<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mind the gap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/2010/02/mind-the-gap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/2010/02/mind-the-gap/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:07:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nelson</title>
		<link>http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/2010/02/mind-the-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-251</link>
		<dc:creator>Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/?p=775#comment-251</guid>
		<description>This article seems to equate poverty with inequality. I think there&#039;s sound reason to do so. If, however, this is JRF&#039;s view, it seems odd not be be as concerned with &#039;why rich people are rich, and what we can do about that&#039; as with a focus on the poor. Surely, with the inequality analysis of poverty, rich and poor are just different sides of the same coin.

An analogy might be to wonder why a tossed coin comes up heads as frequently as it does, but not being interested in why it comes up tails at all.

By only focusing on why poor people are poor, and what can be done about that, it&#039;s all too easy (even unwittingly) to fall into a trap of saying that what&#039;s needed is for poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Surely the solution lies in that word that it seems neither government or NGOs seem to be willing to use any more - redistribution. If this isn&#039;t the commitment required from government and all of us, what is? What&#039;s the solution to inequality that doesn&#039;t involve an analysis of the wealthy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article seems to equate poverty with inequality. I think there&#8217;s sound reason to do so. If, however, this is JRF&#8217;s view, it seems odd not be be as concerned with &#8216;why rich people are rich, and what we can do about that&#8217; as with a focus on the poor. Surely, with the inequality analysis of poverty, rich and poor are just different sides of the same coin.</p>
<p>An analogy might be to wonder why a tossed coin comes up heads as frequently as it does, but not being interested in why it comes up tails at all.</p>
<p>By only focusing on why poor people are poor, and what can be done about that, it&#8217;s all too easy (even unwittingly) to fall into a trap of saying that what&#8217;s needed is for poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.</p>
<p>Surely the solution lies in that word that it seems neither government or NGOs seem to be willing to use any more &#8211; redistribution. If this isn&#8217;t the commitment required from government and all of us, what is? What&#8217;s the solution to inequality that doesn&#8217;t involve an analysis of the wealthy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

