Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 6
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. US economy is holding up as of this month. Hence, recession, if any, is seven months away (and the President would like it to be at least 14 months away).

Germany however reported a decline in the June quarter: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/economy/germany-recession-bun...

Hence, official recession in Germany is possible as soon as October.

Consumer spending drives 70% of the US economy. Consumers are likely to continue spending as long as they have money in their pockets. Ie as long as unemployment figures are strong.

Meanwhile all the uncertainty has managers and investors watching for signs of trouble. They do not want to get caught with unsold inventory in a recession. Still they are stocking up for the holidays expected to be strong and trying to beat pending increases in tariffs.

As some decide to defer new projects--"wait and see" style, things could be slowing.

Declining rail shipments are a leading indicator. Worries about auto sales earlier may have been due to the government shutdown. Other numbers seem to be mixed.

It's a time of uncertainty. And volatility.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have heard the president mention the R word quite a bit the last few days, so I wonder if he is getting some ugly data.

He actually said if it happens we would only have a 2 month mini-recession. 😂

After getting a question about the trade war, Trump launched into an impassioned defense. At one point, he entertained the idea that there might be a two-month recession, or something similar, but argued that the trade war had to happen, regardless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/20/trump-adm...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IMHO & FWIW: it may not be useful to rely on the unemployment rate reported by the government.

true unemployment in the US differs greatly from the unemployment rate.

IIRC only 60-70% of the potential US workforce are currently employed.

credit card rates likely will not drop significantly for "revolvers, or for credit card debt in general because of negative interest.

but maybe i'm being too cynical?

sincerely,

jan

:^\
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 42
>Hence, official recession in Germany is possible as soon as October.
>Consumer spending drives 70% of the US economy. Consumers are likely
>to continue spending as long as they have money in their pockets.
>Ie as long as unemployment figures are strong.

My executive summary is that Germany will be okay after a year or so,
if they follow through with their change of direction, because they
are now talking about ending their obsession with running a Government
surplus and starting to accept that it is might be okay to run a
Government deficit.

The mainstream national fiscal approach that is practiced around the
world is to believe that running a surplus is a good aim. The thinking
behind this is superficially understandable - as if related to running
a family and spending less than you are earning, thus building up
reserve. It makes sense with a family, who's saving doesn't effect
the world around it, and makes sense with our natural assumption
that living within our means is good.

This "Let's make the Government save like a good family" cannot be
applied country-wide though, and in fact it is better to run a
deficit continually, whilst growing the money supply. Without
doing this, the private sector suffocates.

The reason is extremely simple, even logically inescapable, if you
think about it from an accounting perspective with double-entry
book-keeping. Draw a large square, and then put dotted line through
the middle. On the one side, write Government Sector, and on the
other, write Private Sector. We should sub-divide the private sector
further but I'll just describe the outer hierarchy.

What does running a deficit mean? It means that in the square above,
that the net flow of money is in the direction of the Government sector
to the private sector in the accounting operation, enriching the
private sector. In running a surplus, the net flow of money is in the
opposite direction, with the private sector being forced to lose money,
and the Government sector receiving their surplus.

You can quickly see that in forcing one half to have a surplus (in a sense,
becoming economically stronger), the other half is forced to become weaker.

Money flows from private to Government by paying taxes. Money flows
from Government to private by the Government spending, such as paying for
new infrastructure, or building factories or schools.

Money can be created too - most of it not from printing, but instead within
the private sector by banks lending out money, and even if the private
debt to GDP ratio stays the same, the absolute amount lent will increase
as GDP grows, so money is produced in the private sector just as part of
ordinary GDP growth. When the debt burden is too large, the debt to GDP ratio
can be reversed under gravity (burden of paying debt interest, which it did briefly
in 2009) which causes a recession (when the private debt to GDP is low, a reduction
in the private debt is not noticed, but when the ratio is high and there is a reduction
of debt, it is enormously felt). The trap that just about every country
is forced into now - of being forced to keep interest rates low - is purely a
result of the private debt burden being far too high. The private debt to GDP ratio
too high rose from 40% of GDP in 1945 to 170% in 2017. The brief spike in 1929 of
140% wasn't so bad as most of the debt was corporate, and companies can default.
But just falling from 170% to 150% in 2019 had the huge reduced spending effect.
People still treat the war spending as an economic mystery miracle, rather than
just the trivial accounting operation I have described above.

Unlike in 1929, there is no allowance for the public defaulting on their debt
in the public discourse, so under the present regimes in which we live, there will
be an ongoing trap of low interest rates - Japanese-style - for many decades.
There are ways around it, but they would require a political change not even
close to being discussed, nor even thought about, and my central estimate
is for insufficient change and low interest rates for many decades.

I have argued for many years that interest rates will fall, not rise, and I
was called crazy as it was common knowledge that rates will soon "normalize"
to what they were in the good old days. On those good old days (say the 1980s)
the private debt to GDP was half what it is now. But now it is starting
to become more common knowledge (as reflected in the long-term bond yield
falling to new lows) that low rates will be here for longer.

But the debt topic aside, assuming German Government will start to run a deficit,
and the public will be less suffocated and GDP will start to rise again, even
if we cater for the delay of six months or so. The public is still so afraid
of the words "deficit spending" that there are articles with people crying
in horror below the title:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-the-bond-market-...

In physics and engineering, ideas have to be tested, and when they don't work,
they are triumphantly ignored. When ideas don't work in economics, instead of
the idea being discarded, with modern economic theory, the idea is kept and
the situation is described as exogenous.

I am hopeful that in the future, economics will take on more respect for
empirical testing, and modelling what actually occurs rather than creating
many unfounded axioms. The mainstream use of "simplified assumptions" in
late 20th Century economics was taken from the way in which mathematics
is taught (in using axioms), to try to gain a similar respect and make it
more elegant to teach, but missing the point completely, because in
mathematics the axioms are always either symbolic to allow the field
that branches from the axioms to be notated, rather than empirical, or in
the case of being empirical (such as Euclid) are extremely trivial and clear.
The best disciplinary model for Economics would be to take inspiration from
Engineering, and use iteration-based dynamic and complete models (suitable
for computing) rather rather than syntax-convenient equations compatible
(suitable for the blackboard). Maybe in another 60 years or so.

- Manlobbi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
manlobbi,

very interesting thoughtful ideas. thank you.

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
manlobbi,

I have a question for you. Universal basic income for citizens of the US, has been talked about recently.

It seems that idea would boost consumers in a downturn and might be a new tool to bring an economy back from deflationary to inflationary.

Have you thought about UBI?

If so, what do you think about it as an economic tool for the US government?

Since I like this idea a lot, and could be very wrong about UBI, you would be kind to show its downsides.

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8

Have you thought about UBI?

If so, what do you think about it as an economic tool for the US government?

Since I like this idea a lot, and could be very wrong about UBI, you would be kind to show its downsides.


IMO, it would lead to a world we don't want to live in. What would be the motivation for people to work? Even more, how would you convince kids to study in school? After a couple of decades we would have a less educated society with a group of richer more educated people and a bunch of self-chosen losers who just get by on UBI.
I'm all for safety nets as a temporary measure.

No thanks

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Was asking about how adding UBI at a time where we may be in a recession could boost cash back into the economy?

The FED has only so many tools to stimulate the economy.

BTW: The current proposal for UBI, would be an income below the poverty line. Not really enough $$$ to lay around snd have a grand life.

Kids should still be motivated to plan a future of work for themselves.

Just wondering about thinking of UBI as an accidental stimulant to the economy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
IMHO & FWIW: it may not be useful to rely on the unemployment rate reported by the government.

true unemployment in the US differs greatly from the unemployment rate.

IIRC only 60-70% of the potential US workforce are currently employed.


I agree.

While most people here do not think well of Shadowstats numbers (compiled by John Williams)*, he reports that the actual unemployment rate in USA for 2019-July is 21%. This when the "headline" unemployment rate (U3) is about 3% and the U6 rate that includes short-term discouraged workers is about 6.5%. (U3 and U6 unemployment rates are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. John Williams' numbers include long-term (greater than one year) discouraged workers that are discarded by the BLS.

He reports that the labor participation rate is about 62.8% at the end of 2019-May

His numbers confirm your views.

_____
* Ny view is that his statistics are very accurate, but that others may not agree with the conclusions he draws from his statistics. And that is OK in a free country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"After a couple of decades we would have a less educated society with a group of richer more educated people and a bunch of self-chosen losers..."

That's exactly what we have now even without UBI.

There may be things to fear with the concept of UBI, but that is not one of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mike used the "L word". I like Mike.

otoh, why should any future generation ever have to work ever again. We have the means for them to pay for their lives.

It is called a PRINTING PRESS.

Yeah.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jan, you are totally mis-stating what UBI is.

It is not accidental.

It is not temporary.

It doesn't come & go as you do or don't need it.

Yeah. That.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"he reports that the actual unemployment rate in USA for 2019-July is 21%"

Working is for people who don't know how to LIVE. And those who somehow got the idea they're participating in some grand "progressive" dance, rather than having the blood slowly sucked out of them by oligarchs of 20 different flavors.

Oops. I used the "P word".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5

Kids should still be motivated to plan a future of work for themselves.


Sure some will . But some won't.
How do we know how many in the middle will just see no point to it all?
We don't.

And that's my whole issue with UBI. It is a terrible, possibly irreversible, experiment to run on future generations. Let's not decide to experiment on people. We know what happens when we've run the experiment on animals. They can't be released again into the wild because they don't know how to survive. I'm not equating humans and animals by any means.
There are already people who have decided to drop out and take advantage of the safety nets and work the system. We don't need more of them.
Another point is to look at what happens on the top end...after 2 to 3 generations in a wealthy family were the kids don't need to struggle/work.

Need more evidence: lottery winners. What happens to most of them?

There is virtue in a good work ethic and I believe it help individuals and society as a whole to contribute.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 49
What would be the motivation for people to work? Even more, how would you convince kids to study in school? After a couple of decades we would have a less educated society with a group of richer more educated people and a bunch of self-chosen losers who just get by on UBI.

I'm in favor of a UBI so people don't starve, so long as the person is working. We could call it, oh I don't know, something like "minimum wage."

And I have an idea for those who are thrown out of a job through no fault of their own: a temporary stipend so they can look for a good job instead of desperation forcing them to take anything that is tossed at them. I'm thinking of calling it "unemployment insurance."

Probably never get those through Congress, what with the twillibots there now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Ah, Goofyhoofy, you old Socialist :-)

We might have a bit similar IT career behind us. That explains it. Strange people having strange ideas.

Re UBI: I think the naysayers arguing ´Nobody would work any more, only the idiots´ would be proven wrong. Humans WANT to work. They actually need to work to see sense and purpose in their lives. And UBI would enable them to more freely chose the work satisfying their different wants and needs. Surely not everybody would just paint Aquarells. Yes, many would who feel the urge to do so. And that would be good, for them and for society. But there would be others too who don´t want to write books, to paint, to write songs, but to do simple and ordinary jobs, to collect garbage, drive trucks, work in public gardens etc.

Yes, it would be an experiment - one which could be the greatest achievement for humanity in ages.

Too naive and idealistic? Too unconventional?

Maybe. But I think we all respect very much a certain guy with equally unconventional ideas, talking about ´Gene Lottery´ with his VERY unconventional idea of 100% inheritance tax.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
From GoofyHoofy:
What would be the motivation for people to work? Even more, how would you convince kids to study in school? After a couple of decades we would have a less educated society with a group of richer more educated people and a bunch of self-chosen losers who just get by on UBI.

I'm in favor of a UBI so people don't starve, so long as the person is working. We could call it, oh I don't know, something like "minimum wage."



In my previous limited readings on UBI the explanations did not go down the path of preventing starvation so much as continuing societal demand for products and services (occasionally some UBI messaging implied it would prevent societal chaos as AI eliminates whole categories of jobs).

Its the folks with companies needing the greater populace continuing to buy their products and services often at the forefront of espousing UBI as noted in this link: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-...
Note: many of the folks espousing UBI are running companies actively developing artificial intelligence stuff so we have to give some credit for these folks having "insider" information about how fast/how far AI is going.

Most UBI schemes involve eliminating all the other governmental assistance programs: Social Security, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and other programs under the Welfare umbrella. The thinking is by having one UBI administration, the other administrative programs could be dissolved and, with the simplification, less wasted time by applicants, recipients and administrators. There are some explanations given by some so called experts as to how we are 80% of the way to UBI already with all of the Welfare related, Social Security, Medicaid and related governmental assistance programs active today.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/b...

The other conceptual positive for UBI is the premise of greater entrepreneurial activity because folks starting businesses would have a safety net. We would all get UBI and it is our choice/opportunity to make more income above UBI. I tend to buy that premise for a slightly greater percentage of the population starting businesses. An uptick in business formations has a noticeable long-term effect on new entrants into the higher income tiers while bringing more folks into all the other income tiers, too.

IMHO, we will see some form of UBI one day.

To quote Charles Barkley:
"We're not all supposed to think alike".
"People like you as long as you agree with them. But that doesn't bother me."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
UBI should be called the Universal Bailout Initiative.
What sticks in my gullet is that there not even a fig-leaf of common good as there is for programs for seniors (Soc Sec), children (CHiP, welfare), disabled (DI) or others unable to stand on their own two feet.
Those who will get taxed to provide the UBI are told "you have money, we need money, we take your money." Not for roads, education, defense or anything but so we can have more money to spend than we make.
Sadly this is not a left-vs-right issue.
Bankers act irresponsibly - the Fed and the Treasury bail them out.
Homeowners act irresponsibly - HARP, HARP II etc bail them out.
Students act irresponsibly - forgive student loans.
All of these were voluntary transactions done by adults. Those who paid pack their debts get nothing, those who wasted the money get bailed out.

All you guys looking at the positives of the UBI - remember the money has to come from somewhere. e.g. $1K/person/month = $3.6 trillion per year. However you slice it, it's going to cost a LOT. And either responsible taxpayers or future generations will pay for your good ideas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
FWIW: a universal dividend would not be temporary, anymore than Social Security is temporary.

I did not mean to infer that it would be temporary or something that the Fed could use as a tool.

I was just wondering out loud.

IF Trump looses,
IF the government passes UBI
(would that help pull the
US economy back into
more normal Buffettology,
type inflation?).

stop run.

ugh😱Those are 2 big ifs!

Was just asking about the effect of a potential UBI on a possible recession.

I am for universal basic income. But that has nothing to do with the question of if and how it might stimulate the economy back into an inflationary scenario.

I am guessing it might be stimulating for the economy.

More stimulating than TRUMP buying Greenland from that "nasty" woman!

:^{

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
UBI ain't temporary.

Aside from the tribal pros and cons, maybe UBI would push interest rates into positive territory?

Just wondering about the inflationary possibilities in a deflationary spiral.

OR,

Let's just buy Greenland shall we?

ugh
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
VAT to pay for UBI sounds good to me.

BUT

we are free to disagree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"There are already people who have decided to drop out and take advantage of the safety nets and work the system. We don't need more of them."

There are also people who the current safety net does not reach. Don't you think we need less of them?

Put on your engineering hat. No system is perfect.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The best disciplinary model for Economics would be to take inspiration from
Engineering, . . .



+++
+++



NOBODY has ever confused a plan devised by an Engineer, with a proposal from an Economist!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
First of all, good post Manlobbi. Not much I would argue against and very thoughtfully explained.

Secondly, I think the upcoming recession that everyone is predicting is going to be rather mild (at worst). At best it won't even be a recession. It will just be a long drawn out restructuring while everything kind of stagnates. The reason I think it will be mild is that everyone sees it is coming. I don't think there has ever been a recession that was predicted as much as what is coming (if it even will be a recession).

It should also be noted that it is my belief that it doesn't matter if the FED cuts rates or not. The upcoming slowdown has more to do with government policy than the FED. If anything, the FED keeping rates so low for so long is a bigger problem and a rate cut will literally do nothing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Speaking of the "R" word, US manufacturing purchasing managers' index fell into contraction territory for July, at 49.9.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"UBI responses"

For those of you interested in putting forth more than shallow, almost knee-jerk, reactions in favor or against UBI, you might be interested in how one of the early experiments on a form of UBI worked out between the 1790's -1830's in rural England.

It was the "Speenhamland" system and has been reasonably well-studied.

Carl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

It was the "Speenhamland" system and has been reasonably well-studied.


Why is that system considered similar to UBI and not more like food stamp programs?

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I cannot think of anyone here who puts forth shallow knee jerk responses....

:^]

A form of UBI funded by a tax on revenue from the northern oil fields, has been very a part of life in Alaska for decades.

The annual Alaska "oil check" is hugely popular and successful.

(WEB wants an improved earned income credit because he knows that there is a problem needing a solution)

For me, a value added tax on each Google search or each Amazon transaction, each robot driven truck mile etc., is an interesting way to tax the big tech giants who pay zero in income taxes and thereby fund a UBI.

That tax would fund a monthly "tech check".

There are no perfect solutions.

But it is important to try something that will be better than loosing manufacturing jobs, call center jobs, retail jobs, fast food cashier jobs, truck driving jobs, portfolio balancing/advice, radiology or pharmacy jobs and then growing the rolls of Social Security Disability to catch them.

Just as a horse and buggy could not compete with a car or truck, a human cannot compete with automation and artificial intelligence.

The number of horses needed to run the economy dropped and then the number of living horses dropped.

The number of people needed to run the economy is lessening due to automation. Where do all of those people go? Maybe they can be fed, housed snd trained at government expense to do "what" exactly?

Machine learning and deep learning have made many people redundant and that pace of redundancies will only quicken.

Redundancy is happening now.

Sincerely,

jan

:^)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Automation replacing humans in the big US factories is a given because of the businesses' burden of providing health care, pension benefits etc.

But one might think that in cheap labor countries like China human labor is so cheap that automation has not taken a foothold.

But that is wrong.

Remember Foxconn, the iPhone tech supplier who had to put up nets around its buildings to catch stressed out workers jumping from windows to their death?

In 2016 Foxconn said "mammals" were too hard to manage and installed automation that made 60,000 workers redundant.

In a country where labor is plentiful and dirt cheap, automation replaced 60,000 workers.

Reflect on that for a moment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
yeahitsme,

Thanks for the correction to my use of the word "accidentally".

I should have said "timely" because of all of the signs indicating that this expansion is due to recede.

Point well taken.

Thanks,

jan

:^)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Automation replacing humans in the big US factories is a given because of the businesses' burden of providing health care, pension benefits etc

It is a very poor way of looking at automation. Automation should be looked at entirely from flexibility. It allows flexibility with manufacturing, ability to incorporate changes, avoid errors, etc. Price is not the only factor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
About the Alaska oil fund checks . . .

Well, maybe not SO successful . . . right now the Governor is going to be cutting services in a rather extraordinary way . . .
https://time.com/5623042/alaska-budget-cuts/
. . . all so the checks to Alaska citizens can continue (something he campaigned on).

Alaska's also one of the states who take more money from the Federal government than they pay in:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

Contrast that to Norway, where they decided that this revenue (North Sea oil) should be put in a sovereign wealth fund (currently the largest in the world with $1 trillion in assets) that would allow them stability over the long term (given the volatile prices of oil, plus to provide for a future when the oil runs out or declines significantly). They do NOT spend on current budgets (which has been somewhat controversial in Norway). They easily could have written checks to Norwegians, or cut taxes significantly . . . but they haven't.
https://www.nbim.no/

Who is better off in the long run?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Automation replacing humans in the big US factories is a given because of the businesses' burden of providing health care, pension benefits etc

It is a very poor way of looking at automation. Automation should be looked at entirely from flexibility. It allows flexibility with manufacturing, ability to incorporate changes, avoid errors, etc. Price is not the only factor.


Whatever the reason for replacing human labor with the labor of automatic machines, the problem remains of what to do with the redundant part of the labor force. Should it be left to starve? Should the government support them in some way. Just who is the government that should support them: the taxpayer?

In the extreme case, when all workers have been displaced and the president each morning turns on the factory, and turns it off again at quitting time, will the population of former workers be given a guaranteed annual wage? Who would provide that wage, and why would they do it? Or would they be retrained for non-existent jobs? Or would they be abandoned to riot or starve? Was Ned Ludd right after all? No matter what is done, who would earn enough money to buy the output of the fully automated factories? No one? And if no one, why not just shut them all down?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do you expect human population to continue to grow? If Yes, we will try to colonize other planets. Which is going to handle some of the labor pool issues. We are not going to get to a point where all human labor is going to be eliminated. But many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs are at risk. No doubt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
kingran,

Of course you are correct about the benefits of automation. I did not state them because it seemed unnecessary, since automation is a much discussed subject given the prior discussions about Amazon and IBM, on this board.

Sincerely,

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DirigentSparks,

Of course Norway is better off than the US. Surely the reasons are greater than just their sovereign fund?

Although, I think it would be very good indeed, if the US government had laid the ground work for starting that now.

Given the current situation, one cannot imagine how that could be come a practical, popular and peaceful solution.

If you know how please share.

Seriously, I cannot see a political path to building a US sovereign fund...

That is not to say that there is not one.

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Kingran,

FWIW: AI and automation will replace repetitive cognitive tasks, some that require advanced degrees and high mental abilities like radiology, accounting, contract law and pharmacology that most here would consider very skilled.

Its the repeating nature of any mental job that makes it ripe for automation, not the skill level. Actually, AI image reading has proven to be much better than the best radiologist.

This knife will cut through high and low jobs.

ugh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Whatever the reason for replacing human labor with the labor of automatic machines, the problem remains of what to do with the redundant part of the labor force. Should it be left to starve? Should the government support them in some way. Just who is the government that should support them: the taxpayer? "

Between 1910 and 1950 there were over 6 million farms in the U.S..

As a result of improvements in farming technology, the number of farms dropped to just over 2 million in the 1970's. More or less leveling out there.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...

The impact of technology on historical employment in agriculture is staggering (scroll down):

https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture

Over time these people migrated from farms/rural communities and found gainful employment in other industries. No doubt the transitions to new forms of employment were bumpy for some. Would suggest most didn't starve to death though.

Why can't a massive shift in employment happen again? Have we given up on human ingenuity and adaptability?

The whole concept of UBI is unsavory to me. It implies a very low opinion of those who will be impacted in the future by the new technologies.

Government programs to "level the playing field" for those less fortunate (LBJ "Great Society") made things worse for the very people it was meant to help.

UBI would have similar negative effects on a broader section of our population.

Consider the consequences of millions more idle young people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Consider the consequences of millions more idle young people.

This has been happening for millenia. Pyramids, armies, cathedrals, aircraft carriers, Marvel movies, TikTok videos -- they are all part of the exact same continuum in which we have freed up labor needed for basic survival and turned it to other purposes.

The next things we turn to are important. Could be anything from space flight to hand-crafted ceramic bowls to learning again how to grow vegetables on small, labor intensive farms. If we have the labor available, we have it because there is enough abundance in our environment that we don't need to scrabble for grubs and crickets for our snacks. The rest is just figuring out the system we will use to decide who gets to do what, and how many crickets they get to have in return.

ThyPeace, it's not a zero-sum game. Wealth -- as defined as the opportunity to do whatever the heck you want -- really is growing. And we are already in a society that could, if it wanted to, eliminate poverty.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
"Government programs to "level the playing field" for those less fortunate (LBJ "Great Society") made things worse for the very people it was meant to help."

That is your opinion and not a fact. If anything, the evidence says otherwise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ThyPeace, I never rec'd a post. I am simply too lazy. This is the 1st time I did regret that because of this lazyness I do not even know how to do that, as if I ever felt the urge to rec a post it is yours - especially because of the last paragraph. Just to let you know.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
"That is your opinion and not a fact."

Apparently my opinion is shared by others.

"Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact -- for those who still have some respect for facts -- black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down -- repeat, DOWN -- during the much lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before.

Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends ***are not unique to blacks***, nor even to the United States.

The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period.

Just read "Life at the Bottom," by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

***You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization -- including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain -- without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.***

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state -- and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves."

Thomas Sowell (black man)

"If anything, the evidence says otherwise."

What is your evidence? I'm listening.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Your post was incredibly racist. And Theodore Dalrymple is also a terrible racist.

Some of his musings about Kendrick Lamar:

“when you listen to the decerebrate rage with which Mr Lamar intones these words, it is not easy to believe it. When I listened to Mr Lamar, I recalled those cats in laboratories whose higher brain centers had been severed, and whose amygdalae were stimulated with electric currents, reacting with insensate rage directed at nothing in particular. We should not
assume that Mr Lamar’s ‘art’ is sincere, or that it expresses anything other than a lust for fame and money.

Dalrymple notes that this kind of paramusical product is elaborated and marketed to ensure that blacks in America remain where they are—at the bottom of the pile.”

Read some better stuff. Sheesh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
BerkHutHigh,

If not a poverty level dollar amount for Universal Basic Income, then what?

Would the grown but not yet safely retired members of your family simply retreat to idleness for $12,000.00 per year?

Or would they use the money to invest, dine out, get the car repaired, take their child to the orthodontist, invest in their own business or buy shares of BRKB every month?

People need to feel useful and be busy. UBI will not change that.

Any other government program with means testing would require a vast new social system of social workers, buildings, and creates a horrible cycle of dependence and the stigma of failure. A poverty level UBI would require proof of age and citizenship, and a system that is good at sending out checks (like the IRS).

Good people use the current systems like disability and feeding poor children. But these programs are also create negative incentives that create an atmosphere of making it ok to game the system and steal from other citizens. Gaming the government undermines the integrity and self worth of individuals and makes defrauding ones fellow tax payers seem more normal and acceptable.

How could a UBI be gamed except by identity theft?

Oh well...

If only everyone were infinitely malleable so that all could become the "widget du jour" over and over again and earn a middle class income doing so.

Don't shoot the messenger.

If there is another practical way forward, it alludes me.

:^(

jan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 42
"Apparently my opinion is shared by others."

Just because two people share the opinion that 2+2=5 does not make it any more correct. You didn't provide any evidence, you just cherry picked 50 year old (or more) strange endpoints from more than 50 years ago that fit your narrative and show absolutely no causation. The welfare state is just likely to be a symptom of and not a cause of those trends.

"What is your evidence? I'm listening."

Will you? I doubt it because it goes against some of your preconceived notions and I have found that most people who share your views don't adapt to new information that runs contrary to it very well.

Let's start slowly. Here is an article from back in 2016 that talked about a report from the president’s Council of Economic Advisers that makes a credible argument that the rise in income inequality was slowed (if not temporarily halted) through many policies including some welfare state policies (such as the EITC and the ACA).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-income-gap-began-to...

One of the biggest prisons for the poor is crushing debt (especially since the escape hatch of bankruptcy was pretty much sealed shut with bankruptcy "reform" around the turn of the century). Now we can all debate until we are blue in the face the merits of going into debt to get an education, or the problems of going into debt through poor choices (such as buying TVs, furniture, and clothes on credit). What is less debatable is going into debt for health reasons. People generally do what they need to do in order to stay alive regardless of the cost.

Healthcare costs and healthcare debt are a huge portion of why the poor are poor and stay poor. It is pretty much inarguable that the ACA increased health insurance coverage. There is also mounting evidence that the ACA reduced medical debt (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/upshot/obamacare-seems-to...). Now the ACA was not perfect (especially the way it was kneecapped by conservatives), yet there is strong evidence that it (as a welfare state program) helped level the playing field. Will you listen?

A similar economic argument could be made about Medicare and Social Security in that they are welfare state programs that have had a huge impact in leveling the playing field by help reducing income inequality. There is strong evidence that single payer universal healthcare would help level the playing field by eliminating healthcare debt as it has done in almost every other first world country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
"Your post was incredibly racist."

Perfect response. No thoughtful counter arguments required.

Just call a person a racist. Humiliate them. How can one respond thoughtfully?

I'm done. Probably the wrong place for this discussion anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Just call a person a racist. Humiliate them. How can one respond thoughtfully?

You hit the nail on the head here. If you aren't a nutcase socialist...you must be a racist! Turn on any fake news TV station and you'll hear it ad nauseam.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just call a person a racist. Humiliate them
Humiliating people who disagree is nothing new to this board. I was waiting for someone to drop "N@zi" word... may be Fool filter is stopping them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In the county where I live, a county of 200,000 people, 92% are white. 20% of the working age population is on disability and the disabled rate is higher amoung whites than minorities.

We sit around and guess also that if the AFC is eliminated at least another 15% of this 90% white bunch will immediately either stop insurance or try to pay and fail, be literally bankrupt very soon afterwards.

Can't give stats on the two parent home thing, the thing evidently that makes only blacks bad or whatever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"In the county where I live, a county of 200,000 people, 92% are white. 20% of the working age population is on disability and the disabled rate is higher amoung whites than minorities."

I get it - you live in a poor county.

Is it your contention that those statistics are somehow representative of the norm for the country?

Hint - they're not...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Live in a county where furniture exiting put docs and lawyers to work getting people off welfare (state budget) on to the print money budget.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hint - they're not...

Not really. The disability scam is pretty widespread. In West Virginia coal communities this scam so widespread, where judges, lawyers and social security officials were arrested for the scam. No one talks about it, because it is predominantly white communities (republicans) and talking about it might open entitlement discussions for democrats.

Another interesting statistics you will find is, the SSDI benefit are predominantly claimed by poor and near poor households.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Another interesting statistics you will find is, the SSDI benefit are predominantly claimed by poor and near poor households.


As I would expect.

It's been my understanding that the disabled, by and large, are either not considered for, or are incapable of performing work that pays well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Instead of race, consider incentives. Freakonomics 101. UBI = incentive to work less (Jim mentioned this about his maid iirc). Buffett likes EITC more than dole because it incentivizes work over sitting on one's derrière. Programs meant to provide a safety net to single mothers ended up incentivizing baby mama-ism over marriage. California is especially egregious in providing wrong incentives.

One and only one race-related question: why are there no safe black-majority towns in SoCal? Hawthorne, Inglewood, South LA, Compton. All suck. But I have not done any systematic investigation, this is just an anecdotal observation. If that makes me a racist so be it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
It's been my understanding that the disabled, by and large, are either not considered for, or are incapable of performing work that pays well.

If you say, the poor folks are part of unskilled or semi-skill workforce, I hear you. On the other hand, why make them break the law? A law we wrote? We can also write a law for UBI for poor families. Instead of claiming disability, they will be working, earning a wage and getting additional help so that they can have a decent life.

Either we do that or we increase minimum wage go up. But with minimum wage going up, it will only incentivize the corporations to automate more.

I don't know, I am confused. I see F-35 fighter jet has a cost overrun of $136 Billion, Yeap, $136*1000 million and no one is outraged, yet, very rich folks are outraged over allowances to poor to have a dignified life.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Kingran I completely agree with you. Wasn't long ago that a gov benefits company traded on the NYT had a CEO and 60 Minutes had a segment on his "benefits" and such. Some pension finance people were interviewed stating his package excess, just the excess part, was equal to the federal benefits of a community of 20,000.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Umm wrote:
Will you? I doubt it because it goes against some of your preconceived notions and I have found that most people who share your views don't adapt to new information that runs contrary to it very well.

Let's start slowly.


It is really a shame that condescension increases the number of recs you get. Just as 2+2 doesn't equal 5 no matter how many people agree on it, you just might be better than your condescension suggest no matter how many people line up behind you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
RalphCramden: While what you say might be true, isn't it also true that writing this IS a form of condescension?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While what you say might be true, isn't it also true that writing this IS a form of condescension?

I believe that the implication of your question is true only in certain circumstances. In particular, it depends on the attitude of the writer.

For example, I doubt the author of a mathematics textbook would be guilty of that, unless he were someone like John Nash. I do not think Isaac Newton was condescending to the readers of his Principia Mathematica; he respected them enough to presume they could read Latin, for one thing.

It may be difficult in a medium such as this newsgroup to tell if I am condescending to you here, but if you could read my mind, you would know. You might even be able to tell were we face-to-face, unless I were a practiced psychopath.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
RalphCramden: While what you say might be true, isn't it also true that writing this IS a form of condescension?

I guess it's at least a little condescending. I tend to think it is actually a helpful message, but its possible the original author of the original message thought his message was helpful at explaining some point as well.

Recollecting presidential candidate Jimmy Carter telling Playboy in an interview that he was guilty of adultery because he had lust in his heart, I would have to admit I had condescension in my heart when I wrote my message. I tried to edit it out, but not a reason in the world to think I completely succeeded.

R:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Ralph, your answer made me realize that when I wrote my post I had a 'speaking from above' attitude in my heart, showing the other where he is at fault and guilty = condescension. So I am not superior and we are both humans.

What I think is really interesting: This medium seems to be like a mirror, saying more about ourselves than about the other one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
Government programs to "level the playing field" for those less fortunate (LBJ "Great Society") made things worse for the very people it was meant to help.

Nonsense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
I wrote: "Government programs to "level the playing field" for those less fortunate (LBJ "Great Society") made things worse for the very people it was meant to help.

You wrote: "Nonsense"

Said I was done, but I couldn't resist.

Some more nonsense from the people the programs were meant to help:

James Freeman (black man)

"Government programs are no substitute for the development of human capital. If wealth-redistribution schemes lifted people out of poverty, we would have closed these gaps a long time ago. Liberal politicians and activists have little interest in addressing the ways in which black behavioral choices impact inequality. It’s easier to turn out voters and raise money by equating racial imbalances with racial bias and smearing political opponents who disagree."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-race-card-has-gone-bust-115...

Ben Carson (black man)

"Our social safety net exists to protect low-income families from poverty and hardship, and to help people get back on their feet. Despite all the good intentions, our nation’s welfare system continues to encourage a culture of dependency rather than self-sufficiency."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/unlocking-a...

Derryck Greene (black man)

“Five decades after President Johnson initiated the ‘war’ on poverty, America remains at around the same percentage of people still living in poverty as it did back then. In 1964, the poverty rate was approximately 19 percent. Today, it’s around 15 percent. Statistics such as these demonstrate the War on Poverty was a continually-mismanaged disaster. That isn’t to say there haven’t been people helped by it. All things considered, however, it’s been a tragedy.”

Of course he's right. Look at the graph of poverty levels since 1969. Poverty rate in 1969 was 12.6%. Poverty level in 2017 12.3%.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/poverty-rate-...

The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on government to sustain livelihoods.”

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/2014/01/08/lbjs-war-on-...
https://nationalcenter.org/project21/staff/derryck-green/

Cherylyn Harley LeBon (black woman)

“Although they were conceived with good intentions, the programs of the War on Poverty have ultimately had a negative impact on the lives of black Americans. Even Franklin Roosevelt warned that the welfare state ‘must not become a narcotic and a subtle destroyer of the spirit.

While some good things did come out of the 1960s, many of these programs — including Head Start — have become ineffective and, some argue, damaging over time. In fact, some of the major disasters plaguing minority communities — including ***drugs***, ***higher incarceration rates*** and ***a rise in unwed mothers*** — couldn’t have just coincidentally began escalating at the same time. At this point, when we can reflect upon what has happened and what is needed, we should now support and expand policies encouraging small business expansion, improving educational opportunities, and strengthening faith and families.”

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/staff/cherylyn-harley-l...

Jerome Hudson (black man)

“Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty produced a reality that is horrifyingly different than the one he probably hoped for. Instead of providing a mere safety net for families in need, it effectively replaced the virtues of work and self-reliance with an avalanche of welfare programs nuturing the poor. These welfare programs foster defeatism, disincentivize two-parent homes and set ablaze an American underclass now seemingly trapped in a never-ending cycle of poverty.”

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/staff/jerome-hudson/

Horace Cooper (black man)

“Fifty years ago, America began the War on Poverty,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper. “Having spent trillions with little to show for it, it’s clearly time to declare a cease fire. After destroying generations of blacks and all but destroying the black family in total, it is time to try empowerment and personal responsibility.”

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/staff/horace-cooper/

Christopher Arps (black man)

“The War on Poverty has arguably destroyed the black nuclear family,” said Project 21’s Christopher Arps. “Roughly 75 percent of black children were born to a married two-parent family when the ‘war’ began in 1964. By 2008, the percentage of black babies born out of wedlock numbered over 72 percent. Today, the rate of unwed motherhood in the black community is more than twice as high as among whites — and almost three times higher than before big government’s grand intervention. And all this comes at a steep financial cost. The federal government has spent an estimated $15 trillion dollars to end poverty. Government reportedly spent $20,610 on every poor individual and $61,830 per poor family in 2012.”

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/staff/christopher-arps/...

Charles Butler (black man)

"President Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was being formulated during the Kennedy Administration, is perhaps the only government institution that destroyed and devastated the black American upward mobility and family structure. As an assistant secretary of labor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the premise and concept of the War on Poverty would be detrimental to black America,” said Project 21’s Charles Butler. “The infamous split between the races that Moynihan predicted has created a deficit between white and black in key areas such as education, income and net worth. Yet we keep doing the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different result.”

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/staff/charles-butler/

https://nationalcenter.org/project21/2014/01/08/lbjs-war-on-...

Walter Williams (black man)

"At the root of most of the problems black people face is the breakdown of the family structure. Slightly over 70% of black children are raised in female-headed households.

According to statistics about fatherless homes, 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes; 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father figure; 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes; 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes; and 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions have no father. Furthermore, fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail.

As late as 1950, only 18% of black households were single-parent. From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. In 1938, black illegitimacy was about 11% instead of today’s 75%. In 1925, 85% of black households in New York City were two-parent. Today, the black family is a mere shadow of its past.

Let’s ask a couple of questions about crime and education and racial discrimination. It turns out that each year more than 7,000 blacks are victims of homicide. That’s slightly over 50% of U.S. homicide victims.

Ninety-four percent of the time, the perpetrator is another black person. Along with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes such as assault and robbery.

At many predominantly black schools, chaos is the order of the day. There is a high rate of assaults on students and teachers. Youngsters who are hostile to the educational process are permitted to make education impossible for those who are prepared to learn. As a result, overall black educational achievement is a disaster."

https://dentonrc.com/opinion/walter-williams-how-important-i...

Burgess Owens (black man)

"In 2012, the U.S Census Bureau released a report that studied the history of marriage in the United States. They discovered some startling statistics. When calculating marriage by race, from 1890 until the 1960s, the study found that African-Americans age thirty-five and older were more likely to be married than White Americans. Not only did they swap places during the 1960s but in 1980 the number of never married African-Americans began a staggering climb from about 10 percent to more than 25 percent by 2010. During this time, the percentage for White women remained under 10 percent and just over 10 percent for White men.

These statistics show that since the 1960s, there have been an increasing number of Black men not committing to their family.

A 1965 report by NY Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” supports these statistics. In the report, Moynihan attempted to sound the alarm of the detrimental impact become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers. This would cause rates of divorce, child-abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the Black community—leading to vast increases in the numbers of female-headed households and the higher rates of poverty, low educational outcomes, and inflated rates of child abuse that are associated with them.” The report concluded that the structure of family life in the Black community “constituted a ‘tangle of pathology…capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the White world,’ and that ‘at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.

It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community now…the matriarchal structure of Black culture weakened the ability of Black men to function as authority figures. This particular notion of Black familial life has become a widespread, if not dominant, paradigm for comprehending the social and economic disintegration of late twentieth-century Black urban life.” Democratic Senator Monahan’s report was prophetic."

Burgess Owen: "Liberalism: How To Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps"
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Turn-Whiners-Weenies-Wimps...

President Barrack Obama (black man and former president)

"We got single moms out here. They're heroic what they're doing. We're so proud of them," Obama said.

"But at the same time, I wish I'd had a father who was around and involved."

https://www.wboi.org/post/moynihan-black-poverty-report-revi...

Some point to better health care as an indicator of the improved "health" of a community.

Give me a break. Healthcare. How superficial and callous to the people that are suffering from much more serious issues.

Does the 10 year old boy in the ghetto, no father in the home, being recruited by gangs, give a flip what kind of health care he has?

Patrick Moynihan (white man who truly cared about blacks) in 1965:

"The most difficult fact for white Americans to understand is that the circumstances of the Negro American community in recent years has probably been getting progressively worse, not better.

***Indices of dollar of income, standards of living and years of education deceive. The gap between the negro and most other groups in American society has been widening.***

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence - not final but powerfully persuasive - is that the negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class has managed to save itself, but for vast number of the unskilled, poorly educated working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the last few years, but the general postwar trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue."

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Moynihan%27s%20The%20Negr...

Ask yourself an honest question. Are the people above disingenuous, or worse racists?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> You wrote: "Nonsense"
>> Said I was done but...

I didn't write "Nonsense", I didn't comment on your post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oops, after the 1st coffee in the morning I think I wasn't meant. I thought so because Said is my real name and I missed that in English - not my native language - "Said" can be a short form for "I said that". Mhm, maybe I should change my name.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you also tell us how many arms and legs each has?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 50
Ask yourself an honest question. Are the people above disingenuous, or worse racists?

Yes, some of them are disingenuous. Or perhaps ignorant. I don’t know that any of them are racist, but then I haven’t researched them that carefully.

Here’s what some *very* quick research finds:

While one of your panel says “Five decades after President Johnson initiated the ‘war’ on poverty, America remains at around the same percentage of people still living in poverty as it did back then. In 1964, the poverty rate was approximately 19 percent. Today, it’s around 15 percent.”

But a Columbia University study notes: “Trying to compare poverty in the 1960s to poverty today using the official measure yields misleading results; it implies that programs like SNAP (formerly food stamps), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and rental vouchers — all of which were either small in the 1960s or didn’t yet exist — have no effect in reducing poverty, which clearly is not the case,” write Arloc Sherman, Sharon Parrott and Danilo Trisi at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Columbia study finds that a new poverty measure used by the Census Bureau reveals a greater margin of success for Johnson’s efforts. Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure — a more accurate and up-to-date metric first implemented by the US Census in 2009 — the Columbia researchers found that safety net programs had a significant effect: They found that the poverty rate fell from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 — a decrease of almost 40 percent.

https://billmoyers.com/2014/01/08/the-war-on-poverty-at-50-d...

Another of your panelists notes: Today, the rate of unwed motherhood in the black community is more than twice as high as among whites — and almost three times higher than before big government’s grand intervention.

But with a single Google search I find that while the rate of unwed mothers among blacks has indeed tripled since 1970, the rate of unwed mothers among whites has sextupled . And controlling for income, white unwed mothers still increased exponentially compared to blacks. How did poverty programs which middle and affluent income whites do not use make white unweds increase? Perhaps it’s more difficult than that.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...

Now I could go on and pick apart many of the other quotes but 1) can’t be bothered and 2) can’t be bothered. I will say this: the destruction of the family unit is a serious problem, and I’m willing to concede that there may be something to the argument that some government programs had something to do with it, perhaps even much. Then again, perhaps there were other societal factors at work. It’s also possible that there’s been just a general breakdown - as I see among middle class, blue collar, and upper class families across the land, and that when similar things happen among blacks it makes for a convenient whipping boy for Conservatives, who are happy to find any shred of evidence to prove their point even when there is no direct, sometimes not even indirect linkage. I point out “tax cuts will pay for themselves” as one obvious example.

So I’m not saying it’s all untrue. I am saying that running up a bunch of quotes from <Blackman> proves exactly nothing; the issue is far more complex and nuanced than you pretend or than they understand. Seriously, ask yourself an honest question. Have you ever heard Ben Carson say anything thoughtful or intelligent? Then why would you include him here? Because he is black?

That, my friend, some people would say is textbook racist. Why do I care about their skin color, except you think it proves their point? There are morons in every race. I can find you a bunch of any flavor.

PS: I hope you don’t mind me using Bill Moyers or the Brookings Institute. They were the first two Google hits that came up. I’m sure I could have found sources more to your liking had I been willing to spend hours combing the web, but I wasn’t. Then again you used Ben Carson, so maybe I don’t feel so bad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
I don't know why some of these posts are on this board, but I loved Goofyhoofy's post. Most of the opioid addictions and deaths are from white folks https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/opioid-overdose-de...
Should I infer there is some sort of breakdown in white society? BTW opioid addiction is actually an investment topic since there are market indicators because of the Johnson and Johnson verdict in Oklahoma this week.

Just in case you didn't read all of GH's post:

Then again, perhaps there were other societal factors at work. It’s also possible that there’s been just a general breakdown - as I see among middle class, blue collar, and upper class families across the land, and that when similar things happen among blacks it makes for a convenient whipping boy for Conservatives, who are happy to find any shred of evidence to prove their point even when there is no direct, sometimes not even indirect linkage. I point out “tax cuts will pay for themselves” as one obvious example.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
"But a Columbia University study notes..."

Blah, blah, blah... think with your brain!

"Why do I care about their skin color, except you think it proves their point?"

The LBJ Great Society programs were largely designed to benefit the black community. Perhaps we should be asking black people about the efficacy of those programs?

"There are morons in every race. I can find you a bunch of any flavor."

I agree. But what is your point?

Are you are saying the black people and one white person I referenced were all morons? I certainly don't. Thought their viewpoints were poignant and relevant to the discussion.

Suppose you think is person is a moron as well?

Kay Cole Jones (black woman the daughter of a welfare recipient)

"Washington is in a unique position to solve America’s welfare crisis for a very simple reason: Washington created it. The policy and programs it established a half-century ago have depleted people, obstructed their purpose, and extinguished their extraordinary possibilities.

....

The misguided compassion of this liberal policy has so many unintended consequences. It deprives millions of children of the love and security they’d get from the two people they need most: their mom and dad.

Who could come up with such an idea? The kind, it seems, who apparently just couldn’t see that doing this would destroy two of the most effective defenses against poverty: work and marriage.

Instead, this approach rewards people for not working, for having kids out of wedlock, and for staying single. And guess what it’s produced? More of exactly what we’re paying for: unemployment, out-of-wedlock births, and single-parent families.

Now, ask yourself: What if I took that kind of “welfare” policy and implemented it in your family? If I said to your sons, “Sweetie, you don’t have to work; I’ll take care of everything,” and if I said to your daughters, “Sugar, you go ahead and have as many babies as you want; I’ll give you more money to take care of them,” what do you think your family would be like in 20 years?

I’ll tell you: Your sons would be lying at home and not working, your daughters would be having kids out of wedlock, and your family would be a whole lot poorer.

Is that what you want for your family? I don’t think so. Then why do we allow the government to do to other families what we wouldn’t want for our own?"

https://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/why-we-must-be-b...

She speaks of unintended consequences.

Do morons think of unintended consequences?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
BreckHutHigh,

Are you suggesting that the country as a whole would be much better off if 1) we ended welfare programs and 2) returned to the days of culturally-enforced shotgun weddings?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wrote: "Blah, blah, blah... think with your brain!"

That was inappropriate and I apologize.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
goofy: "But a Columbia University study notes..."

Bret: "Blah, blah, blah... think with your brain!"

Textbook example of an ideologue summarily dismissing facts which contradicts his/her ideology.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Bret: "The LBJ Great Society programs were largely designed to benefit the black community."

Not only a lie. A racist lie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Bret: "Kay Cole Jones (black woman the daughter of a welfare recipient)

"Washington is in a unique position to solve America’s welfare crisis for a very simple reason: Washington created it. The policy and programs it established a half-century ago have depleted people, obstructed their purpose, and extinguished their extraordinary possibilities.

Argument from authority grounded in racism - assumes that an argument is more intelligent and/or not racist just because a single welfare recipient and/or black person made the argument.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top