We've been here before

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
To save time I'm going to cherry pick a few comments to respond to. I apologize if I didn't get to everything (it doesn't mean I agree with you.  ;D ;D ). .
Sahib said:
Because they are no different than the  young white men who do the same. It is not a race issue.
As the saying goes it takes two to tango, so both parties in the "beast with two backs" share responsibility, while one has a harder time avoiding the consequences. With modern contraception widely available (in the west) it seems there is some calculation involved.

There seems to be a higher fraction of unwed black mothers, but yes an uptick in out of wedlock births has crossed all demographics. This is another cultural shift that can probably be traced back to media presenting it as OK. I recall the uproar over a TV show Murphy Brown where back in the early '90s the lead character got pregnant and decided to have the baby herself.  TV shows and movies are a powerful force to influence modern culture. That is just one example and there are more. A second factor influencing the breakdown of the nuclear family, is government support sometimes including housing allowances that can make it too easy for a pregnant girl to escape her family structure. Not always a bad thing with the poor parenting many experience, but not like the good old days when several generations lived in the same house and there was so much more private support. I will avoid the conspiracy theories, insert your favorites here.

mattias said:
I don't see your point...
Not one of my best.

mattias said:
If you want to overlay something then it is an already unfair system onto mother nature, which in turn is also not fair. Layering that up doesn't help, it exacerbates the problem. 
Nature is not a problem as I see it. It is a given we must deal with.

If we allow the vast majority of the public to be productive we can create more than enough wealth to support the small fraction who will always be incapable of supporting themselves. The problem comes when we try to have government manage the entire private economy as this hurts productivity and reduces wealth creation, making it literally impossible to help all in need.  We have seen this play out around the world with unfortunate consequences for a number of countries.

mattias said:
Well you're free to do what you want John, and ignoring reality and hoping others do to may seem appealing to you. It doesn't appeal to me though because reality has an annoying habit of, you know, being real.
We do not agree on that reality which is pretty common in such discussions. You or me just repeating that the other is wrong, or ignorant, or "ignoring" something  is a waste of everybody's time. 

Mattias said:
But their wealth didn't scale linearly according to the labor they put in. If that was the case then bus-boys busting their asses in restaurants would be richer than Bill Gates.

For every one of your individual stories you can provide we can find stories of people who have worked incredibly hard and aren't even close to having the same amount of wealth. Anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing. Germany at least had significantly higher mobility than the US, and it is far more "socialist" than the US is.

Nature doesn't create people as equals, and on top of that we put a system that exacerbates that inequality. That's what we're doing. It's not about fostering a "victim mentality" so much as just waking people up to that fact so that other solutions can be found. You're winning, so what do you care? The blame for lack of success is placed by you onto those who don't succeed so of course to you the system appears to be working.
Free market capitalism where people are paid based on the value they create is the fairest way to compensate workers. The government "fixing" wages will have the opposite effect. If anything history has demonstrated that government needs to stay out of business. That includes the rampant crony capitalism that i suspect will get even worse here if Hillary gets elected making the Clinton foundation a one stop shop for international cronies (probably signing up now before rates go up). Note: the republicans don't get a free pass. and perhaps a complete re-write of the tax system, could like a magic slate undo all the deals that big business have engineered over the years to level the playing field somewhat for small business.

Mattias said:
So it seems to me that the issue still could be financial along with just good old racism. So even if they didn't bring resentment with them from the colonies I'm pretty sure they were about as disillusioned as some blacks in the US after having fought in Vietnam, meaning that they risked their lives for a nation only to find racism restricting what their options were when they got back "home".

Now, my point is solely that just because there isn't the same type and extent of racism today, this group can surely be in a crappier situation today because of said financial problems which in turn stem from prior racism. It's just to say that of course we shouldn't automatically blame current white people for being racists that prevent current black people from prospering, just that we can't ignore that history is what it is.

Some people try their hardest to not acknowledge that there's a quite frankly surprisingly large amount of racism still existence, and this massacre sort of illuminates that I think. I think John's right that there are other issues that are really important, such as economics, but in my opinion the problem is that by "ignoring" or "downplaying" the widespread nature of racism AND then not see the real problem with the system in which we all exist you're just exacerbating both problems. Relatively speaking poor people of color will get angry because they experience racism and just see it downplayed or ignored, and then in addition are told that they're just stuck financially because they're just incapable or lazy.

Now i'm surely repeating myself.  Racism has been ingrained into our culture over a couple centuries. You do not flip a switch and change peoples belief systems overnight. In my lifetime i have seen HUGE advances and more recently I perceive a reversal in that progress due to politicians and an industry of pundits that draw power from racial conflict so stir it up.

I have an adult neighbor that I know I can not change, while i can stop his abusive language at least when I am around. That said I see a completely different attitude and awareness in the young, who have grown up in desegregated schools, with the worst abuses prevented by law.

I really miss my weekly basketball game that i had to stop because of my bad knee. It was my regular interaction with young black kids, and after they overcame the shock of playing ball with an old white guy, i became  just another player on the court (a weaker, slower player, but with skills). These days my more common interaction is from kids dumping litter in my yard.

We need to take a breath and show a little patience. The culture of race relations evolves over generations, not election cycles. It is better today than it was a decade ago, and I expect it to be better a decade from now, if the politicians shut up and stop stirring the pot for personal gain by inflaming the public.

Mattias said:
People aren't really free to succeed if the opportunity isn't there, practically speaking, and the latter most certainly isn't equal to people. If you want to make it equal you end up with a bunch of problems. Does education make a difference? If 'yes', then it's the government's job to equalize it so that everyone gets and equally good or poor education and thus equal opportunity (using what you stated above as a principle). Of course wealthy people will object to that. The same will apply to health care. And living conditions. At the end of the day pro-Capitalists can try to convince others as much as they like that the system provides equal opportunity, but the truth is that it doesn't, and pro-Capitalists don't want it either.
The big lie from government is that they can create jobs. Opportunity comes from a vibrant growing economy. As I've noted before our GDP growth has been sub standard, below long term trends since the collapse in 2007-8. There was absolutely nothing permanent about that short term economic crisis, but the government response since then has been like a permanent sea anchor on the economy.

People seem to forget what happens when the government tried to help them.  Look at the housing crisis.  In a classic case of politicians thinking if home ownership correlates with better outcomes, lets put everybody into a house.  The government supported and almost mandated too-easy mortgage lending standards that greedy bankers were all to happy to play along with, at least while the music was playing. Economic theory predicts what will happen with unlimited credit as more money chases a finite number of homes.  For a while everything goes up, and people started flipping houses for profit pushing the prices higher. People bought houses they couldn't afford, with mortgages they didn't think they would ever have to pay back because of increasing prices. Of course prices never go all the way up to the sky so eventually the music stopped.

At the end of 2014 there were still more than 8 million homeowners underwater, and 35% have less than 20% equity in the homes. I recall when we had to have 20% down to buy a home.  A free market way to resolve this, while painful, would have been to recognize all the non-performing mortgages as what they were (worthless).  People would have had to leave the houses they couldn't afford and move into more appropriate housing they could afford. It would have been a massive disruption short term, but then with a rational housing market we would have recovered to a more normal growth rate too.

While we talk a lot about income inequality I suspect a lot of low income people lost all or most of their modest nest eggs in that "government help" inspired debacle. 

In a similar vein the government saw a correlation between college education and better outcomes, so decided to wave the magic government wand to increase education lending to  all who wanted. As before this confuses "what is" with what looks like "it is". Education is indeed a path to higher earnings, but that doesn't come from just showing up and getting the degree, but from actually learning merchantable skills, and how to apply them. Spending 4 years studying basket waving is not going to facilitate a good career.  Just like easy money inflated home prices, a similar trend occurred for college prices, while in some cases the curriculum also got dumbed down to handle the new population of less qualified students. (Don't get me started on education).

I won't predict how this will play out, but the government is already making noises about forgiving this student debt, but that doesn't fix the real problem. We need to educate people to do the jobs that we need filled. Sometimes we need welders more than physicists, but we can use good skilled workers for both.

There is place for government help, but it needs to use a light hand. The more it tries to force an outcome, the more unintended consequences that we must deal with.

Sorry if this seems like a veer but it's all related.

================
This took more time than I planned... Play nice.

JR
 
DaveP said:
Look what I want to hear is something practical and costed, so take this for an example.  If we were to build solar stations in the desert for electricity generation, we could save on oil imports, help the environment  reduce emissions and use the money saved to pay for free childcare to get people back to work, win win win.  This is what I mean about understanding implications and outcomes.  That was my point about Water in Africa.


best
DaveP

For another data point about residential alternative energy like solar and wind, is that the output is not steady and predictable in the short term. In the average we can expect a certain amount of output but in the short term the grid and power plants must make up the difference or even worse should residential output exceed the grid demand somebody needs to store it or scrub it off, so the grid doesn't fail over-voltage.

This seems like a chicken little scenario, and in the US we have 3 very large grids that can easily handle the output and fluctuations from alternative energy output at current levels, but for a more interesting example look at Hawaii... each island has their own much smaller grid, and larger significant fractions of solar and wind power so they are already having to deal with leveling supply/demand.

Elon Musk remains one of the smartest guys in any room and he is already investing heavily into commercializing residential battery storage.  Interesting times when the government subsidizes off grid power generation, forcing the power generation companies to provide more infrastructure to support off grid generation while simultaneously receiving less revenue.

Speaking about power generation SCOTUS beat back the EPA over imposing strict emissions regulations without considering the cost-benefit. Of corse accurate cost-benefit analysis seems a foreign concept in government.

JR

PS: I accidentally saw part of hearing on ethanol mandates. Not only has law mandated unrealistic mandate amounts, they also mandated an increasing fraction of "cellulosic" ethanol  (you know that free ethanol that isn't really free). Apparently even with mandates they can't make enough cellulosic. In a typical government shell game they are accepting some non-ethanol fuels (like propane?)  as equivalents to substitute.  it's always amusing to watch legislators try to square their legislated wishful thinking with reality.
 
I have read about Elon Musk  (What kind of a name is that :eek:)

He is making giant capacitor storage I believe, storage is exactly what's needed.

I don't know how far your national grids go, but the US is so big, the sun must be shining or the wind blowing somewhere to even things out.

best
DaveP
 
DaveP said:
I have read about Elon Musk  (What kind of a name is that :eek:)

He is making giant capacitor storage I believe, storage is exactly what's needed.

I don't know how far your national grids go, but the US is so big, the sun must be shining or the wind blowing somewhere to even things out.

best
DaveP
Unlike the British empire where the sun never set on their flag, we actually only have 4 time zones if we ignore HI-AK. 

I have joked that I would like to invent power transfer via the WWW, then we could transfer solar power from day side to night side.  8)

JR
 
DaveP said:
Look what I want to hear is something practical and costed, so take this for an example.  If we were to build solar stations in the desert for electricity generation, we could save on oil imports, help the environment  reduce emissions and use the money saved to pay for free childcare to get people back to work, win win win.  This is what I mean about understanding implications and outcomes.  That was my point about Water in Africa.

Its just a stupid example and it's not costed but its the kind of proposal that I would like to see from the Left rather than bemoaning the status quo. I do realise that this kind of initiative would have to be protected by government because the vested interests would try to stop it dead, but it is government's job to level the playing field or act as a referee.

best
DaveP

But seriously: You're using solar power as an alternative to "the left's" being quiet???!?!?!??!!!!!

If we're going to accept a generic and often inaccurate "left" / "right" dichotomy with no nuance, surely environmentalists sit on the left side, no?
 
JohnRoberts said:
If we allow the vast majority of the public to be productive we can create more than enough wealth to support the small fraction who will always be incapable of supporting themselves.

We agree on that of course.

JohnRoberts said:
The problem comes when we try to have government manage the entire private economy as this hurts productivity and reduces wealth creation, making it literally impossible to help all in need.  We have seen this play out around the world with unfortunate consequences for a number of countries.

But curiously we always seem to end up with unemployment despite work needing to get done. Clearly that's due to the fact that the means of production as well as natural resources are in effect held hostage by the owners who won't share them because they want to maximize profit.

The truth is that Capitalism sees a great deal of discrepancy in wealth and you agree that some of that, at the top presumably, needs to trickle down one way or another. But it's also true that while several other systems have failed in practice it isn't for a monolithic reason. In fact, the further we progress the more apt we will be at solving some of the problems leading to such failures, making them more viable than ever before.

JohnRoberts said:
Free market capitalism where people are paid based on the value they create is the fairest way to compensate workers.

That isn't even remotely true. If it was true then the seamstresses in east Asia would be making $10 per T-shirt. When supply of labor is high and demand is low the value of what the workers create is far higher than what they're paid.

In fact I'm continuously surprised why people who support Capitalism keep perpetuating this line of reasoning when it isn't true. Anarchists for example would be fine with a person living on a piece of land, building his own house by cutting down trees and creating and accumulating as much wealth as he himself could. But as Anarchists are Socialists they reject the notion that this person should profit off of labor he is NOT doing, i.e. taking a cut from the value of the product someone else produced. So the Anarchist Socialist is in favor of what you propose, and the Capitalist is in fact absolutely not.

JohnRoberts said:
The government "fixing" wages will have the opposite effect. If anything history has demonstrated that government needs to stay out of business. That includes the rampant crony capitalism that i suspect will get even worse here if Hillary gets elected making the Clinton foundation a one stop shop for international cronies (probably signing up now before rates go up). Note: the republicans don't get a free pass. and perhaps a complete re-write of the tax system, could like a magic slate undo all the deals that big business have engineered over the years to level the playing field somewhat for small business.

I agree.

JohnRoberts said:
Now i'm surely repeating myself.  Racism has been ingrained into our culture over a couple centuries. You do not flip a switch and change peoples belief systems overnight. In my lifetime i have seen HUGE advances and more recently I perceive a reversal in that progress due to politicians and an industry of pundits that draw power from racial conflict so stir it up.

I have an adult neighbor that I know I can not change, while i can stop his abusive language at least when I am around. That said I see a completely different attitude and awareness in the young, who have grown up in desegregated schools, with the worst abuses prevented by law.

I really miss my weekly basketball game that i had to stop because of my bad knee. It was my regular interaction with young black kids, and after they overcame the shock of playing ball with an old white guy, i became  just another player on the court (a weaker, slower player, but with skills). These days my more common interaction is from kids dumping litter in my yard.

We need to take a breath and show a little patience. The culture of race relations evolves over generations, not election cycles. It is better today than it was a decade ago, and I expect it to be better a decade from now, if the politicians shut up and stop stirring the pot for personal gain by inflaming the public.

I agree with a lot of that, but asking people still suffering from racism to show a little patience when people are massacred in a church, while asking politicians to not call a spade a spade (if that's what you're proposing), is in my opinion hugely counterproductive. But we simply have different opinions about that.

JohnRoberts said:
The big lie from government is that they can create jobs. Opportunity comes from a vibrant growing economy. As I've noted before our GDP growth has been sub standard, below long term trends since the collapse in 2007-8. There was absolutely nothing permanent about that short term economic crisis, but the government response since then has been like a permanent sea anchor on the economy.

But did the government increase its amount of employees that significantly?

Also, Sweden (and Scandinavia in general presumably) had great success in having a large government sector with many government employees. It worked just fine. All it is is different managers of resources.

I also think that a lot of what you point out as being problems with government has to do with cronyism, including both housing and education issues. But of course that only is meaningful if there's profit to be had, which in turn necessitates Capitalism in the first place. So I obviously agree with you that a large amount of what not just he US pro-Capitalist government has done, but also "leftist" governments have done, is garbage. But that to me leads to the conclusion that government is a tool that can be used for abuse, but not that just because some governments are incapable any government must be so.

JohnRoberts said:
There is place for government help, but it needs to use a light hand. The more it tries to force an outcome, the more unintended consequences that we must deal with.

I think it ultimately depends on what the government is trying to govern and how well it does so. I don't think it's at all impossible.
 
I saw on the news that 5 churches in the south have been burned down in the past week - arson 'suspected' in some.
One of the churches was burned down 20 yrs ago by the kkk, rebuilt - now burned down again.

 
dmp said:
I saw on the news that 5 churches in the south have been burned down in the past week - arson 'suspected' in some.
One of the churches was burned down 20 yrs ago by the kkk, rebuilt - now burned down again.
7 churches in 5(?) southern  states. 3(?) ruled arson and possible hate crimes.

This needs to be investigated and the perpetrators caught and punished. 

Here we go again....

JR
 
Interesting to think how different the US response would be if the perpetrators were islamic jihadists instead of  confederate flag waving racists.   
South Carolina passed a law prohibiting protests at the funerals of the slain church people because they were worried about racist haters showing up.
 
dmp said:
Interesting to think how different the US response would be if the perpetrators were islamic jihadists instead of  confederate flag waving racists.   
South Carolina passed a law prohibiting protests at the funerals of the slain church people because they were worried about racist haters showing up.

There are churches and schools and... being burned in the middle east, but nobody here seems to care. Burning churches is never acceptable but as usual I would like more information. I hope the press coverage doesn't attract more copy cats among the lunatic fringe. 

JR
 
But seriously: You're using solar power as an alternative to "the left's" being quiet???!?!?!??!!!!!

I don't seem to have much luck making myself clear here, so I'll go into a bit more detail.

In the UK, the left is all about redistribution of wealth rather than wealth creation.  The left always want to borrow more to give away rather than earn more to give away.  I don't know if this has any resonance in the US, no doubt someone will tell me.

While I am not against redistribution,  I am against borrowing that another generation has to pay back.

My example about solar energy was an attempt at redistribution from wealth creation while also saving the planet, is that clearer now?

best
DaveP
 
DaveP said:
But seriously: You're using solar power as an alternative to "the left's" being quiet???!?!?!??!!!!!

I don't seem to have much luck making myself clear here, so I'll go into a bit more detail.

In the UK, the left is all about redistribution of wealth rather than wealth creation.  The left always want to borrow more to give away rather than earn more to give away.  I don't know if this has any resonance in the US, no doubt someone will tell me.
Not in those exact terms but pretty much similar left-right debate around the world.
While I am not against redistribution,  I am against borrowing that another generation has to pay back.
We already have very progressive tax rates, while some candidates advocate increasing the burden even more on the productive sector of the economy. I am opposed to redistribution philosophically because it will reduce the incentive for the workforce to create wealth. Likewise increasing taxes on business owners will be a negative incentive for them. Bernie Sanders said he would be comfortable with 90% tax rates. Many business owners would just say why bother. If you want to give away more, grow the economy... right now was are experiencing sub trend GDP growth.

I have no problem with a safety net for the small fraction at the bottom of any population who can't fend for themselves, but giving too much to too many will hurt the entire economy.. We are kind of seeing how this borrow and spend instead of earn and spend can end up in Greece, where they are running out of the capability to borrow more, while they can't pay back what they already owe. How do you think this will look when interest rates return to historical levels increasing debt service costs in some cases doubling or tripling them for a number of nations? 
My example about solar energy was an attempt at redistribution from wealth creation while also saving the planet, is that clearer now?

best
DaveP
Nah not really.While there is global wealth redistribution embedded in many large government programs. I actually like the wealth redistribution that occurs as many third world populations can now work themselves out of poverty. Of course the former western workers being paid too much for the same work do not appreciate this.  I am afraid the easy ride is over and the working class is hit disproportionately. Now workers must compete with workers around the world. So they need to retrain to do more valuable work that can't be as easily moved. i.e.  be a plumber rather than assembly line worker.

JR
 
Whilst my attempt at clarity was not directed at you JR, I see I also need to clarify what I mean by redistribution.  I think that we are basically on the same song sheet.  I mean a small redistribution to cover the section of the population who are disabled or sick and who need genuine help.  A progressive tax system is fine but all the tax rates have to make work worth while.

In the past the mega rich used their money to help the poor, I'm thinking Carnegie Libraries here, and Bill Gates with his efforts against malaria.  I'd like to see more of that.
best
DaveP
 
We already have very progressive tax rates, while some candidates advocate increasing the burden even more on the productive sector of the economy.
It is very hard to make this argument if you look at historical tax rates in the US (which are at near lows for the past century).
If you compare periods of stability of wealth distribution (1950s-1980s), you will see as tax rates were lowered, i.e. Reagan on to Bush (1980s+), the inequality of wealth started to skyrocket. Clearly capitalism on it's own cannot maintain a stable situation.
 
dmp said:
We already have very progressive tax rates, while some candidates advocate increasing the burden even more on the productive sector of the economy.
It is very hard to make this argument if you look at historical tax rates in the US (which are at near lows for the past century).
If you compare periods of stability of wealth distribution (1950s-1980s), you will see as tax rates were lowered, i.e. Reagan on to Bush (1980s+), the inequality of wealth started to skyrocket. Clearly capitalism on it's own cannot maintain a stable situation.
I am surely repeating myself but there has always been a gap between the wealthy and the poor, this is a worldwide and some would say a very old natural phenomenon. There is also a world wide trend concentrating wealth toward the wealthy and away from the middle/lower class.

In my judgement, this trend is speeding up being driven by globalization and increased computerization of design/manufacturing which serves as a wealth multiplier for those creating wealth by making and selling new products.

There is an argument that capital is driving this aggregation of wealth but IMO it is technology and a flatter more competitive world driving this. Not the wealthy somehow being more greedy than they were.

Another recent policy  trend that makes this worse than it is, is the central bankers pretty much every where pumping liquidity into the world's financial system in a pursuit of inflation (to help pay back their borrowing with cheaper money) and GDP growth to help reduce budget deficits. This increased liquidity is inflating asset values, and since the wealthy have more assets than the poor they benefit from the central bank manipulations more than those without assets. One exception is the millions of poor homeowners, underwater in mortgages they took out for over-priced homes during the housing bubble. Those still in those houses are now less underwater than they were, The central banks have effectively reduced their mortgage debt. The wealthy with assets get richer, and the poor with lousy mortgages get less poor. All of us in the middle who don't owe obscene amounts of money, and don't have obscene amounts of money get much less benefit from asset inflation..

As usual large scale government "help" creates economic distortions and unintended consequences. 

JR
 
I am surely repeating myself
I think you are. Progressive taxes are undeniably a strong control knob on the balance of wealth and tax rates are undeniably at historic lows for the last century. Do you disagree?
there has always been a gap between the wealthy and the poor
Of course there is a gap - by definition. The size of the gap is what we want to look at. And then, what are the political and social consequences when the gap becomes very large. Hint, look at the past to learn about the present. The gap was very large 100 years ago then moderated for nearly half a century. Image from a wikipedia attached.
The wealthy did get a very significant increase in power with globalization. Also investment income has significantly contributed to wealth growth (Bush's 25% capital gains tax rate certainly helped this)
The increases in productivity have not benefited labor to a commensurate level. Why is this? Because it is about power. Ideally there would be a balance of power between capital and labor, but it is seriously out of whack right now. How bad it gets is a matter of speculation. Power allows more wealth, wealth brings more power. The cycle continues. What can counter the imbalance?
What options / methods are there to maintain stability (economic and political)?
 

Attachments

  • U.S._Income_Shares.png
    U.S._Income_Shares.png
    24.8 KB · Views: 5
Here's another good set of data - productivity increases have not been shared by workers.
Why?
There's much talk of the left trying to 'redistribute wealth' - but in my opinion the problem starts earlier - at a moral failing by business leaders in power. They are able to extract wealth from the worker's who have been earning it. Unfortunately, I don't see a perfect remedy since it is a product of capitalism and innate human greed. But it seems the best balance is achieved by capitalism functioning within a progressive democracy.
 
 

Attachments

  • Productivity.png
    Productivity.png
    115.3 KB · Views: 4
But getting back to the original subject - this recent tragic shooting.
Are guns the problem or is it a lack of education and acceptance of hate?
The news is reporting today that epic idiot and racist, Donald Trump, is polling near the top with conservative voters. At the same time corporate America is cutting ties with him to avoid potential blowback.
 
DaveP said:
But seriously: You're using solar power as an alternative to "the left's" being quiet???!?!?!??!!!!!

I don't seem to have much luck making myself clear here, so I'll go into a bit more detail.

In the UK, the left is all about redistribution of wealth rather than wealth creation.  The left always want to borrow more to give away rather than earn more to give away.  I don't know if this has any resonance in the US, no doubt someone will tell me.

While I am not against redistribution,  I am against borrowing that another generation has to pay back.

My example about solar energy was an attempt at redistribution from wealth creation while also saving the planet, is that clearer now?

best
DaveP

Yes, clearer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top