement outside the "gated communities". Civilians may find themselves inside a "controlled population" prison.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-divide-and-rule--americas-plan-for-baghdad-444178.html

vimothy
19-02-2012, 10:39 AM
https://p.twimg.com/Alzv5w9CMAArM8j.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/#!/deficitowl/status/170274661601521664/photo/1/large

luka
19-02-2012, 12:18 PM
thats good vimothy. i looked at the twitter account you got it from. ive seen these people before. they're very voluble. are they right do you think? can you give me a brief summary of what its abut? not neccessarily here on this thread although i dont mind. ive seen you say the same things i think. that public deficit=private surplus. is that the crux of it or is there more.

vimothy
19-02-2012, 02:16 PM
that public deficit=private surplus. is that the crux of it or is there more.

Right--that's basically the crux of it, where "it" is their particular school of thought. I've come to see these guys as being interesting, but often misguided. There is some truth to what they say but also some nonsense.

One issue is this: There are a set of accounts and accounting identities that describe the quantitative macroeconomic behaviour of the economy (e.g. public deficit=private surplus). The school of thought to which "deficit owl" belongs views them as being the holy grail of economic understanding.

It's certainly true that understanding them is necessary for any serious large scale macro analysis, and I'm sympathetic to this aspect of their thought. But although their national accounting is often good, their economic theory and the way they then interpret the accounts can be quite bad.

A case in point is this piece, by "deficit owl", aka Professor Stephanie Kelton of UMKC: http://www.neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/what-happens-when-government-tightens.html

I find it mind-boggling-ly confused. That a professor of economics cannot distinguish between accounting identities and structural, causal relationships... :eek:

Bangpuss
19-02-2012, 04:48 PM
Greenland? I thought they were dirt poor, or they would be if Denmark didn't give them loads of money.

padraig (u.s.)
19-02-2012, 10:00 PM
city of quartz

ecology of fear is also good. saw mike davis speak once, he's a sharp cat. been meaning to read that cities under siege interview you put up.

also, chicago is the epitome of this concept. it's the most racially segregated (http://chicagoist.com/2010/10/31/chicago_still_the_most_segregated_c.php) city in the U.S. + it's also highly economically segregated (http://libwiki.mcmaster.ca/geog3ur3/index.php/Chicago/Socio-economic) (the 2 are related obviously).

luka
19-02-2012, 10:15 PM
ecology of fear and perhaps more relevant to this thread planet ofslums.

Dr Awesome
20-02-2012, 12:30 AM
*map*

https://twitter.com/#!/deficitowl/status/170274661601521664/photo/1/large

That's interesting, I'm surprised Singapore isn't included on that map, and I'm curious about NZ's placement on it. NZ has got a patchy policy and history on the whole boat people thing for sure... could go either way I suspect.

baboon2004
21-02-2012, 10:39 AM
wrt Luka's original post, the French have pretty much perfected exiling poor people to the margins of the city. though I don't know the history of how they did this in the ifrst place. I'm guessing in much the same way as the Tories are attempting to rid London of poor people at the moment, by outpricing people with the logic that 'the inner city is an expensive area; to live here is a privilege and not a right'.

Mr. Tea
21-02-2012, 11:38 AM
also, chicago is the epitome of this concept. it's the most racially segregated (http://chicagoist.com/2010/10/31/chicago_still_the_most_segregated_c.php) city in the U.S. + it's also highly economically segregated (http://libwiki.mcmaster.ca/geog3ur3/index.php/Chicago/Socio-economic) (the 2 are related obviously).

Chicago's the only US city I've spent any real time in and the separation of it into Downtown and Everywhere Else is just astonishing, I mean on a purely visual/architectural level. You've got this incredible skyscraper city that extends for about two miles along the lakefront and half a mile inland, then there's a sudden cutoff and the rest of the city extends for miles and miles all around, with hardly any buildings taller than a few stories. Just amazing. As you approach the city centre it actually looks like a cliff face.

mistersloane
21-02-2012, 12:21 PM
What I found interesting about recent trips to Joburg and Durban were how the city centres were deemed to be deserted, no-go areas at night. We spent alot of time talking about whether this was just what happens in the development of cities - see central london of old etc, or whether this was a newer thing.

IdleRich
21-02-2012, 12:39 PM
"wrt Luka's original post, the French have pretty much perfected exiling poor people to the margins of the city. though I don't know the history of how they did this in the ifrst place. I'm guessing in much the same way as the Tories are attempting to rid London of poor people at the moment, by outpricing people with the logic that 'the inner city is an expensive area; to live here is a privilege and not a right'."
Yeah but they expect law and order to be maintained and health issues to be dealt with by menials shipped in like cattle on financially ruinous trains and shipped out again every evening.

Mr. Tea
21-02-2012, 01:05 PM
https://p.twimg.com/Alzv5w9CMAArM8j.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/#!/deficitowl/status/170274661601521664/photo/1/large

Wonder how much longer Greece will remain on the 'right' side of the wall...

Slothrop
21-02-2012, 01:23 PM
I'm guessing in much the same way as the Tories are attempting to rid London of poor people at the moment, by outpricing people with the logic that 'the inner city is an expensive area; to live here is a privilege and not a right'.
I'm normally up for a bit of Tory bashing, but do you really believe that they're deliberately using house prices as a means to the end of driving poor people out of London? My reading would be that they see London house prices as a product of the Noble All-Knowing Free Market That Must Not Be Interfered With, and are either too short sighted to see that segregating the poor into banlieus will lead to massive social problems or are Alright Jack themselves and hence don't care.

hucks
21-02-2012, 01:26 PM
I'm normally up for a bit of Tory bashing, but do you really believe that they're deliberately using house prices as a means to the end of driving poor people out of London? My reading would be that they see London house prices as a product of the Noble All-Knowing Free Market That Must Not Be Interfered With, and are either too short sighted to see that segregating the poor into banlieus will lead to massive social problems or are Alright Jack themselves and hence don't care.

I think he's talking about the housing benefit cap (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/housing-benefit-cap-families-central-london?newsfeed=true). And they are using it as a means of driving poor people out of London.

baboon2004
21-02-2012, 01:27 PM
Not house prices as such, but destroying housing benefit. House prices of course are insane too. Edit: hucks, you got there first

yeah, I do think it's social engineering though. The free market is just a mantra to return to as an excuse to do horrible things - it's hardly as though the Tories or any other government actually believe in a properly free market when it threatens their/their mates' interests. What does a truly free market even mean?

Also, I don't think anyone believes the tories care about social problems in and of themselves - they'll deal with them by whatever repressive tactics they choose, and they give the opportunity to bring in ever more repressive legal measures. Often there's at least a little doubt about how much contempt governments really have for their subjects in general/ esp. their subjects with no power, but with this government there's no doubt.

Slightly but only slightly off topic, this does my head in:

"The controversy over the scheme continues as Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, prepares to announc eon Tuesday that the government is to spend £126m to target help for 55,000 16 and 17-year-olds not in education school or training in England ."
Why did you cancel Education Maintenance Allowance then, you cunts? Is it just because it cost more than £126m? One thing that can never be underestimated is the sheer breathtaking dont-give-a-fuck incompetence of government.
I see, it cost £560m. So...rather than at least being logical cunts and scaling it down, they cancelled it and then reinstituted some of it under a different name.

Mr. Tea
21-02-2012, 01:45 PM
However you slice it, it is outrageous that so much tax money goes straight into the pockets of private landlords via housing benefit. One sensible way to remedy this would be to build lots of affordable social housing, which would force down what private landlords could charge through price competition and increased supply, or even to place some sort of reasonable cap on what a landlord can charge for a property of a given size and type in a given area (don't they have something like this in Scotland?).

Or, of course, you could just cap benefits in despite of the massively inflated private rental market, and therefore cause landlords with tenants on benefits to boot them out in favour of people who can afford the extortionate going rate. Oh, they're doing that already. Hurrah, problem solved.

Slothrop
21-02-2012, 02:13 PM
Not house prices as such, but destroying housing benefit. House prices of course are insane too. Edit: hucks, you got there first

yeah, I do think it's social engineering though.

Why do you think that?

Cutting housing benefits is entirely consistent with the general tory approach of cutting all other sorts of benefits, made populist by "mother of 17 living in million pound mansion in mayfair gets 500,000 a week in benefits" type tabloid press hype. If it didn't have the effect of forcing poor people out of central London but bolloxing them up in some other way instead, it would still be entirely consistent with everything else they do. So how do you deduce that it's motivated by social engineering?

Mr. Tea
21-02-2012, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure it's particularly relevant whether benefits caps have been introduced specifically to clear unemployed/low-income people from certain areas or if that's just an inevitable consequence of the standard Tory attitude of free market good, welfare state bad. In moral terms I think doing [x] deliberately to achieve [y] is not much different from doing [x] for some other reason in the full knowledge that [y] will happen as a result.

Slothrop
21-02-2012, 02:48 PM
Morally, no. Politically, yes, I think.

baboon2004
21-02-2012, 03:06 PM
Why do you think that?

Cutting housing benefits is entirely consistent with the general tory approach of cutting all other sorts of benefits, made populist by "mother of 17 living in million pound mansion in mayfair gets 500,000 a week in benefits" type tabloid press hype. If it didn't have the effect of forcing poor people out of central London but bolloxing them up in some other way instead, it would still be entirely consistent with everything else they do. So how do you deduce that it's motivated by social engineering?

i think this is a bit of a non-discussion to be honest. they knew exactly what would happen if they cut housing benefits. that's all.

i dispute this idea that the tories even have a consistent ideology other than benefiting the rich. what is it? free market is just a buzzword, they're not consistently in favour of a free market in reality. it's like that recent picture circulated with a group of tories laughing and the caption "and then we told them wealth would trickle down!" It's whatever works for them at a particular time.

luka
22-02-2012, 03:03 AM
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

to link paris with south africa

'An apartment in this publicly owned housing is also known as a logement, a lodging, which aptly conveys the social status and degree of political influence of those expected to rent them. The cités are thus social marginalization made concrete: bureaucratically planned from their windows to their roofs, with no history of their own or organic connection to anything that previously existed on their sites, they convey the impression that, in the event of serious trouble, they could be cut off from the rest of the world by switching off the trains and by blockading with a tank or two the highways that pass through them, (usually with a concrete wall on either side), from the rest of France to the better parts of Paris. I recalled the words of an Afrikaner in South Africa, who explained to me the principle according to which only a single road connected black townships to the white cities: once it was sealed off by an armored car, “the blacks can foul only their own nest.”'

IdleRich
22-02-2012, 12:02 PM
Looks as though London's homeless will be actually forced to move out of the city

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/18/london-homeless-forced-move-hull

zhao
23-02-2012, 10:50 AM
you can build a wall around them or you can...

http://assets.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/29b221c9f7eab5008c5451a8a05590f5.jpg


"The 'Hobo' part [of the title] came about as a friend of mine, who commutes through Washington, DC, was constantly sending me camera phone pictures of hobos along his route, and making jokes about "hunting" them as he drove. He also told me that a group of attorneys (at a prestigious firm I won't name) all do the same, and that really triggered the idea behind the app.

"There are in-app purchases available, basically bundles of various weapons overlays. They vary from swords and knives to guns and such. These are really what drive the core concept of the game, as they appear on the screen and it looks as though these weapons are aimed at whatever you are taking a picture of. Thus the 'hunt' aspect."

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hobo-hunt-is-appaling

Slothrop
23-02-2012, 02:45 PM
i dispute this idea that the tories even have a consistent ideology other than benefiting the rich. what is it? free market is just a buzzword, they're not consistently in favour of a free market in reality.
I don't think that they have an ideology in the same way that Trotskyites or fundamentalist christians have an ideology, but I think there's a distinctive and specific worldview and value set that underpins Conservative policy, albeit one that's watered down and distorted by the usual political compromises, cronyism, pragmatism, nest-feathering and so on that affects all politicians to some extent.

I'd say that conservatism is built on a view of how the world works, essentially based on an exaggerated sense of individual agency ("I'm sure they could find a job if they want to" / "if they've got no qualifications they should have worked harder at school") and of how it Should Be, based on a concept of fairness and deservingness ("why should my tax money that I worked hard for pay for rural buses that I don't use" / "why should someone on the dole get more in benefits than I get for working").

I'm sure it's not consistently applied, but I think the ideology is basically there.

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 03:01 PM
value set that underpins Conservative policy, albeit one that's watered down and distorted by the usual political compromises, cronyism, pragmatism, nest-feathering and so on that affects all politicians to some extent.

I'd say that conservatism is built on a view of how the world works, essentially based on an exaggerated sense of individual agency ("I'm sure they could find a job if they want to" / "if they've got no qualifications they should have worked harder at school") and of how it Should Be, based on a concept of fairness and deservingness ("why should my tax money that I worked hard for pay for rural buses that I don't use" / "why should someone on the dole get more in benefits than I get for working").


lack of empathy with anyone but the privileged, basically, and ultimately lack of empathy with anyone. yeah, it would be splitting hairs to argue what makes an ideology - the important thing is that they are hateful people who must be stopped.

Mr. Tea
23-02-2012, 03:53 PM
lack of empathy with anyone but the privileged, basically, and ultimately lack of empathy with anyone. yeah, it would be splitting hairs to argue what makes an ideology - the important thing is that they are hateful people who must be stopped.

A lot of people who aren't particularly privileged are quite conservative too, though. I suppose my dad's quite small-c conservative about economic issues (can't recall either of my parents ever actually voting, which I find a bit weird, but anyway) and he grew up in a pretty modest working/lower-middle class household, went to a really dire school where he was often in trouble, left with literally no qualifications, did a whole shitload of different jobs (ran a pub, drilled for oil in the North Sea, you name it), ended up running his own business and eventually retired about ten years ago. Yer actual bona-fide self-made man. The sort of person who doesn't fit into the standard socialist narrative whereby everyone's lot in life is determined from the moment they're born because 'by rights' he ought to be on benefits somewhere in a crappy little flat, if not on the streets or in the nick.

It would be much more difficult for him to do all that these days since you need a typewritten CV to get a job in fucking Tesco. I guess he was part of that postwar generation who enjoyed the two- or three-decade window in which there was real class mobility in the UK, where a lot people made that jump from working class to middle class. That's been steadily eroding since the '80s and has now gone into total free fall, of course.

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 04:04 PM
sure, wasn't disputing that the people who are conservative are sometimes themselves not privileged, just that voting conservative/supporting it is essentially siding with those who have privilege, earned or not.

I don't think that is the standard socialist narrative. The standard socialist narrative encompasses the observation that some people who've come from nothing and 'make it', tend to view dimly those who came from nothing and didn't make it. Just because they have made it (your dad sounds like he had an aptitude for business, for example), doesnt' meant that everyone else will, or should have to be exceptional in a money-making pursuit in order to have a crack at a good life.

Yep, totally agree with the historical bit. Plus, as well, it's really unclear what most rich people actually do for their money these days.


A lot of people who aren't particularly privileged are quite conservative too, though. I suppose my dad's quite small-c conservative about economic issues (can't recall either of my parents ever actually voting, which I find a bit weird, but anyway) and he grew up in a pretty modest working/lower-middle class household, went to a really dire school where he was often in trouble, left with literally no qualifications, did a whole shitload of different jobs (ran a pub, drilled for oil in the North Sea, you name it), ended up running his own business and eventually retired about ten years ago. Yer actual bona-fide self-made man. The sort of person who doesn't fit into the standard socialist narrative whereby everyone's lot in life is determined from the moment they're born because 'by rights' he ought to be on benefits somewhere in a crappy little flat, if not on the streets or in the nick.

It would be much more difficult for him to do all that these days since you need a typewritten CV to get a job in fucking Tesco. I guess he was part of that postwar generation who enjoyed that two- or three-decade window in which there was real class mobility in the UK, where a lot people made that jump from working class to middle class. That's been steadily eroding since the '80s and has now gone into total free fall, of course.

Slothrop
23-02-2012, 04:09 PM
I don't think that is the standard socialist narrative. The standard socialist narrative encompasses the observation that some people who've come from nothing and 'make it', tend to view dimly those who came from nothing and didn't make it. Just because they have made it (your dad sounds like he had an aptitude for business, for example), doesnt' meant that everyone else will.
Well, yes.

And the conservative viewpoint is that essentially everyone could do that if they had the motivation.

It's not "I don't care what happens to poor people because they aren't me", it's "poor people would do much better for themselves if they were only motivated to do it (by giving them the option of doing better for themselves or going on the streets...)".

Slothrop
23-02-2012, 04:10 PM
Plus, as well, it's really unclear what most rich people actually do for their money these days.
Make lots more money for the people who pay their wages?

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 04:15 PM
Well, yes.

And the conservative viewpoint is that essentially everyone could do that if they had the motivation.

It's not "I don't care what happens to poor people because they aren't me", it's "poor people would do much better for themselves if they were only motivated to do it (by giving them the option of doing better for themselves or going on the streets...)".

hmm, i dunno, depends how stupid they are. i think some conservatives know exactly how difficult it is for some people and don't care, and some simply don't understand. not sure which ones i despise more.

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 04:16 PM
Make lots more money for the people who pay their wages?

well, not necessarily any more, as with the financial industry. it's bonus time anyway. and A4e. you can be completely inept at what you do and still cane it in.

Mr. Tea
23-02-2012, 04:48 PM
I don't think that is the standard socialist narrative. The standard socialist narrative encompasses the observation that some people who've come from nothing and 'make it', tend to view dimly those who came from nothing and didn't make it.

Well maybe I was caricaturing it a bit, but it's hard not to get the impression that some people think the socioeconomic conditions we're born into - while obviously very important - are so important that they invariably trump whatever personal differences exist between people.


Just because they have made it (your dad sounds like he had an aptitude for business, for example), doesnt' meant that everyone else will, or should have to be exceptional in a money-making pursuit in order to have a crack at a good life.

Yeah, my dad has an aptitude for business (far moreso than I do, incidentally, and I'm the one with the good school grades and the letters after my name). You can't prevent business-minded people from being good at business without doing something totally nuts like banning private enterprise entirely - though of course no-one but dyed-in-the-wool communists actually supports that position. I agree that you shouldn't have have to have a razor-sharp business mind to be able to earn a decent living and I think this country criminally undervalues lots of people who do very demanding and important jobs while criminally overvaluing people whose job, at heart, is to gamble for high stakes with other people's money.

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Yeah, but the correlation between what social situation one was born into and where one ends up on the social 'ladder', is very strong in Britain, so it is probably the main factor. The way many industries' employment are set up (in various ways) guarantees that - need for degrees, need for work experience which is very frequently unpaid, etc. I've worked in a fair few industries and there's always been a class element at play.

Sure, sure - business is fine, what isn't fine is the way it's set up - easy to exploit people, most people feeling alienated from their work, people at the top getting crazy money, the idea that the five-day week is inarguably the only way, etc etc.



Well maybe I was caricaturing it a bit, but it's hard not to get the impression that some people think the socioeconomic conditions we're born into - while obviously very important - are so important that they invariably trump whatever personal differences exist between people.

Yeah, my dad has an aptitude for business (far moreso than I do, incidentally, and I'm the one with the good school grades and the letters after my name). You can't prevent business-minded people from being good at business without doing something totally nuts like banning private entirely entirely - though of course no-one but dyed-in-the-wool communists actually supports that position. I agree that you shouldn't have have to have a razor-sharp business mind to be able to earn a decent living and I think this country criminally undervalues lots of people who do very demanding and important jobs while criminally overvaluing people whose job, at heart, is to gamble for high stakes with other people's money.

Mr. Tea
23-02-2012, 05:57 PM
Sure, sure - business is fine, what isn't fine is the way it's set up - easy to exploit people, most people feeling alienated from their work, people at the top getting crazy money, the idea that the five-day week is inarguably the only way, etc etc.

Agreed completely. And it seems that the bias inherent in British business regulation is more and more in favour of huge multinationals and against small independent businesses. Not that smaller businesses never exploit their employees, of course, but huge chains that form monopolies can exploit their employees, their customers and their suppliers, and now they're even benefiting from unpaid labour - essentially a state subsidy for supermarkets.

You only have to look at the state of the average UK high street to see just how extreme it's got. I'm reminded of the Time Trumpet episode about Tesco declaring war on Denmark...

baboon2004
23-02-2012, 06:09 PM
Agreed completely. And it seems that the bias inherent in British business regulation is more and more in favour of huge multinationals and against small independent businesses. Not that smaller businesses never exploit their employees, of course, but huge chains that form monopolies can exploit both employees and customers, and now they're even benefiting from unpaid labour - essentially a state subsidy for supermarkets.

You only have to look at the state of the average UK high street to see just how extreme it's got. I'm reminded of the Time Trumpet episode about Tesco declaring war on Denmark...

I thought of that this week too... When the slogan changed from 'Every little helps' to 'We control every part of your life'.

yyaldrin
24-02-2012, 10:32 AM
The Revanchist City.

luka
04-06-2015, 08:23 PM
rare high minded thread from me