Is there a place at the table for white men?

[jimmyjimmy]

The advice concerns obtaining success in a culture that is foreign to them. I think that would be helpful. And it's nothing new.

Take school seriously, even white American history.
Stay away from sex until you marry and can afford a family.
Obey the law.
Don't take drugs.
Don't be racist against whites.
Dress for success, not for the street.
Do your homework, stay home at night.
If you can't afford college learn a trade.
Buy and improve a home as soon as you can afford it.
Do these things for yourself, for your generation.
If you do your kids will be just fine.
And don't worry if others don't do these things. It's your life, not theirs.

That's all great advice which will unfortunately be promptly ignored.

Bill Cosby said the same things, and he was disrespected - even hated for it.

The best way for all of the above to happen is is we take away welfare, section 8, and every other thing which hinders blacks. Putting able-bodied people into wheelchairs is not helping them. They must bear their own weight in order to become strong.

 

[Roman1]

That's all great advice which will unfortunately be promptly ignored.

Bill Cosby said the same things, and he was disrespected - even hated for it.

The best way for all of the above to happen is is we take away welfare, section 8, and every other thing which hinders blacks. Putting able-bodied people into wheelchairs is not helping them. They must bear their own weight in order to become strong.

That's empirically untrue, I live in a country with probably the most generous welfare state in the world, and we also have one of the lowest unemployments and highest workforce participation, as well as good social life.

Countries with less of a welfare state or NO welfare state way worse.

The fact is everybody, to make it in capitalism, relies on the system and other people and an infrastructure.

Most people are not naturally lazy, most people would love to be productive members of society if they had the opportunity; the fact is in many places they don't.

Let me give you an example, a guy works a dead end minimum wage job in the US; if he loses that job he's screwed, but all the same he barely lives hand to mouth and can't save money, he can't support a family, he has no self respect due to the capitalist culture, if his job goes away he's in trouble, and will likely turn to crime. So he works 2 jobs, if rent goes up, for example, has no time for self improvement or community building, family life and so on.

In Norway, he could save money, get married, and perhaps start his own business knowing that if it doesn't work out there is a safety net to help him back on his feet. He also doesn't have to worry about health care and so on—so it's far easier for him to "pull himself up by his bootstraps". He'll also have support from his wife and an extended community, due to the ability to build that community when you don't have to work 2 jobs to live.

This is why it's easier to start a small business in social democracies than in more libertarian countries if you are working class.

John the Baptist was right, not only morally, but practically Luke 3:11.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's empirically untrue, I live in a country with probably the most generous welfare state in the world, and we also have one of the lowest unemployments and highest workforce participation, as well as good social life.

Countries with less of a welfare state or NO welfare state way worse.

The fact is everybody, to make it in capitalism, relies on the system and other people and an infrastructure.

Most people are not naturally lazy, most people would love to be productive members of society if they had the opportunity; the fact is in many places they don't.

Let me give you an example, a guy works a dead end minimum wage job in the US; if he loses that job he's screwed, but all the same he barely lives hand to mouth and can't save money, he can't support a family, he has no self respect due to the capitalist culture, if his job goes away he's in trouble, and will likely turn to crime. So he works 2 jobs, if rent goes up, for example, has no time for self improvement or community building, family life and so on.

In Norway, he could save money, get married, and perhaps start his own business knowing that if it doesn't work out there is a safety net to help him back on his feet. He also doesn't have to worry about health care and so on—so it's far easier for him to "pull himself up by his bootstraps". He'll also have support from his wife and an extended community, due to the ability to build that community when you don't have to work 2 jobs to live.

This is why it's easier to start a small business in social democracies than in more libertarian countries if you are working class.

John the Baptist was right, not only morally, but practically Luke 3:11.

Norway has few minorities such as blacks, and a huge trade surplus that can fund lots of social programs. Apples and oranges.

 

[Roman1]

Norway has few minorities such as blacks, and a huge trade surplus that can fund lots of social programs. Apples and oranges.

It's not just Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on have similar stories.

The US is richer per capita, so it's not lack of funds.

And there is nothing inherently different between poor whites and poor blacks.

Anyway, this is empirical, everywhere neo-liberal reforms are tried; the result is the same—more misery for the poor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The US is richer per capita, so it's not lack of funds.

Really. Here's GDP per capita. Year 2012

10 Norway $54,400.00 2012
11 Brunei $54,100.00 2012
12 Isle of ManIsle of Man $53,800.00 2007
13 United StatesUnited States $51,700.00 2012

Much of this is from your trade surplus with us. Year 2012 you gained 3$Billion in surplus trade, and probably more from other nations as well.

2012 : U.S. trade in goods with Norway
NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis, not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified. Details may not equal totals due to rounding. Table reflects only those months for which there was trade.

Month Exports Imports Balance
January 2012 344.1 460.8 -116.6
February 2012 202.5 719.4 -516.9
March 2012 397.6 754.0 -356.4
April 2012 214.0 453.8 -239.9
May 2012 273.9 741.4 -467.5
June 2012 316.3 530.7 -214.5
July 2012 278.8 438.1 -159.4
August 2012 287.9 545.9 -258.0
September 2012 333.1 509.0 -175.9
October 2012 332.7 452.1 -119.4
November 2012 225.9 598.5 -372.7
December 2012 294.4 362.2 -67.8
TOTAL 2012 3,501.2 6,566.0 -3,064.8

 

[Roman1]

Really. Here's GDP per capita. Year 2012

10 Norway $54,400.00 2012
11 Brunei $54,100.00 2012
12 Isle of ManIsle of Man $53,800.00 2007
13 United StatesUnited States $51,700.00 2012

Much of this is from your trade surplus with us. Year 2012 you gained 3$Billion in surplus trade, and probably more from other nations as well.

2012 : U.S. trade in goods with Norway
NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis, not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified. Details may not equal totals due to rounding. Table reflects only those months for which there was trade.

Month Exports Imports Balance
January 2012 344.1 460.8 -116.6
February 2012 202.5 719.4 -516.9
March 2012 397.6 754.0 -356.4
April 2012 214.0 453.8 -239.9
May 2012 273.9 741.4 -467.5
June 2012 316.3 530.7 -214.5
July 2012 278.8 438.1 -159.4
August 2012 287.9 545.9 -258.0
September 2012 333.1 509.0 -175.9
October 2012 332.7 452.1 -119.4
November 2012 225.9 598.5 -372.7
December 2012 294.4 362.2 -67.8
TOTAL 2012 3,501.2 6,566.0 -3,064.8

Fair enough, I was using older stats.

But anyway, the actual results are there on an individual and community level.

So how is the difference in GDP and the trade surplus relevant?

By the way, it's the same story in denmak and Sweden and so on.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fair enough, I was using older stats.

But anyway, the actual results are there on an individual and community level.

So how is the difference in GDP and the trade surplus relevant?

By the way, it's the same story in denmak and Sweden and so on.

I doubt if Norwegians carry the debt load that we do. That would translate to greater personal wealth. Wealth and income are closely related. Using averages doesn't help much (the average between 0/100 and 45/55 is the same) as wealth here is concentrated in the top tiers. I'm sure it's spread out more in Norway.

 

[Roman1]

I doubt if Norwegians carry the debt load that we do. That would translate to greater personal wealth. Wealth and income are closely related. Using averages doesn't help much as wealth here is concentrated in the top tiers. I'm sure it's spread out more in Norway.

The question was about the result of welfare programs verses austerity on the poor (although you I suppose wanted to limit it to minorities, but I'm including all the poor).

Personal debt in the US is big, as it is in Norway, and that's something which I think Norway is doing wrong.

But when it comes to your claim on welfare and social programs; the point is it is empirically proven they do NOT demotivated people to work and improve themselves/communities, and that they infact do the opposite.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The question was about the result of welfare programs verses austerity on the poor (although you I suppose wanted to limit it to minorities, but I'm including all the poor).

Personal debt in the US is big, as it is in Norway, and that's something which I think Norway is doing wrong.

But when it comes to your claim on welfare and social programs; the point is it is empirically proven they do NOT demotivated people to work and improve themselves/communities, and that they infact do the opposite.

I think I covered that as well in past posts, namely that while some are perennially, or generationally poor, most only remain poor for a relatively short time. This dichotomy is what is confusing to most. Neither group is a problem, but combining the numbers makes it seem so. Social programs here are a fact of life that few object to. The biggest problem is the false conceptions spread by those who profit from promoting a situation that is well managed into a national tragedy of epic proportions.

 

[Roman1]

I think I covered that as well in past posts, namely that while some are perennially, or generationally poor, most only remain poor for a relatively short time. This dichotomy is what is confusing to most. Neither group is a problem, but combining the numbers makes it seem so. Social programs here are a fact of life that few object to. The biggest problem is the false conceptions spread by those who profit from promoting a situation that is well managed into a national tragedy of epic proportions.

Most only remain poor for a short time? You talking about Norway or the US? If the former I agree, it's the social-democratic system which aids in that.

In the US social programs have been gutted, especially since Clinton.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Most only remain poor for a short time? You talking about Norway or the US? If the former I agree, it's the social-democratic system which aids in that.

In the US social programs have been gutted, especially since Clinton.

Actually cut back to reasonable levels; from steak to hamburger.

One organization just discovered 16 million more starving kids that no one else seems to know about, and if I send them money they'll make sure they're fed.

 

[Roman1]

Actually cut back to reasonable levels; from steak to hamburger.

Yet the effect that market fundamentalists and libertarians claim that welfare cuts would have didn't happen, in fact that opposite happened.

Yet in all the countries with a strong social-democratic system we have the opposite thing happening.

Libertarianism is not only morally wrong; it's claims are empirically false.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yet the effect that market fundamentalists and libertarians claim that welfare cuts would have didn't happen, in fact that opposite happened.

Yet in all the countries with a strong social-democratic system we have the opposite thing happening.

Libertarianism is not only morally wrong; it's claims are empirically false.

I'm not aware the Libertarian position on this. I'm a moderate conservative and a free-market capitalist (with a 'balanced trade' qualifier).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Who is going to work harder to ensure his business is successful, a man with a safety new or a man without a safety net?

 

[Roman1]

I'm not aware the Libertarian position on this. I'm a moderate conservative and a free-market capitalist (with a 'balanced trade' qualifier).

Right, I consider myself a small s socialist and a small c conservative (classical Burkean conservatism, not the neo-liberal market worship that Americans call conservatism today). And a capital C christian.

anyway, the point is, all the evidence points away from your assertion that cutting welfare benefits the poor, or helps them get on their feet—the evidence is actually to the contrary.

This is why biblical law had a Jubilee, anti-Usury laws and so on.

 

[Roman1]

Who is going to work harder to ensure his business is successful, a man without a safety new or a man without a safety net?

Both.

By the way if what you're implying we're true than businesses started by people from rich families (a rich family is a private safety net of sorts) would succeed less than businesses started by people from poor families; there is NO evidence that that is true.

Also countries with strong safety nets generally have good businesses and the such.

Why? Because a lot of he success or failure of small business in general has to do with the infrastructure and social structure of the country. A small business in a place where people are not afraid to spend some money because they aren't afraid of being evicted and not having money for healthcare and food is going to have a much more reliable consumer bad that one in a place where people are afraid of those things.

Assuming that people will just work harder if they are facing economic ruin and they won't work harder if they are not is nonsense.

Again this is an empeirical question, you can look at case studies.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Both.

By the way if what you're implying we're true than businesses started by people from rich families (a rich family is a private safety net of sorts) would succeed less than businesses started by people from poor families; there is NO evidence that that is true.

Also countries with strong safety nets generally have good businesses and the such.

Why? Because a lot of he success or failure of small business in general has to do with the infrastructure and social structure of the country. A small business in a place where people are not afraid to spend some money because they aren't afraid of being evicted and not having money for healthcare and food is going to have a much more reliable consumer bad that one in a place where people are afraid of those things.

Assuming that people will just work harder if they are facing economic ruin and they won't work harder if they are not is nonsense.

Again this is an empeirical question, you can look at case studies.

Countless millions made it prior to nanny states even existing. Hunger is a great motivator.

It's well known that when a group is responsible for a task all members work less hard than when the responsibility rests solely on their shoulders.

 

[Roman1]

Countless millions made it prior to nanny states even existing. Hunger is a great motivator.

It's well known that when a group is responsible for a task all members work less hard than when the responsibility rests solely on their shoulders.

Countless "made it" before capitalism too, countless also died from starvation, countless also lived in slums; what's your point?

As for your second statement it's simply not true; groups tend to me more efficient due to social dynamics (pressure, encouragement, re-enforcement and so on). Also hunger de-motivates innovation as you don't have the freedom to try new things.

You market fundamentalists make these claims and just assert their truth—but we can look around the world, look at statistics, compare societies, look at history; and see that those claims are simply false.

You're just talking nonsense—by the way it's also unbiblical, the entire notion of Koinonia in the NT and Misphat in the OT are based on the idea that we are completely responsible for each other.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Countless "made it" before capitalism too, countless also died from starvation, countless also lived in slums; what's your point?

As for your second statement it's simply not true; groups tend to me more efficient due to social dynamics (pressure, encouragement, re-enforcement and so on). Also hunger de-motivates innovation as you don't have the freedom to try new things.

You market fundamentalists make these claims and just assert their truth—but we can look around the world, look at statistics, compare societies, look at history; and see that those claims are simply false.

You're just talking nonsense—by the way it's also unbiblical, the entire notion of Koinonia in the NT and Misphat in the OT are based on the idea that we are completely responsible for each other.

Free markets existed since the begin of time. It's the natural way things get traded. It doesn't need a name or government agency to oversee it. A child understand how it works.

I have an apple. You have a dollar. You want my apple more than you want your dollar, and I want your dollar more than I want my apple. Easy. Two happy, and free, people getting what they want.

I am a social sciences major (which I'm not proud of by the way) but I recall one of the first things I learned about was "social loafing".

Lastly, each man, not society, is responsible to bear he own burdens. That's clear from cover to cover, but Galatians 6:5 is a pithy example: "For each will have to bear his own load." (ESV)

The only burdens that are shared are ones that are unbearable. Some people have situations which are unbeatable by themselves. Them we assist with load-bearing.

 

[Roman1]

Free markets existed since the begin of time. It's the natural way things get traded. It doesn't need a name or government agency to oversee it. A child understand how it works.

I have an apple. You have a dollar. You want my apple more than you want your dollar, and I want your dollar more than I want my apple. Easy. Two happy, and free, people getting what they want.

I am a social sciences major (which I'm not proud of by the way) but I recall one of the first things I learned about was "social loafing".

Lastly, each man, not society, is responsible to bear he own burdens. That's clear from cover to cover, but Galatians 6:5 is a pithy example: "For each will have to bear his own load." (ESV)

The only burdens that are shared are ones that are unbearable. Some people have situations which are unbeatable by themselves. Them we assist with load-bearing.

Actually they didn't, read some anthropology. There was no pre-state market society. Markets as an economic system are relatively new. Markets depend on currency, strong property law, and enforcement of contract, all created by the state.

Also this is anthripolgiclally verifiable; there hasn't been one pre-state society that functioned on barter.

Galatians 6:5 is talking about salvation, not economics or social life.