White people...

[JurisDictum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zjj1PmJcRM

MTV did a White Privileage 101 video that is 45 minutes long and contains nothing controversial per se. It still gets a huge negative backlash. I can understand being bored or not giving a shit, but to actively get pissed at this video? I think that's a sign you got some entitlement issues.

Edit: I always skip ahead the commercials/introduction shit in the beginning of these things...unfortunately people tend to only watch that part of these videos, which is the crap marketing part.

[Daywolf]

I watched up to the staged part where the two guys walked out of the house and shook hands with the video making guy. Like wow, just so spontaneous and unrehearsed, eh? hehe. But anyway, through the beginning I just kept hearing white - white - white - white - white but never saw a single white person. How rasis is that when not even one white peep in the vid?!?




http://i.imgur.com/U6uG7t2.jpg

[Nihilist_santa]

Seriously MTV? haha . The guy who made that is an illegal immigrant Marxist. Completely unbiased view of "white privledge" right there.

[Swish]

MTV is still relevant?

[Pokesan]

white priviledge exists

[JurisDictum]

For those that don't want to watch it:

The big thing most White people seem to agree with, is that it's easier to get into college if you are Black or Latino than if you are White (or non Pacific-Islander Asian). Scholarships are getting very hard to find, so White people assume that its because all the Blacks and Latinos are getting them.

But the reality is that the majority of merit-based scholarships go to white people disproportionately (barely). There is no real evidence that anyone in their right mind would be born black instead of White for access to college.

If you bring up this fact -- white people act like you just said something personally negative about them. Or are somehow "biased," and there must be some other information that confirms to their beliefs that tells the real story of how minority kids are taking all the scholarships.

One of the first thing that suprised me when I went to college, is none of the poor kids had scholarships (besides a few football players). It was always the kids that had 2 professional parent's setting everything up for him that didn't have pay for their damn college. Most the poor kids don't know how to do any of that shit and end up paying the government thousands in interest on their loan (6% of the bottom quintile finishes their bachelor degree).

20 years later you'll hear one of those creamy motherfuckers talking about how they need to start talking about scholarships with their kids -- and the cycle continues.

There's a reason why Bernie's call for virtually free college is popular.

[Lune]

Quit looking at race and start looking at culture, which is what really drives success and failure. That's the major shortcoming behind the whole 'white privilege' meme, this video, and these posts. Judge someone by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. What you are describing are cultural attributes that are conducive to financial planning and educational attainment, not a systematic framework of oppression meant to keep whites in power and hold the brown man down.

I mean, let's start talking about Asian privilege. They do better than whites at all these things.

[AzzarTheGod]

Most the poor kids don't know how to do any of that shit and end up paying the government thousands in interest on their loan (6% of the bottom quintile finishes their bachelor degree).


There's a reason why Bernie's call for virtually free college is popular.

I won't be paying for some dead ass violent thug wannabe urban gangster youth to go to college.

White or not. I don't want violent elements around any Universities for my future sons and daughters. College is supposed to be a place of learning and enlightenment.

My state school was bad enough and I have a personal story to tell about it. Many personal stories. I could write a book, and I might sell the book to a publisher to be honest. I think I could take an active role in telling the other side of scholarships and free college and probably participate actively in stopping the push for free college.

Many many people slip through the cracks and are attending college for the wrong reasons. Free college would just increase violence on campus. Period.

I'm probably going to draw up an outline tonight. So thanks Juris if this actually comes out alright. I just need a good theme for the book and a good title, the stories and perspective and analysis I can offer (along with supporting research) would be enough to make it a captivating read.

Vote no on turning college into a 3rd world experience.

[Daywolf]

There's a reason why Bernie's call for virtually free college is popular.
Thanks for the tl;dw, yeah mtv stuff, but I watched a little. I figured it was a support Bernie message from the getgo, and one targeted to the younger adult population as it started off as. I still may watch it if I find time, it's not just that it's from mtv but I usually watch interviews rather than slick propaganda style pieces.

Here, I'll give you a vid that may give you a little retrospect on it. Was just published and about 30m of interview with Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins about what's going on. There is some more vid by him on what he's saying, good stuff, but this is well enough https://youtu.be/gs2IzNEQEKk

He speaks of the music industry, white privilege, racism, Bernie, Bernie supporters, SJW's, how things changed since the 70's (I'm just a few years younger than him so yeah I notice too), democratic-socialism, and some other stuff.

[AzzarTheGod]

I don't want the book to be a hatchet piece by any means, I'd prefer it be a bit academic similar to the book series that Bill O'Reily has published re; Lincoln, Jesus, Patton, etc.

I suppose I will need to research the upside of free college thoroughly and present a few cases and examples with statistics.

But at 6% success rate on a BA on a Federal loan, how many success stories will I be able to interview for the book?

I guess we will see.

[JurisDictum]

Quit looking at race and start looking at culture, which is what really drives success and failure. That's the major shortcoming behind the whole 'white privilege' meme, this video, and these posts. Judge someone by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. What you are describing are cultural attributes that are conducive to financial planning and educational attainment, not a systematic framework of oppression meant to keep whites in power and hold the brown man down.

I mean, let's start talking about Asian privilege. They do better than whites at all these things.

A lot of people are way ahead of you on that one.

It's not that blacks are stupider than whites. It's that ghetto culture they have (which makes them stupider than whites). Once they start acting like white people (the superior way to act) things will be fine. There isn't widespread racism anymore -- its just a bunch of people not taking responsibility for themselves. So when you see someone acting black -- don't feel guilty for thinking there stupid -- they are. And it's their stupid culture's fault.

A lot of this shit about Asain kids is true..but taken a little far. Just because its possible that culture can play into student success -- doesn't mean its the best way to understand the differences in student success. Asain kids come from 2 parent households that stress academics their whole life often....should that be every household in America? Is that the standard that were all failures for not meeting?

One of the big reasons Asians do better is because their parent are way more likely to completely support them financially throughout the endeavor. They also have a habit of being the son of a middle class people from their country that are only classified as poor because they just got here. A lot of Asians here didn't come from the bottom of their societies, they came from the middle and are ambitious.

[AzzarTheGod]

The book I'm working on is probably going to be a big seller based off people like Juris and Lune.

"Free college" is not a popular idea, its populist, but not popular, yet.

I am gathering a lot of good ideas so I hope this discussion goes on for another page. I need more socialist handout input in regards to handing armed thugs and cutthroat rapists access to my son and daughter's college dormitory.

Say no to the 3rd world.

[JurisDictum]

The book I'm working on is probably going to be a big seller based off people like Juris and Lune.

"Free college" is not a popular idea, its populist, but not popular, yet.

I am gathering a lot of good ideas so I hope this discussion goes on for another page. I need more socialist handout input in regards to handing armed thugs and cutthroat rapists access to my son and daughter's college dormitory.

Say no to the 3rd world.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/5-radical-bernie-sanders-ideas-many-americans-strongly-support

[Pokesan]

is it possible to divorce race from culture in a statistically significant way

[maskedmelon]

is it possible to divorce race from culture in a statistically significant way

LOL! Clever, but I would carefully consider the argument you are prepping before carrying it to battle.

[AzzarTheGod]

is it possible to divorce race from culture in a statistically significant way

added to outline on my book

[JurisDictum]

is it possible to divorce race from culture in a statistically significant way

You look at those raised outside their native culture. There's also plenty of scientific studies demonstrated race doesn't predict IQ -- but I'm hoping no one here is that racist (argue for biological white superiority).

An example would be Burakumin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin)-- a discriminated against minority in Japan. Many people in Japan give racist explanations for their poor statistics in employment, educations etc.

But sure enough, when they come here they do as well as any Japanese student.

Edit: this post was mostly addressing how to seperate race from culture. As far as seperating racial discrimination from cultural discrimination...I'd have to think on it but it's probably difficult. That was kind of my point.

[Pokesan]

You look at those raised outside their native culture. There's also plenty of scientific studies demonstrated race doesn't predict IQ -- but I'm hoping no one here is that racist (argue for biological white superiority).

An example would be Burakumin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin)-- a discriminated against minority in Japan. Many people in Japan give racist explanations for their poor statistics in employment, educations etc.

But sure enough, when they come here they do as well as any Japanese student.

Edit: this post was mostly addressing how to seperate race from culture. As far as seperating racial discrimination from cultural discrimination...I'd have to think on it but it's probably difficult. That was kind of my point.

Is there anything useful that can be done with this?

[JurisDictum]

Well I'd say it was pretty useful to prove Whites aren't naturally more evolved or smart than blacks. Much different than the old view:

7412

[NegaStoat]

Mostly on topic, a white cop shoots and kills a black person. The liberal media goes crazy with it and makes it a national issue, time after time. Meanwhile, a white cop straight up executes a white male (unarmed) somewhat close to where I live and no one gives two shits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZBS_p-NVFI

I more or less stopped watching TV a long while back when it comes to news reporting and racial issues. I could rant about giving a shit about your community, raising your kids right, and praising education and striving for intellectual excellence as opposed to embracing a culture of educational compromise and idol worship of sports figures. But that wouldn't be a productive rant since people are more comfortable having someone else to blame.

[JurisDictum]

Mostly on topic, a white cop shoots and kills a black person. The liberal media goes crazy with it and makes it a national issue, time after time. Meanwhile, a white cop straight up executes a white male (unarmed) somewhat close to where I live and no one gives two shits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZBS_p-NVFI

I more or less stopped watching TV a long while back when it comes to news reporting and racial issues. I could rant about giving a shit about your community, raising your kids right, and praising education and striving for intellectual excellence as opposed to embracing a culture of educational compromise and idol worship of sports figures. But that wouldn't be a productive rant since people are more comfortable having someone else to blame.

Yea...my guess is if we dug into it, unarmed Whites would come out ahead of Blacks on the whole getting shot by cops thing.

But it's noted that you think whites might have reverse discrimination in the area of being shot by cops.

I agree it's stupid how much emphasis we put on sports. But I don't think that's just a minority thing.

[Raev]

There's a reason why Bernie's call for virtually free college is popular.
Well it's gotta be either because people like free stuff or because socialism has worked everywhere else it has been tried!

But the reality is that the majority of merit-based scholarships go to white people disproportionately (barely). There is no real evidence that anyone in their right mind would be born black instead of White for access to college.
Yes, because White people do better (and Asians do even better) at everything that colleges measure for admissions, not because the institutions are not prejudiced. Being Black is worth a hundred points of SAT scores or something.

It's not that blacks are stupider than whites. It's that ghetto culture they have (which makes them stupider than whites).
So glad we have your genius to guide us on the nature vs nurture debate. There are these things called twin studies, and they have fairly conclusively proven that intelligence is highly heritable especially towards adulthood. 50% at least.

[JurisDictum]

Well it's gotta be either because people like free stuff or because socialism has worked everywhere else it has been tried!


Yes, because White people do better (and Asians do even better) at everything that colleges measure for admissions, not because the institutions are not prejudiced. Being Black is worth a hundred points of SAT scores or something.


So glad we have your genius to guide us on the nature vs nurture debate. There are these things called twin studies, and they have fairly conclusively proven that intelligence is highly heritable especially towards adulthood. 50% at least.

1) the policies he has proposed have been tried in other advanced industrial democracies (Germany, Sweden) and seem to work better than our market based approach. If you want to spin this into something about Soviet Russia -- frankly you don't know anything about democratic socialism and should stop getting your info about it from Rush Limbagh.

2) My point is that you would be better off, statistically, being white than getting 100 free SAT points. White people often see this the other way around and feel like victims of discrimination. You want to zero in on the one part where black people get a small bonus and ignore the entire downside leading up to that.

3)The fact that you bring this up is puzzling unless you are claiming that whites are biologically smarter than blacks. Which we have demonstrated not to be true.

[Raev]

1) the policies he has proposed have been tried in other advanced industrial democracies (Germany, Sweden) and seem to work better than our market based approach. If you want to spin this into something about Soviet Russia -- frankly you don't know anything about democratic socialism and should stop getting your info about it from Rush Limbagh.
Germany/Sweden are small and culturally/ethnically uniform. The US is large and culturally/ethnically diverse. Soviet Russia is far more comparable. In addition, if you seriously believe we have a free market here, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The "market" moves purely at the whim of the central banks.

My point is that you would be better off, statistically, being white than getting 100 free SAT points. White people often see this the other way around and feel like victims of discrimination. You want to zero in on the one part where black people get a small bonus and ignore the entire downside leading up to that.
Including race as part of the admission decision is the very definition of discrimination. I don't understand how you can argue this.

The fact that you bring this up is puzzling unless you are claiming that whites are biologically smarter than blacks. Which we have demonstrated not to be true.
Where has this been demonstrated? AFAIK the fact that the Black/White test score gap refuses to go away is a source of continual frustration for educators. I'm not claiming that this gap DOES prove that whites are biologically smarter on average, but I certainly have not seen the reverse demonstrated.

I personally am against all forms of discrimination, whether they target Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, men, women, republicans, democrats, gays, straights, young people, old people, etc etc. So I am against Jim Crow and affirmative action equally. I find it rather amusing that our government, which outlaws discrimination based on race, does in fact itself discriminate based on race. Orwell is living large in modern society. Or was that Huxley? I forget.

[JurisDictum]

This bit from the Roast of Hugh Hefner seems somewhat relevant and funny as shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgN_PDku_c4

[maskedmelon]

What is the goal of the documentary?

[AzzarTheGod]

What is the goal of the documentary?

Watch my documentary I'm making.

[Daywolf]

What is the goal of the documentary?
Watch my documentary I'm making.http://i.imgur.com/iTmUFsm.gif
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2233406/

[JurisDictum]

Germany/Sweden are small and culturally/ethnically uniform. The US is large and culturally/ethnically diverse. Soviet Russia is far more comparable. In addition, if you seriously believe we have a free market here, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The "market" moves purely at the whim of the central banks.


Why do you think "culturally/ethnically uniform" matters?

In Sweden, they weren't always a social democratic country. They used to have big inequalities like us, until they pushed too far and there was an electoral revolution -- and then democratic socialists were voted into power and introduced universal healthcare etc.

So people wonder why. Why would the working classes come together and create a better society for themselves in Sweden but not the US.

The reason we came up with, is because they are culturally/ethnically uniform. Therefore, politicians can't get most voters to vote against "welfare queens" and the "takers" as easy. In short, its a lot easier to split the non-wealthy vote when there all worried about thugs raping their daughters and hitting people the minute we talk about free college (see above).

The reason this countries rightwing wants to talk about Russia is obvious. Russia was a shitshow before communism, it was a shitshow during communism, and its a shitshow now. So if they can pivot the conversation to Russia -- a country that had a violent revolution an and instituted a single party dictatorship -- they derail the real conversation about why is our coverage worse than other advanced countries.

Soviet Russia is an example of Communism -- which even then, was considered a seperate ideology from "trade-union socialism" (what they have in Germany/Sweden). Lenin lead the Russian Revolution based on the writings of Karl Marx -- but he changed Marx's view quite a bit. Rather than the spontaneous uprising of workers Marx talked about. Lenin decided that there needed to be an elite "vanguard" to educate all the factory workers and lead the revolution. He turned a populist ideology into an elitist one. Lenin forcefully argued against (and killed) people arguing for a democratic socialist system.

It kind of went downhill from there from a human right view point. Stalin (after Lenin) killed millions. Although we never really admit in the US, it was pretty god damn amazing that a country as backward as Russia was after WW1, somehow managed to surpass the US scientifically. But everyone agrees its not worth killing millions over.

Your comparing multi-party democracies to a single party dictatorships. There is no comparison -- there different systems. One is authoritarian and believes the government should create bureaucracies to allocate the resources according to "needs" (in reality according to politics). The other is a democracy with a capitalist economy that uses socialist ideas to redistribute some of the money away from the top and toward the bottom.

[Scrapiron]

Statists gotta state, doesn't mean its the ethical/moral thing to do, just means its their nature to do it.

[Raev]

Why do you think "culturally/ethnically uniform" matters?
It matters a great deal. One of the most amazing books I have ever read is Mancur Olson's The Rise and Decline of Nations. He has one trivial point that he simply hammers home over and over again (with miserably dry prose, too) over a short book: democracy does not work. The problem is that special interests always win due to skewed incentives as taxpayers find it cheaper to pay them off than fight them off. The government will NEVER be on your side. It will always be on the side of the people with money and power.

Example A: Clinton (Bill version) removed Glass-Steagall and put Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs in charge of regulating the banks. Result: the 2008 financial crisis and 14 trillion in off the record bailouts from the Fed. Now Hillary gives speeches to Wall Street (whose contents she will not divulge) for $500,000 a pop, and the Clinton Foundation gives approximately 5% of its proceeds to actual charities and is a de facto slush fund.

Example B: The military-industrial complex needs someone to fight now that the Cold War is over. So first we overthrow Qaddafi (not a nice guy to be sure) starting a massive civil war in Libya. Then we take his sarin gas and use it on Syrians so we have an excuse to invade there and help our ally Saudi Arabia (who probably funded the 9/11 attacks, but in an amazing show of bipartisanship Congress is blocking access to that section of the 9/11 report) get their pipeline to Europe. The result has been millions of people killed, but hey they are brown so I guess it doesn't matter, right?

Example C: Obama is pushing through the TTIP which allows US corporations to sue European governments (including Germany/Sweden which you tout as paradises) for loss of profits due to food safety laws. I'm sure Obama will somehow end up on the speech tour with Clinton and his own slush fund charity.

There is no such thing as democratic socialism. There is only capitalism, representing economic and political freedom, and totalitarianism, which takes it away. And we have the latter now.

[JurisDictum]

It matters a great deal. One of the most amazing books I have ever read is Mancur Olson's The Rise and Decline of Nations. He has one trivial point that he simply hammers home over and over again (with miserably dry prose, too) over a short book: democracy does not work. The problem is that special interests always win due to skewed incentives as taxpayers find it cheaper to pay them off than fight them off. The government will NEVER be on your side. It will always be on the side of the people with money and power.

Example A: Clinton (Bill version) removed Glass-Steagall and put Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs in charge of regulating the banks. Result: the 2008 financial crisis and 14 trillion in off the record bailouts from the Fed. Now Hillary gives speeches to Wall Street (whose contents she will not divulge) for $500,000 a pop, and the Clinton Foundation gives approximately 5% of its proceeds to actual charities and is a de facto slush fund.

Example B: The military-industrial complex needs someone to fight now that the Cold War is over. So first we overthrow Qaddafi (not a nice guy to be sure) starting a massive civil war in Libya. Then we take his sarin gas and use it on Syrians so we have an excuse to invade there and help our ally Saudi Arabia (who probably funded the 9/11 attacks, but in an amazing show of bipartisanship Congress is blocking access to that section of the 9/11 report) get their pipeline to Europe. The result has been millions of people killed, but hey they are brown so I guess it doesn't matter, right?

Example C: Obama is pushing through the TTIP which allows US corporations to sue European governments (including Germany/Sweden which you tout as paradises) for loss of profits due to food safety laws. I'm sure Obama will somehow end up on the speech tour with Clinton and his own slush fund charity.

There is no such thing as democratic socialism. There is only capitalism, representing economic and political freedom, and totalitarianism, which takes it away. And we have the latter now.

Yea that's great and all -- but meanwhile Sweden has a much shorter work week, paid leave, free healthcare, education, their god damn economy is doing fine.

Germans work like average of 30-35 hours a week and get a job out of school (vocational for some, intellectual for others)

I'm not trying to completely ignore the point your making about the collective action problem. But you have to see that there are some real ground-level differences. These things can be changed in this country -- even if we will always be at least partially corrupt. I'm sure those countries I mentioned have people in convinced that everything is going to shit too.

And we start by changing peoples attitudes to overcome the heterogeneity problem you pointed out. And it is working -- if you look at the difference between millennials on racial attitudes vs their parents..and up the line.

[Raev]

The point is that democracy may kind of work for <10 million people with a homogeneous ethnicity, culture, and life view, but in a nation as large and diverse as the United States it will simply result in one special interest group horror after another, and that has been borne out by the past 20 years. When you say 'things can be changed in this country' I hope you are not suggesting we exterminate the Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and Bankers? Well, no one cares about the Bankers.

I don't understand how you can witness the epic political failure we have here and keep saying 'but hey, it works over there'. Also I'm not sure it does work over there. Europe is a mess right now due to all of the immigration from Syria (you're welcome Europals). Germany is currently talking about restricting all of those socialist benefits to avoid the immigrants etc etc.

[JurisDictum]

The point is that democracy may kind of work for <10 million people with a homogeneous ethnicity, culture, and life view, but in a nation as large and diverse as the United States it will simply result in one special interest group horror after another, and that has been borne out by the past 20 years. When you say 'things can be changed in this country' I hope you are not suggesting we exterminate the Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and Bankers? Well, no one cares about the Bankers.

I don't understand how you can witness the epic political failure we have here and keep saying 'but hey, it works over there'. Also I'm not sure it does work over there. Europe is a mess right now due to all of the immigration from Syria (you're welcome Europals). Germany is currently talking about restricting all of those socialist benefits to avoid the immigrants etc etc.

Your (and presumably the author's) argument doesn't ultimately make sense because you can't explain why things have gotten better for the working classes ever. Things have gotten better here over time. 8 hour work week etc. It is a defeatist attitude that there is nothing we can or ever can be done because of special interests. Just because multiple cultures makes progress slower doesn't mean it won't happen. Its not like universal healthcare stops working the minute you have a Black population -- its just less likely to get voted in. What I was suggesting is this video is part of a larger movement by people to reduce racial tensions. And it does with younger generations. But the problem is the old guard gets pissed and it temporarily increased tension. Whatever -- just another part of the long slow ass process.

We are better at assimilating people in this country than Europe. We are better at changing racial attitudes than Europe. Europe is better at getting the social safety net because they never had to deal with it this (and institutional reasons I wont get into). They aren't even now -- they are just gonna kick the Muslim population out or disclude them from benefits. Not that I think Discluding non-citizens from benefits is inherently bad policy.

You have a habit of thinking black in white. Killing millions of people, univserial healthcare, and raising taxes...all under the same umbrella of totalitarianism (although no political scientist would agree with you), and thus bad. You seem to imply Obama care 1) cannot possibly get better 2) is somehow the "same thing" as a single payer system, when it obviously isn't.

Power works in three cycles:

1) You lose in the decision-making process

2) The powerful in the situation block the issue from reappearing on the agenda. The powerless develop a defeatist attitude.

3) The powerful -- both intentionally and unintentionally create an ideological hegemony -- where the powerless adopt the values of the powerful.

Undoing this process is slow. And I think what we are starting to see is 3 unravel a bit in the states. This winner/loser pull yourself up by your bootstraps value is on its way out for those that don't benefit from it. It's matter of time before redistribution is on the agenda. And I'm not talking about some bs 3% tax hike on the amount you make over 250k a year. I mean closing loopholes, raising capital gains/social security cap etc. Hardly anyone agrees Romney should pay less than 15% while we fall behind on education, health, saving, and workforce skill.

[Tewaz]

The point is that democracy may kind of work for <10 million people with a homogeneous ethnicity, culture, and life view, but in a nation as large and diverse as the United States it will simply result in one special interest group horror after another, and that has been borne out by the past 20 years. When you say 'things can be changed in this country' I hope you are not suggesting we exterminate the Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and Bankers? Well, no one cares about the Bankers.

Nothing really works at the population and ethnic diversity we currently have. If you step back and compare the poor in the US with other countries you realize how well America has done. Yes, there is a huge wealthy disparity gap at the top, but the middle class is bulging and you live better than a prince 100 years ago. Equality across the board is the ideal, but the current reality is pretty damn good, and it will continue to improve over the next 100 years.

[Raev]

Reading this, I think your thought process is just very muddled.

Things have gotten better in the US because we had a revolution and it's taken 200+ years for the special interest groups to finally sink us. Remember, the Federal Reserve is the 3rd Central Bank of the US. Twice the people kicked the bankers out, and so they finally succeeded by obfuscating the bill as much as possible. I hear Texas is talking about seceding. That is what we need: throwing out millions of pages of pointless Federal laws and then a government on a smaller scale where it's easier to hold politicians responsible.

How you think a video talking about 'white privilege' is somehow decreasing racial tensions is beyond me. How you consider the banks owning more and more of our government is progress is mind boggling.

Simply, I think your ideas about politics have no connection to reality.

[Raev]

Yes, there is a huge wealthy disparity gap at the top.

You do realize that the 1%ers are doing as well as they are because of QE inflating the value of stocks and housing and so on beyond all reasonable measure, not some flaw in a market based economy, right?

[JurisDictum]

Reading this, I think your thought process is just very muddled.

Things have gotten better in the US because we had a revolution and it's taken 200+ years for the special interest groups to finally sink us. Remember, the Federal Reserve is the 3rd Central Bank of the US. Twice the people kicked the bankers out, and so they finally succeeded by obfuscating the bill as much as possible. I hear Texas is talking about seceding. That is what we need: throwing out millions of pages of pointless Federal laws and then a government on a smaller scale where it's easier to hold politicians responsible.

How you think a video talking about 'white privilege' is somehow decreasing racial tensions is beyond me. How you consider the banks owning more and more of our government is progress is mind boggling.

Simply, I think your ideas about politics have no connection to reality.

That's a very stange view of history. Everything was great black when only wealthy white males could vote (slave owners often) -- but then everything got screwed up by special interest....did it ever occur to you that slave holding was a special interest?

Again how do you explain unions getting the 8 hour work week if democracy only ever serves the interest of the powerful?

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

[Scrapiron]

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

:rolleyes:

Because this 'mainstream academic thought' of which you speak couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Tewaz]

Raev can't see the forests through the trees.

[Nihilist_santa]

That's a very stange view of history. Everything was great black when only wealthy white males could vote (slave owners often) -- but then everything got screwed up by special interest....did it ever occur to you that slave holding was a special interest?

Again how do you explain unions getting the 8 hour work week if democracy only ever serves the interest of the powerful?

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

Exactly that. Its called a Timocracy and the people who have a say should be those with a vested interest (your land owners). Otherwise you have special interest voting for a slice of the pie but contributing nothing. This isnt new its the rise and fall of civilizations. Plato posited 5 regimes and the last phase before a Tyranny is democracy.

By the time of the civil war the industrial revolution had began. Slavery was an unsustainable strategy and was on its way out. I like how the left only shows how the left has done anything for workers. Lets not mention people like Henry Ford who essentially created the weekend and was the first person to realize you get better workers with better pay. It was all the unions! You should really get into some Thomas Sowell a thing or two about the effects of these leftist interventions on the market. For one he claims backs are adversely affected by minimum wage and affirmative action. He uses data to back up his claims. I have yet to see him debate with someone and lose.

[Scrapiron]

Sadly, humanity consumes itself with the questions of who should be the ruler. Meanwhile, those bold enough to claim no need for a ruler are shunned.

[Nihilist_santa]

A hierarchy will form within any system. Just look at p99.

[Raev]

That's a very stange view of history. Everything was great black when only wealthy white males could vote (slave owners often) -- but then everything got screwed up by special interest....did it ever occur to you that slave holding was a special interest?

Again how do you explain unions getting the 8 hour work week if democracy only ever serves the interest of the powerful?

I g2g but let me just say...when you disagree with me. Your disagreeing with mainstream academic thought. Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm just making my own shit up.

First, mainstream academic thought in useless disciplines like history or economics primarily serves to justify the ruling class. In other words, it's complete shit. Secondly, I think you should go back and chat with your marxist professor, because everything you say is just confused.

Unions get concessions because they are a special interest group and democracy serves the special interests. Like any special interest group, they don't really serve the interests of the majority, though. The California teachers and prison guards unions for example are in the process of bankrupting the state, the auto unions have nearly wrecked Detroit, etc.

Slaveholders are of course a special interest group . . . what is your point? Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until years into the Civil War when Lincoln needed a morale boost. And while I am not a huge fan of the institution of slavery, was its abolition really worth 650,000 killed? The Civil War is still the bloodiest war in American history.

Obviously not everything was perfect in 1775. They didn't have penicillin, automobiles, or the Internet. What I am saying is that life in the United States improved because of small government and individual liberty, not unions or democracy, and now that we no longer have the former things are rapidly going down hill. I believe even women are less happy now than they were in 1970, despite the massive 'achievements' of feminism.

[Scrapiron]

... the auto unions have nearly wrecked Detroit, etc.


I'm assuming you've not been to Detroit, (lucky you) no need to use the word "nearly" here, its pretty f'n wrecked.

[JurisDictum]

:rolleyes:

Because this 'mainstream academic thought' of which you speak couldn't possibly be wrong.

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.

[Raev]

I specifically told you that my ideas on democracy vs special interest groups are right out of Mancur Olson. Since you believe anything that is published by a professor, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigidities/dp/0300030797/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463085986&sr=1-1

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.
I guess when you are losing an argument you go for the long, boring insults.

[Nihilist_santa]

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.

Your ideas are convoluted because they are an idealism. Egalitarianism is idealism. It is not observed reality. You keep bringing up the Nordics but ignore the vast wealth they accumulated through capitalist means and a homogeneous culture which is OK with sharing with like people. Otherwise they would be Valenzuela or Vietnam. Like all leftist you only come up with excuses for why your ideas fail when put into practice. The rights ideas are observed reality for centuries.

[Scrapiron]

It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.

A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.

I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.


Either you don't know what 'Ad Hominem' means or you had trouble processing my statement. Perhaps you could do some introspective analysis on what it means to mistake a comment like mine as ad Hominem.

Also I could take your statements seriously, I'd really like to, but then you went on this whole conservative labeling kick right after your ad hominem mistake thing? WTF is up with that?

[JurisDictum]

First, mainstream academic thought in useless disciplines like history or economics primarily serves to justify the ruling class. In other words, it's complete shit. Secondly, I think you should go back and chat with your marxist professor, because everything you say is just confused.

Your right, better listen to the Koch brothers and adopt their ideology instead. Obviously the majority of people with a PHD in political science, is first and foremost concerned about justifying the ruling class. That's all the do. Where as the Koch's and their think tanks have our real interest in mind. Or maybe we should listen to creepy youtube videos on the internet -- they obvious know what their talking about. Maybe you don't like those entities -- but you sure agree with them a lot.

I agree with you on economics, so do most academics. They know some useful things but their models don't reflect universal truths about "the economy" that exist independent of government and society. The economy can't be separated from governments and society like that. You have to realize a certain subset of economists are the ones tapped by government-- not necessarily reflecting mainstream opinion outside the beltway.

History is somewhat dependent on where you learn it. It's a lot better in college than high school generally speaking. There was no justifying of the ruling class in any courses I took. My high school was very pro-Israel slanted...but its common in America outside of middle east experts (who are usually holding back their real thoughts).

Democracy is a spectrum -- just so were clear. There are different definitions, but everyone agrees that there is no such thing is a "pure" democracy currently. And some argue we should call it Pluralities or various other stupid names they make up. But we find that the difference between places like England and Russia to differentiate the two.

All I'm saying is that just because we haven't had universal healthcare or 2ndary education yet -- doesn't mean its impossible. You seem to think this is a crackpot idea with no connection with reality...I feel comfortable on the ground I'm standing on with that one.

Maybe later ill post some shit about physical anthropology and why blacks aren't dumber and they really aren't one "race." It's not really my area and your the first person i met in a long time that pushed back on this. I friend who teaches Physical Anthropology and I can probably just ask him.

[JurisDictum]

Either you don't know what 'Ad Hominem' means or you had trouble processing my statement. Perhaps you could do some introspective analysis on what it means to mistake a comment like mine as ad Hominem.

Also I could take your statements seriously, I'd really like to, but then you went on this whole conservative labeling kick right after your ad hominem mistake thing? WTF is up with that?

I wanted to explain its not just my opinion. Because something in Raev post seem to imply that. So I was just clarifying.

Environments shape the brain -- including your past experiences and ideas about things. So it's not genetic or anything -- but conservatives have been conditioned in the ways I described. There may be natural proclivities, I'd have to look into. That wasn't really the point though.

It was probably stupid to post that RIGHT next to the ad hominem thing.

[JurisDictum]

Your ideas are convoluted because they are an idealism. Egalitarianism is idealism. It is not observed reality. You keep bringing up the Nordics but ignore the vast wealth they accumulated through capitalist means and a homogeneous culture which is OK with sharing with like people. Otherwise they would be Valenzuela or Vietnam. Like all leftist you only come up with excuses for why your ideas fail when put into practice. The rights ideas are observed reality for centuries.

Again note: Pivit to a Communist system

Ignore the real Social-Democratic argument (which includes that capitalist wealth you accused me of ignoring).

Edit: You used other communist examples besides Russia -- my mistake. Same basic concept though. Rightwing thinkers conflate the two to straw man the situation.

[Nihilist_santa]

Your right, better listen to the Koch brothers and adopt their ideology instead. Obviously the majority of people with a PHD in political science, is first and foremost concerned about justifying the ruling class. That's all the do. Where as the Koch's and their think tanks have our real interest in mind. Or maybe we should listen to creepy youtube videos on the internet -- they obvious know what their talking about. Maybe you don't like those entities -- but you sure agree with them a lot.

I agree with you on economics, so do most academics. They know some useful things but their models don't reflect universal truths about "the economy" that exist independent of government and society. The economy can't be separated from governments and society like that. You have to realize a certain subset of economists are the ones tapped by government-- not necessarily reflecting mainstream opinion outside the beltway.

History is somewhat dependent on where you learn it. It's a lot better in college than high school generally speaking. There was no justifying of the ruling class in any coarses I took. My high school was very pro-Israel slanted...but its common in America outside of middle east experts (who are usually holding back their real thoughts).

Democracy is a spectrum -- just so were clear. There are different definitions, but everyone agrees that there is no such thing is a "pure" democracy currently. And some argue we should call it Pluralities or various other stupid names they make up. But we find that the difference between places like England and Russia to differentiate the two.

All I'm saying is that just because we haven't had universal healthcare or 2ndary education yet -- doesn't mean its impossible. You seem to think this is a crackpot idea with no connection with reality...I feel comfortable on the ground I'm standing on with that one.

Maybe later ill post some shit about physical anthropology and why blacks aren't dumber and they really aren't one "race." It's not really my area and your the first person i met in a long time that pushed back on this. I friend who teaches Physical Anthropology and I can probably just ask him.

Modern academia is nothing but an echo chamber for Franklin School cultural marxist that have merged with post structuralist so of course they wont defend the ruling class they will only apply critical theory to tear down cultural norms and offer nothing in its place but division.

There was an interesting piece in the Times the other day about how academia has been silencing the right from within for quite some time creating this echo chamber.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0

[Nihilist_santa]

Again note: Pivit to a Communist system

Ignore the real Social-Democratic argument (which includes that capitalist wealth you accused me of ignoring).

Edit: You used other communist examples besides Russia -- my mistake. Same basic concept though. Rightwing thinkers conflate the two to straw man the situation.

The problem is you and most contemporary leftist dont understand socialism is an economic theory not a sociological one. You do understand where socialism came from right? You do understand that it is the underpinning of communism correct? Communism is just the application of socialism with communism being the predicted outcome (that being a classless society and the abolishment of the state).

[Nihilist_santa]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

[Swish]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

[Nihilist_santa]

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

[Pokesan]

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

sick buzzwords my man, you must be pretty sharp

[JurisDictum]

The problem is you and most contemporary leftist dont understand socialism is an economic theory not a sociological one. You do understand where socialism came from right? You do understand that it is the underpinning of communism correct? Communism is just the application of socialism with communism being the predicted outcome (that being a classless society and the abolishment of the state).

I have actually know quite a bit about this.

Socialism started with the utopian-socialists. The utopians split into anarchists and socialists (Karl Marx). The difference between the two, is the socialists believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat -- where the working classes rise and seize power, before the state could whither eventually. Anarchists believed you could somehow skip this step and go straight to no State (instead, "administration"). Chomsky has done a lot to make that ideology more coherent.

Marx started off as a humanitarian that was concerned with the poor. It didn't occur to him that it was the economic system at first -- but eventually that is what he determined. He wrote a small book (or pamphlet) about Communism more toward the end of his life and articulated the inevitability of the communist revolution.

Marx was very much an ivory tower kind of guy, who forcefully argued against any elite-planned revolutions while he was alive. He thought the revolution would happen without people like him helping -- and we need to just wait.

Marx died and Lenin decided he waited long enough. So he led the October revolution as a dictator more or less -- with faithful bureaucrats like Stalin at his side. He insisted that "trade unionism" (which is what was going on in Germany and a few other countries at the time) was just "better conditions for the slave" and would delay the revolution (that was inevitable remember) -- so he opposed them and eventually had many prominent opponents killed.

Lenin didn't stick with Marx economics that long -- but I've never been one to sit around and talk about "what Marx really wanted" -- who gives a shit? Communism as it was practiced in the world is what I'm referring to when I speak of Communism. And there is no denying that economics of communism are much different than capitalism. Resources are allocated by inevitably corrupt governments that are concerned about looking good to their party because that is the only way to make more money in that kind of system. Predictably the elite have disproportionate wealth -- even more so than most capitalist systems.

Communism, as it exists in the world, involves a single party system where every level of government is shadowed by the party- equivalent where the real power is. Power is concentrated in a small council that convenes every so often where all the decisions are made. Sometimes a particularly charismatic individual exercises most the power (Stalin) and forms a "Cult of Personality" around themselves. You get these images of Mao portrayed as the sun or Stalin as a wise benevolent grandfather etc. It replaces religion at times.

This is nothing like modern social-democracies -- which come from Trade Unionism....not Communism. North Korea = Communism. Sweden = Trade Unionism.

Trade unionism contends that Marx is compatible with democracy. And through votes we can obtain a more socialist vision. But there are key differences between this vision and the vision Lenin had.

No violent revolution, no Marxist economics, no dictatorship of the proletariat (as understood by lenin) or single party system.

Democratic-socialist think capitalism is better way of generating resources than communism. However, they don't agree that you have an absolute right to every dollar that happens to ever enter your bank account. So they don't have as big of hang ups about taxing wealthy and subsidizing the middle and lower classes.

Keep in mind this is all different than the German tradition (which started with Bismark and their own thinkers) which is not considered a democratic-socialist state.

In either case, you are ignoring the clear split between them and communist countries and conflated the two. Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Jesus Christ for the war in Iraq because Bush said he influenced him. Ridiculous guilt by association argument.

[Lune]

Modern conservative ideology is largely based on a set of simplistic, widely-discredited economic principles, such as Austrian economics.

Raev says the things that made America great were limited government and individual liberty, and yet the golden age of our civilization occurred in the middle of the last century when even conservatives recognized the need for a safety net, expansive regulations, and government intervention in general:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

At the time, Republicans like Ike were reasonable. Even Nixon allowed the establishment of the EPA. Their platform wasn't about selling out the country to corporate interests. (Note right here that I'm not singling out Republicans in that regard, modern Democrats are just as culpable). It was the Supply-Side, libertarian swing this country took after Reagan that truly threw this country into the shitter. Those "Texas oil millionaires" and "Business men" got into positions of power, and they haven't left. And to this day, people like Raev, confident in the junk-science that is their faction of economics, advocate on their behalf.

I'd also like to put an end to this "Soviets as a demonstration of socialism not working" idiocy right here and now. If you attribute socialist politics to the failure of the Soviet Union, which:
-Had just weathered the purge of tens of millions of people, including a famine in which millions died
-Suffered a scorch and burn invasion of its most productive territory and near capture of Moscow by Nazis
-Has a culture of corruption and mistrust
-A heterogeneous population of many different cultures far in excess of what the US had

Then I really don't know what to tell you. Are you telling me things would have turned out better for them if they had gone the free market direction? They'd still have fucked it up. They aren't doing well now even after market reform, in spite of the fact that they are an energy superpower. It's like saying Democratic-Socialism doesn't work because one time a group of retards living under a bridge tried a particular adaptation of full-blown socialism and it didn't work. It completely ignores any complexity behind the issue. It's reductive for purposes of rhetoric. It's just bad. But I'm not going to cite Sweden and Germany as reasons why socialism would work in the US, because that's bad too, at the other end of the spectrum.

Instead, I'm going to cite FDR and Dwight Eisenhower, and the American state we had until Reagan came along. Safety nets, labor laws, collective responsibility, massive infrastructure investment, trust-busting, robust financial regulation-- they are all good ideas, and they've worked before... here.

[Nihilist_santa]

sick buzzwords my man, you must be pretty sharp

Oh man a one liner from pokeman. Im going places.

[Nihilist_santa]

Of course socialist have to account for the past failures of the applications of socialism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how authoritarian those regimes were their economic theory was socialism. They went bankrupt except where they integrated capitalism heavily like in China.

[Lune]

Of course socialist have to account for the past failures of the applications of socialism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how authoritarian those regimes were their economic theory was socialism. They went bankrupt except where they integrated capitalism heavily like in China.

You can make a sweeping generalization about anything if you ignore enough detail and complexity. Here, watch this:

Consider presidencies of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.

Of course conservatives have to account for the past failures of the applications of conservatism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how moderate those presidents were their economic theory was fiscal conservatism. They both did nothing but fuck up the country except where they integrated liberalism heavily like in the establishment of the EPA.

See now isn't that just retarded? Detail and nuance matters. Fact of the matter is, there are profound differences between the Soviet Union and the United States, just like between the United States and Sweden. Imagine that!

[Maner]

They say the number one way to not be poor for your entire life in this country contains just two parts. They are to, finish high school, and to not have a kid before you're married. Has absolutely nothing to do with race in this country.

[Nihilist_santa]

You can make a sweeping generalization about anything if you ignore enough detail and complexity. Here, watch this:

Consider presidencies of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.

Of course conservatives have to account for the past failures of the applications of conservatism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how moderate those presidents were their economic theory was fiscal conservatism. They both did nothing but fuck up the country except where they integrated liberalism heavily like in the establishment of the EPA.

See now isn't that just retarded? Detail and nuance matters.

Hey I agree the morons who voted for those people are accountable as are the establishment conservatives who allowed Trotskyites to hijack their party because they bought into a conservative branding scheme. What does that have to do with a proven failure of an economic theory like socialism?

You are saying that people ran under the premise of implementing fiscal conservatism but its easily shown that they did not implement those policies where as the soviets and other socialist systems did implement socialism and it lead to the corruption you use as an excuse for their undoing because long term socialism isnt a viable system.

[Raev]

Modern conservative ideology is largely based on a set of simplistic, widely-discredited economic principles, such as Austrian economics.
Please no more silly appeals to authority. Austrian economics has quite correctly predicted that all of this central bank stimulus would fail. Keynesian economics is what is discredited IMO.

Raev says the things that made America great were limited government and individual liberty, and yet the golden age of our civilization occurred in the middle of the last century when even conservatives recognized the need for a safety net, expansive regulations, and government intervention in general
If it was the golden age, that implies things got worse immediately after, which doesn't really say good things about their policies, does it? The free market and individual liberty part was what powered America to the top of the world through the early 1900s. Then the banks got the Federal Reserve going, and government expanded hugely while Roosevelt was busy turning an ordinary recession into a Great Depression then World War II, and things went down from there.

[Lune]

Hey I agree the morons who voted for those people are accountable as are the establishment conservatives who allowed Trotskyites to hijack their party because they bought into a conservative branding scheme. What does that have to do with a proven failure of an economic theory like socialism?

You are saying that people ran under the premise of implementing fiscal conservatism but its easily shown that they did not implement those policies where as the soviets and other socialist systems did implement socialism and it lead to the corruption you use as an excuse for their undoing because long term socialism isnt a viable system.

The "socialism" implemented by FDR during the New Deal, and defended/sustained by Eisenhower in the 1950's, was arguably more socialist than the kleptocracy they had going in the Soviet Union.

Get it through your head that people advocating for Democratic Socialism is much different than they socialism they tried to implement in Russia. Nobody is advocating that workers own the means of production as a rule, only that we have a mixed market that is a little more mixed and a little less market.

[Raev]

Consider presidencies of George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.

Of course conservatives have to account for the past failures of the applications of conservatism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how moderate those presidents were their economic theory was fiscal conservatism. They both did nothing but fuck up the country except where they integrated liberalism heavily like in the establishment of the EPA

I am not a fan of either Bush or Nixon. But let's not forget that both of them inherited a gigantic pile of steaming shit from their Democratic predecessors. Nixon came in after Johnson had started a massive war in Vietnam and had pressured the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low. As Austrian theory would predict, this boom lead to the bust in the 70s and stagflation etc. Bush came in after Clinton had freshly repealed Glass-Steagall and the banks were already busy building a time bomb of mortgage backed securities.

Now you can argue both of them made things worse. Nixon took us off the gold standard, and keeping the US dollar relevant meant sucking up to Saudi Arabia. Bush pushed for more home ownership, appointed Greenspan who cut rates after the 2001 dotcom crash, and took us into Iraq. Neither of them were particularly competent.

The point is it's much more reasonable to say that the failure of the Soviet Union with socialism reflects poorly than the failure of two random presidents (who aren't even in full control of the government) does on capitalism.

[Pokesan]

dont argue with libertarians

[Lune]

If it was the golden age, that implies things got worse immediately after, which doesn't really say good things about their policies, does it? The free market and individual liberty part was what powered America to the top of the world through the early 1900s. Then the banks got the Federal Reserve going, and government expanded hugely while Roosevelt was busy turning an ordinary recession into a Great Depression then World War II, and things went down from there.

We were a second-rate backwater through the early 1900's, hardly even matching Great Britain and absolutely not the top of the world.

At no point since 1950 have things gotten as bad as they were prior to 1950. They may have diminished since then, but that's to be expected considering competing industry all over the world was destroyed in WW2. Things didn't really start nosediving until Reagan, and even then, we're still better off than the agrarian gilded-age shithole we were around 1900. I mean you're basically advocating for people like Andrew Carnegie to wield considerable power and influence again. That's basically what free market capitalism is. The people with the capital wield the economic power (and the political power too unless specific protections are in place, as we're seeing now).

Also consider that Nazi Germany and fascist Italy weathered the Great Depression better than any other economy in the world leading up to WW2, including the USA and Great Britain, and those were arguably the most socialist Western countries the world has ever seen.

[Nihilist_santa]

At no point since 1950 have things gotten as bad as they were prior to 1950.



You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

[Lune]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Yea because Detroit got shuttered by the destruction of certain sectors of American manufacturing, the entire US economy is worse now than in 1920. Good God man, look at the big picture. How about we compare San Jose then and now?

[Nihilist_santa]

Detroit also adopted liberal policies and had democrat leaders. If you look into it the issue its more than just manufacturing leaving. Its the political direction the city took and its policies. The great thing about the US is each state can act as a laboratory and we can watch this without infecting the rest of the country with its failed policies.

[Raev]

We were a second-rate backwater through the early 1900's, hardly even matching Great Britain and absolutely not the top of the world.

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty

I mean you're basically advocating for people like Andrew Carnegie to wield considerable power and influence again. That's basically what free market capitalism is. The people with the capital wield the economic power (and the political power too unless specific protections are in place, as we're seeing now).

Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

[Lune]

Detroit also adopted liberal policies and had democrat leaders. If you look into it the issue its more than just manufacturing leaving. Its the political direction the city took and its policies. The great thing about the US is each state can act as a laboratory and we can watch this without infecting the rest of the country with its failed policies.

Silicon valley and Seattle WA also adopted liberal policies, are both became booming centers of industry while Detroit sank. Obviously it's bigger than policy, and more due to industrial trends. Both Seattle and S.F dealt more in advanced manufacturing that wasn't hit as hard. You claim it's not because of manufacturing leaving, but I just don't see good reasoning there. Red states all over the US have fared awfully, except Texas, which might as well be member of OPEC.

[Priceline]

thought this thread was about the punch line to all of Dave Chappelle's jokes.. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

[Nihilist_santa]

Silicon valley and Seattle WA also adopted liberal policies, are both became booming centers of industry while Detroit sank. Obviously it's bigger than policy, and more due to industrial trends. Both Seattle and S.F dealt more in advanced manufacturing that wasn't hit as hard. You claim it's not because of manufacturing leaving, but I just don't see good reasoning there. Red states all over the US have fared awfully, except Texas, which might as well be member of OPEC.

Newsflash they haven't stopped making automobiles they just moved to right to work states in the south and Mexico. They were driven there by the economic climate of Detroit and its relationship to the unions (corruption, cronyism, etc all of the things you blame for the failings of other leftist systems that haven't actualized the dream)

[Lune]

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty



Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

So failing to deny that things haven't gotten as bad yet as they were before FDR, your argument is basically "Yea, we're getting there, things will get worse". Not sure how I can refute your fantasies for the future but yea, I guess we'll see.

The wealthy having political influence is independent of capitalism and socialism and has more to do with our culture and the protections we put in place institutionally to prevent it. I don't think it's a function of capitalism or socialism per se. Economic power being in the hands of those with capital, on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of capitalism. The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth. It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor. That is why the decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership. (http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/what-unions-did-labor-policy-and-american-inequality)

[Lune]

Newsflash they haven't stopped making automobiles they just moved to right to work states in the south and Mexico. They were driven there by the economic climate of Detroit and its relationship to the unions (corruption, cronyism, etc all of the things you blame for the failings of other leftist systems that haven't actualized the dream)

This is a map of right-to-work states. What do you notice about them?

http://i.imgur.com/Q367ber.jpg

They are all the shittiest, poorest states! Let's, as a nation, become more like the deep South!

Unions are responsible for nearly all the nice perks you enjoy today, like sick days, vacation, health and safety regulations, worker's compensation, benefits, etc, all these nice things that are slowly being eroded because of people like you defending the Bossman. Public sector unions obviously have problems. Some unions are corrupt. Unions, as a concept, are necessary.

[Raev]

I am simply saying that America was rising from 1775 -> 1930 or so so based on free markets and individual liberty. Progressives started to fuck things up at around 1900 and by 1930 the trajectory of the United States was flat. By 1970 it was downwards. The fact that people at the peak 1930-1960ish thought that social programs were a good idea is actually an indictment of those programs. I don't see why you are having trouble understanding this argument.

The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth.
And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor.
I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.

[Nihilist_santa]

This is a map of right-to-work states. What do you notice about them?

http://i.imgur.com/Q367ber.jpg

They are all the shittiest, poorest states! Let's, as a nation, become more like the deep South!

I swear to God the Civil War was a mistake, we should have the South to wither and die. If they were a separate country they'd be just barely outperforming Brazil.

So funny when liberals bring up the south and racism and such but totally ignore the fact that the southern racist were democrats. George Wallace ring a bell? What about the former grand wizard himself David Duke or further back like Huey P Long?

Repub Governors are running the south and bringing jobs there. The south may undergo a boom while the more liberal states deal with the fallout of their policies.

[maskedmelon]

Ideology is the death of free thought. Those who profess ideological adherence enjoy relevance inversely proportional to the number of drones advocating the same idea. That does not mean we should ignore old ideas. To the contrary, we should question all ideas, including our own, equally.

Socialism is not without rational merit, though contemporary proponents are generally disinclined to fully embrace the core principle that enables it: denial of liberty. If a state is to assume the responsibility of caring for its citizenry it must do so selectively if it is to succeed. Just as excellence acts as a vacuum on resources in a free market, failure acts the same in a system of redistribution.

Failure is endemic, cultural, untreatable, but not without a highly viable survival strategy: multiplicity. Unchecked subsidy of failed conditions necessarily results in more of those conditions, increasing the inefficiency of redistribution until the system is no longer sustainable.

Societies and markets must necessarily be regulated if they are to remain free from the inevitable ascent of excellence though. The success of individuals operating at two or more standard deviations beyond the mean is staggering relative to the mean.

Limiting success is necessary as a matter of prudence due to the scarcity and best use of resources. No matter how astute one may be in a given field, they are not so in all fields, nor are their talents nor inspirations within said fields absolute. For these reasons among others, devoting all resources or even a majority (as they would surely enjoy within a competitive environment) is unreasonable.

Similarly, individuals operating below the mean and unable to adequately care for themselves enjoy success at a radically lower level than those at the mean. Ordinarily nature would cull such individuals from the population at a disproportionate rate. An equally disproportionate birth rate in addition to the compassion of and utility for their fellow man is why such individuals have endured to this day.

In a modern society many natural hazards are removed, though the same individuals are plagued by other hazards such as illicit substances, inadequate healthcare, unsafe/unstable employment, etc. which serve to fill a small part of nature's regulation. Even without subsidy, such individuals enjoy inordinate proliferation in modern society, decreasing mean performance as they assume an ever larger share of the population.

This does not mean that low functioning individuals must necessarily be purged from society, rather that there is a rational argument for limiting their proliferation just as their is for limiting the success of high functioning individuals.


Is any of this right though?

[Nihilist_santa]

Reminds me of the r/k selection theory applied to politics Molyneux is fond of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

[Lune]

And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

Neither can you. Talented, hard-working people deserve fabulous rewards. They don't deserve to run the country or the economy. That's all I'm saying. And be careful saying "always". Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Government in scandinavian countries is extremely egalitarian and hardly owned by the wealthy. Maybe if we work hard at making our culture better some day we can be like them.

I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.

Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics. You sound like an undergrad physics student telling me how their sphere shaped rigid-body cows behave on a frictionless incline with no wind resistance. Tell me about how there's a linear supply demand curve meant to represent human behavior and its endless variables, and how it controls and isolates causality for exactly none of them, nor does it account properly for volunteerism, non-profits, irrational behavior, special interests, imperfect competition, or any number of human complexities. Every branch has a dismal track record predicting economic events. None of their models truly reflect reality, unless they are so winnowed and limited as to be useless. And this after you spend the thread bashing academia.

I'm saying this out of love for the potential economics has, that maybe some day it can stop being dogmatic witchcraft and start using the scientific method.

[Raev]

Neither can you.
I mean, this was not a hypothetical. The banks gave themselves $14 trillion in 2008.


Tell me more about supply and demand and the garbage science you call microeconomics.I am not a member of a union and yet somehow I have a salary, benefits, etc. Because I have skills that are valuable, and companies must compete for my labor. The price they must pay is a function of the total demand for computer programmers and the total supply.

I really think you are just trolling at this point.

P.S.: economics can never use the scientific method. There is no control group. Which is why the only valid economics is deductive economics, i.e. Austrian economics, and basically little logic like I just showed in the previous paragraph (note the absence of any numbers).

[Lune]

I am not a member of a union and yet somehow I have a salary, benefits, etc. Because I have skills that are valuable, and companies must compete for my labor. The price they must pay is a function of the total demand for computer programmers and the total supply.

I really think you are just trolling at this point.

Because about 80 years ago unions fought tooth and nail to win those things for people who sell their labor for their livelihood. You, a laborer.

That function for your wage exists in some form, but is undefined. Economists try to define it, and fail stupendously. And since you're using principles of economics to justify big picture policy for the entire US economy, what economists think about general principles matters.

And your wage isn't purely a product of quantifiable supply and demand. There are entrenched expectations and history involved in the wage for your job that may not have adjusted to match the current reality. There are matters of access; somewhere in the world, someone exists who speaks English and will do your job half as well for about 1/5 what they pay you, but your boss or your industry hasn't found a way to connect yet. Those things effect the supply and demand, but there is no way for economists to model them.

[Nihilist_santa]

Actually that portion of your wage is clearly defined and understood in economics.

Now I am starting to think this guy is trolling as well.

People follow their interest that is what is undefined. No one is forcing Raev to work the job he does.

[JurisDictum]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Practically every major Urban center (red state or no) is liberal run. Your argument is stupid and cherry picked for that reason alone.

Once you add in the widely-known fact that there has been mass migration out of the rust belt due to the decline of the auto industry -- its a pretty brain dead talking point.

[JurisDictum]

I've not heard a good reason yet for why Bernie's policies "won't work in America"

Just a lot of reasons about why they are less likely to be voted in.

[Nihilist_santa]

I've not heard a good reason yet for why Bernie's policies "won't work in America"

Just a lot of reasons about why they are less likely to be voted in.

The homogenous cultural makeup of the democratic-socialist countries is not present in America. I love the Mexican flags being waved at the Bernie rallies and his supporters when protesting Donald Trump. That's why it wont work here and is a recipe for disaster.

[JurisDictum]

The homogenous cultural makeup of the democratic-socialist countries is not present in America. I love the Mexican flags being waved at the Bernie rallies and his supporters when protesting Donald Trump. That's why it wont work here and is a recipe for disaster.

It wont be voted in, is what your saying. Your not giving me a reason why our system is somehow different so that if it was implemented, it wouldn't work. I'm trying to seperate these two notions.

Supply-side economics has basically been proven empirically wrong. When you cut taxes on the rich, it usually (there are exceptions) doesn't give you the same tax revenue as you had before due to growth.

Reagan (or at least his handlers) knew it was bullshit when he said it. We have seen the impact -- record inequality, stagnate real wages, shrinking middle class. We're sick of fucking hearing it. Cutting taxes for wealthy people -- help wealthy people -- not poor or most middle class people. No shit? Shouldn't have that been obvious right away?

[maskedmelon]

Reminds me of the r/k selection theory applied to politics Molyneux is fond of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

Fascinating. My conjectures are validated.

[sOurDieSel]

white priviledge exists

Only in the minds of the most delusional Cultural Marxists.

Also I would like to add that race doesn't exist and that its just a social construct.

OP and video producer obviously hate White People except when it comes to living in their countries and using all their evil inventions like internet and electricity.

[JurisDictum]

I am simply saying that America was rising from 1775 -> 1930 or so so based on free markets and individual liberty. Progressives started to fuck things up at around 1900 and by 1930 the trajectory of the United States was flat. By 1970 it was downwards. The fact that people at the peak 1930-1960ish thought that social programs were a good idea is actually an indictment of those programs. I don't see why you are having trouble understanding this argument.


America's % of world GDP in 1820 = 1.8%

America's % of world GDP in 1870 = 8.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1913 = 18.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1950 = 27.3%

America's % of world GDP in 1980 = 21.1%

America's % of world GDP in 2008 = 18.6%

https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

To me it is obvious that Reaganite polices do not work. The Coldwar including Vietnam is what I blame for slow growth after 1950. Huge drain on resources. We also don't invest in our workforce in America. At least, not like they do in many other advanced industrial societies. Apple has to go to Germany (with all their horrible unions) to get the more expensive parts of their phones made by their workforce. What is so wrong about having Apple work with the US government and not the German government?

[Nihilist_santa]

America's % of world GDP in 1820 = 1.8%

America's % of world GDP in 1870 = 8.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1913 = 18.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1950 = 27.3%

America's % of world GDP in 1980 = 21.1%

America's % of world GDP in 2008 = 18.6%

https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

To me it is obvious that Reaganite polices do not work. The Coldwar including Vietnam is what I blame for slow growth after 1950. Huge drain on resources. We also don't invest in our workforce in America. At least, not like they do in many other advanced industrial societies. Apple has to go to Germany (with all their horrible unions) to get the more expensive parts of their phones made by their workforce. What is so wrong about having Apple work with the US government and not the German government?


Hmm I wonder what happened between 1913 and 1950? Oh right it was that part where we bombed the shit out of the manufacturing base and infrastructure of nearly all of our financial competitors. Not to mention The Federal Reserve and a little something called Bretton Woods. You were just talking previously about complexities and conservatives being unable to understand them yet you cherry pick everything.

[Nihilist_santa]

Your information also doesn't say what you are saying. If anything it shows steady growth until the point Americas interventionist took over. Then its been nothing but decline accept for the accounted for growth I noted above which was due to a lack of competition and excess manufacturing capacity from the war.

[JurisDictum]

Hmm I wonder what happened between 1913 and 1950? Oh right it was that part where we bombed the shit out of the manufacturing base and infrastructure of nearly all of our financial competitors. Not to mention The Federal Reserve and a little something called Bretton Woods. You were just talking previously about complexities and conservatives being unable to understand them yet you cherry pick everything.

We can just look at the damn thing in real terms then. It's not like you and Reav are making the exact same arguments.

7414

I just don't see any evidence for his wild view of the history of our economy.

[Blitzers]

"I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There
is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and
know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the
intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally
with white men in any function of our civilization. I have given my life
to try to bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but
I have become well aware that we must retain this status: the superior and
they the inferior. For whenever a white man seeks to live among them as
their equals they will either destroy him or devour him. And they will
destroy all of his work. Let white men from anywhere in the world, who
would come to Africa, remember that you must continually retain this
status; you the master and they the inferior like children that you would
help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as
your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you."

Albert Schweitzer renowned Philosopher

I think Trump would agree with Schweitzer, how bout you?

[Swish]

"I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There
is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and
know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the
intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally
with white men in any function of our civilization. I have given my life
to try to bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but
I have become well aware that we must retain this status: the superior and
they the inferior. For whenever a white man seeks to live among them as
their equals they will either destroy him or devour him. And they will
destroy all of his work. Let white men from anywhere in the world, who
would come to Africa, remember that you must continually retain this
status; you the master and they the inferior like children that you would
help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as
your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you."

Albert Schweitzer renowned Philosopher

I think Trump would agree with Schweitzer, how bout you?

South Africa or Zimbabwe since the whites lost power... not exactly going upwards are they? Land redistribution and "affirmative action" based on race.

[Nihilist_santa]

South Africa or Zimbabwe since the whites lost power... not exactly going upwards are they? Land redistribution and "affirmative action" based on race.

Thats what happens (in the case of SA) when you put a militant marxist terrorist in charge and award him a peace prize. Hmm who does he remind you of? :confused:

[Raev]

America's % of world GDP in 1820 = 1.8%

America's % of world GDP in 1870 = 8.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1913 = 18.9%

America's % of world GDP in 1950 = 27.3%

America's % of world GDP in 1980 = 21.1%

America's % of world GDP in 2008 = 18.6%

So don't these stats support my theory? Huge growth in the 1800s, by 1930-50 we peaked, and then went down? I mean, you can't seriously be reading me as saying that things are in absolute terms worse than 1920. We've had huge improvements in technology since since. But what do you think of this chart: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/chart-explains-american-politics

[Lune]

So don't these stats support my theory? Huge growth in the 1800s, by 1930-50 we peaked, and then went down? I mean, you can't seriously be reading me as saying that things are in absolute terms worse than 1920. We've had huge improvements in technology since since. But what do you think of this chart: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/chart-explains-american-politics

If you're just interested in our share of world GDP, I guess so. But that wouldn't make much sense, would it? In the time period captured by those numbers, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many other countries industrialized and captured a larger share of global GDP. China alone went from 350 billion in 1990 to 9 trillion in 2013 (And hilariously, they did it using a blend of state capitalism and mixed market reforms, with a state-owned central bank), fueled by investment from American firms meant to replace American jobs.

If you look at workplace conditions, purchasing power, labor share of the market... pretty much any variable where you can isolate technological changes to some degree, we're still better off. The activity of unions in the early 1900's made things a lot better for the American laborer, improvements which are being eroded by randroids. As I said before, it's why the decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership. (http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/what-unions-did-labor-policy-and-american-inequality). And people have been talked into thinking that's a good thing, like that share is going to investment in GDP growth instead of being squirreled away overseas and funding outsourcing.

[maerilith]

http://i.imgur.com/VF3hnTf.jpg

Are we allowed to allege that people may be white supremacists on these boards?

[Nihilist_santa]

If you're just interested in our share of world GDP, I guess so. But that wouldn't make much sense, would it? In the time period captured by those numbers, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many other countries industrialized and captured a larger share of global GDP. China alone went from 350 billion in 1990 to 9 trillion in 2013 (And hilariously, they did it using a blend of state capitalism and mixed market reforms, with a state-owned central bank), fueled by investment from American firms meant to replace American jobs.

If you look at workplace conditions, purchasing power, labor share of the market... pretty much any variable where you can isolate technological changes to some degree, we're still better off. The activity of unions in the early 1900's made things a lot better for the American laborer, improvements which are being eroded by randroids. As I said before, it's why the decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership. (http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/what-unions-did-labor-policy-and-american-inequality). And people have been talked into thinking that's a good thing, like that share is going to investment in GDP growth instead of being squirreled away overseas and funding outsourcing.

Workers have been turning down union enrollment even when its in their best interest. Just look at the VW plant in TN a couple of years ago. The workers chose not to unionize even though VW gave them their blessing as its kind of their SOP in Germany. The workers see job creation and dont want to ruin it with disastrous leftism that drives away employers and hastens outsourcing. the unions did their jobs and that job has been relegated to govt and the private sector now. I have friends in a metal workers union who were telling me they are not allowed to strike. They have no strike clauses in their contracts. All they do is enrich the union bosses and their political interest.

[Nihilist_santa]

http://i.imgur.com/VF3hnTf.jpg

Are we allowed to allege that people may be white supremacists on these boards?

Dont you have some genitals to mutilate? How could you possibly find time for little ol me.

[Lune]

Workers have been turning down union enrollment even when its in their best interest. Just look at the VW plant in TN a couple of years ago. The workers chose not to unionize even though VW gave them their blessing as its kind of their SOP in Germany. The workers see job creation and dont want to ruin it with disastrous leftism that drives away employers and hastens outsourcing. the unions did their jobs and that job has been relegated to govt and the private sector now. I have friends in a metal workers union who were telling me they are not allowed to strike. They have no strike clauses in their contracts. All they do is enrich the union bosses and their political interest.

It's like the only reasoning you are capable of is picking anecdotes and then generalizing them to represent reality. Says nothing to explain why labor has been getting buttraped since Reagan, nor does it speak to the graph I posted whatsoever, especially when the private sector has hijacked the government.

My brother in law is a union plumber and he loves it. So yea, there's my anecdote.

[Nihilist_santa]

Yeah real world examples of people turning down union enrollment kind of goes against your argument. What is the role of the unions? Safety? Wages? What is their effect in the current year. Im not talking west virginia coal miners at the turn of the century. OSHA and MSHA and several other organizations have been established to oversee the crap the Unions set out to do. Guess what Union(like) enrollment in the USSR was near universal how does that fit with your argument? Strange that safety conditions in China have improved for workers only through capitalist investments in infrastructure and other means and that the "peoples" party just turned a blind eye for years.

[maskedmelon]

http://i.imgur.com/1FWZO3c.jpg

[Nihilist_santa]

http://i.imgur.com/1FWZO3c.jpg

Lune will utter some non-sense about causation and correlation then will continue to unknowingly produce more information that charts the decline of America in most areas to the rise in leftist policies.

[Raev]

If you're just interested in our share of world GDP, I guess so. But that wouldn't make much sense, would it? In the time period captured by those numbers, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and many other countries industrialized and captured a larger share of global GDP.
The point is we were growing faster than the rest of the world until 1930 (lets not count 1950 and the devastation of WWII).

And hilariously, they did it using a blend of state capitalism and mixed market reforms, with a state-owned central bank
China is not a success story. They are yet another central bank fueled Keynesian bubble, with the small twist that their government can lie about any statistics it wants and jail people who disagree. Google 'china debt' if you don't believe me.

]labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership.
I mean look. There is only one United States, and it is suffering from a plague of leftist Keynesians. I can't prove that things would have been better without this insanity. If you choose to believe that a decline in union membership is a bigger factor than government corruption, cultural marxism, and bad monetary policy, although I believe that is utter foolishness I can't prove you are wrong.

All I can say is that the leftists have had their way with the US since 1960 in practically every area (the Republican party has been too busy giving money to the 1% to put up any real resistance). If union membership is down, do you really think that outweighs the massive, massive shift to the left we've experienced? Do you really think we've outperformed the rest of the globe economically since 1960? Is the US a better place to live than it was then, relative to the rest of the world? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that life satisfaction as measured by the GSS is actually down since then, but google is failing me.

[Nihilist_santa]

Finland is an interesting example amongst the Nordics. They just introduced a Milton Friedman inspired negative income tax rate as a means of cutting their social welfare programs. If the Nordic socialist models are the example for America why are they currently pivoting away from those models?

[Lictor]

Having children out of wedlock is a money train/only source of income for number of people on that graph, of course they will continue to reproduce.

[Pokesan]

Lune will utter some non-sense about causation and correlation then will continue to unknowingly produce more information that charts the decline of America in most areas to the rise in leftist policies.

dont worry, lune is on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to shrieking about browns :)

[Lune]

I mean look. There is only one United States, and it is suffering from a plague of leftist Keynesians. I can't prove that things would have been better without this insanity. If you choose to believe that a decline in union membership is a bigger factor than government corruption, cultural marxism, and bad monetary policy, although I believe that is utter foolishness I can't prove you are wrong.

I don't believe declining union membership is a bigger problem than government corruption and bad monetary policy. I just believe it is a big problem that is just a symptom of changing political attitudes in the US that correspond to the rise of hyper-individualism / Reagonomics type beliefs, ie: "Government is bad, I shouldn't have to pay taxes, fuck you I got mine".

All I can say is that the leftists have had their way with the US since 1960 in practically every area (the Republican party has been too busy giving money to the 1% to put up any real resistance). If union membership is down, do you really think that outweighs the massive, massive shift to the left we've experienced? Do you really think we've outperformed the rest of the globe economically since 1960? Is the US a better place to live than it was then, relative to the rest of the world? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that life satisfaction as measured by the GSS is actually down since then, but google is failing me.

I'm not sure how you got the idea the US has experienced a massive shift to the left, because that stands contrary to everything I know about politics over the last 60 years. Reagan and his cronies revolutionized politics in America and nothing has been the same since then; Republicans have been a lot more libertarian (in their rhetoric, not in their actions-- they still bloat the government and fuck with monetary policy), and taxes have become a third rail issue, even for Democrats. The US is so so much further to the right than our peers, it isn't even funny. How can you tell me we're more liberal than Canada, Germany, or any other advanced economy? If leftists had their way, people like Bernie Sanders wouldn't have spent their entire career advocating a brand of European liberalism and being ignored by the American house of grifters. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxRCnwqUrc8)

Finland is an interesting example amongst the Nordics. They just introduced a Milton Friedman inspired negative income tax rate as a means of cutting their social welfare programs. If the Nordic socialist models are the example for America why are they currently pivoting away from those models?

This is just comical. Finland experimenting with a form of basic income-- and you say that's a pivot away from socialist policies? It's universal fucking welfare. If it's something Milton Friedman advocated, I guess there's one point I agree with Milton Friedman. Basic income kicks ass; we should do it here.

dont worry, lune is on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to shrieking about browns :)

Here's my stance on racial issues: Judge someone by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

[Raev]

I didn't say that the US was to the left of Canada/Europe etc, I said we have moved to the left of where we were 60 years ago. For example, Federal Safety Net (http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html) claims that spending on poverty programs has increased by a factor of 30 since 1960. Are you seriously claiming this is not a move to the left? Note, of course, that the percentage of people in poverty has not changed. Obviously we just need more!

[Lune]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

Do these Republicans resemble the Republicans of today? Would they be elected by the current GOP electorate? Reagan absolutely decimated politics in this country. I just don't understand how you can think we have gone left. Even our top Democrats today are as conservative as Eisenhower was. The faction of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan radically changed the politics in this country, dragging both the GOP and the Dems to the right.

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

[Nihilist_santa]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

Do these Republicans resemble the Republicans of today? Would they be elected by the current GOP electorate? Reagan absolutely decimated politics in this country. I just don't understand how you can think we have gone left. Even our top Democrats today are as conservative as Eisenhower was. The faction of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan radically changed the politics in this country, dragging both the GOP and the Dems to the right.

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

You keep trying to tell us about wolves in sheeps clothing. We get it. You dont seem to realize that what you are pointing out is that the neocons and Randians and some others that have hijacked the conservative groups and republican party are not really representing conservatism or libertarianism. These guys are straight up Trotskyites that were opposed to the USSR. Kristol is on record numerous times talking about this and he is the grandfather of neo-conservatism. He gleefully recounts his times as a member of the precursor to the Young Communist League I forget what it was called then. He was part of a clique of Jewish revolutionaries and leftist thinkers that became influential with the right.

All you are showing is the failures of the left.

[Daywolf]

baaahahaha goes the sheep in wolves clothing baaaahahahahha followers of wolves in sheep clothing hehe

Seriously, worse thing about Reagan, the neocons stuck him with Bush as VP. Oh then he got shot te-he-he. Just think, we could have wound up with a Bush earlier and still have the USSR around, Jeb might even have looked good at some point. Just endless Neocon wars to be had, and for dems too apart from the few that actually woke up.

This problem is inherited, has been ongoing over 100yrs. Though probably better propelled thanks to Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda techniques. So well played by star struck political figures, society is further sliding into self-censorship and total denial of the stage being set right before their eyes. How many lights do you see? Woof!

[maerilith]

Can't wait till I can haz office.

[Raev]

60 years ago, in the 1950's, the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was a "progressive conservative" and had a policy of massive government spending on infrastructure, and expanded various New Deal programs.

As late as the 1970's, Republican Richard Nixon's achievements included the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and the establishment of the EPA. He proposed a private health insurance employer mandate, and the first form of Medicaid for poor families.

The rhetoric does not matter. What matters is the absolute quantity of socialist programs. And I just linked you a study showing that quantity was far lower in 1960.

Further, of course safety net spending has increased. These institutions are massively corrupt and inept, and are just another avenue for crooks to plunder the country. I can't imagine how much money insurance companies are skimming out of medicare and medicaid (bloated cost), developers/lenders are skimming out of HUD, colleges skim out of Pell Grants (bloated tuition), etc-- all with the cooperation of their Democrat cronies.

So if you agree that the government is terrible at everything it does, why do you want more of it? Shouldn't we attempt to clean up the government we have now before we expand it?

Also, I think both the Democrats and the Republicans of the past 30+ years are full of shit. In the end they are only interested in transferring money to themselves and their banker puppet masters. Don't you find the reaction of the Democratic party to Bernie rather enlightening? I mean, he is for all of the things they SAY they are for: more socialism, more benefits for poor people, etc. And yet the party hates his guts and is going to use the super delegates to nominate Hillary who will keep the banker gravy train rolling. Ditto for Trump; you would think less immigration, 2nd amendment rights, lower taxes, etc would go over really well with the Republicans. Instead the establishment went nuts trying to give the nomination to someone, anyone, who would lose to Hillary. The Koch Brothers have been claiming to be libertarian, but now we know they are the wolves in sheep's clothing when they talk about supporting Hillary.

Again: if you think our government is corrupt, why do you want more of it?

[Daywolf]

Can't wait till I can haz office.
You'll need to go a lot further than you've already done >.>
Anyway, not in the cards. The end of borders are already here; an end to nations, sovereignty, presidents and forever to be led by the technocrats. Forget about trying to become a girl. Cyborg is the near future (and with pig parts). Then full robot and an end to humanity. None of which transitions you will ever be able to afford, sorry.

[Lune]

Also, I think both the Democrats and the Republicans of the past 30+ years are full of shit. In the end they are only interested in transferring money to themselves and their banker puppet masters. Don't you find the reaction of the Democratic party to Bernie rather enlightening? I mean, he is for all of the things they SAY they are for: more socialism, more benefits for poor people, etc. And yet the party hates his guts and is going to use the super delegates to nominate Hillary who will keep the banker gravy train rolling. Ditto for Trump; you would think less immigration, 2nd amendment rights, lower taxes, etc would go over really well with the Republicans. Instead the establishment went nuts trying to give the nomination to someone, anyone, who would lose to Hillary. The Koch Brothers have been claiming to be libertarian, but now we know they are the wolves in sheep's clothing when they talk about supporting Hillary.

Again: if you think our government is corrupt, why do you want more of it?

I guess it just depends on whether you think the solution to a corrupt government is to fix the corruption, or to reduce the government... which itself depends on whether you have a fundamental disdain for big government. I don't.

Our current political culture cannot support the kind of government we need, people simply do not hold the right beliefs and cognitions. I believe government works better in places like Canada, Germany, or New Deal USA quite simply because there are far less people like you-- well intentioned, but ultimately hyper-individualistic. I think many people in the US view society as a resource from which you can extract wealth, for your own benefit, at the expense of others. You balk at the idea of paying into a collective pool of opportunity, because you believe you create all your own opportunity, or that there is a swarming underclass of takers just waiting to lounge around in the safety net like a hammock.

I could go on for hours about all the reasons I think government is necessary and libertarianism is bad, but I've said it all before. But I think I can sum it up with just a few premises:

1. Controlling capital makes it easier to acquire a larger share of both existing wealth and newly created wealth, to the extent that wealth will tend to concentrate over time.

2. The free market has no answer to this. Only institutions such as government or unions are capable of offsetting this natural force of economics through antitrust activity, tax, public investment, collective bargaining, etc.

3. Poverty is heritable as a cultural and biological attribute. The values and conditions under which we are raised effect us deeply, even influencing the way our prefrontal cortexes is wired, affecting judgment, capacity for morality, work ethic, social skills, delay gratification... Poverty tends to manifest as a subculture.

4. Therefore, it is in our best interest as a society to provide as much opportunity and resources as possible to get as many people out of poverty as possible. You can't pay people out of poverty, but you can help mitigate its pernicious effects, and you can increase the rate at which people escape. And it's in your best interest to live in a society with as few people who were stunted by poverty as possible.


Basically I think humanity is destined for something better than what ultimately amounts to the state of nature. (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2078648&postcount=166)

Again: if you think our government is corrupt, why do you want more of it?

TL;DR: Basically because of this. (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)

[Raev]

I guess it just depends on whether you think the solution to a corrupt government is to fix the corruption, or to reduce the government... which itself depends on whether you have a fundamental disdain for big government. I don't.

It's not a matter of disdain; it's solid logic for why government will never work (blah blah Mancur Olson blah blah). Meanwhile your list is pure fantasy. As I said, fix the corruption FIRST, then expand the government.

[maskedmelon]

3. Poverty is heritable as a cultural and biological attribute. The values and conditions under which we are raised effect us deeply, even influencing the way our prefrontal cortexes is wired, affecting judgment, capacity for morality, work ethic, social skills, delay gratification... Poverty tends to manifest as a subculture.

4. Therefore, it is in our best interest as a society to provide as much opportunity and resources as possible to get as many people out of poverty as possible. You can't pay people out of poverty, but you can help mitigate its pernicious effects, and you can increase the rate at which people escape. And it's in your best interest to live in a society with as few people who were stunted by poverty as possible.


Basically I think humanity is destined for something better than what ultimately amounts to the state of nature. (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2078648&postcount=166)



I don't think anybody disagrees with either points 3 or 4. The relevant question is: how is poverty best eliminated? I have a hard time understanding how nourishing something retards its growth. If you have a child who struggles with math and you solve the problems for them whenever they ask for help, when will they ever learn math?

Your heart is in the right place, but I am not seeing how the approach is a rational one. You even acknowledge that you are only mitigating the effects through subsidy, so that leaves me wondering, how do you limit its spread? Because eventually you will end up with an ever greater proportion of the population that cannot take care of itself.

It seems your argument is based on the assumption that it is possible for a majority of a population to abandon cultural/biologic predisposition. How does that work?

[Nihilist_santa]

Lune is making the mistake that many others do. He looks at "rich" and "poor" as if that is something set in stone. Now for many it will be due to situations beyond our control like geographics and culture and such but many people transition throughout their lives. You would be considered "poor" while in college working part time. Eventually you may be "rich" . There is mobility. This is the reason why so many liberals are young but once they achieve some form of upward mobility and accumulate some sort of "wealth" they change their tune on taxes and the economy.

TLDR : Live more and you will outgrow your commie desires.

[JurisDictum]

Lune is making the mistake that many others do. He looks at "rich" and "poor" as if that is something set in stone. Now for many it will be due to situations beyond our control like geographics and culture and such but many people transition throughout their lives. You would be considered "poor" while in college working part time. Eventually you may be "rich" . There is mobility. This is the reason why so many liberals are young but once they achieve some form of upward mobility and accumulate some sort of "wealth" they change their tune on taxes and the economy.

TLDR : Live more and you will outgrow your commie desires.

7417

America is the best country in the world to be born in -- if your rich.

[JurisDictum]

I don't think anybody disagrees with either points 3 or 4. The relevant question is: how is poverty best eliminated? I have a hard time understanding how nourishing something retards its growth. If you have a child who struggles with math and you solve the problems for them whenever they ask for help, when will they ever learn math?

Your heart is in the right place, but I am not seeing how the approach is a rational one. You even acknowledge that you are only mitigating the effects through subsidy, so that leaves me wondering, how do you limit its spread? Because eventually you will end up with an ever greater proportion of the population that cannot take care of itself.

It seems your argument is based on the assumption that it is possible for a majority of a population to abandon cultural/biologic predisposition. How does that work?

You should be aware that the US safety net works the way it does not because there's good evidence it helps poor people more than more extensive safety nets of Europe. It's because it keeps the labor force "fungible."

In other words, you can't live off our safety net unless you have disability maybe (it's pretty rogue even then). It forced people into the labor market in a way that makes them more likely to put up with bosses keeping them overtime, underpay, and lack of reasonably comfortable work space. In turn this helps the economy overall -- at least that's the argument.

It has nothing to do with helping poor people or what is the best to lift them out of poverty -- the system doesn't lift people out of poverty. That's not its purpose. It's purpose is to keep labor relatively cheap.

[Rararboker]

To op's original post, lol college. Good to learn (some) stuff. Horrible for getting a career. Learn marketable skills instead.

[Nihilist_santa]

Can you choose a source that isn't heavily biased by the researcher who is a Democrat that works on democrat economic policies?

You guys like to cherry pick. That high elasticity is due to a number of factors. One I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that their is intergenerational subsidies and and permanent welfare households compared to an era when their were more available jobs and less liberal policies. Why try for more when you can have those sweet rims and netflix , eat steak, and its all on someone else's dime. In other words the more dependents the state creates the the higher this elasticity.

Strange that France and Spain are so high (but not surprising) considering they are extremely left. I mean France is all about their unions and worker protections, life time employment and pensions. They should be a utopia. Perhaps its the close proximity to Africa and its migrants overloading its system but that would just be racist to mention that and would only point out further the "successes" of the Nordics is cultural and not economic.

Your point about being rich in america is pretty funny considering that globally speaking most Americans are "rich".

[Nihilist_santa]

You should be aware that the US safety net works the way it does not because there's good evidence it helps poor people more than more extensive safety nets of Europe. It's because it keeps the labor force "fungible."

In other words, you can't live off our safety net unless you have disability maybe (it's pretty rogue even then). It forced people into the labor market in a way that makes them more likely to put up with bosses keeping them overtime, underpay, and lack of reasonably comfortable work space. In turn this helps the economy overall -- at least that's the argument.

It has nothing to do with helping poor people or what is the best to lift them out of poverty -- the system doesn't lift people out of poverty. That's not its purpose. It's purpose is to keep labor relatively cheap.

Socialist economies are incapable of building and sustaining wealth because they need infinite growth and tax base to cover their policies. Americas economy and job market is in the toilet which is why you see the Govt giving out more subsidies. Next will be free college. They dont have any prospects for the young so they will keep them in school and at home for as long as possible. Those who manage to work in a situation like walmart will need subsidies which they in turn spend at walmart. Eventually they run out of other peoples money. Its an interesting shell game where they are trying to hide and put off the repercussions of their policies until they have enough people dependent that its too difficult to reverse.

[Raev]

The problem is that ultimately politics is what Wolfgang Pauli would call 'not even wrong'. You can make any idiotic claim between cause and effect and no one can do a controlled experiment to prove you wrong. The fact that socialism has failed nearly everywhere it has been tried (Venezuelans are currently starving to death despite their country possessing more oil than Saudi Arabia) doesn't matter as long as the socialists can point to a few nations that haven't imploded yet.

Take JurisDictum's graph for example. I suppose he considers this rock solid proof that if only we had more social programs like Denmark things would be better. If I claim that inequality is more persistent in the US due to our more diverse cultural and ethnic mix, or because the bankers own the country, or that more social programs are unlikely to work given that we've already increased spending by a factor of 30 since the Great Society, neither of us can truly prove the other is wrong in a scientific way.

The bad news for socialists is that European socialism will implode soon anyway. Europe is already being torn apart by Muslim immigrant, and since the Muslims have many, many more children than the natives . . . . either the Europeans go full on Nazi and kill them all, or the Muslims will simply vote them out of their own homelands (and you are kidding yourself if you think a Muslim state won't have Sharia law). Neither is particularly appealing.

[Nihilist_santa]

You are right. I mean you cant convince someone that believes that a Grandma living on $900 a month is a socialist success to believe that as Friedman said A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

[Pokesan]

i told you don't argue with libertarians

[Nihilist_santa]

i told you don't argue with libertarians

Depends on the issue as to whether I "lean" libertarian and most of those are economic . I think "libertarianism" requires a cultural change that we wont see without having experienced crushing oppression. Libertarian ideas ring true but Im more of a realist and understand that "might makes right". Minarchist systems are ALWAYS going to be at a disadvantage when dealing with statist systems and so I dont think it is viable. In this way libertarians are as much idealist as the progressives.

[JurisDictum]

Can you choose a source that isn't heavily biased by the researcher who is a Democrat that works on democrat economic policies?

You guys like to cherry pick. That high elasticity is due to a number of factors. One I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that their is intergenerational subsidies and and permanent welfare households compared to an era when their were more available jobs and less liberal policies. Why try for more when you can have those sweet rims and netflix , eat steak, and its all on someone else's dime. In other words the more dependents the state creates the the higher this elasticity.

Strange that France and Spain are so high (but not surprising) considering they are extremely left. I mean France is all about their unions and worker protections, life time employment and pensions. They should be a utopia. Perhaps its the close proximity to Africa and its migrants overloading its system but that would just be racist to mention that and would only point out further the "successes" of the Nordics is cultural and not economic.

Your point about being rich in america is pretty funny considering that globally speaking most Americans are "rich".

Yes globally speaking. Out of all the rich countries, where the ones that argue "we can't afford" investment in our workforce.

See you talk about a poorer country to make your point (Spain), because your point doesn't hold up in Sweden or Germany (which isn't actually socialist at all -- It's called corporatism). We don't compare countries with High GDP per capita with countries with low GDP per capita. This is why I'm not up here pointing out how Somila proves how stupid libertarian policies are.

Again to you, there no difference between communism, democratic-socialism, or Barrock Obama. So it's surprising your talking about France when I'm trying to talk about democratic-socialist institutions working better.

We never had a free market in this country. There was always a close relationship between the top of actors and government and top actors in business. Things like the Railroads and slave agriculture make this pretty clear. A free market as described by Smith doesn't exist, never exited, and never will.

Edit: I'm not arguing there has never been a safety net program too generous. France is actually kind of an example -- for they tend to have problems with pension plans being too generous (I would argue corrupt in some cases). Were in no danger of implementing too generous of a welfare state.

[JurisDictum]

The problem is that ultimately politics is what Wolfgang Pauli would call 'not even wrong'. You can make any idiotic claim between cause and effect and no one can do a controlled experiment to prove you wrong. The fact that socialism has failed nearly everywhere it has been tried (Venezuelans are currently starving to death despite their country possessing more oil than Saudi Arabia) doesn't matter as long as the socialists can point to a few nations that haven't imploded yet.

Take JurisDictum's graph for example. I suppose he considers this rock solid proof that if only we had more social programs like Denmark things would be better. If I claim that inequality is more persistent in the US due to our more diverse cultural and ethnic mix, or because the bankers own the country, or that more social programs are unlikely to work given that we've already increased spending by a factor of 30 since the Great Society, neither of us can truly prove the other is wrong in a scientific way.

The bad news for socialists is that European socialism will implode soon anyway. Europe is already being torn apart by Muslim immigrant, and since the Muslims have many, many more children than the natives . . . . either the Europeans go full on Nazi and kill them all, or the Muslims will simply vote them out of their own homelands (and you are kidding yourself if you think a Muslim state won't have Sharia law). Neither is particularly appealing.

I posted it to dispell the myth the America's policies are no. 1 in social mobility. Why is England even worse if it's about homogeneity?

[JurisDictum]

To op's original post, lol college. Good to learn (some) stuff. Horrible for getting a career. Learn marketable skills instead.

Don't believe the articles that look at first year earnings only. Overtime, college educated make far more money. It's simply a fact you will be promoted faster with a degree. 25% of the country gets a B.A. or B.S., its better to be one of those if you don't want to work trades. It's getting less in less common to see smart blue collar people transition into their own business.

[JurisDictum]

It's also worth noting that unions work a hell of a lot better when the government is used as an intermediary before them. The US government is terrible at this -- wildly inconsistent with no institutional structure for it outside the President really.

It works better in countries that have "peak" organizations that represent unions nationally that consult with upper management. The also have formal institutions for the government to insure unions or business is not out of line.

So in this narrow sense, there is real institutional differences between US/UK/Australia etc. and countries with a more institutionalized union set up. There aren't these kind of barriers for healthcare or education that I can see.

[Nihilist_santa]

Yes globally speaking. Out of all the rich countries, where the ones that argue "we can't afford" investment in our workforce.

See you talk about a poorer country to make your point (Spain), because your point doesn't hold up in Sweden or Germany (which isn't actually socialist at all -- It's called corporatism). We don't compare countries with High GDP per capita with countries with low GDP per capita. This is why I'm not up here pointing out how Somila proves how stupid libertarian policies are.

Again to you, there no difference between communism, democratic-socialism, or Barrock Obama. So it's surprising your talking about France when I'm trying to talk about democratic-socialist institutions working better.

We never had a free market in this country. There was always a close relationship between the top of actors and government and top actors in business. Things like the Railroads and slave agriculture make this pretty clear. A free market as described by Smith doesn't exist, never exited, and never will.

Edit: I'm not arguing there has never been a safety net program too generous. France is actually kind of an example -- for they tend to have problems with pension plans being too generous (I would argue corrupt in some cases). Were in no danger of implementing too generous of a welfare state.

As far as GDP you posted the countries and the argument isnt about GDP its about socialism as a cultural and economic solvent at this point. Your own chart has Denmark listed but they are 37th GDP while France is 6th. Italy would fall in here as well. They have implemented all of the crap safety net nanny state stuff you want and its killing them. You are just trying to sweep the failings under the rug as usual with leftist.

[maskedmelon]

Correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation. Individuals who pursue a college degree may well be more ambitious, hard working or otherwise more desirable to employers than those who do not.

Let us assume though that a the degree itself is the source and that it has nothing at all to do with the individual who earned it. We might reasonably expect earnings to reflect the availability or unavailability of qualified individuals. If we suddenly award a B.A. or B.S. to everyone, what do you suppose that might do to the value it confers upon the recipient?

[Raev]

I posted it to dispell the myth the America's policies are no. 1 in social mobility. Why is England even worse if it's about homogeneity?

England is quite heterogenous now with all the Pakistanis.

Don't believe the articles that look at first year earnings only. Overtime, college educated make far more money.
But is this because they went to college?

[JurisDictum]

England is quite heterogenous now with all the Pakistanis.


But is this because they went to college?

So your saying the reason they all get paid more, is because they are all that much better at working than everyone else and care that much more than everyone else?

Or do you think maybe employers are more likely to select employees with degrees over employees without them for promotions?

[Nihilist_santa]

So your saying the reason they all get paid more, is because they are all that much better at working than everyone else and care that much more than everyone else?

Or do you think maybe employers are more likely to select employees with degrees over employees without them for promotions?

Its because knowledge is marketable and to attain that knowledge takes sacrifice and determination. The degree is to confirm that you have proven your knowledge to a high standard. Where as anyone can come in and BS about their experience like Chest and claim their warehouse job is actually financial analysis. With a large labor pool you have to employ stricter criteria when you choose to invest in an employee who will probably jump ship when something better comes along.

Your whole premise is mired in jealousy apparently. Who are we to determine why an employer promotes or pays an employee. You feel that achievement should not be based on merit? Trying to equalize outcomes rather than opportunities? Some degrees truly are worthless but its not societies fault you made a critical mistake at character creation.

[Raev]

So your saying the reason they all get paid more, is because they are all that much better at working than everyone else and care that much more than everyone else?

Or do you think maybe are more likely to select employees with degrees over employees without them for promotions?

There are all sorts of complex interactions here. So yeah, I think motivated people with high IQ will make a lot of money regardless of whether or not they go to college. But more than that, you just posted about how America does not have much social mobility. The son of Rich Banker X has access to job connections regardless of whether or not he spends the requisite four years of chemical and sexual debauchery at one of our nations finer institutions of learning. Then on top of that, I'm much more convinced of the value of a degree in Engineering or CS than one in Cultural Marxism aka Women's Studies or History or whatever.

I just don't understand how you can have such strongly held beliefs about complex systems with no evidence.+

[Aesop]

I just don't understand how you can have such strongly held beliefs about complex systems with no evidence.+

That's just how white people be ;)

[JurisDictum]

There are all sorts of complex interactions here. So yeah, I think motivated people with high IQ will make a lot of money regardless of whether or not they go to college. But more than that, you just posted about how America does not have much social mobility. The son of Rich Banker X has access to job connections regardless of whether or not he spends the requisite four years of chemical and sexual debauchery at one of our nations finer institutions of learning. Then on top of that, I'm much more convinced of the value of a degree in Engineering or CS than one in Cultural Marxism aka Women's Studies or History or whatever.

I just don't understand how you can have such strongly held beliefs about complex systems with no evidence.+

These studies are controlled for soci-economics. We think its because of signaling. Obviously some of it has to do with correlation. But it is self-perpetuating. People with degrees are assumed to be more ambitious and more capable at seeing things through. So when you get that peice of paper those things are projected on to you whether they fit or not.

Obviously going to score you entry jobs that others can't. That being said, science (the best entry jobs) have the worst long term earnings. But that doesn't mean Philosophy is the same as Women Gender Studies (the worst degree you can get for employment imo). Philosophy majors actually make quite a bit compared to other humanities. It is probably a mix of

1) the inherent signal value of a 4 year degree

2) Spending lots of time thinking critically and writing...your brain does get better at these things with practice.

3) Smart people tend to be attracted to philosophy.

But I see no need for "your degree is not worth it" arguments. Because they don't bare out statistically or even anecdotally if you ask people iRL that hire a lot. A lot of times they will say "I don't what degree it is -- as long as it is sort of related."

[Nihilist_santa]

I will even backtrack and say the worthless degrees do have worth just not to employers. You have to be able to make the opportunities for yourself. If you study Women's Studies like Raev mentioned then you better damn well be prepared to teach or write if you expect to make money using your degree. The expectation that you should "win" just for participating is a result of pushing egalitarianism but the realities are different.

[Raev]

These studies are controlled for soci-economics.

Do you have studies that control for IQ?

[JurisDictum]

It's debatable if IQ tests test anything but how good you are at IQ tests.

[Raev]

I earlier suggested that smart, hardworking people go to college. I'm not a huge believer in IQ, but the fact is some people are a lot smarter and hard working than others. How do you propose to sort out these effects?