155 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

I'm somewhat amused with this popular yearning for class warfare, especially when in reality, we hold views much more liberal than the median household, and struggle to hold sway against the constellation of competing interest groups locked in a death match for influence.

Yes, we should just be happy that enlightened liberals have been so effective at using the corporate-state apparatus to gobble up all the wealth. I'm not sure how enlightened or liberal they really are, but even if it were true it would be no less repulsive.

Here is some relevant data:

<img width="100%" src="http://images.busine..._11remarks.jpg" />

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 25 October 2010 - 02:59 AM.

[Rational Madman]

I'm somewhat amused with this popular yearning for class warfare, especially when in reality, we hold views much more liberal than the median household, and struggle to hold sway against the constellation of competing interest groups locked in a death match for influence.

Yes, we should just be happy that enlightened liberals have been so effective at using the corporate-state apparatus to gobble up all the wealth. I'm not sure how enlightened or liberal they really are, but even if it were true it would be no less repulsive.

Here is some relevant data:

<img width="100%" src="http://images.busine..._11remarks.jpg" />

Is the unequal distribution of wealth really problematic if the median household income and wealth increases at a constant, and relative to other OECD economies, at a historically healthy and competitive rate (keeping in mind the distortions created by the recent cyclical downturn)? And yes, there is income inequality, but the output of top earning households is taxed, and systemically, we enjoy the benefits of this wealth creation to some degree or another---through the benefits of taxation at the very least. Indeed, if you quantify the contribution of the top 1% of households (a meaningful proportion of which includes small businesses), you'll find that they provide nearly 30% of federal income tax revenues (and nearly 50% of all revenues; Canada by comparison collects about 35% from the top centile). And the top 40%, nearly all of federal income tax revenues. We could try soaking them with higher taxes, but as a percentage of GDP, there hasn't been much of a variance in individual tax revenue over the years---even though the top marginal rate has gone from extremes of 28% to 91%.

I believe the most compelling argument for the extent of income inequality in the United States is the concentration of human capital (we have one of the largest percentages college degree holders, for instance) and their utilization of technology and other innovations---but not necessarily at the expense of others. And even if you consider this explanation to be unconvincing, is there any evidence that this distribution of wealth has had a strongly adverse impact on important measures such as research and development spending per capita, job creation, individual output, etc.? Compare, for instance, the number of private sector jobs created in the United States versus the European Union over the last 30 years. And if you want evidence of the political persuasion of the wealthy, look at the voting patterns of households earning above 200,000, or 350,000 annually, most of whom express a preference for Democratic candidates. My point is that we've tried demagoguery in the past, and have attempted to address the so-called "capital strike" thesis, but to what effect? Look, for example, at the relatively recent, and instructive precedent of the Callaghan administration (UK), who sought to "tax the rich until the pips squeak," which was a measure that still failed to avert an IMF bailout. But to be clear, none of what I argued should preclude us from making attempts to strengthen the middle class (or lower classes), whom have a greater propensity to consume, innovate, and create jobs. However, I see little evidence to support the notion that choking one class will strengthen others, and that pie of income distribution must remain fixed in order for a society to prosper. To be sure, there is no immediate prospect of policymakers deciding to soak the rich, but there are, however, a disturbing number that continue to harbor this disconcerting fantasy.

It's great that your emotions have some authority over your judgment, but you seriously need to learn how to prevent them from becoming a liability in your analysis, which is becoming painfully evident. And it wouldn't hurt to remove your head from the clouds, and ground your beliefs in reality. But most importantly, relax, since there's nothing really at stake in our discussions.

The corporate-state apparatus? LOL! If only it was that organized! Do everyone a favor, and remove Chomsky et.al. from your nightstand. He is, just a linguist after all.

Edited by Rol82, 25 October 2010 - 09:35 PM.

[niner]

Indeed, if you quantify the contribution of the top 1% of households (a meaningful proportion of which includes small businesses), you'll find that they provide nearly 30% of federal income tax revenues

But the federal income tax is progressive, while most other taxes are flat or regressive. When payroll taxes are included, and when sales, property, state, and local taxes are included, which is the only meaningful way to look at taxation fairness, a somewhat different picture might emerge.

I see little evidence to support the notion that choking one class will strengthen others, and that pie of income distribution must remain fixed in order for a society to prosper. To be sure, there is no immediate prospect of policymakers deciding to soak the rich, but there are, however, a disturbing number that continue to harbor this disconcerting fantasy.

"Choking" one class would be likely to have negative consequences, but no one is proposing that. The only proposal that's really on the table is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for higher income (AGI > $250K, which might be a gross income of $300K) earners. A few percentage points in the context of one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world hardly qualifies as "choking" or "class warfare" in my opinion. We should bear in mind that the top 1% has seen the lion's share of income produced by productivity gains over the past several decades. Obviously, globalization and the rise of finance as a dominant industry in America have contributed greatly to this. Income inequality is to be expected in a society like ours, and a certain amount of inequality is fine. When that inequality rises to extreme levels, and when the middle class is threatened, the health of our nation and society is in danger.

[Rational Madman]

Indeed, if you quantify the contribution of the top 1% of households (a meaningful proportion of which includes small businesses), you'll find that they provide nearly 30% of federal income tax revenues

But the federal income tax is progressive, while most other taxes are flat or regressive. When payroll taxes are included, and when sales, property, state, and local taxes are included, which is the only meaningful way to look at taxation fairness, a somewhat different picture might emerge.

I see little evidence to support the notion that choking one class will strengthen others, and that pie of income distribution must remain fixed in order for a society to prosper. To be sure, there is no immediate prospect of policymakers deciding to soak the rich, but there are, however, a disturbing number that continue to harbor this disconcerting fantasy.

"Choking" one class would be likely to have negative consequences, but no one is proposing that. The only proposal that's really on the table is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for higher income (AGI > $250K, which might be a gross income of $300K) earners. A few percentage points in the context of one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world hardly qualifies as "choking" or "class warfare" in my opinion. We should bear in mind that the top 1% has seen the lion's share of income produced by productivity gains over the past several decades. Obviously, globalization and the rise of finance as a dominant industry in America have contributed greatly to this. Income inequality is to be expected in a society like ours, and a certain amount of inequality is fine. When that inequality rises to extreme levels, and when the middle class is threatened, the health of our nation and society is in danger.

Yes, but you're neglecting the capital gains and dividend taxes, which place the wealthy in a relatively worse position in terms of taxable income. And as for the prospect of soaking the rich, I think you missed the last sentence of my second paragraph, which dismissed it as an immediate (or likely) prospect. As for the unequal distribution of productivity gains, again, look at the disparity in human capital between the United States and other OECD countries. And has this distribution adversely affected measures of median income or wealth over the last 30 years, especially relative to other OECD countries? In truth, the middle class is threatened in much of the developed world, so I don't think our situation is really exceptional, but this picture is distorted by the absence of certain automatic stabilizers. To be clear, there is much to be desired with the American economy, but I think many make the mistake of accentuating the negative.

Edited by Rol82, 27 October 2010 - 01:59 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

The rich are not at fault by virtue of their wealth alone, but the way they accumulated it (and how they use it). The worst offenders would be the rentier class... which includes everyone from two-bit patent trolls to Monsanto, from slumlords to Donald Trump. These people extract unearned rent through the proxy of government coercion, and seek to monopolize the use of land, ideas, genes, and so on. They hold no natural right to do so, nor does this illegitimate form of property benefit society... indeed it actively harms society.

After that, the limited liability corporate person is the legal construct which promotes the greatest degree of centralization. It is this which allows leveraged banks and insurance companies the ability to go under while the investors can walk away without any liability for their reckless behavior. It is this which allows corporations to take ridiculous risks and create enormous externalities, safe in the knowledge that their investors would never be personally liable (think of the BP oil spill).

Then beyond that we are inflicted with all the centralization-promoting public transportation grids, communication grids, government-granted energy monopolies, agribusiness subsidies, etc etc etc. When you add it all up, and also throw in the history of colonialism and feudalism out of which our system evolved, and the ongoing imperialism being employed to maintain it, we can safely assume that virtually all of the elites have achieved their status illegitimately by any standard of either natural rights or common decency.

So yes, I did use the convenient shorthand of income inequality to illustrate how imbalanced things are, and by speaking of income in general I wasn't as precise as I could have been, but ultimately that income stems from the sources outlined above. This economic inequality then creates a huge imbalance in political power in which the rest of society has a very hard time competing, given the collective action problem, and it becomes very hard to change any of it. Even if we do live in an oh-so-complex world in which the politicians are often well-meaning and somewhat accountable to a multiplicity of factions, they still have to play the game... and that game is rigged.

It is for these reasons why it is perfectly legitimate to refer to the corporate-state apparatus as such.

Is the unequal distribution of wealth really problematic if the median household income and wealth increases at a constant, and relative to other OECD economies, at a historically healthy and competitive rate (keeping in mind the distortions created by the recent cyclical downturn)?

The recent downturn was hardly just "cyclical." It was the result of an unsustainable multi decade transfer of wealth from all of society towards the top 1 percent which started in the 80s, was vigorously supported under Clinton, and was intensified further under Bush II. In the context of a highly regulated economy, it is lunacy to open the floodgates to financialization of the economy, mergers of commercial and investment banks, persistent low interest rates, etc. There was nothing cyclical about that.

And if you want evidence of the political persuasion of the wealthy, look at the voting patterns of households earning above 200,000, or 350,000 annually, most of whom express a preference for Democratic candidates.

This is mostly a recent phenomenon, since Bush was such a disaster in every way that even the super-rich had turned against the GOP. Though that is just a temporary anomaly, and even if it weren't that would merely mean we are ruled by a smarter elite who are willing to appease the lower classes enough to ensure the most stable fiscal climate for their thievery.

[david ellis]

Libertarians doing un-Libertarian things.

Rol82, this is an example of why I think definitions are important. A true Libertarian would have more respect for others rights.

Edited by david ellis, 26 October 2010 - 09:53 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Libertarians doing un-Libertarian things.

Rol82, this is an example of why I think definitions are important. A true Libertarian would have more respect for others rights.

Well, if a significant proportion of the movement was resorting to extreme acts like head stomping in place of civil discourse, you might have a point. In most cases, though, I'm willing to wager that the deviations are rather trivial.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

I don't care for the moralistic side of libertarianism, but they're about the only real economists and political scientists and represent a good majority of the decent recent historians around.

[the thing]

I don't care for the moralistic side of libertarianism, but they're about the only real economists and political scientists and represent a good majority of the decent recent historians around.

lol at real economists. Most macroeconomists of all schools are full of crap to some degree. When talking about macro the field of economics becomes extremely politicized and ideological. I am myself a economics major, but when it is very hard to say anything with certainty about macro. This might sound like an argument for austrians, but it is not.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

There is no such thing as 'macroeconomics'.
What's called 'Austrian' economics is really plain economics. The rest of it is numerological nonsense and efficiency expertise for the State elites.

[maxwatt]

There is no such thing as 'macroeconomics'.
What's called 'Austrian' economics is really plain economics. The rest of it is numerological nonsense and efficiency expertise for the State elites.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[the thing]

There is no such thing as 'macroeconomics'.
What's called 'Austrian' economics is really plain economics. The rest of it is numerological nonsense and efficiency expertise for the State elites.

Yeah sure it's a big conspiracy. The guys who have no data, no models, no nothing but verbal diarrhea are the real economists. I take mathmeatical and empirical nonsense over pure nonsense any day.

[Rational Madman]

There is no such thing as 'macroeconomics'.
What's called 'Austrian' economics is really plain economics. The rest of it is numerological nonsense and efficiency expertise for the State elites.

Yeah sure it's a big conspiracy. The guys who have no data, no models, no nothing but verbal diarrhea are the real economists. I take mathmeatical and empirical nonsense over pure nonsense any day.

Yes, it must be an empirical and quantitative science, not a place for philosophs with their heads in the sky.

[j03]

I voted 2.  I want as little Government involvement in my daily life as possible.  I don't support a Liberal/Socialist nanny state where everything has to be regulated.  Every time I hear about more taxes (which has to be used for social programs and funding) or more laws it depresses me.  Like, for example, supplements:  Access to drugs like AAS or HGH for therapeutic reasons should be legal, it's a matter of fundamental human rights and freedoms.  I can understand with other drugs like street ones which are a detriment to society that has to bear the brunt through funding rehab, or lost GDP, so it's not a personal choice, but for steroids and marijuana that's a different story.  Where I live (a very Socialist/Liberal country) they actually banned vitamin K believe it or not, and various other supplements/drugs because one dumb person overdosed on it.  Too bad the world is devoid of people with common sense like Ron Paul.  

lol now that that rant is out of my system, on to your questions: 

When were you first introduced to Libertarianism?  


A few years ago I gravitated to Conservatism then Libertarianism after so many frustrations being under Liberal leadership for so long.

Have you always had Libertarian leaning, or was there a change in your perspective at some point?


I voted Liberal when i was in my teens.  I didn't know much about politics then.  

If so, what caused this change?
Taxes, affirmative action, suppression of freedom of speech and expression so that it doesn't offend anyone, political correctness, etc. 

[j03]

Lol the Government banned vitamin K and l-carnitine.


Seriously.  They are on the controlled drug list, and are illegal to import.  You could be arrested for it.  So are most fish oils, tryptophan, yohimbie, etc. melatonin was allowed only just recently.  Also, most FDA drugs are not available here.

Obviously it was a Liberal Government at the time those laws were put forth. 

That same Government was trying to push legislation to make supplements require a prescription, even vitamin c.

I support Libertarianism for obvious reasons.   

[Rational Madman]

I voted 2. I want as little Government involvement in my daily life as possible. I don't support a Liberal/Socialist nanny state where everything has to be regulated. Every time I hear about more taxes (which has to be used for social programs and funding) or more laws it depresses me. Like, for example, supplements: Access to drugs like AAS or HGH for therapeutic reasons should be legal, it's a matter of fundamental human rights and freedoms. I can understand with other drugs like street ones which are a detriment to society that has to bear the brunt through funding rehab, or lost GDP, so it's not a personal choice, but for steroids and marijuana that's a different story. Where I live (a very Socialist/Liberal country) they actually banned vitamin K believe it or not, and various other supplements/drugs because one dumb person overdosed on it. Too bad the world is devoid of people with common sense like Ron Paul.

lol now that that rant is out of my system, on to your questions:

When were you first introduced to Libertarianism?


A few years ago I gravitated to Conservatism then Libertarianism after so many frustrations being under Liberal leadership for so long.

Have you always had Libertarian leaning, or was there a change in your perspective at some point?


I voted Liberal when i was in my teens. I didn't know much about politics then.

If so, what caused this change?
Taxes, affirmative action, suppression of freedom of speech and expression so that it doesn't offend anyone, political correctness, etc.

Your rationales....
Supplements-A pretty strange reason, since the FDA supervision of supplement manufacturers is very loose relative to other states.
Affirmative Action-Are you objecting to affirmative action, or the practice of using racial quotas, because there's quite a difference, and the two are often conflated. And if there wasn't a former system of codified discrimination and enslavement that created societal distortions, you might have a point. By itself, the notion of affirmative action is objectionable, but it's doubtful that it'll remain a permanent feature of our society.
1st Amendment rights: Again, somewhat of an odd position, since relatively speaking, political expression has been zealously protected by the courts.
Political Correctness: So you would prefer a norm of being insensitive and impolitic?

When examining libertarians, I almost feel like a naturalist....

Edited by Rol82, 07 November 2010 - 02:39 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Lol the Government banned vitamin K and l-carnitine.


Seriously. They are on the controlled drug list, and are illegal to import. You could be arrested for it. So are most fish oils, tryptophan, yohimbie, etc. melatonin was allowed only just recently. Also, most FDA drugs are not available here.

Obviously it was a Liberal Government at the time those laws were put forth.

That same Government was trying to push legislation to make supplements require a prescription, even vitamin c.

I support Libertarianism for obvious reasons.

If only supplements were at the top of my political concerns. We would have to have something near a utopia.

Edited by Rol82, 07 November 2010 - 09:53 AM.

[rwac]

If only supplements were at the top of my political concerns. We would have to have something near a utopia.

You will find that people tend to be most concerned with issues that affect them directly. I think nothing is better at driving people towards libertarianism than the realization that a lot of government regulation is as bad as the one that's bothering them.

[rwac]

Your rationales....
Supplements-A pretty strange reason, since the FDA supervision of supplement manufacturers is very loose relative to other states.
Affirmative Action-Are you objecting to affirmative action, or the practice of using racial quotas, because there's quite a difference, and the two are often conflated. And if there wasn't a former system of codified discrimination and enslavement that created societal distortions, you might have a point. By itself, the notion of affirmative action is objectionable, but it's doubtful that it'll remain a permanent feature of our society.
1st Amendment rights: Again, somewhat of an odd position, since relatively speaking, political expression has been zealously protected by the courts.

Political Correctness: So you would prefer a norm of being insensitive and impolitic?

When examining libertarians, I almost feel like a naturalist....

Aren't you being a bit US centric ? k4t is obviously doesn't live here.

[j03]

I voted 2. I want as little Government involvement in my daily life as possible. I don't support a Liberal/Socialist nanny state where everything has to be regulated. Every time I hear about more taxes (which has to be used for social programs and funding) or more laws it depresses me. Like, for example, supplements: Access to drugs like AAS or HGH for therapeutic reasons should be legal, it's a matter of fundamental human rights and freedoms. I can understand with other drugs like street ones which are a detriment to society that has to bear the brunt through funding rehab, or lost GDP, so it's not a personal choice, but for steroids and marijuana that's a different story. Where I live (a very Socialist/Liberal country) they actually banned vitamin K believe it or not, and various other supplements/drugs because one dumb person overdosed on it. Too bad the world is devoid of people with common sense like Ron Paul.

lol now that that rant is out of my system, on to your questions:

When were you first introduced to Libertarianism?


A few years ago I gravitated to Conservatism then Libertarianism after so many frustrations being under Liberal leadership for so long.

Have you always had Libertarian leaning, or was there a change in your perspective at some point?


I voted Liberal when i was in my teens. I didn't know much about politics then.

If so, what caused this change?
Taxes, affirmative action, suppression of freedom of speech and expression so that it doesn't offend anyone, political correctness, etc.

Your rationales....
Supplements-A pretty strange reason, since the FDA supervision of supplement manufacturers is very loose relative to other states.
Affirmative Action-Are you objecting to affirmative action, or the practice of using racial quotas, because there's quite a difference, and the two are often conflated. And if there wasn't a former system of codified discrimination and enslavement that created societal distortions, you might have a point. By itself, the notion of affirmative action is objectionable, but it's doubtful that it'll remain a permanent feature of our society.
1st Amendment rights: Again, somewhat of an odd position, since relatively speaking, political expression has been zealously protected by the courts.
Political Correctness: So you would prefer a norm of being insensitive and impolitic?

When examining libertarians, I almost feel like a naturalist....

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose. So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Health, freedom, livelihood are foremost importance to me at the moment.

Affirmative action is the same thing regardless if it's based around race or class or some other perceived inequality, and it's irrelevant now. Socialism was only relevant when being poor meant you didn't eat, succumbed to disease and death. Being poor today means you don't have a luxury car. There's no reason anyone, regardless of their race, cannot get ahead.

You can look at countries in Europe that have the same problems and give minorities special treatment because of race, yet they don't have a " former system of codified discrimination and enslavement that created societal distortions" against those that freely immigrated there. Under these circumstances this indicates some perceived inferiority, or a racist agenda against the indigenous populations.

And freedom of speech is subverted by political correctness. I would prefer any norm then to have to censor anything that's not illegal in fear it offends anyone, including myself.

[david ellis]

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose. So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Where do you live?

[j03]

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose.  So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Where do you live?

Canada.

There's been many FDA approved drugs I've tried to get and they were not available here, and I had to order online.  I was also diagnosed with a sleep issue in my teens and used to have to pay $120 / month for 30 capsules of melatonin.  Now I buy a 4 month supply online for like $6. It's a total nanny state

...back to that Liberal Rol82 above and his affirmative action comments which really perturbs me:

Now that you know where I'm from you can research and see there's been no history of no institutionalized racial discrimination here except in a small level against the Asians in WW2 (and they were obviously held back because of that *sarcasm*), yet, affirmative action is rampant. You're going to probably say we persecuted the Indians, but that's not true. Unlike the American colonists that fought a war for their sovereignty, the French and British found a better way: by buying their land for liquor lol which is a legal purchase.  Trying to say otherwise is like Russia asking for Alaska back because it was sold at a reduced rate.  I was on an Indian reserve this summer, they pay no taxes, get free land, don't have to pay College fees, every tribe gets profits from the Casinos that trickles down to each person, they get welfare on top, and tonnes of Government grants and easy access to capital for small business start-ups if they ever wanted it... so, it did work in their favor in the end, and they have more opportunities than most. 

Using my experience we can exclude race from the equation.  In fact, whites are actually now the minority in the financial and social heart of a country (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto), yet ethnic groups such as blacks are still held back. Is this because of racism by whites?  When whites are the minority themselves?  

They are obviously not fitting in though as the majority of them live in poverty (source: www.toronto.ca/demographics/neighbourhoods.htm <-- you can clearly see income, race, and poverty stats all correlated). Immigrants also commit most of the crime (Source: www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php <--out of the 30 most wanted only one is white. I also read a stat in the paper that said 80% of the gun crime in the city is committed by Jamaicans, and the same article said that some high amount like 80-90% of children of Jamaican fathers are born out of wedlock.  I knew one guy in high school that had 10 kids before he was 17.

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones?  Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue?  Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job.  That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations 

If you logically break it all down this is a burden for the working class (mostly white males) that have to support this.  The Government extorts their money to throw at resettlement, and jails, and welfare, etc.  while limiting their employment opportunities so that others can fill a quota.  The only people being persecuted in a racist sense are whites that work.  So, your argument is just dumb and illogical.     

 

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Yeah sure it's a big conspiracy.

The ability of humans to believe and promote nonsense for reasons of signaling is not a conspiracy.

The guys who have no data, no models, no nothing but verbal diarrhea are the real economists. I take mathmeatical and empirical nonsense over pure nonsense any day.

Because you don't even understand the nature of the phenomena economics deals with. Ignorance of the problem will tend to lead to stupid, cookie-cutter 'solutions'.

[the thing]

Yeah sure it's a big conspiracy.

The ability of humans to believe and promote nonsense for reasons of signaling is not a conspiracy.

True, but economics is not homeopathy. While it is not a hard science like physics for example, it is still fairly rigorous and usually at least tries to be objective.

The guys who have no data, no models, no nothing but verbal diarrhea are the real economists. I take mathmeatical and empirical nonsense over pure nonsense any day.

Because you don't even understand the nature of the phenomena economics deals with. Ignorance of the problem will tend to lead to stupid, cookie-cutter 'solutions'.

This is retarded. Say something little less vague and useless and I might care.

[Rational Madman]

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose. So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Where do you live?

Canada.

There's been many FDA approved drugs I've tried to get and they were not available here, and I had to order online. I was also diagnosed with a sleep issue in my teens and used to have to pay $120 / month for 30 capsules of melatonin. Now I buy a 4 month supply online for like $6. It's a total nanny state

...back to that Liberal Rol82 above and his affirmative action comments which really perturbs me:

Now that you know where I'm from you can research and see there's been no history of no institutionalized racial discrimination here except in a small level against the Asians in WW2 (and they were obviously held back because of that *sarcasm*), yet, affirmative action is rampant. You're going to probably say we persecuted the Indians, but that's not true. Unlike the American colonists that fought a war for their sovereignty, the French and British found a better way: by buying their land for liquor lol which is a legal purchase. Trying to say otherwise is like Russia asking for Alaska back because it was sold at a reduced rate. I was on an Indian reserve this summer, they pay no taxes, get free land, don't have to pay College fees, every tribe gets profits from the Casinos that trickles down to each person, they get welfare on top, and tonnes of Government grants and easy access to capital for small business start-ups if they ever wanted it... so, it did work in their favor in the end, and they have more opportunities than most.

Using my experience we can exclude race from the equation. In fact, whites are actually now the minority in the financial and social heart of a country (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto), yet ethnic groups such as blacks are still held back. Is this because of racism by whites? When whites are the minority themselves?

They are obviously not fitting in though as the majority of them live in poverty (source: www.toronto.ca/demographics/neighbourhoods.htm <-- you can clearly see income, race, and poverty stats all correlated). Immigrants also commit most of the crime (Source: www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php <--out of the 30 most wanted only one is white. I also read a stat in the paper that said 80% of the gun crime in the city is committed by Jamaicans, and the same article said that some high amount like 80-90% of children of Jamaican fathers are born out of wedlock. I knew one guy in high school that had 10 kids before he was 17.

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones? Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue? Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job. That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

If you logically break it all down this is a burden for the working class (mostly white males) that have to support this. The Government extorts their money to throw at resettlement, and jails, and welfare, etc. while limiting their employment opportunities so that others can fill a quota. The only people being persecuted in a racist sense are whites that work. So, your argument is just dumb and illogical.

Even assuming that there was an absence of legal barriers to social mobility for minorities in Canada, which is highly debatable, there were still pervasive normative barriers that resulted in distortions, and serve as sufficient grounds for using race, gender, and ethnicity as a less heavily weighted criterion. The native population in particular is deserving of compensation for years of subjugation, humiliation, displacement, and marginalization. And even with the generous level of treatment, their living standard remains below the median, which means much work still needs to be done.

Although you lament the settlement patterns of immigrants in some major metropolitan ares, there is no convincing evidence that this development has come at the great expense of other demographic groups---using any quantifier of median status. Instead, the labor market of Canada has become more efficient, price levels have remained stable, and aggregate output has increased. Overall, Canada is in an enviable position in some regards, and could be in a far worse situation if your reactionary and nativist philosophy was the guiding light. The prevalence of immigrant linked poverty and crime is indeed disturbing, but rather than being a cause for expulsion or greater barriers, it represents a rationale for further reform of conditions that give rise to this behavior---which is not causally linked to race and ethnicity. Furthermore, by providing refuge to these groups, the host nation is greatly aiding the efforts of native governments to improve the quality of life of their inhabitants---through a growth in human capital (should immigrants return), remittance supplemented incomes, and by creating a greater incentive for the strengthening of economic and diplomatic ties between host and native states. Which has the consequence of making the native state a more viable and productive market that the host state will be in a unique position to capitalize on.

I wasn't aware that you were from Canada, because such wasn't specified in your avatar profile, and I can only assume that you're from Ontario---even if you sound either Albertan or Nova Scotian. But even with the national differences in supplement regulation, I don't believe there to be adequate reason for ranking such so high on your list of political priorities---because the products in question provide only marginal supplementary health benefits that can be attained from a variety of alternative sources, not critically essential benefits.

Edited by Rol82, 11 November 2010 - 06:52 PM.

[j03]

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose.  So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Where do you live?

Canada.

There's been many FDA approved drugs I've tried to get and they were not available here, and I had to order online.  I was also diagnosed with a sleep issue in my teens and used to have to pay $120 / month for 30 capsules of melatonin.  Now I buy a 4 month supply online for like $6. It's a total nanny state

...back to that Liberal Rol82 above and his affirmative action comments which really perturbs me:

Now that you know where I'm from you can research and see there's been no history of no institutionalized racial discrimination here except in a small level against the Asians in WW2 (and they were obviously held back because of that *sarcasm*), yet, affirmative action is rampant. You're going to probably say we persecuted the Indians, but that's not true. Unlike the American colonists that fought a war for their sovereignty, the French and British found a better way: by buying their land for liquor lol which is a legal purchase.  Trying to say otherwise is like Russia asking for Alaska back because it was sold at a reduced rate.  I was on an Indian reserve this summer, they pay no taxes, get free land, don't have to pay College fees, every tribe gets profits from the Casinos that trickles down to each person, they get welfare on top, and tonnes of Government grants and easy access to capital for small business start-ups if they ever wanted it... so, it did work in their favor in the end, and they have more opportunities than most.

Using my experience we can exclude race from the equation.  In fact, whites are actually now the minority in the financial and social heart of a country (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto), yet ethnic groups such as blacks are still held back. Is this because of racism by whites?  When whites are the minority themselves?  

They are obviously not fitting in though as the majority of them live in poverty (source: www.toronto.ca/demographics/neighbourhoods.htm <-- you can clearly see income, race, and poverty stats all correlated). Immigrants also commit most of the crime (Source: www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php <--out of the 30 most wanted only one is white. I also read a stat in the paper that said 80% of the gun crime in the city is committed by Jamaicans, and the same article said that some high amount like 80-90% of children of Jamaican fathers are born out of wedlock.  I knew one guy in high school that had 10 kids before he was 17.

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones?  Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue?  Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job.  That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

If you logically break it all down this is a burden for the working class (mostly white males) that have to support this.  The Government extorts their money to throw at resettlement, and jails, and welfare, etc.  while limiting their employment opportunities so that others can fill a quota.  The only people being persecuted in a racist sense are whites that work.  So, your argument is just dumb and illogical.    

Even assuming that there was an absence of legal barriers to social mobility for minorities in Canada, which is highly debatable, there were still pervasive normative barriers that resulted in distortions, and serve as sufficient grounds for using race, gender, and ethnicity as a less heavily weighted criterion.  The native population in particular is deserving of compensation for years of subjugation, humiliation, displacement, and marginalization.  And even with the generous level of treatment, their living standard remains below the median, which means much work remains to be done.


Although you lament the settlement patterns of immigrants in some major metropolitan ares, there is no convincing evidence that this development has come at the great expense of other demographic groups---using any quantifier of median status.  Instead, the labor market of Canada has become more efficient, price levels have remained stable, and aggregate output has increased.  Overall, Canada is in an enviable position in some regards, and could be in a far worse situation if your reactionary and nativist philosophy was the guiding light.  The prevalence of immigrant linked poverty and crime is indeed disturbing, but rather than being a cause for expulsion or greater barriers, it represents a rationale for further reform of conditions that give rise to this behavior---which is not causally linked to race and ethnicity.  Furthermore, by providing refuge to these groups, the host nation is greatly aiding the efforts of native governments to improve the quality of life of their inhabitants---through a growth in human capital (should immigrants return), remittance supplemented incomes, and by creating a greater incentive for the strengthening of economic and diplomatic ties between host and native states.  Which has the consequence of making the native state a more viable and productive market that the host state will be in a unique position to capitalize on.

I wasn't aware that you were from Canada, because such wasn't specified in your avatar profile, and I can only assume that you're from Ontario---even if you sound either Albertan or Nova Scotian.  But even with the national differences in supplement regulation, I don't believe there to be adequate reason for ranking such so high on your list of political priorities---because the products in question provide only marginal supplementary health benefits that can be attained from a variety of alternative sources, not critically essential benefits.

I just pursued through that as I knew it would be frustrating.  Here's a few quick ones before I go eat lunch:

-There's no cultural barriers for anyone to succeed in his modern society.  That's an excuse liberals make.  The fact is different races have different hormonal levels and thats the reason for the disparity with regard to crime and poverty (this is correlated - after picking up a criminal record you're relegated to working low paying jobs for life).  Using historic discrimination as an excuse is like saying my great grandparents were serfs or peasants in Europe therefore i can't find a job in North America lolol

-Immigrants don't help the country!  In fact, they drive down 'real wages' by diluting the market and they raise taxes (resettlement, health care, etc.).  Want me to plot a lorenz curve to prove it?  Canada is only in a good economic state because of being neighbors to America and having lots of natural resources.  You could have the worst leadership under those circumstances and economy would still be thriving. Immigrants do nothing for this.  

-It's not just supplements.  It's drugs and access to health that bothers me.  I also really detest socialized health care, and living in a nanny state.  

Edited by k4t, 11 November 2010 - 04:16 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Where I live the supplement regulation is not that loose. So, that issue is one of many that directly play into my way of life.

Where do you live?

Canada.

There's been many FDA approved drugs I've tried to get and they were not available here, and I had to order online. I was also diagnosed with a sleep issue in my teens and used to have to pay $120 / month for 30 capsules of melatonin. Now I buy a 4 month supply online for like $6. It's a total nanny state

...back to that Liberal Rol82 above and his affirmative action comments which really perturbs me:

Now that you know where I'm from you can research and see there's been no history of no institutionalized racial discrimination here except in a small level against the Asians in WW2 (and they were obviously held back because of that *sarcasm*), yet, affirmative action is rampant. You're going to probably say we persecuted the Indians, but that's not true. Unlike the American colonists that fought a war for their sovereignty, the French and British found a better way: by buying their land for liquor lol which is a legal purchase. Trying to say otherwise is like Russia asking for Alaska back because it was sold at a reduced rate. I was on an Indian reserve this summer, they pay no taxes, get free land, don't have to pay College fees, every tribe gets profits from the Casinos that trickles down to each person, they get welfare on top, and tonnes of Government grants and easy access to capital for small business start-ups if they ever wanted it... so, it did work in their favor in the end, and they have more opportunities than most.

Using my experience we can exclude race from the equation. In fact, whites are actually now the minority in the financial and social heart of a country (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto), yet ethnic groups such as blacks are still held back. Is this because of racism by whites? When whites are the minority themselves?

They are obviously not fitting in though as the majority of them live in poverty (source: www.toronto.ca/demographics/neighbourhoods.htm <-- you can clearly see income, race, and poverty stats all correlated). Immigrants also commit most of the crime (Source: www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php <--out of the 30 most wanted only one is white. I also read a stat in the paper that said 80% of the gun crime in the city is committed by Jamaicans, and the same article said that some high amount like 80-90% of children of Jamaican fathers are born out of wedlock. I knew one guy in high school that had 10 kids before he was 17.

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones? Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue? Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job. That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

If you logically break it all down this is a burden for the working class (mostly white males) that have to support this. The Government extorts their money to throw at resettlement, and jails, and welfare, etc. while limiting their employment opportunities so that others can fill a quota. The only people being persecuted in a racist sense are whites that work. So, your argument is just dumb and illogical.

Even assuming that there was an absence of legal barriers to social mobility for minorities in Canada, which is highly debatable, there were still pervasive normative barriers that resulted in distortions, and serve as sufficient grounds for using race, gender, and ethnicity as a less heavily weighted criterion. The native population in particular is deserving of compensation for years of subjugation, humiliation, displacement, and marginalization. And even with the generous level of treatment, their living standard remains below the median, which means much work remains to be done.


Although you lament the settlement patterns of immigrants in some major metropolitan ares, there is no convincing evidence that this development has come at the great expense of other demographic groups---using any quantifier of median status. Instead, the labor market of Canada has become more efficient, price levels have remained stable, and aggregate output has increased. Overall, Canada is in an enviable position in some regards, and could be in a far worse situation if your reactionary and nativist philosophy was the guiding light. The prevalence of immigrant linked poverty and crime is indeed disturbing, but rather than being a cause for expulsion or greater barriers, it represents a rationale for further reform of conditions that give rise to this behavior---which is not causally linked to race and ethnicity. Furthermore, by providing refuge to these groups, the host nation is greatly aiding the efforts of native governments to improve the quality of life of their inhabitants---through a growth in human capital (should immigrants return), remittance supplemented incomes, and by creating a greater incentive for the strengthening of economic and diplomatic ties between host and native states. Which has the consequence of making the native state a more viable and productive market that the host state will be in a unique position to capitalize on.

I wasn't aware that you were from Canada, because such wasn't specified in your avatar profile, and I can only assume that you're from Ontario---even if you sound either Albertan or Nova Scotian. But even with the national differences in supplement regulation, I don't believe there to be adequate reason for ranking such so high on your list of political priorities---because the products in question provide only marginal supplementary health benefits that can be attained from a variety of alternative sources, not critically essential benefits.

I just pursued through that as I knew it would be frustrating. Here's a few quick ones before I go eat lunch:

-There's no cultural barriers for anyone to succeed in his modern society. That's an excuse liberals make. The fact is different races have different hormonal levels and thats the reason for the disparity with regard to crime and poverty (this is correlated - after picking up a criminal record you're relegated to working low paying jobs for life). Using historic discrimination as an excuse is like saying my great grandparents were serfs or peasants in Europe therefore i can't find a job in North America lolol

-Immigrants don't help the country! In fact, they drive down 'real wages' by diluting the market and they raise taxes (resettlement, health care, etc.). Want me to plot a lorenz curve to prove it? Canada is only in a good economic state because of being neighbors to America and having lots of natural resources. You could have the worst leadership under those circumstances and economy would still be thriving. Immigrants do nothing for this.

-It's not just supplements. It's drugs and access to health that bothers me. I also really detest socialized health care, and living in a nanny state.

Immigrants do nothing for you? My jaw has now dropped. With your exceedingly simplistic and bigoted analysis, you've now entered George Wallace territory, so I'm seriously wondering if you're worth my efforts, because you might be forever lost.

Edited by Rol82, 11 November 2010 - 09:56 PM.

[chris w]

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones?  Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue?  Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job.  That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

Funny that, as this, if that were so, would actually be an argument for positive discrimination in crime cases involving black males.

[Rational Madman]

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones? Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue? Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job. That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

Funny that, as this, if that were so, would actually be an argument for positive discrimination in crime cases involving black males.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of pseudo-scientific crap that I would expect to be confined to forums like Stormfront.

[j03]

Could this crime and poverty correlation be attributed to other things then, like say hormones?  Blacks have on average 20% more testosterone than whites, so could this be why the youth is more inclined towards crime and having kids out of wedlock rather than it being a discrimination issue?  Once you get a criminal record your life is ruined, so that would explain the poverty stats and inability to get ahead or secure a decent paying job.  That's a more reasonable explanation than your broad racial categorizations

Funny that, as this, if that were so, would actually be an argument for positive discrimination in crime cases involving black males.

Yes, this is exactly the sort of pseudo-scientific crap that I would expect to be confined to forums like Stormfront.

Or PubMed:


Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/3455741

"Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level. A 15% difference in circulating testosterone levels could readily explain a twofold difference in prostate cancer risk."

In fact people from warmer climates have higher testosterone.  Northern Europeans will have less than a Southern European et. al. 

Now, I'm not saying anything racist here, just pointing out facts. This is a likely reason for things like youth crime and having children out of wedlock.  These two things perpetuate poverty.