The failure of LBJ's Great Society

[Pavel Mosko]

In 1940 89% of black families were in poverty. By 1960 it was down to 47%. It then slowed in the 60's and 70's and now hovers around 30%. At the start of affirmative action black poverty was 30%, it dropped 1 point in 20 years.

Why did the decrease in black poverty slow? In 1960 around 75% of black children were in married homes, today 75% of black births are illegitimate and children live in one parent homes. The welfare state replaced fathers. The end result is a massive increase in black crime 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks, mostly against other blacks. The drug war has made those numbers worse of course by creating drug gangs that exist to feed demand for drugs but the lack of fathers in the home, their income replaced by the state, has had immeasurable negative consequences.

Minimum wage laws huet blacks, particularly teenagers. When people earn their market worth, there are fewer applicants and less competition. Minimum wage laws force below market value labor to compete with more valuable labor for jobs that are lower in number because of state action. Who does this hurt? Teenagers of all races. In black communities, the very people you don't want idle on the streets are the very ones priced out of the market by minimum wage laws.

Affirmative action has hurt blacks. It has taken kids who are capable of college work and put them in colleges a notch or two above their capabilities. They end up on academic probation, they feel inferior, they're resentful and many drop out. If they had gone to colleges they're capable of doing the work at, they would thrive.

The problem in this country isn't systematic racism. The problem is liberal do gooders who use government to further an agenda that actually hurts blacks. Slavery and the wickedness of government enforced racism (Jim Crow) couldn't destroy the black family but after two generations the liberal welfare state has decimated the black family all while claiming everyone who doesn't support their policies is a racist. The Great Society failed to do what free markets and individualism had been doing for blacks even with outrageous government blocks put in their way.

This is something I've read about and talked about a number of times. A lot of the answer actually reminds me of an "People's Cube" Article, of "Barely Socratic Questions to American Progressives", linked below. But some of the ones in particular are below.

• Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn't the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?
• Isn't the latest economic crisis such a chain reaction?
• Aren't most of today's social ills the result of tampering with social ecosystems?
• Why is bioengineering bad, but social engineering good?

A List of Barely Socratic Questions to American Progressives


The problem with the Great Society is it really tampered with a lot of things. Black Families were moved out of their old neighborhoods into high rise buildings which were miles away from their family and friends which acted as a support system to them. Welfare and various public assistance programs penalized families who were intact, while rewarding single parent families for not having a husband at home. Anyway you really had a giant version of the "law of unintended consequences", where all these interventions end up making poverty actually worse, because they decreased social support from extended families (who had more trouble baby sitting), they increased single parent families by literally financially rewarding it e.g. -many husbands moved out to make sure their families could have increased benefits, but them moving out in the long term was a bad thing (as far as falling into temptation, or just breaking up because they realized in the short term their families financially were doing better without them).

 

[Belk]

Not according to me at all, government statistics, stats compiled by people like Thomas Sowell and others back up my claim.

Your claim. Ergo you are using the statistics to support what you claim to be correct. Again, what is your area of expertise so I know how much credence I should give to your interpretation of the data? Or are there experts whom are making the same claims and can provide a case for it?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Your claim. Ergo you are using the statistics to support what you claim to be correct. Again, what is your area of expertise so I know how much credence I should give to your interpretation of the data? Or are there experts whom are making the same claims and can provide a case for it?

Relying on experts is a fools errand, as should be plainly evident by the endless flip flopping on Coronavirus over the last three months to say nothing of the dire predictions that never came true. I'm an attorney, I've spent the last 17 years litigating cases mostly from a civil defense perspective. I don't need to be an economist or a statistician to understand their arguments or to interpret data.

 

[Belk]

Relying on experts is a fools errand, as should be plainly evident by the endless flip flopping on Coronavirus over the last three months to say nothing of the dire predictions that never came true.

As someone who has had brain surgery I disagree. I do not take the advice of plumbers over that of a surgeon when dealing with surgery.

I'm an attorney, I've spent the last 17 years litigating cases mostly from a civil defense perspective.

So educated in the law and with a good understanding of the legal system. Thank you.

I don't need to be an economist or a statistician to understand their arguments

To understand whose arguments The arguments of the experts or someone else?

or to interpret data.

Not a given. A lot of data can be difficult to interpret correctly without an proper foundational understanding.

 

[Redwingfan9]

As someone who has had brain surgery I disagree. I do not take the advice of plumbers over that of a surgeon when dealing with surgery.



So educated in the law and with a good understanding of the legal system. Thank you.




To understand whose arguments The arguments of the experts or someone else?




Not a given. A lot of data can be difficult to interpret correctly without an proper foundational understanding.

You're confusing specialized procedural knowledge with things that anyone can understand and which are subject to principles. If you talk to 10 surgeons you'll often end up with multiple opinions as to how to treat a particular problem. Even in specialized services, you're not going to find agreement across the board.

All of us should have a basic understanding of economics and statistics. To simply leave this vital aspect of economic and social life up to experts is utterly foolish. The fact that people don't understand these subjects is why government expansion happens without positive results. Trusting experts has gotten us a nearly $10 trillion budget this year. We have lost our fundemental principles because as a society we've given our thinking capabilities to experts and simply trust they know what they're talking about

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Most white people, with kids, That I know are single. With kids and a boyfriend. And multiple relationships, that don't make it. They were raised by Conservative Christians. They were born in better neighborhoods. So they had better schooling. These white women had multiple abortions, until they could afford children. Also these women did drugs. They never did time. Which is very different with black people. In CA, we have a welfare program, that makes you do training.

 

[Pommer]

Relying on experts is a fools errand, as should be plainly evident by the endless flip flopping on Coronavirus over the last three months to say nothing of the dire predictions that never came true. I'm an attorney, I've spent the last 17 years litigating cases mostly from a civil defense perspective.

So we can safely disregard anything you have to say vis-à-vis law and especially “civil defense”, okay. Good to know!

 

[wing2000]

Well the breaking up of the home started back when Rockefeller Foundation organized women the right to vote. This took women out of home for work and the 1% got more taxes. This was a planned assault on the family unit.

Yea, it all started with granting women the right to vote. Sometimes I can't believe what I am reading in 2020....

 

[wing2000]

As a woman of color with Jewish ancestry there’s a lot missing in that statement. It wasn’t wholly due to two-parent homes. It was their work ethic and emphasis on excellence that made a difference.

Jews are very communal and willing to extend themselves for loved ones and fellow Jews. The ‘Jewish mother’ trope exists for a reason. I won’t call her a tiger mom but she isn’t far off. They’re very hands-on.

Jewish parents don’t see sports as an avenue for success. Education is important. You’re encouraged to pursue a professional career or entrepreneurship.

Of course differences exist. But I’ve seen that thread in my life and other Jews. Welfare wasn’t an option. Achievement was expected. Success is celebrated. Wealth is normative. Legacy is commonplace. It’s a different mindset.

Some African-Americans have similar ideals. Its most prevalent in the upper class. Read Our Kind of People and Negroland for a different perspective.

~Bella

Additionally, Jewish culture and identity remained intact. That is certainly not the case for today's African-American ancestors.

 

[Belk]

You're confusing specialized procedural knowledge with things that anyone can understand and which are subject to principles.

Am I? Since you have provided zero specifics to date that has yet to be determined.

If you talk to 10 surgeons you'll often end up with multiple opinions as to how to treat a particular problem. Even in specialized services, you're not going to find agreement across the board.

You will not get agreement, what you will get is an informed opinion. Something you do not get when you talk to someone with only generalized knowledge.

All of us should have a basic understanding of economics and statistics.

Having a basic understanding makes one susceptible to the dunner kruning effect

To simply leave this vital aspect of economic and social life up to experts is utterly foolish. The fact that people don't understand these subjects is why government expansion happens without positive results. Trusting experts has gotten us a nearly $10 trillion budget this year. We have lost our fundemental principles because as a society we've given our thinking capabilities to experts and simply trust they know what they're talking about

Yes. We should never listen to the experts. Who one earth would think they might know what they are talking about?

I think we are done here.

I remain convinced we should listen to experts and that poverty should not mean living in a cave cooking over an open fire.

 

[KCfromNC]

Bingo. It goes beyond that though. The poor in America are only poor in comparison to those around them who have more. They're kept that way, at least in part, by government action.

Does your analysis also include the fact that "those around them who have more" make the costs of things like food, clothing and shelter a bit more expensive than the poorest areas on earth? Perhaps a naive comparison is a bit lacking here.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Does your analysis also include the fact that "those around them who have more" make the costs of things like food, clothing and shelter a bit more expensive than the poorest areas on earth? Perhaps a naive comparison is a bit lacking here.

Markets set prices, not the wealthy. When real estate jumps up in a neighborhood the poor find somewhere else to live that is more affordable for them. It's not like they're shackled to the land, they aren't serfs.

 

[KCfromNC]

• Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn't the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?
• Isn't the latest economic crisis such a chain reaction?
• Aren't most of today's social ills the result of tampering with social ecosystems?
• Why is bioengineering bad, but social engineering good?

Another important question - "Can one recognize strawmen when one sees them?"

 

[KCfromNC]

Markets set prices, not the wealthy. When real estate jumps up in a neighborhood the poor find somewhere else to live that is more affordable for them. It's not like they're shackled to the land, they aren't serfs.

Which has little to do with the earlier attempts to minimize the effects of poverty by comparing income to those in the poorest countries on earth. I mean, we've gone from "but poor people have phones, how bad could it?" to "well, if they can't afford it they're only forced to relocate away from friends and family, how bad could it be?". Hope the goalposts are those new lightweight ones I've read about.

 

[Speedwell]

Markets set prices, not the wealthy. When real estate jumps up in a neighborhood the poor find somewhere else to live that is more affordable for them. It's not like they're shackled to the land, they aren't serfs.

Yes, it's so easy to be poor it's a wonder that people complain about it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Another important question - "Can one recognize strawmen when one sees them?"

Technically it is a strawdog.

MoQ: Forum -- Strawdog bites Strawman

 

[Speedwell]

Bingo. It goes beyond that though. The poor in America are only poor in comparison to those around them who have more. They're kept that way, at least in part, by government action.

Quite right. If you go to poor neighborhoods in places like Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Casablanca, you will find them to be a beehive of grassroots economic activity--people making, buying, selling, working as best they can to make a living. Some eventually do quite well for themselves--it's a good way of learning entrepreneurship. Anybody can play; old, young, man, woman. The entry level is generally selling loose cigarettes, the only capital necessary is the price of a pack. But now go, say, to Chicago's south side. None of that self-generated economic activity is evident--because it is ruthlessly suppressed. The only street business with enough cash flow to make the risk of police interference worth bearing is drugs. The poor old man trying to sell some melons he grew in his yard wouldn't be able to make bail. And we know what happens to people who try to sell loose cigarettes--they risk summary execution.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Which has little to do with the earlier attempts to minimize the effects of poverty by comparing income to those in the poorest countries on earth. I mean, we've gone from "but poor people have phones, how bad could it?" to "well, if they can't afford it they're only forced to relocate away from friends and family, how bad could it be?". Hope the goalposts are those new lightweight ones I've read about.

This is how free markets work though. If you can't afford the rent, you move.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Quite right. If you go to poor neighborhoods in places like Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Casablanca, you will find them to be a beehive of grassroots economic activity--people making, buying, selling, working as best they can to make a living. Some eventually do quite well for themselves--it's a good way of learning entrepreneurship. Anybody can play; old, young, man, woman. The entry level is generally selling loose cigarettes, the only capital necessary is the price of a pack. But now go, say, to Chicago's south side. None of that self-generated economic activity is evident--because it is ruthlessly suppressed. The only street business with enough cash flow to make the risk of police interference worth bearing is drugs. The poor old man trying to sell some melons he grew in his yard wouldn't be able to make bail. And we know what happens to people who try to sell loose cigarettes--they risk summary execution.

If you go back 100 years, ethnic neighborhoods in NYC, Chicago and I imagine many other cities had thriving markets that sold goods in the street. Government shut those down long ago, preserving the market for storefronts. Another example of government action harming the poor.

 

[Speedwell]

If you go back 100 years, ethnic neighborhoods in NYC, Chicago and I imagine many other cities had thriving markets that sold goods in the street. Government shut those down long ago, preserving the market for storefronts. Another example of government action harming the poor.

Right-wing government, I must point out, not "Liberals wanting to make the poor dependent on a government handout." If there are no formal jobs and the poor are prevented from creating their own livelihoods, then a government handout is the only alternative.