Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:34:37 -0700
Reply-To:     Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
From:         Richard B Freeman <jeanbob@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Poverty as smokescreen, and as real issue

On Fri, 18 Dec 1992, TRACY LOGAN, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON PA wrote:

> I don't know who put it this way, but I like the formulation:
>
>                      WHAT THE POOR LACK
>         The poor do not suffer from a lack of "free" bags.  Nor do
>         lower-income folks suffer from a lack of underpriced gasoline.
>         What they lack is MONEY.
>
> The maldistribution of income in our society seems to be an
> economic problem that our econonmic "leading lights" (with
> exceptions like Heilbroner and Galbraith) don't worry about much
> at all.  But, in my opinion, environmentalists MUST ALWAYS worry
> about it.  We need to speak out loud and clear against the large
> (and lately growing) gap between the highest incomes and lowest
> incomes in our land, and we need to support policies to mitigate
> this sorry situation.  Otherwise, those who oppose our ideas for
> self-serving reasons, or just because the ideas are new, can
> effectively, and I think legitimately, rally support against us
> as racist, callous, anti-people, etc.

Tracy, I agree with this aspect of your message. I think you and I are
getting at the same problem.

A couple of comments on whether or not "the equity thing" (as outgoing G.
Bush might say) as a smokescreen:  Yes, I would agree that people can use this
aspect of reality as a smokescreen against price controls in order to
maintain profits.  But, I suspect you agree that this possibility does not
argue for ignoring the basic problem of inequity in social distribution.

I think that we should pay careful attention to the character of problems:
 they are constructs.  That is, "problems," per se, are ideas...we
 create them and describe them according to our communication.  I don't
know how else to put it.  Defining problems is like any other "rational"
process:  we cut our perceived (apperceived) environment into the parts
that we use to help us understand it.  The process is linguistic,
creative, social, and of course, warped.  No ultimate frame of reference
is available.  And, people can use...alter....warp a problematic for their
own uses.  The problem is quite rhetorical.

Tracy, I'm glad that you pointed towards the larger reality.  That
is, when we discuss policy, we can't just isolate specific actions;
rather, we have to judge indirect effects (those that we can
perceive), and we have to examine actions in light of other actions.
The picture remains incomplete and obscure, but we should be as
thorough as possible.  Thus, into environmental questions enter
questions of social groups--distribution, institutions, production,
legislation, etc.

RE Marianne Dugan's note (in another message):

Marianne, I think that in some ways, you are right.  For instance, given
the specific market type choices you outlined in which, given your
circumstances and environment, and given these particular choices, the
"green" choice is also the equitable choice.  But, I consider two other
aspects of the problem. First, different people with different backgrounds
perceive different choices.  Choice is as social as it is individual, and
so choices your perceive might not be available to others (even within
your environmental field). Second, the problem goes beyond the bounds of
one or two particular choices.  When the public starts instituting
market-based solutions (which are not to be categorized as good or evil in
this context), then the differences in choices nickel-and-dime-to-death
the folks without the capital.  Such a policy is analogous to a regressive
tax.  A nickel to one person is a greater part of her total budget than it
is to a more wealthy person.  The marginal nickel means food to one
person;  to another it means some small percentage of the bill at the
video store.  I don't think we should be focusing on the poor spending
habits of low-income folk.  I think we need to look to those who are using
the productive means to exploit nature and people.

Rick Freeman
jeanbob@selway.umt.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU