Too much already and we don’t need anymore, progressives always hold back the advancement of society. Narcissism at its finest thinking they can simply remake human behavior at will with no thought to whether it has ever worked and at what cost.
In truth, its envy that drives them, upset that they live in a society that values productive achievement over their only product, intellectual theory.
Actually during supply side economics we had very poor real GDP growth. Your ideas are inept.
Keep blowing smoke.
The socialism is all for the rich in the USA. Where have you been?
You perceive things will cost you when they pay you, your children, and grandchilden.
Tonight talking to a friend in a dinner in the smallest city in CT which has the lowest per capita income in CT I made a point. The city is the most to the right and whitest city in CT.
I said if education was better then incomes would be better and this dinner 20 years from now would make money from the investment.
But do you think the dinner owner a grandfather wants to pay higher taxes?
The millennials and Zs ignore the me generation garbage. Btw our parents and grandparents were often much less self centered. That is why AA was created. That is why education was closer to free etc… we tore things down for a rich man’s tax cut. I see ejits still thinking they will get a tax cut.
I know an 82 year old living on section 8 and food stamps voting for a tax cut. Ejit
Andy your local and state taxes rise over time when the wealthy get a tax cut.
Even if you make $400k you are upper middle class. Your taxes go up mostly on the state and local level. The rest of the discussion is letting billionaires skate next to free as if you are a billionaire.
Now you’re just pivoting, can you stay on topic? explain how in the US today discrimination is a significant limiting factor in someone achieving what they want? But, you proved my point, this is really about upending a form of society that has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in history.
The education system is where a better standard of living comes about.
Minorities have been blocked from higher education in a de facto and direct manner for centuries.
Now with access, the costs are higher. The government subsidies are less now. The minority populations have fewer assets in general.
Supply-side economics has not lifted people out of poverty. Where did you get that?
You still keep speaking of historical injustices that no longer exist today. Asian Americans and Indian Americans are attending college in higher rates than Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. Of course, the rankings mirror the rates of single parent households. Which studies have shown, corresponds with lower graduation rates from high school, lower college enrollment and higher rates of incarceration. If racism still plays an important factor, why are these minority groups achieving at higher rates than whites?
I would challenge you to provide any current data other than to simply reference historical injustices that play no critical role today and that they historically existed are hardly unique to the US.
The cost of education adversely affects all poor people. It’s not a race issue it’s one of simply poverty. Why are the cost so high when the student to professor ratio has never been higher? Several reasons, one of which is increasing bloat of layers of administration. Most recently has been the explosion of DEI positions at major Universities. Ohio State University alone employees almost 200 DEI related staffers at a growing cost of more than $20million a year. Of course, there are also the Board Trustees, whose only exercise of power is the building and expansion. Most of all, the entire student loan program has created a consumer that is financially ill prepared and unconcerned with the cost of education. Universities and staff reliant on the income for their own survival are more than happy to encourage it and never bother to discuss the return on investment of particular fields of study. Last but not least is simply the shift in supply and demand, as an increasing number are enrolling in 4 year institutions with lower dropout rates than in decades past.
You keep pivoting to supply side economics which has nothing to do with the conversation. I guess its intentional effort to redirect the conversation. It reveals to me someone that probably is only familiar with the US from afar and probably why you have such a distorted view of perceived ongoing inequalities here.
Societies where people are free to make their own decisions and where most private citizens and enterprises deploy capital directly is far more productive, efficient, and tends to best advance the interests of humankind. Clearly, Western Civilization’s pace of moving the largest amount of people out of poverty in the history of the world, is ample evidence. Even today, 80% of Millionaires in the US started with virtually nothing. It’s not perfect, but as the saying goes, no one has yet to show evidence of a better way of doing things.
That is because of teacher bias towards Asians and Indians. It is a teacher copout to find a couple of students to dote on while neglecting potentially equal students in the larger ethnic groups. It is lazy in so many ways. Along with reverse discrimination in a real form.
In China or India where everyone is of the given nationality, the dropout rate is much higher than in the US. Tells you that favoritism back home is not happening as it is when there is just one Chinese or Indian student to give all the praise in an American classroom.
We are still turning brown young men into convicts to get slave labor. Stop kidding everyone here with made up nonsense.
Just did but you do not deserve data because you remain stubbornly uninformed.
The cost was always in real terms high for the middle classes.
The GI Bill and then state policies to subsidize college students hid the cost in my day. My UCONN education was 4 parts the state of CT and one part my family and myself. Now that is reversed and something closer to the real cost is put upon most students. In some ways when you factor in athletics the cost is up to $4k more per year in tuition as stated here a few weeks ago by @steve203
This discussion makes little sense on your end. You have zero grip on the topic.
Supply-side economics is a country going into debt with tax cuts for the wealthy. Budgets are cut. Local and state taxes rise. Local and state budgets are cut in relative terms. Since we are in larger part discussing state schools and even though you know nothing about how subsidized the schools were, the state school subsidies were drastically cut.
Look this is not an insult but you know nothing. And you sure as hell will never face that.
They start by brown bagging it as teachers, electricians, and plumbers. I know that. That is the bulk of households with over $1 million in assets. Doctors and lawyers live up to or beyond their means. They are less likely to join the millionaire class.
The position that reparations should not be given has to do with cost. Now that we are moving into a demand-side econ period over time the relative cost will be less. I am for waiting until economies of scale have set in to a much larger extent.
You are proving to know nothing about economics. This is an economics board. Start to listen to other people. Having vacuous social positions is a big negative.
You keep making mistakes with most of your arguments, either citing opinion as fact or in the rare instance that you provide objective data, misapplying it to your argument. Your comments in paragraph one is anecdotal and simply opinion. The 2nd paragraph and your 2nd mistake is drawing correlations that do not exist. China’s high dropout rates in rural areas is very high and skews the numbers. It is largely driven by a lack of resources provided in those areas and demands on children to help provide for the family, which tend to be very poor. Additionally, Chinese and Indian Americans place a high importance on family and education, which creates an important support structure fostering academic excellence. Please feel free to cite any objective source that teacher bias is responsible for the success of this group.
The uncomfortable reality is that the Black population is 12% and yet commits nearly 1/2 of all murders and violent crimes in the US. Most of those criminal acts, roughly 92% are against other black individuals. The greatest harm being done to the black community is by liberal progressives pushing policies that do not put the safety and well being of good and decent people that have to live in those communities. There is no slave labor but please cite current examples. It’s fine to ask the question why and if the historical impact of slavery had an impact on the culture of violence within this group. It’s moronic to suggest that the outsized incarceration rates aren’t largely due to increase rates of criminal behavior.
Again, you keep making mistakes in your arguments by tying together support of free market economies with an endorsement of economic polices that are fiscally irresponsible and encourage debt funded spending without limits. Any person with a reasonable grasp of history understands that capital is more effectively and efficiently deployed when done so by individuals and private enterprise rather than through govt. It is not a blanket endorsement of tax cuts that cannot be financially justified. In turn, it does not mean a blanket opposition to fund needed and necessary gov’t services. But if done without thought to the ability to pay for them, both a can be equally irresponsible and impact America’s long term strength and influence.
[quote=“Leap1, post:67, topic:106401”]
The position that reparations should not be given has to do with cost. Now that we are moving into a demand-side econ period over time the relative cost will be less. I am for waiting until economies of scale have set in to a much larger extent.
Again, you first have to believe that the current plight of certain minority groups is the result of current and historical discrimination. I don’t share your premise. So, my opposition to reparations today is not based on cost. By the way, the US Supreme Court likely shares the same view. I think John F. Kennedy did more than 60 years ago.
Again, you are simply projecting. You weave in terms likely supply side and demand side but those are just thinly veiled covers for you to take grand pseudo moralistic stances on a whole host of social issues and then criticize anyone that disagrees as selfish or racist. If you knew anything about Economics, you’d stop citing Samuelson, who famously predicted Russia’s GNP would surpass the US by 1997.
Bull the argument has been documented here before you arrived. You just know next to nothing.
Results indicate that teachers display significant positive bias towards Asian students, relative to White students in the same class with the same standardized test scores and sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. Compared to White students, teachers are 4.3 percentage points more likely to give Asian students a higher evaluation (over-rate) than the blind-scored achievement level indicated by their standardized test scores and 2.7 percentage points less likely to give Asian students a lower evaluation (under-rate). These magnitudes correspond to 12 percent and 14 percent of baseline propensities to over-rate and under-rate students, respectively, indicating that teachers’ propensities for favoring Asian students are sizable. We perform several robustness checks to rule out alternative explanations for these racial differences, including accounting for the roles of measurement error, hard-to-observe behavioral attributes, differences in assessment standards across classes, and racial biases in standardized testing. These effects are sizable and present in math and reading and in both elementary and middle schools, suggesting positive bias towards Asian students is pervasive across subjects and grade levels. Additionally, we find heterogeneous effects by more fine-grained ethnic subgroups. Teachers display greater positive bias towards Asian students from East and South Asian backgrounds, relative to students from Southeast Asian backgrounds.
Next, our findings suggest that the presence of a single Asian student carries potential negative spillovers to teachers’ assessments of other students of color. Specifically, teachers decrease their propensity to over-rate a Black or Hispanic student relative to a White student with the same test scores when there is an Asian student in the classroom, compared to classrooms without any Asian students. We similarly find a significant increase in the propensity for teachers to under-rate Black students when an Asian student is present in the classroom. These findings support the notion that teachers may amplify existing negative biases towards under-represented minority groups in the presence of Asian students and associated positive stereotypes, resulting in cumulative disadvantage for Black and Hispanic students. Notably, these effects are driven by classrooms featuring Asian students whose high achievement adheres to the “model minority” characterization. Teachers’ exposure to high-performing Black and Hispanic students does not lead to analogous consequences, suggesting that negative spillovers are a distinct effect of teachers’ exposure to stereotype-conforming Asian students.
You know absolutely nothing.
It only has to do with not being a bigot. Has nothing to do with being a liberal.
According to a Human Rights Watch report, more people in the United States are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses than for violent crimes. The report also found that in seven states, Black people make up 80–90% of those sent to prison on drug charges
It is more moronic to not understand the topic and have an opinion.
Daft
The supply-side period is a time of outsourcing factory production. The wealth of a nation is built by her factory production.
Demand-side invests in the public and quasi public goods necessary for factory production to be onshored. With economies of scale the factory buildout has an increasing positive spiral.
The negative spiral was the offshoring of factory production from 1981 to 2020.
The current deficits are an investment in America. Daft or moronic to deny the need for that investment.
But not knowing what is going on at all seems to be how you operate.
To make their predictions, Samuelson and McConnell relied heavily on the production possibilities frontier (PPF), the idea that the fundamental tradeoff for any society was between “guns and butter.” Thus, in the 1948 edition Samuelson wrote:
The Russians having no unemployment before the war, were already on their Production-possibilities curve. They had no choice but to substitute war goods for civilian production with consequent privation.
This belief of Samuelson’s has nothing to do with my positions on foreign affairs or the military because for economic and strategic reasons I am a harder-line conservative. I do not own this particular projection Samuelson bought into. I also do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Samuelson often and easily with metrics proved Friedman wrong, even ruinous, on domestic policies.
Surely, you can understand why one wouldn’t base a rationale for reparations on this study. A racial entitlement is only permissible to remedy the government’s own discrimination, not societal discrimination.
There it is, the tired technique of trying to short circuit a discussion and disagreement by claiming the real reason is because one is racist.
You should dive a little deeper into the issue of drug use and arrests. First off, Blacks tend to use drugs in marginally higher rates but that’s not the real driver. There are stark differences in the habits and kinds of drug use. Blacks tended to use drugs more openly running the greater risk of arrest. In addition, they tend to deal more to strangers where whites tended to interact on average more with those they know. Also, Blacks are likely to use drugs on average for longer lengths of time, increasing the likelihood of arrest. The interesting thing is that today since Heroin is much more popular in the white community, the numbers are starting to skew the other way, just as they did with crack/cocaine, which was more prevalent in the Black communities in the 80s and 90’s.
The entire rant is pointless and nothing do with the justification for reparations or the assertion that systemic racism exists today. Samuelson and Friedman differed on the role and influence that the govt should have in society and on private business. But, your remarks are consistent with one placing the collective above the individual, which has historically been met with disaster.
I do not have your expertise in dealing drugs.
Have you been caught?
Regardless I can see the results.
Yes, dealing truth serum to you. Let me ask you, where does your bigotry of low expectations come from that certain minorities are incapable of succeeding?
No, I just don’t view people with different skin colors as somehow more fragile or less capable. It’s a soft bigotry that you seem to use frequently make grand generalizations about entire groups, different generations, classes, and ethnic groups. It’s a way to uncomplicate the world but it’s not accurate.
You are putting words in my mouth to cover up societal prejudices. It is lame.
No, I’m revealing your vast generalizations about people that are not true and demonstrate your own prejudice. You cannot or will not accept that statistical differences between races are not automatically due to race or the result of racial discrimination.
The truth is, as Thomas Sowell pointed out, those proponents of reparations and higher taxes on the rich are really just hiding the real agenda which is the confiscation and redistribution of wealth.
Your group based generalizations are example of what he calls the chess pieces fallacy. The progressive view that Individuals are nothing more than inert objects to be moved around and reordered according to your own imagined sense of fairness.
The only reveal for most of us you are going to contribute garbage to this board.
You have no facts.
This is one of those “quotes without context”. The simple facts are that violent crime is vastly higher among economically disadvantaged, and that blacks constitute a by-far larger segment of that cohort.
Once you get past the “look at blacks, they’re so violent” meme, you find some amazing things. Like violent crime is almost identical among poor whites as it is among poor blacks. (Actually slightly higher for poor whites.)
I've seen a few articles (for example, [this] and [this] arguing that "Black-on-Black crime" is no more notable than "White-on-White crime". I've been trying to quantify this. The graph below from the [US Department of Justice] supports this argument, showing that when only people below the poverty line are considered, there is little difference between the rate at which Black people are victimized by violent crime and the rate at which White people are victimized.https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/54484/how-do-crime-rates-compare-between-black-and-white-populations-of-similar-econom
How about Native Americans? How are they doing? Does our history with them have anything to do with their economic performance as a group? If not, why not? Here’s some help on that front:
Note: I’m not saying it’s impossible for minorities to overcome, obviously many do. Likewise many women make it to the CEO chair of the Fortune 500. Like, at the moment, 52. Out of 500. Thinking there is at least some historical bias here is to close your eyes and refuse to see, not an admirable trait.
I happen to think it’s a lot better than it ever has been in history. I also think there are still formidable hurdles to overcome on an individual level. Seriously, don’t you?
Any bigot will go on and on mouthing off no matter how ignorant he is.
There is a difference between racial and racist. Quoting statistics that are racial does not make you a racist unless you do it falsely and with intent to injure. I don’t this this poster has done that, I’d say his use is just “misguided.” I hope not to be proven wrong.
You make a fantastic but point but the context of the discussion was a response to why Black incarceration is at higher rates. It is not a position that Blacks are simply by nature more violent. It is however a reality that children that grow up in single parent households tend to have higher rates of poverty and have higher incarceration rates. I suspect single parent white households with similar education levels trend on a similar percentage in terms of incarceration rates, as black households. The reality is Black households have far higher rates of single parent households, which probably play a significant part in poverty and violent behavior.
I’ve seen a few articles (for example, [this] and [this] arguing that “Black-on-Black crime” is no more notable than “White-on-White crime”. I’ve been trying to quantify this. The graph below from the [US Department of Justice] supports this argument, showing that when only people below the poverty line are considered, there is little difference between the rate at which Black people are victimized by violent crime and the rate at which White people are victimized
Again, the context of the argument was that the relaxation of criminal penalties by progressives as way to help the black community actually hurts those victims which tend to be black. Most crime occurs within races. However, violent (assault and murder) interracial crime skews heavily towards blacks as the offenders. The last study I saw, maybe 2021 Federal crime report something like 70% of the time on the low end, blacks were the offender, and a Hispanics were the victim. On the high end, something like 95% of the time the offender was black, and the victim was Asian. The rest of the interracial rates fell somewhere in between. To your point, it’s not nature but stems from some combination of factors, which likely include poverty.
Absolutely, it was terrible injustice and up to some point it did have an impact. Does it today, I don’t think so. Thomas Sowell talks extensively about minority groups that do not assimilate tend to do worse than the majority. Today, I would make the argument that the plight of the American Indian has largely to do with a culture and also well-meaning but disastrous polices that have encouraged them to remain isolated.
Do we now revisit reparations again with this group and impose a burden on the next generation for past injustices that have little to do with the current cause of the problems?
Again, the assumption that you make, as many do, is that if I disagree with reparations or other policies, it’s a denial that bias exists. I don’t, it exists and always will to some degree. What I do not believe is that it is systemic, which is to say there are no laws or institutions in place today that prevent a person because of their gender or their skin color from achieving their own pursuits.
Let me put it this way, there are women and men that will only date and or marry partners of certain height or degree of physical attractiveness. Is that biased and unfair, yes it probably is. Are we going to financially compensate those impacted by it or reorganize the rules of society to fix it, No. The same is true of stereotypes and biases held by individuals on race and gender.
My larger issue that @Leap1 really uses these issues as ways to justify reallocation of wealth according to his moral code. It’s has been proven historically disastrous when things start getting divided up based on class and race. In reality, they probably care nothing about the poor and whether the policies actually work.
As an aside, I appreciate your comments and engagement. We may not agree but I enjoy the discussion and for the most part it has focused on the topic rather than the personal.
