Scholarships for Minorities

[BlisteryNixon]

Well, in my search for academic financial support I came across a stunning array of scholarships for minorities. Now I personally see nothing wrong with providing an incentive for minority students to further their education, but the way it is gone about, I find highly offensive.

Some of the scholarships I found were for National Hispanic Scholar awards, Hispanic engineering students awards, awards for students whose parent has been to prison, essentially a hand out for blacks. Also there was a Native American student scholarship.

Now I find this very touching that blacks and mexicans, like whites have dreams and goals, and not all of them involve drug dealing or rapping, but rather a college education and future. That is great. I totally support them. We need more black doctors.

But the first point I want to make is that I never quite found any scholarships awarded on the basis of one's Caucasian status. No. There are no scholarships for being white. In fact, I am even part Native American (6%+) but because I am not officially biracial, or over a designated percentage Indian, I am discriminated against doubly. I am discriminated for being too white, but I am also discriminated for not being enough Indian!

This is absurd. Another observation is that it would be okay if there was a separate black scholarship application and white application. For instance whites could apply for all the merit awards (for GPA and standardized testing) while the blacks could exploit their minority status and pay for college without ever having to make an A in their life. But no. Blacks, mexicans, and Native Americans all qualify for the scholarships that are intended for whites.

Lastly I would like to point this out: In all the big to-do against racism, discrimination, hatred, pride and nationalism raised by the liberal Democrats (who largely support these minority scholarships) they seem to be the most racist of them all. Basically what they are saying is "Whites get good grades and get good scholarships so they don't need a handout for being white. Instead, the blacks who make poor grades need a handout because they're disadvantaged and not as intelligent, so they should be awarded for putting forth the effort."

I find this highly racist and offensive. What else could they be saying other than "Blacks are disproportionately disqualified from merit scholarships and thus need to be rewarded for making an effort on the basis of their minority status." This is the most racist thing I've heard in years. And the sad thing is it is racist against whites, blacks, hispanics, and everyone else too.

[Aaron]

So your argument is that there should be scholarships for the majority now? :lol:

[BlisteryNixon]

So your argument is that there should be scholarships for the majority now? :lol:

Either scholarships for white students or no scholarships for anyone, besides the merit scholarships and those for specific fields.

[Aaron]

Either scholarships for white students or no scholarships for anyone, besides the merit scholarships and those for specific fields.

You don't understand the concept of scholarships do you? They're to help those less at an advantage than the majority.

[BlisteryNixon]

You don't understand the concept of scholarships do you? They're to help those less at an advantage than the majority.

And those with more potential. There is no doubt the whites display more potential although when factoring in numbers, I wouldn't say hardly any more blacks drop out than whites.

[Aaron]

No. Scholarships are simply financial arrangements.

Stop being a racist.

[BlisteryNixon]

No. Scholarships are simply financial arrangements.

Stop being a racist.

But the liberals are the ones who say "Don't be a racist", "Color doesn't matter", "We're all flesh and blood". When they're obviously discriminating against whites and blacks on the basis of skin color. This isn't so much my racism, as it is my partisanship.

[Angmar]

I get Native American scholarships for being 1/8, it's awesome.

[Aaron]

I am able to apply for one for being of aboriginal descent, but I don't, financially I don't need the assistance so I let someone else have that spot.

[BlisteryNixon]

I get Native American scholarships for being 1/8, it's awesome.

You're worse than the welfare recipients.

[Angmar]

You're worse than the welfare recipients.

Nah dog I'm just taking advantage of my elite heritage which will help me get a cheaper education that's all.

Quite being such a little brat you!

[Aaron]

Angmar, we shouldn't tease him. He's white, it's tough for him.

[Angmar]

Yeah I know what you mean here in the US the whites have it very hard, always being picked out and discriminated against, idk how the white race will survive.

[Aaron]

I know! They're always being made to work stressful, high-paying jobs, and their always left out of all those fun welfare lines. Sheesh, it'd suck to be white.

[Angmar]

Not to mention the media portrayal of white people, makes all of us look bad. Sterotypes like you wouldn't believe.

[TheDarkHorse]

lol @white guyy

[BlisteryNixon]

and their always left out of all those fun welfare lines.

So you're saying only blacks and hispanics are on welfare? **** you racist.

[Aaron]

ITT VF doesn't understand sarcasm.

[BlisteryNixon]

ITT VF doesn't understand sarcasm.

Know I think that was latent and lingering prejudice against minorities. Very obvious.

[Aaron]

You hurt my brain with your multi-faceted stupid.

[Charlie Daniels]

I totally agree with the thread starter.

In Australia the idea of scholarships for the poor alone is rediculous, because government is prepared to support poor students on centrelink payments and subsidise there education and offer interest free loans for study costs.

The most disadvantaged group are those who have parents who make just over the cut off mark, as it means that these children have to ask their parents for the money and realistically they would be better off if their parents were slightly poorer.

[Charlie Daniels]

Why shouldn't a white teen living in a ghetto with a drug dealing prostitute for a mother and a father in jail be eligible for a scholarship when his black neighbour is?

Oh yeah, I forgot that because he's white his life's so much better and easier he doesn't need the assistance....

[siva_chair]

The only scholarships that should be able to discriminate based on race or sex are private ones.

[BlisteryNixon]

According to my school's website, they do not discriminate on the basis of "race, sex, creed" et cetera.

Then it goes on to say that for "African-Americans" and hispanics qualify for $28,000 over 5 years if they maintain a 2.5 and complete 12 hours a semester.

The scholarship for white students? Oh well that requires an SAT of 1070, extra curricular/community involvement, leadership qualities, and must be a first time student. Total package? $4,000.

Oh and I'm sick of faggots saying African-American. Next time I hear that word I'm going to correct the person and say, "No. It's a freakin African."

[siva_chair]

Moar liek A-freakin' American

[BlisteryNixon]

Moar liek A-freakin' American

Well it's just a play on words. "A freakin African"

But yeah that describes them pretty well. They usually are a-freakin.

[siva_chair]

They are Americans. Just like everyone else born in this country (and even some that weren't).

[BlisteryNixon]

They are Americans. Just like everyone else born in this country (and even some that weren't).

No. They call themselves African. They're as bad as the Mexicans flying the Mexican flag in America.

[Aaron]

You call yourself a Texan. Should be look down on you for that? There's nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, you blithering racist fool.

[Mr. Ron]

race based scholarships are racism

[Permanent Solution]

This thread oversimplifies the issue. Being black doesn't mean you get a scholarship.

A lot of the hispanic scholarships I find myself eligible ask for proof of leadership in the hispanic american community, evidence of giving back to the community in general, plus essay questions asking how their award would help students give back more, etc. It's hardly a handout.

Also a lot of the scholarships mentioned are merit based. National Merit Scholar, Hispanic Merit Scholar, both are merit based on the same test. One just notes that you accomplished it as a hispanic.

[siva_chair]

This thread oversimplifies the issue. Being black doesn't mean you get a scholarship.

A lot of the hispanic scholarships I find myself eligible ask for proof of leadership in the hispanic american community, evidence of giving back to the community in general, plus essay questions asking how their award would help students give back more, etc. It's hardly a handout.

Also a lot of the scholarships mentioned are merit based. National Merit Scholar, Hispanic Merit Scholar, both are merit based on the same test. One just notes that you accomplished it as a hispanic.

Which is still a divide based on race.

[Aaron]

What's wrong with that if the person needs the assistance more than the other?

[siva_chair]

What's wrong with that if the person needs the assistance more than the other?

Well it's a scholarship that is funded by tax dollars, which means it's the government engaging in de jure racism by subsidizing one race at the expense of others. All affirmative action policies are as such.

There would be no problem if these were private organizations setting them up, as they have every right to discriminate against whoever they want (the funds were all obtained through voluntary means).

[BlisteryNixon]

What's wrong with that if the person needs the assistance more than the other?

Blacks don't need any more assistance than whites.

[BlisteryNixon]

Well it's a scholarship that is funded by tax dollars, which means it's the government engaging in de jure racism by subsidizing one race at the expense of others. All affirmative action policies are as such.

There would be no problem if these were private organizations setting them up, as they have every right to discriminate against whoever they want (the funds were all obtained through voluntary means).

Yeah but I can't start my Committee For Racial Integrity and the Furtherance of White Causes on campus because that would be "racist".

[Iskandar]

Blacks don't need any more assistance than whites.Try again when blacks live in poverty as much as whites, graduate from college as much as whites and are incarcerated as much as whites.

[BlisteryNixon]

Try again when blacks live in poverty as much as whites

Get a job.

graduate from college as much as whites

Stop worrying about your "business" selling drugs and arms and start applying yourself and make good grades.

and are incarcerated as much as whites.

Well if those damn white women weren't so attractive and so picky about men they'll date, blacks wouldn't have to rape them!

[Aaron]

Neither of you actually answered why it's bad if the individual in question needed the scholarship. From what I can determine, when it comes down to it you'd want to money spent on whites. Answer this question; do you think people born a country have more of a right to a job than an immigrant?

[Iskandar]

Get a job.

Stop worrying about your "business" selling drugs and arms and start applying yourself and make good grades.Maybe, just maybe you should consider why so many blacks live in poverty, and how poverty is linked to crime. I hope that isn't beyond you.

Hint: It's not because their race is inherently inferior.
Answer this question; do you think people born a country have more of a right to a job than an immigrant?Neither has a right to a job, so in a way they do equally.

[Shell]

Aaron, it should be something that everyone has a right to equally, regardless of race, sex, etc, if it's a scholarship funded partially or fully by taxes.

[BlisteryNixon]

Neither of you actually answered why it's bad if the individual in question needed the scholarship. From what I can determine, when it comes down to it you'd want to money spent on whites. Answer this question; do you think people born a country have more of a right to a job than an immigrant?

The immigrant has no rights as far as I'm concerned if he's here illegally. Another great point. They even have healthcare for illegals now, probably scholarships too.

[Shell]

our illegal immigrants here pay in-state tuition (last I heard, anyway)

[BlisteryNixon]

Maybe, just maybe you should consider why so many blacks live in poverty, and how poverty is linked to crime. I hope that isn't beyond you.

Some of the most expensive houses in town are owned by drug dealing blacks (and mexicans). I think they can afford to send their own ****ing kids to school.

[Iskandar]

Maybe if the immigration process weren't a bureaucratic nightmare they would come here legally. As it is, they're here, and they're not going away.

[siva_chair]

Try again when blacks live in poverty as much as whites, graduate from college as much as whites and are incarcerated as much as whites.

Well now you are assuming that these things are processes that are completely external to the time preferences of these people themselves.

Neither of you actually answered why it's bad if the individual in question needed the scholarship.

Umm because it is based on race and not on pure merit. Besides, I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing education at all.

From what I can determine, when it comes down to it you'd want to money spent on whites.

No, I would rather the government not subsidize education at all, but if they are going to, they need to not do it based on race.

Answer this question; do you think people born a country have more of a right to a job than an immigrant?

No.

[Aaron]

The concept of the state shouldn't effect someone's access to the best education possible.

VF: Who has more of a right to a job; the legal immigrant, or the person born in the country?

[BlisteryNixon]

VF: Who has more of a right to a job; the legal immigrant, or the person born in the country?

Probably neither. But I would hire a native any day over an immigrant if the immigrant's language barrier was a deterrent to productive business.

Now a question for you.

[siva_chair]

Maybe, just maybe you should consider why so many blacks live in poverty, and how poverty is linked to crime. I hope that isn't beyond you.

Actually, both are linked to time preference. People who are poor or engage in habitual crime tend to have high time preferences. Poverty and crime seem to go hand in hand because they both flow from a common cause, not because one is inherently the cause of the other.

[Iskandar]

Some of the most expensive houses in town are owned by drug dealing blacks (and mexicans). I think they can afford to send their own ****ing kids to school.Aside from anecdotes, why should they? A life of crime is more appealing than hard work.

Of course I'm ignoring the fact that it's completely stupid to assume all blacks live it up on the profits of crime, just as much as it is stupid to assume all blacks (or Mexicans) are criminals.

[siva_chair]

The concept of the state shouldn't effect someone's access to the best education possible.

Yeah which is why the state shouldn't even be involved in education. :cool:

[Iskandar]

Well, that's a non sequitur.

[Aaron]

Yeah which is why the state shouldn't even be involved in education. :cool:
If state-substidised education is going to result in the best outcome for the greatest number of people, then they should yes. But I understand your arguement specifically in relation to tertiary education.

[BlisteryNixon]

Aaron, why do all I hear when I turn on the TV is "We're an equal opportunity employer" EOE this, EOE that.

I walk into a mexican restaurant not one white person working there. I walk into McDonald's, all blacks and mexicans. I walk into the hospital you've got indian doctors, middle eastern doctors, hispanic doctors.

This EOE is bullshit and i'm sick of these racist mexicans flying their hideous flag in my country.

[Iskandar]

What's this stuff about time preferences? Is that some libertarian term that nobody else uses?
I walk into McDonald's, all blacks and mexicans.Minorities doing the jobs white people don't want. Imagine that.

[Aaron]

Why is it bullshit? Because you're seeing it succeeding? Because you'd prefer to see whites in those jobs? Why don't you want to see another country's flag?

[Shell]

maybe Mexicans are the only people who apply to work at the Mexican restaurant

[Aaron]

Mmm mexican food.

[Shell]

yeah I have heartburn from some nachos I had earlier

[BlisteryNixon]

Why is it bullshit? Because you're seeing it succeeding? Because you'd prefer to see whites in those jobs?

Oh and then you see mexicans everywhere mowing lawns and they're probably here illegally. There are plenty of whites out of work who need those jobs just as much as the mexicans do and the difference is they can't get SS benefits because that would be "racist" to give it to a white as opposed to a black who needs it just as bad. Also the blacks who supposedly need it so bad are selling drugs too making far more than the 600-1000 whatever SS pays out.

I have heard more stories than care to remember about blacks driving Escalades whose children were on medicaid insurance.

[Aaron]

My post was actually relevant as well; mexicans cook the best mexican food, therefore hire them for it. :) Mmmm mexican food.

[Iskandar]

Mexicans shouldn't fly their country's flag. They're 'Murkins now, dammit, so they should start acting like it. They can start by bleaching their skin and forgetting they ever knew Spanish, then follow that by Family Guy marathons and tailgate parties.

[BlisteryNixon]

maybe Mexicans are the only people who apply to work at the Mexican restaurant

It's still racist. Because then you have restaurants with "American" food and most of the people working there are black too.

[Shell]

yeah but a lot of white people are also too lazy or think they are too good to mow someone's lawn or roof someone's house

****'s hard work

edit: how the hell is it racist if you only hire Mexicans because only Mexicans apply?

[BlisteryNixon]

Mexicans shouldn't fly their country's flag. They're 'Murkins now, dammit, so they should start acting like it. They can start by bleaching their skin and forgetting they ever knew Spanish, then follow that by Family Guy marathons and tailgate parties.

No they can stop flying their flag in my country and they can learn my language. I'm not going to take 4 semesters of Spanish in college because you're too ****ing stupid to teach your kid English.

[siva_chair]

Well, that's a non sequitur.

Not when the state stands in the way of "the best education possible," which it does.

[Iskandar]

It's not racist unless you can prove they have a policy against hiring white people, which you can't. Is it racist when a business happens to have only white employees?
No they can stop flying their flag in my country and they can learn my language. I'm not going to take 4 semesters of Spanish in college because you're too ****ing stupid to teach your kid English.It works both ways you know.

[Aaron]

Oh and then you see mexicans everywhere mowing lawns and they're probably here illegally. There are plenty of whites out of work who need those jobs just as much as the mexicans do and the difference is they can't get SS benefits because that would be "racist" to give it to a white as opposed to a black who needs it just as bad. Also the blacks who supposedly need it so bad are selling drugs too making far more than the 600-1000 whatever SS pays out.

I have heard more stories than care to remember about blacks driving Escalades whose children were on medicaid insurance.

Oh and then you see whites everywhere mowing lawns and they're probably here illegally.

[siva_chair]

What's this stuff about time preferences? Is that some libertarian term that nobody else uses?

It's an economic term.

[Iskandar]

It's an economic term.Oh, as in opportunity cost? It's not the terminology I'm familiar with.

[Aaron]

No they can stop flying their flag in my country and they can learn my language. I'm not going to take 4 semesters of Spanish in college because you're too ****ing stupid to teach your kid English.
That's just it, it's your language, not the official American language.

[Iskandar]

It seems to be a peculiarly American ignorance that people will always want to speak English to you, all the time, rather than their native language. Or perhaps I should have said Anglo-American (I'm assuming Australians do this as well).

[siva_chair]

Oh, as in opportunity cost? It's not the terminology I'm familiar with.

No, it is distinct from that.

It is also known as "discounting." It pertains to how great a premium or value a consumer will place on enjoyment nearer in time over an enjoyment at a more remote point in time.

[Iskandar]

I mean it's related to the idea of opportunity cost. Now I think of I have heard the term before.

[siva_chair]

I mean it's related to the idea of opportunity cost. Now I think of I have heard the term before.

Well, most of economics is related...:p

I think time preference is the persistent distinction between social classes and cultures (primarily between "upper class" and "lower class"). Members of the former are usually characterized by future-orientation, self-discipline, and a willingness to forego present gratification in an exchange for a better future, members of the "lower class" are characterized by their present-orientation and hedonism.

[Iskandar]

Yes, because if you're rich you have more opportunities available to you, including leisure. Not so if you're struggling to make a living.

[siva_chair]

Yes, because if you're rich you have more opportunities available to you, including leisure. Not so if you're struggling to make a living.

But there is far more to it than that. Phenomena typically associated with and more common with the lower classes (such as family breakdown, promiscuity, venereal disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, crime, etc.) all have a common cause in high time preference. Their cause is not unemployment or low income, rather causation is, if anything, the other way around. Lasting unemployment and persistently low incomes are also the effects of an underlying high time preference.

[Badmoon]

Our President's black

Us whites aren't "the man" anymore -- give me a f*ckin' scholarship.

[Iskandar]

But there is far more to it than that. Phenomena typically associated with and more common with the lower classes (such as family breakdown, promiscuity, venereal disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, crime, etc.) all have a common cause in high time preference. Their cause is not unemployment or low income, rather causation is, if anything, the other way around. Lasting unemployment and persistently low incomes are also the effects of an underlying high time preference.I don't get it. People choose to do these things because they don't have time to do anything else? What?

[siva_chair]

I don't get it. People choose to do these things because they don't have time to do anything else? What?

No, that isn't what time preference is. It has nothing to do with whether they actually have "time to do anything else," it is because people choose to do these things because they are not willing to sacrifice present gratification for future gratification. They cannot discipline themselves to do so. The one's that do, do not tend to stay in poverty. They save, they have future mindedness, etc.

[Iskandar]

You're making poverty sound like it's something people willfully choose. It's a lot more complicated than that.

[siva_chair]

You're making poverty sound like it's something people willfully choose. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Actually, I'm saying that poverty is mostly a byproduct or consequence of a particular lifestyle choice.

You should stop assuming that poverty is primarily an external process to those that suffer from it. It is a direct result of specific choices they make and perpetrate in their environment. Sure, there are some external factors that have an influence time preference (like taxes, crime, subsidies, etc.), but it is primarily a result of people's lifestyle choice. If they are victims, they are primarily victims of their own choices (whether conscious of the consequences or not).

Frankly, this idea you hold of this "victimization" seems much more degrading, tbh.

[Iskandar]

Not really, I just believe that external factors offer some insight into social phenomena. People don't make choices in a vacuum.

[siva_chair]

Not really, I just believe that external factors offer some insight into social phenomena. People don't make choices in a vacuum.

No one said they did, but perpetual unemployment and poverty are the results of a lifestyle choice, not external factors. There are plenty of examples of "average" individual growing up in extreme poverty to rise out of that situation. They do this because they embrace a particular lifestyle and discipline that is conducive to upward social mobility (or they happen to have some natural skill that is highly marketable like being good at sports or music).

[Charlie Daniels]

No, that isn't what time preference is. It has nothing to do with whether they actually have "time to do anything else," it is because people choose to do these things because they are not willing to sacrifice present gratification for future gratification. They cannot discipline themselves to do so. The one's that do, do not tend to stay in poverty. They save, they have future mindedness, etc.

I agree with this completely.

[Iscariot]

Minority scholarships exist for the purpose of balancing the scales. Whites are the majority in America, and minorities, due to social disadvantages and discrimination, are more likely to be predisposed to crime because they see it as an easy way to make a buck.

I don't see anything wrong with offering minority scholarships if it puts them on an even playing field and gives them the opportunity to break the stereotypes that they're afflicted with.

[ATC]

No one said they did, but perpetual unemployment and poverty are the results of a lifestyle choice, not external factors. There are plenty of examples of "average" individual growing up in extreme poverty to rise out of that situation. They do this because they embrace a particular lifestyle and discipline that is conducive to upward social mobility (or they happen to have some natural skill that is highly marketable like being good at sports or music).

It's really not that simple. Anecdotal evidence of "average" individuals making it ignores reams and reams of research regarding urban planning and a host of other topics. Saying poor people are poor because they choose to be poor is ridiculous. The welfare queen straw woman's just straw at the end of the day. Now, I'm not saying it's all external factors and that choices have no bearing on social status because yes, they do but I think perhaps you're going off a middle class baseline.

[Rams]

I haven't seen a thread this racist in a long time. Good job all.

[Angmar]

Minority scholarships exist for the purpose of balancing the scales. Whites are the majority in America, and minorities, due to social disadvantages and discrimination, are more likely to be predisposed to crime because they see it as an easy way to make a buck.

I don't see anything wrong with offering minority scholarships if it puts them on an even playing field and gives them the opportunity to break the stereotypes that they're afflicted with.

Yeah, I agree completely.

[DJ Karl Marx]

No one said they did, but perpetual unemployment and poverty are the results of a lifestyle choice, not external factors. There are plenty of examples of "average" individual growing up in extreme poverty to rise out of that situation. They do this because they embrace a particular lifestyle and discipline that is conducive to upward social mobility (or they happen to have some natural skill that is highly marketable like being good at sports or music).
really, this is absurd. i suppose the myriad of children who are born into poverty and raised in a spiritually and materially poor environment, having hosts of impoverished experiences, work, and suffering embedded in and burdened upon them were too uncommitted and degenerate to make the right choices. nearly every single person has the strength to be great. but the experiences, the environment, and our physical nature are what unlock that greatness and freedom within us, and if the circumstances are anything but optimal, we are in danger of being consumed by the body, necessity, fixation.

[siva_chair]

It's really not that simple. Anecdotal evidence of "average" individuals making it ignores reams and reams of research regarding urban planning and a host of other topics. Saying poor people are poor because they choose to be poor is ridiculous.

I never explicitely said they choose to be poor, rather they choose lifestyles and value systems that perpetuate poverty, not alleviate it.

The welfare queen straw woman's just straw at the end of the day. Now, I'm not saying it's all external factors and that choices have no bearing on social status because yes, they do but I think perhaps you're going off a middle class baseline.

No, I'm actually going off a purely economic baseline. An individual's time preferences are probably the largest influencing factor in determining whether a person will suffer from perpetual unemployment and poverty or not.

really, this is absurd. i suppose the myriad of children who are born into poverty and raised in a spiritually and materially poor environment, having hosts of impoverished experiences, work, and suffering embedded in and burdened upon them were too uncommitted and degenerate to make the right choices. nearly every single person has the strength to be great. but the experiences, the environment, and our physical nature are what unlock that greatness and freedom within us, and if the circumstances are anything but optimal, we are in danger of being consumed by the body, necessity, fixation.

Yes let's victimize the individual. It is all the fault of "society," it is all "someone else's fault," always something external.

And yes, they were too uncommitted and degenerate to make the right choices. Thus the reason they remain in perpetual poverty. Chances are they were raised in an environment (be it cultural, social, etc) that encouraged a lifestyle that inherently creates high time preferences, but nonetheless the individual still chose to pursue that lifestyle.

[Charlie Daniels]

Siva chair is making perfect sense.

[ATC]

I never explicitely said they choose to be poor, rather they choose lifestyles and value systems that perpetuate poverty, not alleviate it.

There's no way around that with your argument. You're presuming equality of opportunity.



No, I'm actually going off a purely economic baseline. An individual's time preferences are probably the largest influencing factor in determining whether a person will suffer from perpetual unemployment and poverty or not.

Time preference also implies something close to equality of opportunity in your argument. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that poor folk are unwilling to risk current benefit by not investing for a future benefit, that they choose to be lazy because it's convenient. There's more than one interpretation of said statement obviously but external factors weigh just as heavily on time preferences as internal ones. Given equality of opportunity, then if someone chooses a lifestyle that is less growth-oriented, then you'd be right in that it would be an outsize factor. But we don't have equality of opportunity and the cost for a socially disadvantaged to get to a level footing with you or I is tremendous. Consider the barriers for growth that exist for say a poor immigrant that we take for granted or the opportunity cost involved there. Sure, a lot of people do great regardless but they've often had to work many times as hard as the rest of us.



Yes let's victimize the individual. It is all the fault of "society," it is all "someone else's fault," always something external.

And yes, they were too uncommitted and degenerate to make the right choices. Thus the reason they remain in perpetual poverty. Chances are they were raised in an environment (be it cultural, social, etc) that encouraged a lifestyle that inherently creates high time preferences, but nonetheless the individual still chose to pursue that lifestyle.

It behooves us as a society to consider ways to make it easier for individuals to choose lifestyles that are upwardly mobile. There is systemic injustice. It has nothing to do with blaming someone else.

[siva_chair]

There's no way around that with your argument. You're presuming equality of opportunity.

No, I'm not really. It doesn't have to be a level playing field for what I'm saying to work, as plenty of individuals have shown that they can alleviate themselves out of poverty through self-discipline and lifestyle choices that are conducive to that.

Time preference also implies something close to equality of opportunity in your argument. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that poor folk are unwilling to risk current benefit by not investing for a future benefit, that they choose to be lazy because it's convenient. There's more than one interpretation of said statement obviously but external factors weigh just as heavily on time preferences as internal ones. Given equality of opportunity, then if someone chooses a lifestyle that is less growth-oriented, then you'd be right in that it would be an outsize factor. But we don't have equality of opportunity and the cost for a socially disadvantaged to get to a level footing with you or I is tremendous. Consider the barriers for growth that exist for say a poor immigrant that we take for granted or the opportunity cost involved there. Sure, a lot of people do great regardless but they've often had to work many times as hard as the rest of us.

Yes, of course they have to work harder. So what? Sometimes nature is unfair. It does not follow that one group of individuals has the right to live at the expense of another.

The point is that nobody, if they work hard enough and discipline themselves in their lives enough, is inherently bound by perpetual poverty and unemployment. Trying to externalize the process and paint it as these individuals are inherently victims of external circumstance does nothing to help them. In fact I would say it causes a continuation of that lifestyle by shedding the responsibility of the individual.

It behooves us as a society to consider ways to make it easier for individuals to choose lifestyles that are upwardly mobile. There is systemic injustice. It has nothing to do with blaming someone else.

It behooves us as a society to promote individual responsibility. Only when people stop viewing their economic and social future as something fixed, fated, and beyond their control will they gain upward mobility in society.

The ironic thing is, by subsidizing these lifestyles that perpetuate high time preferences (primarily through welfare, etc.), we actually foster this kind of mindset and make it that much worse. If we really wanted to lift these individuals out of poverty, we wouldn't be giving them a handout and subsidize this high time preference, we would create incentives for them to lift themselves out of poverty.

[DBoons Ghost]

The lack of comprehending ghetto life and the lifestyle it perpetuates is why the majority of those in this thread arguing from a textbook continue to fail to grasp poverty as it applies to America, but the very same is preventing the alternative.

It's not a simple "people are lazy". It's that corner kid thug life becomes attractive because those are the heroes of the ghetto. Those are the guys getting paid and throwing block parties with free beer and food. There are no fatherly role models. Mom is usually a drunk or a pill popping whore and dad is no where to be found. If you're good in school you get picked on daily on the way to school, in school, and on the way home from school. Yeah stay home and study is fun but when the very same kids you share a classroom with will beat your face in because you work harder in class then them, it's kinda hard to feel inspired to do better. So the cycle repeats and repeats endlessly until every kid in the classroom is stupid with everything outside the hustle. Most dumb kids could hustle you silly or beat your *** or do any number of things better then you, but since society views them as "bad" or because you know how to take a few hundred bucks and turn it into a few thousand using drug selling it makes you a bad person. As it should of course, but I'm just saying. You guys go into these long intellectual debates and it's hysterical how stupid it ends up being.

Even good hard working parents who raise 2 kids on good salaries have NO chance when you live in a ghetto. You're surrounded. It's almost impossible to overcome those odds.

[siva_chair]

The lack of comprehending ghetto life and the lifestyle it perpetuates is why the majority of those in this thread arguing from a textbook continue to fail to grasp poverty as it applies to America, but the very same is preventing the alternative.

It's not a simple "people are lazy". It's that corner kid thug life becomes attractive because those are the heroes of the ghetto. Those are the guys getting paid and throwing block parties with free beer and food. There are no fatherly role models. Mom is usually a drunk or a pill popping whore and dad is no where to be found. If you're good in school you get picked on daily on the way to school, in school, and on the way home from school. Yeah stay home and study is fun but when the very same kids you share a classroom with will beat your face in because you work harder in class then them, it's kinda hard to feel inspired to do better. So the cycle repeats and repeats endlessly until every kid in the classroom is stupid with everything outside the hustle. Most dumb kids could hustle you silly or beat your *** or do any number of things better then you, but since society views them as "bad" or because you know how to take a few hundred bucks and turn it into a few thousand using drug selling it makes you a bad person. As it should of course, but I'm just saying. You guys go into these long intellectual debates and it's hysterical how stupid it ends up being.

Even good hard working parents who raise 2 kids on good salaries have NO chance when you live in a ghetto. You're surrounded. It's almost impossible to overcome those odds.

I think you actually have strengthened what I have been saying in a sense Dboon.

Do you not agree that "the ghetto" itself is created by the pimps, the drugs, the lifestyles that scoff at studying and education and glorify being "thugs" or "hard", etc?

And to clarify, I didn't say "poor people are lazy," I made the statement that people who suffer from perpetual poverty and unemployment tend to adhere to lifestyles that have a high time preference (meaning they do not save, they do not "invest" in their future, they look for instant gratification as opposed to future gratification, etc). It is certainly true that those who adhere to these kind of lifestyles tend to foster an environment that creates incentives to adopt those kind of lifestyles, but ultimately it is an individual's choice to adopt said lifestyle. Would you agree?

[DBoons Ghost]

I think you actually have strengthened what I have been saying in a sense Dboon.

Do you not agree that "the ghetto" itself is created by the pimps, the drugs, the lifestyles that scoff at studying and education and glorify being "thugs" or "hard", etc?

And to clarify, I didn't say "poor people are lazy," I made the statement that people who suffer from perpetual poverty and unemployment tend to adhere to lifestyles that have a high time preference (meaning they do not save, they do not "invest" in their future, they look for instant gratification as opposed to future gratification, etc). It is certainly true that those who adhere to these kind of lifestyles tend to foster an environment that creates incentives to adopt those kind of lifestyles, but ultimately it is an individual's choice to adopt said lifestyle. Would you agree?


I agree completely with every word of this post. I would say poor people are lazy and I would be right, but some over educated life long student who has yet to even enter the workplace will tell me I'm wrong and give me some textbook mumbo jumbo even they themselves cannot decipher. I grew up in the armpit of the Bronx, NY with everyone around me telling me "why work when I can steal" and "to hell with working when I gots me some welfare" but I'm the one who's wrong. I'm the one who's out of touch. What solutions for them? We all had the outs. Some took it but most didn't. Most would rather work a off the books job, sell drugs and hustle on the side doing a scam now and again, and live a ghettofabulous cash life off the grid. I was a closet nerd thanks to all that and even that is laughable. I tried to get friends out but I'm a punk and pussy. Even with all I did, I'm far from intelligent or super smart but I was smart enough to know I had to get the hell away from that life. The climb up was the hardest climb I ever took and it's even harder convincing myself every day that I belong here when I know very well where I belong.


I'm sure your college professors have told you otherwise though. They seem to know so much more about how I grew up. :thumb:

[siva_chair]

I agree completely with every word of this post. I would say poor people are lazy and I would be right, but some over educated life long student who has yet to even enter the workplace will tell me I'm wrong and give me some textbook mumbo jumbo even they themselves cannot decipher. I grew up in the armpit of the Bronx, NY with everyone around me telling me "why work when I can steal" and "to hell with working when I gots me some welfare" but I'm the one who's wrong. I'm the one who's out of touch. What solutions for them? We all had the outs. Some took it but most didn't. Most would rather work a off the books job, sell drugs and hustle on the side doing a scam now and again, and live a ghettofabulous cash life off the grid. I was a closet nerd thanks to all that and even that is laughable. I tried to get friends out but I'm a punk and pussy. Even with all I did, I'm far from intelligent or super smart but I was smart enough to know I had to get the hell away from that life. The climb up was the hardest climb I ever took and it's even harder convincing myself every day that I belong here when I know very well where I belong.


I'm sure your college professors have told you otherwise though. They seem to know so much more about how I grew up. :thumb:

Thanks for this sir. I'm very glad you could escape that lifestyle, and it sounds like you have carved out an admirable life for yourself because of it (you have a business, a wife, a child). Bravo.

[ATC]

No, I'm not really. It doesn't have to be a level playing field for what I'm saying to work, as plenty of individuals have shown that they can alleviate themselves out of poverty through self-discipline and lifestyle choices that are conducive to that.

Again, what percentage of the population are we ascribing this to? Unless it's a level playing field, the time preference involved cannot be an accurate measure.



Yes, of course they have to work harder. So what? Sometimes nature is unfair. It does not follow that one group of individuals has the right to live at the expense of another.

Never said that. I'm not arguing for a welfare state. I think the basic problem with the welfare state is that it values hours put in as opposed to output. That's the central problem with education anyway and that can be extrapolated to almost everything. What I'm saying is, it may be untenable for certain groups to progress regardless of input. Social uplift at a group level requires more than just individual self-discipline.



The point is that nobody, if they work hard enough and discipline themselves in their lives enough, is inherently bound by perpetual poverty and unemployment. Trying to externalize the process and paint it as these individuals are inherently victims of external circumstance does nothing to help them. In fact I would say it causes a continuation of that lifestyle by shedding the responsibility of the individual.

Again, I never said that individuals are inherently victims of external circumstance or that there is no place for individual responsibility. I know the ghetto. My mom went to med school by streetlight and I'm completing my masters degree with full rides all the way here. I know from personal experience that personal circumstances aren't necessarily insurmountable. What I'm arguing is that systemic poverty exists because entire communities have been marginalized for so long that it will not/cannot cross their minds to better themselves and when they try, they're beaten down until they quit. The lower class has a ceiling to how they can climb and I believe that society must attempt to raise that ceiling. Like you said, life isn't fair so no matter how much time is invested in x, the results don't have to proportional. This is especially pronounced over class. This makes time preference, and by extension laziness, an imperfect standard to explain poverty. There's validity, sure, but you can't honestly make the case that people are poor because they're lazy or not self-disciplined enough. Those things, while often crucial, aren't always enough. There's fundamental overhauls necessary in the education and urban planning systems before those can even be addressed.


It behooves us as a society to promote individual responsibility. Only when people stop viewing their economic and social future as something fixed, fated, and beyond their control will they gain upward mobility in society.

The ironic thing is, by subsidizing these lifestyles that perpetuate high time preferences (primarily through welfare, etc.), we actually foster this kind of mindset and make it that much worse. If we really wanted to lift these individuals out of poverty, we wouldn't be giving them a handout and subsidize this high time preference, we would create incentives for them to lift themselves out of poverty.

Rugged individualism eh? That'll fix it all. It's wonderful and romantic and simple to think that if only people were responsible,they'd be all upper class/the upper class is so because it is individually responsible. Not many view their future as fixed or fated. There simply are systemic disincentives to remain in the same place or to be pulled down if you're lower middle class for instance. Those people you speak of, and I've known a few, decent hard-working folk who were responsible, saved up for their kid's college every month, not even they can beat a rigged system that turns communities into swamps. You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps but sometimes they'll only go so high. You can talk all you want about there being ways out for everyone, but it isn't access that's a fair measure but success.

[siva_chair]

Again, what percentage of the population are we ascribing this to? Unless it's a level playing field, the time preference involved cannot be an accurate measure.

All of them. There is nothing really except an individual's time preference and lifestyle choice that is keeping them in perpetual poverty and unemployment. Is it harder for an individual in the ghetto to become wealthy or well off than someone in the middle class? Yes, it probably is. But it is also much harder for an individual with one leg to become a sprinter, yet it is certainly possible. All that is required is self-discipline.

Never said that. I'm not arguing for a welfare state. I think the basic problem with the welfare state is that it values hours put in as opposed to output. That's the central problem with education anyway and that can be extrapolated to almost everything. What I'm saying is, it may be untenable for certain groups to progress regardless of input. Social uplift at a group level requires more than just individual self-discipline.

What is this nonsense about group level? People are individuals. They either lift themselves out of poverty and unemployment, or they continue to live in the manner in which they do. This collective group mentality is what really perpetuates racism, sexism, etc.

Again, I never said that individuals are inherently victims of external circumstance or that there is no place for individual responsibility. I know the ghetto. My mom went to med school by streetlight and I'm completing my masters degree with full rides all the way here. I know from personal experience that personal circumstances aren't necessarily insurmountable. What I'm arguing is that systemic poverty exists because entire communities have been marginalized for so long that it will not/cannot cross their minds to better themselves and when they try, they're beaten down until they quit. The lower class has a ceiling to how they can climb and I believe that society must attempt to raise that ceiling. Like you said, life isn't fair so no matter how much time is invested in x, the results don't have to proportional. This is especially pronounced over class. This makes time preference, and by extension laziness, an imperfect standard to explain poverty. There's validity, sure, but you can't honestly make the case that people are poor because they're lazy or not self-disciplined enough. Those things, while often crucial, aren't always enough. There's fundamental overhauls necessary in the education and urban planning systems before those can even be addressed.

They've been marginalized and resign to this thinking because we make victims out of these people. We subsidize their lifestyle with welfare and the like. It is no wonder they are still in poverty. You have society giving them the message "hey, there shouldn't be any consequences to these various lifestyles, so keep on doing them and we will give you money and subsidize it at the expense of those that don't live in that manner anyway." If we really want to help them, we would point out the fact that it is that embracing of the ghetto lifestyle that resigns them to that fate. They must make the choice, no one else. No one has the right to live at the expense of another.

Time preference is most certainly the largest factor. Show me an individual in perpetual poverty and suffers perpetual unemployment that has a low time-preference (saves money, is thrifty, invests in his or her own betterment, etc) and I will show you a myth. Sure, even people with low time-preferences may struggle for a while, but they won't be that way forever (nor resign their children to that fate).

Rugged individualism eh? That'll fix it all. It's wonderful and romantic and simple to think that if only people were responsible,they'd be all upper class/the upper class is so because it is individually responsible.

I never said everyone would be upper class, but they sure as hell can escape ghetto poverty.

Not many view their future as fixed or fated. There simply are systemic disincentives to remain in the same place or to be pulled down if you're lower middle class for instance.

Like what? What are these "systemic disincentives" you are speaking of exactly.

Those people you speak of, and I've known a few, decent hard-working folk who were responsible, saved up for their kid's college every month, not even they can beat a rigged system that turns communities into swamps. You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps but sometimes they'll only go so high. You can talk all you want about there being ways out for everyone, but it isn't access that's a fair measure but success.

And my guess is these people who saved for their kids' college have kids that are escaping these kind of living conditions, eh? Having children tends to lower an individual's time preference as they think of their children's future. Now, obviously some people are really crappy parents, so they don't, and then they make it so their children are that much more behind with getting out of said conditions.

If you look at pretty much all the individuals that escaped the ghetto lifestyle of poverty, you will find they all seem to have something in common: they all have low time preferences. They may be of differing overall intelligence levels, different race, religion, etc, but they all have that one thing in common (except, of course, those that escape through some lucky occurrence like winning the lottery or becoming a famous artist or sports star or something, but that is irrelevant).

[Iscariot]

I think it's a little unnecessary to repeatedly point out that perpetual poverty is a lifestyle choice. It's pretty obvious why someone would choose to sling drugs instead of go to college. For one you end up with a huge, I mean phenomenal circle of friends and acquaintances. I don't even sell anymore and there are still dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people that know who I am and that I'm on good terms with. The active dealers that I'm friends with know at least a couple hundred people each.

And also, it's tax free money. You keep everything you earn and only spend what you need to in order to replenish your stock. You don't have to report anything to Uncle Sam, all of your money comes in as cash and comes in very regularly, and you can make more in a month than a lot of people can at an internship fresh out of college.

Add to that the fact that any time you have when you aren't hooking up bags or w/e you get to party, see your friends, relax at home, go to the movies, etc.. because you have a constant stream of tax-free revenue.

It's a dream job and you don't even need to apply for it. So duh it's a choice, and one that seems pretty fantastic to a lot of people.

Of course, the best business comes from the ghetto, so you're restricted on where you can live, but when you have more friends than you can count, it's not a bad deal.

[siva_chair]

Well exactly. So subsidizing these lifestyles and "victimizing" them is pretty silly.

You don't subsidize a lifestyle that perpetuates poverty if you wish to eliminate poverty.

[ATC]

All of them. There is nothing really except an individual's time preference and lifestyle choice that is keeping them in perpetual poverty and unemployment. Is it harder for an individual in the ghetto to become wealthy or well off than someone in the middle class? Yes, it probably is. But it is also much harder for an individual with one leg to become a sprinter, yet it is certainly possible. All that is required is self-discipline.


That sprinter example demonstrates, in my mind, the inanity of thinking pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is all it takes.


What is this nonsense about group level? People are individuals. They either lift themselves out of poverty and unemployment, or they continue to live in the manner in which they do. This collective group mentality is what really perpetuates racism, sexism, etc.

You're right and wrong. In poorer communities, group dynamics are especially important. Sure, they shouldn't be and all that, but that is how those communities have survived so far. It's a form of unionization. These choices for betterment don't occur to people in isolation. They have to be seen as possible and desirable within the framework of the community for them to be chosen by more than a handful of people.



They've been marginalized and resign to this thinking because we make victims out of these people. We subsidize their lifestyle with welfare and the like. It is no wonder they are still in poverty. You have society giving them the message "hey, there shouldn't be any consequences to these various lifestyles, so keep on doing them and we will give you money and subsidize it at the expense of those that don't live in that manner anyway." If we really want to help them, we would point out the fact that it is that embracing of the ghetto lifestyle that resigns them to that fate. They must make the choice, no one else. No one has the right to live at the expense of another.

At no point was I advocating welfare, I don't think. We subsidize welfare because we are too cowardly to accept the fact that the educational system is fusty walrus!ed, especially in poorer communities. That resource allocation is skewed to propagation of desirable suburbia. Because the healthcare system's broken and traps sick people in a downward spiral especially if you're poor from which there is no pulling up by the bootstraps. Because poorer areas have no grocery stores. Because community outreach towards poorer sections looks down on them and implicitly says look at us, aren't we benevolent? This "we" are propagating said lifestyles because accepting and then fixing a chronic issue takes more time and money than I suspect we have political will for.


Time preference is most certainly the largest factor. Show me an individual in perpetual poverty and suffers perpetual unemployment that has a low time-preference (saves money, is thrifty, invests in his or her own betterment, etc) and I will show you a myth. Sure, even people with low time-preferences may struggle for a while, but they won't be that way forever (nor resign their children to that fate).


Sure. It's a factor. I've never denied that. Okay. Most of my research these days has to do with PTSD so I'll use that. This person I interviewed, perfectly nice, fairly responsible guy, Hispanic, signed up for the military because he wanted to go to college afterwards. Comes home with PTSD but the VA'll only rate him 10%. He's trying to get it higher but we'll see. He can't get a regular well paying job. So he works retail. He's barely above the poverty line. He's in school. He can't concentrate. He's failing classes. He used to be a decent student, never good but never bad. He'll never be a psychologist. He's trying though. Family's from Camden. It's not that he isn't trying. Between the VA and himself, he can't. Now, I'm not arguing that this is how all cases are but they aren't some sort of myth.

I teach kids that come from all sorts of backgrounds. They all want to make it, be affluent, all that. But if you look at where they were schooled, there's a huge difference in how they think. Most of them can't comprehend the fact that I have to have them unlearn a decade of schoolwork so they can adjust to the new paradigm. It's not that they aren't trying. Some will manage, some won't. They've all made similar time preferences but those mean different things across the board. Simply choosing to invest in one's future does not mean much. You've got to have the right tools, aptitude, luck and so many other things. I think it's simplistic to say individual responsibility, individual responsibility, bootstraps.



Like what? What are these "systemic disincentives" you are speaking of exactly.

Education. Urban planning. Healthcare, for starters. There's so many obstacles in people's paths. I believe that people have to get a decent shake or else, no matter how much responsibility they take for themselves, not everyone who wants to get out can.



If you look at pretty much all the individuals that escaped the ghetto lifestyle of poverty, you will find they all seem to have something in common: they all have low time preferences. They may be of differing overall intelligence levels, different race, religion, etc, but they all have that one thing in common (except, of course, those that escape through some lucky occurrence like winning the lottery or becoming a famous artist or sports star or something, but that is irrelevant).

They worked really hard and smart. They overcame odds that many people cannot. But that's not solely because they chose to invest in lifestyles with low time preferences.

[siva_chair]

That sprinter example demonstrates, in my mind, the inanity of thinking pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is all it takes.

No, it doesn't. The difference between an amputee that runs marathons and one in the same situation that does not is that the former disciplined themselves to do it and the latter resigned themselves to their handicap. This is really no different than someone who takes it upon themselves to escape poverty through discipline and right living and those that resign themselves to perpetual poverty by choosing to resign themselves to that fate.

You're right and wrong. In poorer communities, group dynamics are especially important. Sure, they shouldn't be and all that, but that is how those communities have survived so far. It's a form of unionization. These choices for betterment don't occur to people in isolation. They have to be seen as possible and desirable within the framework of the community for them to be chosen by more than a handful of people.

And as long as people start resigning themselves to that particular collective (read: that particular lifestyle), they will be in poverty. Subsidizing this at the expense of others not only is unethical in it's own right, but it also does the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Namely, lift people out of poverty. It transfers the responsibility from the individual to "society." It is no longer the individual's problem, it is "society's," it is no longer because of the individual's lifestyle choices, it is because "society" has imposed that environment on them.

Look, if you view American history, you will see many groups of people that came here in absolute poverty, were discriminated against, and they still managed to uplift themselves out of that situation. And this was before welfare and the like. It has to do with the fact that those individuals came from a cultural background that stressed independence and was generally more conducive to a low time preference lifestyle.

At no point was I advocating welfare, I don't think. We subsidize welfare because we are too cowardly to accept the fact that the educational system is fusty walrus!ed, especially in poorer communities. That resource allocation is skewed to propagation of desirable suburbia. Because the healthcare system's broken and traps sick people in a downward spiral especially if you're poor from which there is no pulling up by the bootstraps. Because poorer areas have no grocery stores. Because community outreach towards poorer sections looks down on them and implicitly says look at us, aren't we benevolent? This "we" are propagating said lifestyles because accepting and then fixing a chronic issue takes more time and money than I suspect we have political will for.

The government throwing money at it isn't going to help anything. In fact, the government involved in any of this usually leads to worse situations. If one looks at the effects that government has on the education system, on healthcare, on urban development and planning, one begins to see a pattern of inefficiency and counterproductive actions.


Sure. It's a factor. I've never denied that. Okay. Most of my research these days has to do with PTSD so I'll use that. This person I interviewed, perfectly nice, fairly responsible guy, Hispanic, signed up for the military because he wanted to go to college afterwards. Comes home with PTSD but the VA'll only rate him 10%. He's trying to get it higher but we'll see. He can't get a regular well paying job. So he works retail. He's barely above the poverty line. He's in school. He can't concentrate. He's failing classes. He used to be a decent student, never good but never bad. He'll never be a psychologist. He's trying though. Family's from Camden. It's not that he isn't trying. Between the VA and himself, he can't. Now, I'm not arguing that this is how all cases are but they aren't some sort of myth.

And I truly feel for those that suffer the collateral damage from the state's senseless wars, but if he keeps a positive attitude and doesn't fall victim to drug and alcohol abuse and other self-destructive things, he will improve his lot in life. Will he ever be some rich upperclass CEO or something? Probably not, but he CAN escape perpetual poverty and unemployment, and he will if he keeps with the self-discipline. And I wish him the best of luck.

But none of this really takes away my point.

I teach kids that come from all sorts of backgrounds. They all want to make it, be affluent, all that. But if you look at where they were schooled, there's a huge difference in how they think. Most of them can't comprehend the fact that I have to have them unlearn a decade of schoolwork so they can adjust to the new paradigm. It's not that they aren't trying. Some will manage, some won't. They've all made similar time preferences but those mean different things across the board. Simply choosing to invest in one's future does not mean much. You've got to have the right tools, aptitude, luck and so many other things. I think it's simplistic to say individual responsibility, individual responsibility, bootstraps.

This sounds like the abysmal failure that is public education. We could go into all that, but that is a whole other can of worms as well.

Part of individual responsibility is educating yourself. Education is not solely dependent on the public school system (in fact I'd say that does plenty to hinder people's education. A fact that it appears you see to some degree when you say you have to "unlearn a decade of schoolwork").

Education.

I agree. So let's look at the things that stand in the way of a quality education. I can think of one really big one.

Urban planning.

What should be done about this?

Healthcare, for starters.

What should be done about this? What are the factors that make good healthcare inaccessible to poor people?

There's so many obstacles in people's paths. I believe that people have to get a decent shake or else, no matter how much responsibility they take for themselves, not everyone who wants to get out can.

I agree, there are many obstacles. But the thing that inevitably makes those obstacles prevent people from getting out, is their own will and what lifestyle they choose to adopt.

They worked really hard and smart. They overcame odds that many people cannot. But that's not solely because they chose to invest in lifestyles with low time preferences.

Yes it is. That is how they got smart and worked really hard; they invested in a lifestyle that was conducive to those kinds of things. The one's that "cannot" inevitably "will not."

One of my favorite examples to illustrate this is Malcom X. Here is a guy who's father had died and his mother had been committed to a mental hospital. Pretty horrible background. After living in various foster homes, he became involved in a life of crime. While in prison he educated himself and inevitably took control of his own responsibility and life. By the end of his life, he preached individual responsibility and clean living. He told blacks that this was the only way they were going to lift themselves out of poverty, because whitey sure as hell wasn't going to do it for them. He was right about that, and he still is.

[ATC]

No, it doesn't. The difference between an amputee that runs marathons and one in the same situation that does not is that the former disciplined themselves to do it and the latter resigned themselves to their handicap. This is really no different than someone who takes it upon themselves to escape poverty through discipline and right living and those that resign themselves to perpetual poverty by choosing to resign themselves to that fate.

The prohibitiveness of the high opportunity cost and the fact that discipline and right living aren't equivalent to uplift are what I'd counter that with. Discipline and right living are certainly preferable to indiscipline and bad living but to say that this always has commensurate rewards is to claim life is inherently fair, which it isn't.


And as long as people start resigning themselves to that particular collective (read: that particular lifestyle), they will be in poverty. Subsidizing this at the expense of others not only is unethical in it's own right, but it also does the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Namely, lift people out of poverty. It transfers the responsibility from the individual to "society." It is no longer the individual's problem, it is "society's," it is no longer because of the individual's lifestyle choices, it is because "society" has imposed that environment on them.

Right. Agreed in theory. But in practice, marginalized groups don't work that way and it's not because they're playing the victims, but because there isn't a system in place to offer an alternative. What seems obvious to you isn't obvious to someone who has no avenue for understanding said choice. You say go to school, and I say where is the school. You say find it and I say how does a homeless person find said information, how does he know where to look unless he's been trained. Subsidizing societal goods is one of the functions of government. It always has been. At its barest, government prints money and maintains a standing army, which is subsidizing the cost of doing so privately, while also being more efficient/providing higher bargaining power. If you can agree with that, you can't disagree with subsidizing in theory. Should poverty uplift be subsidized? There's an argument against it, but it isn't that people should not be subsidized at the expense of other people, because without that, governments are unnecessary.

You misunderstand what I mean by collective. It's a form of unionization in response to an overbearing social stress. You're addressing what I consider an almost extraneous part of what I said. It's not resignation oh we're poor and we'll never be anything else but we can't have a shot without our community because that's the only place we have a voice. There's deeper societal issues that are at the root of that. You don't break people out of that mindset by saying it's a self-defeating behavior because until such point as it is unnecessary, it's a necessary behavior. You uplift until said point where individuals have the freedom to bargain on their own. And it isn't even such a high bar.


Look, if you view American history, you will see many groups of people that came here in absolute poverty, were discriminated against, and they still managed to uplift themselves out of that situation. And this was before welfare and the like. It has to do with the fact that those individuals came from a cultural background that stressed independence and was generally more conducive to a low time preference lifestyle.

That has plenty to do with the history of labor movements and the working class in America. If the Lithuanians and Slavs didn't show up, the Irish would still be an underclass in industrial America. If the African Americans didn't show up, what we call white people today would be marginalized. They uplifted themselves by forming collectives and using their bargaining power to gain freedoms for themselves. The collective subsidized low time preference lifestyles for its members. You're rejigging history to seem as if the other marginalized groups were somehow more noble.


The government throwing money at it isn't going to help anything. In fact, the government involved in any of this usually leads to worse situations. If one looks at the effects that government has on the education system, on healthcare, on urban development and planning, one begins to see a pattern of inefficiency and counterproductive actions.

Throwing money isn't the best solution. Agreed. I don't agree that government involvement leads to worse situations but stupid government involvement/short-term government involvement to score political points certainly. Yes, there is a pattern.


But none of this really takes away my point.
You wanted me to show you it's not a myth that individuals are weighed down by extraneous factors that will not let them move upward socially. That specific point is addressed. It doesn't take away from a different point of yours but the show me one and I'll show you a myth thing, that's taken away. I'm just saying it's simplistic to presume that the system is built in a way that simple personal responsibility will provide uplift. This man is not going to get up past the poverty line unless he wins the Lotto or something. He can't hold down a steady job. Minimum wage is designed to keep you at the same level and provide barely enough to survive. At least, in America. Canada's a little better for it, or BC is anyway.


This sounds like the abysmal failure that is public education. We could go into all that, but that is a whole other can of worms as well.

Can't address the improbability of uplift without addressing education. I presume that education is the facilitator so it's got to be addressed. The system's broken. According to NAAL and NSEA? in 2003, there's less than 50% of college graduates of four year programs who have basic prose, d0cument and quantitative literacy. That's shocking. Sure, there's problems with the study but really, anything less than 100% is inadequate and an inefficient use of our resources. See also:Spellings Report.


Part of individual responsibility is educating yourself. Education is not solely dependent on the public school system (in fact I'd say that does plenty to hinder people's education. A fact that it appears you see to some degree when you say you have to "unlearn a decade of schoolwork").

This myth of rugged individuality has no basis in fact. Your learning is best achieved in an environment that provides you the adequate tools and DIY does not. It's arrogant to suppose that. The public school system is broken. I find myself having to make kids unlearn plenty and relearn critical thinking but to suggest that they'll learn it all by themselves if they wanted is foolish. First off, they wouldn't know where or how to start or how to structure their learning. The public school and university system doesn't do a good job either but the fact that they have structure is at least a starting point.


What should be done about this? What are the factors that make good healthcare inaccessible to poor people?

For one, insurance. This is where government can make a significant difference. I fully support single-payer and taking over the health insurance industry, eliminating the middleman and such. I know entire families who will never get out of a cycle of poverty because of their healthcare costs. Things like choice etc. have solutions within this. There's a group in Seattle that did some interesting things with this if you want to take a more decentralized attitude towards this issue. Urban planning ties in closely to healthcare. The choices you have towards a healthy lifestyle in a poor neighborhood=slim to none. I moved out of an area in Newark simply because there were no grocery stores that sold non-canned food for twenty one blocks. The factors that make good healthcare difficult to provide are far too numerous to list here.


I agree, there are many obstacles. But the thing that inevitably makes those obstacles prevent people from getting out, is their own will and what lifestyle they choose to adopt.

And I repeat, without the tools and the knowhow and the infrastructure, means to success rather than just mere access (which itself is debatable). will means very little.


One of my favorite examples to illustrate this is Malcom X. Here is a guy who's father had died and his mother had been committed to a mental hospital. Pretty horrible background. After living in various foster homes, he became involved in a life of crime. While in prison he educated himself and inevitably took control of his own responsibility and life. By the end of his life, he preached individual responsibility and clean living. He told blacks that this was the only way they were going to lift themselves out of poverty, because whitey sure as hell wasn't going to do it for them. He was right about that, and he still is.

Agreed. And what makes you think black folk aren't trying? It's an act of gross misrepresentation to say lack of responsibility is endemic to the black community or that black families preach anything but those things. That's some Cosby poop. Did he really preach individual responsibility in the sense you're espousing or did he preach it within the framework of a community? From my understanding of him, which is mostly from a work that contrasted him with Abbott, he does not prove your case.

[siva_chair]

The prohibitiveness of the high opportunity cost and the fact that discipline and right living aren't equivalent to uplift are what I'd counter that with. Discipline and right living are certainly preferable to indiscipline and bad living but to say that this always has commensurate rewards is to claim life is inherently fair, which it isn't.

No one said life is inherently fair, nor did anyone say that rewards would all be commensurate. But the fact is, the only thing causing perpetual poverty and unemployment is the individual's time preference.

Right. Agreed in theory. But in practice, marginalized groups don't work that way and it's not because they're playing the victims, but because there isn't a system in place to offer an alternative.

No, it doesn't work because the system in place provides great incentives for them to play the victim.

What seems obvious to you isn't obvious to someone who has no avenue for understanding said choice. You say go to school, and I say where is the school... Subsidizing societal goods is one of the functions of government.

No, it isn't. Government has no business and absolutely NO justification taking goods from one section of the population to subsidize another. You are essentially saying it is ok for the government to steal. It's not.

It always has been. At its barest, government prints money and maintains a standing army, which is subsidizing the cost of doing so privately, while also being more efficient/providing higher bargaining power.

Ha! The government does those things efficient? Are you ****ing joking?

If you can agree with that, you can't disagree with subsidizing in theory...There's an argument against it, but it isn't that people should not be subsidized at the expense of other people, because without that, governments are unnecessary.

This little phrase is all you need.

You misunderstand what I mean by collective. It's a form of unionization in response to an overbearing social stress. You're addressing what I consider an almost extraneous part of what I said. It's not resignation oh we're poor and we'll never be anything else but we can't have a shot without our community because that's the only place we have a voice. There's deeper societal issues that are at the root of that. You don't break people out of that mindset by saying it's a self-defeating behavior because until such point as it is unnecessary, it's a necessary behavior. You uplift until said point where individuals have the freedom to bargain on their own. And it isn't even such a high bar.

Once again, you are placing this blame on something external like "society." It's always "society's" pressure, it's always "society's" fault. This is the self-defeating collective mindset that is root cause of all this. It is in fact a resignation. I know you don't want to hear that, but it is. It is absolutely not a necessary behavior, as evidence by the fact that countless individuals have escaped the same grim situations on their own.

That has plenty to do with the history of labor movements and the working class in America. If the Lithuanians and Slavs didn't show up, the Irish would still be an underclass in industrial America... They uplifted themselves by forming collectives and using their bargaining power to gain freedoms for themselves. The collective subsidized low time preference lifestyles for its members. You're rejigging history to seem as if the other marginalized groups were somehow more noble.

No, it has everything to do with the particular culture's time preference to begin with. The Russian Jews that came to NY in the earlier part of the 20th century were arguably poorer than the Irish, and yet they managed to escape the poverty because of their work ethic and attitude towards time preference. Some cultures and lifestyles are more conducive to that than others. There are many examples of this, why some ethnic groups climbed out of poverty faster than others. It wasn't because of lack of prejudice either.

Throwing money isn't the best solution. Agreed. I don't agree that government involvement leads to worse situations but stupid government involvement/short-term government involvement to score political points certainly.

Government involvement introduces bureaucratic bullpoop that ends up marginalizing people even further. Not only that, it is extremely costly, and tends to be horribly inefficient. I have no problem with private charity groups helping impovershed people out, but I do have a problem with government stealing money and taking it upon themselves to provide a really crappy plan that usually does more harm than good.

You wanted me to show you it's not a myth that individuals are weighed down by extraneous factors that will not let them move upward socially... I'm just saying it's simplistic to presume that the system is built in a way that simple personal responsibility will provide uplift. This man is not going to get up past the poverty line unless he wins the Lotto or something. He can't hold down a steady job. Minimum wage is designed to keep you at the same level and provide barely enough to survive.

No, it didn't show me it's not a myth. You simply outlined an individual that has lots of obstacles to overcome. It's really sad that you don't have that much faith in him. Who's creating external disincentives now? If he cannot hold down a steady job, chances are it is due to a particular lifestyle choice. Does he drink? Do drugs? Is he tardy frequently?

Minimum wage harms the poor far more than it helps them. This is pretty well d0cumented.

Can't address the improbability of uplift without addressing education. I presume that education is the facilitator so it's got to be addressed. The system's broken... Sure, there's problems with the study but really, anything less than 100% is inadequate and an inefficient use of our resources. See also:Spellings Report.

If you are telling me government subsidized education sucks and is terribly inefficient, you will hear no argument from me. It seems very clear to me that the answer to this is obviously not more government involvement.

This myth of rugged individuality has no basis in fact.

Bullpoop. Plenty of people have done it.

Your learning is best achieved in an environment that provides you the adequate tools and DIY does not. It's arrogant to suppose that.

You mean an environment like prison? Once again, you are externalizing all these things. People become educated through their own discipline. Even people who go to top notch schools sometimes do not learn crap, because they have no discipline and no desire to. The environment is only as effective as the individual interacting with it, and a person chooses how they interact with their environment. Individual diversity is the universal rule.

The public school system is broken. I find myself having to make kids unlearn plenty and relearn critical thinking but to suggest that they'll learn it all by themselves if they wanted is foolish....The public school and university system doesn't do a good job either but the fact that they have structure is at least a starting point.

Yes public education is bankrupt. This is another example of how the state's goal of stamping out diversity among individuals and groups has lead to yet another clusterfusty walrus!.

For one, insurance. This is where government can make a significant difference. I fully support single-payer and taking over the health insurance industry, eliminating the middleman and such. I know entire families who will never get out of a cycle of poverty because of their healthcare costs. Things like choice etc. have solutions within this.... The factors that make good healthcare difficult to provide are far too numerous to list here.

Wait, you acknowlege the problem is rooted in a government institution (public education, urban planning, high healthcare costs, etc) and then you call for MORE government?

You know, Einstein defined insanity as: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


And I repeat, without the tools and the knowhow and the infrastructure, means to success rather than just mere access (which itself is debatable). will means very little.

The tools and the knowhow are based in their will and discipline to acquire them.

Agreed. And what makes you think black folk aren't trying?

Some of them are. Those are the ones that are bettering their environment and situation.

It's an act of gross misrepresentation to say lack of responsibility is endemic to the black community or that black families preach anything but those things.

For the large part, the black family has been destroyed by the adoption of a particular ghetto lifestyle (one that certainly has a very high time preference).

That's some Cosby poop. Did he really preach individual responsibility in the sense you're espousing or did he preach it within the framework of a community? From my understanding of him, which is mostly from a work that contrasted him with Abbott, he does not prove your case.

His message was specifically concerned with the black community, but what he preached is applicable to anyone living in a crappy environment. The fact is, when individuals adopt this responsibility, it has a tendency to transform the environment around them. Remember, people are individuals, not groups, so change must start with the individual.

And you can say it is some "Cosby poop," but that doesn't stop it from being correct. Sometimes you have to swallow some hard medicine.

[ATC]

No, it doesn't work because the system in place provides great incentives for them to play the victim.

Great incentives to not progress, yes. Are they just playing the victim? I don't agree.


No, it isn't. Government has no business and absolutely NO justification taking goods from one section of the population to subsidize another. You are essentially saying it is ok for the government to steal. It's not.

Define steal. In the strictest sense, yes, but if you're going that far, governments and laws are both immoral and should be outlawed.



Ha! The government does those things efficient? Are you ****ing joking?

Function of government. Efficiency in this case is theoretical. Government currency is more efficient than millions of private mints, yes/no? At its barest, government maintains an army and prints money. It does so because it is more efficient than the alternative.


This little phrase is all you need.

Ahh, that's where you're coming from.


Once again, you are placing this blame on something external like "society." It's always "society's" pressure, it's always "society's" fault. This is the self-defeating collective mindset that is root cause of all this. It is in fact a resignation. I know you don't want to hear that, but it is. It is absolutely not a necessary behavior, as evidence by the fact that countless individuals have escaped the same grim situations on their own.

I know you don't want to hear that not all options are open to all people at all times but that is true. What you call not a necessary behavior is the only recourse for large sections of the marginalized.


No, it has everything to do with the particular culture's time preference to begin with. The Russian Jews that came to NY in the earlier part of the 20th century were arguably poorer than the Irish, and yet they managed to escape the poverty because of their work ethic and attitude towards time preference. Some cultures and lifestyles are more conducive to that than others. There are many examples of this, why some ethnic groups climbed out of poverty faster than others. It wasn't because of lack of prejudice either.

You're using an outlier to illustrate your point (re: organized labor). Also, Russian Jews did not climb out of poverty by being ruggedly individual. They were able to efficiently mine the opportunities afforded them by their group behavior. If anything, they're still strongly interested in group behavior. I'll say it again and again, among the poor, group uplift/resolve for uplift is many times more effective than individual.


Government involvement introduces bureaucratic bullpoop that ends up marginalizing people even further. Not only that, it is extremely costly, and tends to be horribly inefficient. I have no problem with private charity groups helping impovershed people out, but I do have a problem with government stealing money and taking it upon themselves to provide a really crappy plan that usually does more harm than good.

Government is inefficient and needs to be cleaned up. Agreed. Not my point though. Government has scale on its side, which is why it is the best vehicle for change when properly used. Will it be? I don't know. I'm not crossing my fingers for it. If you believe in taxation, then you've implicitly resigned yourself to that function of government. How much and How will it be used are separate questions that you negotiate within.


No, it didn't show me it's not a myth. You simply outlined an individual that has lots of obstacles to overcome. It's really sad that you don't have that much faith in him. Who's creating external disincentives now? If he cannot hold down a steady job, chances are it is due to a particular lifestyle choice. Does he drink? Do drugs? Is he tardy frequently?

Haha. Yes. Of course it's a question of my lack of faith than the fact that, realistically, he cannot. He's not tardy, or least he has made every appointment with me. Does not do drugs. Drinks socially. Finds himself emotional for no discernible reason, angry. Re-entry level jobs typically don't like angry men and the VA doesn't want to give him a 100% disability.

You said that it was a myth that every case cannot be solved by rugged individuality and that external disincentives mean something. You said I couldn't show you even one person. I say it's not a myth and give you an example. You have too much faith in the ability of individual responsibility to uplift the poor when they're hounded by factors as diverse as health insurance, credit, past bad choices that are a permanent stain no matter what they do, crime, etc.


Minimum wage harms the poor far more than it helps them. This is pretty well d0cumented.

Not arguing there. However, I will take issue with that being used by employers to drive down wages.


If you are telling me government subsidized education sucks and is terribly inefficient, you will hear no argument from me. It seems very clear to me that the answer to this is obviously not more government involvement.

You want to abolish public schools? There's a whole wack of reasons that's problematic and counterproductive.


Bullpoop. Plenty of people have done it.

Plenty does not a rule make.

You mean an environment like prison? Once again, you are externalizing all these things. People become educated through their own discipline. Even people who go to top notch schools sometimes do not learn crap, because they have no discipline and no desire to. The environment is only as effective as the individual interacting with it, and a person chooses how they interact with their environment. Individual diversity is the universal rule.


You're misrepresenting what I said by implying that I'm saying that discipline is less of a value and that education is a wholly external factor. Individual diversity etc sure. Disciplined people do not necessary become well-educated people. There's questions of access, framework and assessment involved. Universities in North America don't foster enough learning either. Not because they're full of people that choose to negatively interact with their environment but because their environment is not geared to their learning. Again, see Spellings report and the reaction to it. These are not problems limited to public and private schools but due to a flawed teaching and learning philosophy.


Yes public education is bankrupt. This is another example of how the state's goal of stamping out diversity among individuals and groups has lead to yet another clusterfusty walrus!.

So's private education. Different degree but even private schools are geared to producing kids that barely exceed a low bar.


Wait, you acknowlege the problem is rooted in a government institution (public education, urban planning, high healthcare costs, etc) and then you call for MORE government?

You know, Einstein defined insanity as: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Less inefficient government. This question you seem to care about regarding the size of government I see as completely irrelevant. Does government work re: providing basic needs of its citizens (healthcare is a right in my view) You've got government right now that shuffles its responsibilities off on to health insurance companies that are essentially just middlemen that provide no service. Why is that even necessary? They're nominally beholden to the government and the public good but it isn't a question of size, it's one of efficiency.

You're also demonizing public works while at the same time not acknowledging that private works don't have the same scale or scope and have not yet been rolled out to the level government works have. The problems with our cities cannot be fixed through mere private enterprise. You forget that private enterprise, for good or evil, exists within the framework of regulations set by government. Unless you abolish government, your concerns aren't useful. Who's in favor of doing the same thing over and over? It's a different approach. Just because there's government in the title doesn't mean that it's being utilized in the same way.

Confucius say: You throw baby out with bathwater, ignoring what came to produce baby. Also, cute Einstein reference.


The tools and the knowhow are based in their will and discipline to acquire them.

False.


His message was specifically concerned with the black community, but what he preached is applicable to anyone living in a crappy environment. The fact is, when individuals adopt this responsibility, it has a tendency to transform the environment around them. Remember, people are individuals, not groups, so change must start with the individual.

And you can say it is some "Cosby poop," but that doesn't stop it from being correct. Sometimes you have to swallow some hard medicine.

When I say Cosby poop, I don't mean that it has no relevance. I mean that it's the sort of thing white folks use to talk down to black folks.

[siva_chair]

Great incentives to not progress, yes. Are they just playing the victim? I don't agree.

Yes, often times they are playing the victim. Sorry to say, but it's true. If a poor community wishes to better itself, it has to start adopting a lower time preference. All the subsidies in the world will not solve the problem for them.

Define steal. In the strictest sense, yes, but if you're going that far, governments and laws are both immoral and should be outlawed.

No, laws are not necessarily immoral, but the state is.


Function of government. Efficiency in this case is theoretical. Government currency is more efficient than millions of private mints, yes/no?

No. Especially considering it's tendency to inflate and devalue it. A monopoly on the money supply is no better than any other monopoly.

At its barest, government maintains an army and prints money. It does so because it is more efficient than the alternative.

False. It does so because it can have a monopoly on force.

Ahh, that's where you're coming from.

If it isn't clear, I am a market anarchist.

I know you don't want to hear that not all options are open to all people at all times but that is true. What you call not a necessary behavior is the only recourse for large sections of the marginalized.

Self improvement is always an option. Individual betterment is always available in some form or another. It may take discipline and a lot of commitment, but no one ever said it is always going to be a cake walk.

Also, I never said that all options are open to all at all times. I can't just up and be a qualified astronaut tomorrow, it would take lots of self-discipline to reach that goal.

You're using an outlier to illustrate your point (re: organized labor). Also, Russian Jews did not climb out of poverty by being ruggedly individual. They were able to efficiently mine the opportunities afforded them by their group behavior. If anything, they're still strongly interested in group behavior. I'll say it again and again, among the poor, group uplift/resolve for uplift is many times more effective than individual.

The Russian Jews example demonstrates the effects of respective cultural time preferences. But the same holds true for individual time-preferences.

To take blacks for sake of example. They seem to, as a culture (not as a race), hold a very high time preference. The "ghetto lifestyle" perpetuates itself through this. The black community, if it ever wishes to escape poverty, HAS to take responsibility for itself and change it's ways or else it will never escape, no matter how many "development plans" or how much money is pumped into their schools and communities. Malcolm X recognized this, and that is why he is very admirable to me. But all this starts with the INDIVIDUAL, as communities are made up of individuals. "Society" isn't some thinking, acting entity that can make decisions, but individuals are.

Government is inefficient and needs to be cleaned up. Agreed. Not my point though. Government has scale on its side, which is why it is the best vehicle for change when properly used. Will it be? I don't know. I'm not crossing my fingers for it. If you believe in taxation, then you've implicitly resigned yourself to that function of government. How much and How will it be used are separate questions that you negotiate within.

I don't believe in taxation, because taxation is simply legalized theft.

The government has tendency to hurt the poor far more than it ever helps them. All government programs that are designed to provide blanket help or assistance to "underprivileged" minorities inevitably ends up doing them harm. It is pretty much like ****ing clockwork.

Haha. Yes. Of course it's a question of my lack of faith than the fact that, realistically, he cannot. He's not tardy, or least he has made every appointment with me. Does not do drugs. Drinks socially. Finds himself emotional for no discernible reason, angry. Re-entry level jobs typically don't like angry men and the VA doesn't want to give him a 100% disability.

Then he has to work on his anger and controlling his emotions. Self-improvement.

You said that it was a myth that every case cannot be solved by rugged individuality and that external disincentives mean something. You said I couldn't show you even one person. I say it's not a myth and give you an example. You have too much faith in the ability of individual responsibility to uplift the poor when they're hounded by factors as diverse as health insurance, credit, past bad choices that are a permanent stain no matter what they do, crime, etc.

I have faith because I have seen people rise out of some of the most horribly imaginable situations to a better life. Don't tell me that it is not possible. It may be a very long hard road for some people, but with enough will it is absolutely possible.

Not arguing there. However, I will take issue with that being used by employers to drive down wages.

Except a minimum wage isn't needed for wages to rise. All minimum wages do is bar certain people from unskilled labor jobs. This hurts the uneducated poor.

You want to abolish public schools? There's a whole wack of reasons that's problematic and counterproductive.

Of course I do. They are inefficient, wasteful, money pits, that have abysmal performance outputs, are funded by theft, and basically amount to detention centers for children (in the instance of pre-secondary institutions).

Plenty does not a rule make.

The fact that people have come from the most terrible of backgrounds and succeeded by their own willpower proves that it is possible.

You're misrepresenting what I said by implying that I'm saying that discipline is less of a value and that education is a wholly external factor. Individual diversity etc sure. Disciplined people do not necessary become well-educated people. There's questions of access, framework and assessment involved. Universities in North America don't foster enough learning either. Not because they're full of people that choose to negatively interact with their environment but because their environment is not geared to their learning. Again, see Spellings report and the reaction to it. These are not problems limited to public and private schools but due to a flawed teaching and learning philosophy.

You are taking a very limited view of education. People learn and are educated their whole lives. You are speaking of education only in the formal sense. Once again, the flawed teaching and learning philosophy stems from the state's monopoly on the formal education system. There is a reason that private schools consistently outperform public schools. Private schools are not bound by the orthodoxy and bureaucratic bullshit that comes along with the state (central planning).

So's private education. Different degree but even private schools are geared to producing kids that barely exceed a low bar.

Private education has far more successful results than public education. Too bad the private sector is stifled and marginalized by the state monopoly on education.

Less inefficient government. This question you seem to care about regarding the size of government I see as completely irrelevant. Does government work re: providing basic needs of its citizens (healthcare is a right in my view) You've got government right now that shuffles its responsibilities off on to health insurance companies that are essentially just middlemen that provide no service. Why is that even necessary? They're nominally beholden to the government and the public good but it isn't a question of size, it's one of efficiency.

Government is inherently inefficient. The only way to get rid of inefficiency is to get rid of government (meaning the state).

And you've got it wrong. It is the government that is the middle man in the healthcare sector. The government has set up basically what amounts to a healthcare cartel or a oligopoly, and that is why the price of healthcare is unaffordable to so many.

You're also demonizing public works while at the same time not acknowledging that private works don't have the same scale or scope and have not yet been rolled out to the level government works have.

That is because the government creates huge disincentives for the private sector in many many things. A coercive monopolist doesn't tend to give up his power very easily.

The problems with our cities cannot be fixed through mere private enterprise. You forget that private enterprise, for good or evil, exists within the framework of regulations set by government. Unless you abolish government, your concerns aren't useful. Who's in favor of doing the same thing over and over? It's a different approach. Just because there's government in the title doesn't mean that it's being utilized in the same way.

Same method of funding (unilateral expropriation), same lack of price mechanism (which means you can forget about rational resource allocation). It's the same tune in a different key.

Confucius say: You throw baby out with bathwater, ignoring what came to produce baby. Also, cute Einstein reference.

Confucius say: You ignore that the state isn't necessary to produce baby.

False.

Fact.

When I say Cosby poop, I don't mean that it has no relevance. I mean that it's the sort of thing white folks use to talk down to black folks.

The color of someone's skin has no bearing on whether they are speaking the truth or not.

[ATC]

Yes, often times they are playing the victim. Sorry to say, but it's true. If a poor community wishes to better itself, it has to start adopting a lower time preference. All the subsidies in the world will not solve the problem for them.

You make it seem like I'm saying subsidies are the only tool. Sometimes they are. Doesn't mean there isn't victimization at all.


No. Especially considering it's tendency to inflate and devalue it. A monopoly on the money supply is no better than any other monopoly.

Abolish the Fed? I've heard some interesting arguments for it.


False. It does so because it can have a monopoly on force.

Because a monopoly on force is more efficient than the alternative.


The Russian Jews example demonstrates the effects of respective cultural time preferences. But the same holds true for individual time-preferences.

To take blacks for sake of example. They seem to, as a culture (not as a race), hold a very high time preference. The "ghetto lifestyle" perpetuates itself through this. The black community, if it ever wishes to escape poverty, HAS to take responsibility for itself and change it's ways or else it will never escape, no matter how many "development plans" or how much money is pumped into their schools and communities. Malcolm X recognized this, and that is why he is very admirable to me. But all this starts with the INDIVIDUAL, as communities are made up of individuals. "Society" isn't some thinking, acting entity that can make decisions, but individuals are.

I've never advocated throwing money at a problem. However, when you look at the lower rungs of society, you have to understand that the time preference you speak of involves harnessing the power of the group. Some groups have managed to effectively harness it for various reasons. Others haven't but to claim that individual uplift is the only way forward is not true. They are investing in the power of the group to make up for their lack of power. Lobbying for example as a group to build a library instead of choosing solely to go to one twenty miles away. Individuals in a group, whether it's "society" or anyone else, have decision making abilities individuals don't.


Then he has to work on his anger and controlling his emotions. Self-improvement.

Wow. You say it like it's this rational, logical path, when it isn't.


I have faith because I have seen people rise out of some of the most horribly imaginable situations to a better life. Don't tell me that it is not possible. It may be a very long hard road for some people, but with enough will it is absolutely possible.

Faith's well and good but the mechanisms must be in place to accelerate/make the journey possible.


Except a minimum wage isn't needed for wages to rise. All minimum wages do is bar certain people from unskilled labor jobs. This hurts the uneducated poor.

You're addressing straw men. I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that I agree except when it is used by employers to drive down wages.


You are taking a very limited view of education. People learn and are educated their whole lives. You are speaking of education only in the formal sense. Once again, the flawed teaching and learning philosophy stems from the state's monopoly on the formal education system. There is a reason that private schools consistently outperform public schools. Private schools are not bound by the orthodoxy and bureaucratic bullpoop that comes along with the state (central planning).


Private schools, while they perform better in some regards, also have orthodoxy and bureaucratic bullpoop. They are, regardless of what you say, geared to produce individuals who will be attractive to institutions of higher learning. This means they can and do skimp on providing the sort of education that allows them to take advantage of higher learning, instead choosing to simply get them in the door easier.


Private education has far more successful results than public education. Too bad the private sector is stifled and marginalized by the state monopoly on education.

I'm currently reading about Alverno College, a small Wisconsin women's Catholic college that has some interesting ideas.



And you've got it wrong. It is the government that is the middle man in the healthcare sector. The government has set up basically what amounts to a healthcare cartel or a oligopoly, and that is why the price of healthcare is unaffordable to so many.

So dismantle it. I'm on your side there.


Confucius say: You ignore that the state isn't necessary to produce baby.

Tao say:Mixed metaphors are cute and misunderstand why they used to begin with.



Fact.


No fact.


The color of someone's skin has no bearing on whether they are speaking the truth or not.

The nature of the discourse has bearing on the effectiveness of the discourse.

[siva_chair]

You make it seem like I'm saying subsidies are the only tool. Sometimes they are. Doesn't mean there isn't victimization at all.

What other ways besides subsidies can the government possibly do anything?

Abolish the Fed? I've heard some interesting arguments for it.

Absolutely.

Because a monopoly on force is more efficient than the alternative.

Disagree. It suffers from the same problems of calculation that all monopolies (and socialist policies as well) suffer from.

I've never advocated throwing money at a problem. However, when you look at the lower rungs of society, you have to understand that the time preference you speak of involves harnessing the power of the group. Some groups have managed to effectively harness it for various reasons. Others haven't but to claim that individual uplift is the only way forward is not true. They are investing in the power of the group to make up for their lack of power. Lobbying for example as a group to build a library instead of choosing solely to go to one twenty miles away. Individuals in a group, whether it's "society" or anyone else, have decision making abilities individuals don't.

False. Decisions are always made by individuals. It may be one individual, or it maybe 1,000,000, but it is always done by individuals. The only way for an individual to uplift themselves is to do it individually. He cannot rely on his group to do it for him, particularly when that group perpetuates it's own impoverishment through a high time preference. If an individual resigns himself to a group mentality that fosters that lifestyle, they are going to suffer that fate. This isn't very hard to see. The individuals who have freed themselves from the ghetto are the ones that have rejected the ghetto lifestyle (or got lucky and became rappers or sports stars, but that is another story and situation).

Wow. You say it like it's this rational, logical path, when it isn't.

Of course it is a rational and logical path. It sounds to me like succumbing to the irrationality of emotions is what the major obstacle is for this cat. The idea is to overcome the obstacle, not submit to it.

Faith's well and good but the mechanisms must be in place to accelerate/make the journey possible.

The mechanism is self-discipline, will, and the proper lifestyle choices.

You're addressing straw men. I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that I agree except when it is used by employers to drive down wages.

The absence of the minimum wage driving down wages?

Private schools, while they perform better in some regards, also have orthodoxy and bureaucratic bullpoop. They are, regardless of what you say, geared to produce individuals who will be attractive to institutions of higher learning. This means they can and do skimp on providing the sort of education that allows them to take advantage of higher learning, instead choosing to simply get them in the door easier.

Private schools tend to outperform public schools in all academic areas. They produce individuals who are attractive to institutions of higher learning because they efficiently teach the prerequisites better than public schools.

I'm currently reading about Alverno College, a small Wisconsin women's Catholic college that has some interesting ideas.

And that is awesome. It is one of the reasons I think religion still can play a valuable and an important role in today's society.

Either way, these interesting ideas, whatever they may be, could not have really come about in a public institution, could they have? This is why private institutions are better. Not only do they by necessity strive for efficiency (they would fail if they didn't), they also are much more conducive and adaptable to creative solutions to obstacles and problems in education. This tends to produce a higher quality of education. Now imagine if we had a completely private educational system with a great diversity of educational institutions competing with one another.

So dismantle it. I'm on your side there.

Good to know.

Tao say:Mixed metaphors are cute and misunderstand why they used to begin with.

Tao say:

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Tao is all about no government. :smoke:

No fact.

Affirmative fact.

The nature of the discourse has bearing on the effectiveness of the discourse.

But Cosby is correct. It would be correct if Cosby were saying it and it would be correct if the whitest individual alive were to say it.