PDA

View Full Version : Does the arrogance of the lefties have borders?



Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Visiting UK baroness teaches science (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-sceptics-startle-uk-envoy-who-says-move-on-20091112-icer.html)



Her comments come days after a senior Liberal, Nick Minchin, said he and most of his party colleagues believed man-made climate change was a myth. ''I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned,'' Baroness Amos told The Age."


When she first met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, on her third day in the country, Baroness Amos presented him with a world map showing the potentially horrific consequences of rising temperatures, including the risk of more dangerous bushfires across Australia.

When Einstein said that universe and human stupidity are infinitive, he forgot about lefties arrogance.

TheJoker
13-11-2009, 03:47 PM
I find it peculiar that you condemn one person as arrogant for claiming man-made climate change is a "fact" and yet say nothing about the other person thats holds the opposite position calling it a "myth".

Considering the number of scientists supporting the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I would venture as to say it is equally arrogant to label it a "myth"

Wouldn't you agree?:whistle:

ER
13-11-2009, 03:50 PM
BTW who's the lefty in this case? The Baroness, Minchin, Rudd or Einstein???

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2009, 04:16 PM
BTW who's the lefty in this case? The Baroness, Minchin, Rudd or Einstein???
Einstein is not (at least he was not an arrogant pollie:D )
Not sure about Minchin:) (he is a major party pollie, after all)

ER
13-11-2009, 04:23 PM
Einstein is not (at least he was not an arrogant pollie:D )
Not sure about Minchin:) (he is a major party pollie, after all)
Then it's either Kevin (Rudd that is) - although for environmental science commentary I would prefer Bonham (just have a look in many Tasmanian Times editions) and/or the Baroness!

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Then it's either Kevin (Rudd that is) - although for environmental science commentary I would prefer Bonham (just have a look in many Tasmanian Times editions) and/or the Baroness!

Most of Bonham's environmental science commentary on TT consists of stirring up the more ignorant greens in the comments section. He rarely writes any articles on such matters there. You might be confusing TT with Tasmanian Naturalist.

As for the thread subject, applying a left/right analysis to this particular comment about global warming seems a bit pointless, unless you are one of those "righties" who defines 90+% of elected politicians as lefties. Although the right is more divided on the issue than the left, there is sufficient support globally for action on global warming that it does not make sense to call it a left/right issue.

Core/periphery and settling/settled may be more useful dichotomies to look at these particular comments through.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 12:55 PM
I find it peculiar that you condemn one person as arrogant for claiming man-made climate change is a "fact" and yet say nothing about the other person thats holds the opposite position calling it a "myth".

Considering the number of scientists supporting the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I would venture as to say it is equally arrogant to label it a "myth"

Wouldn't you agree?:whistle:
Do you find it peculiar? Feigning a surprise that "science is questioned" does look like an arrogance to me.
There could be better word to describe, but I'll leave it to native English speakers with richer active vocabulary.

TheJoker
04-12-2009, 01:01 PM
Do you find it peculiar? Feigning a surprise that "science is questioned" does look like an arrogance to me.
There could be better word to describe, but I'll leave it to native English speakers with richer active vocabulary.

Never said it wasn't just said that it appears equally arrogant to go around calling it myth. Don't you agree?

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 01:51 PM
Never said it wasn't just said that it appears equally arrogant to go around calling it myth. Don't you agree?
To a lesser degree. If she said, for example, "Theory that higher temperature lead to higher level of carbon dioxide is a myth" I wouldn't call on it.
Saying something like:
"Science proved that there is no man-made global warming" is a high call, but not that arrogant. Adding "''I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned" would be arrogant.

TheJoker
04-12-2009, 02:54 PM
To a lesser degree. If she said, for example, "Theory that higher temperature lead to higher level of carbon dioxide is a myth" I wouldn't call on it.
Saying something like:
"Science proved that there is no man-made global warming" is a high call, but not that arrogant. Adding "''I have been surprised that the science itself is being questioned" would be arrogant.

Fair enough. I still consider it equally arrogant to make a categorical statement either if you are aware of a significant body of work pointing to the contrary as in calling it a "myth". If you are unaware that signficant dissent exists then it is more naive than arrogant.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 12:11 AM
Totalitarian Sentimentality (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/09/totalitarian-sentimentality)
By Roger Scruton
American Spectator, December 2009–January 2010

“The USA has descended from its special position as the principled guardian of Western civilization and joined the club of sentimentalists who have until now depended on American power. In the administration of President Obama we see the very same totalitarian sentimentality that has been at work in Europe, and which has replaced civil society with the state, the family with the adoption agency, work with welfare, and patriotic duty with universal ‘rights’. The lesson of postwar Europe is that it is easy to flaunt compassion, but harder to bear the cost of it. Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess. This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives. As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs — the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness — serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality ‘totalitarian’ since — like totalitarian government — it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to 'solve’ our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the ‘victims’, who have a ‘right’ to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state…” philosopher Roger Scruton

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2009, 12:47 AM
Reading the piece I wondered if the arrogance of Roger Scruton had borders. Scruton is an illiberal reactionary pseudo-conservative and really shouldn't be chucking around labels like "totalitarian" when referring to an ideology that supports at least some freedoms that he opposes. Some of his criticisms may be sound in themselves but his overall attitude is symptomatic of the inconsistency that creates and underlies the problem of wingtardedness in general and that makes the political right in particular so unattractive to those looking for more freedom-oriented alternatives to the "left".

I think Abbott would agree with quite a lot of the sort of things Scruton says, and think that they are true of Rudd. Put the two together and you have my overarching description for the sad state of modern Aussie politics: a parliament of wowsers.

I really should write a book with that as a title. :lol:

Spiny Norman
16-12-2009, 05:00 AM
I have days when I feel quite despairing of the state of this country and indeed the state of the world. I think the world has gone quite mad. Death by a thousand cuts. I'm gradually losing the ability or inclination to care. I rarely watch the news any more; its full of morons protesting about whatever upsets them, with no regard to facts or logic. Quite depressing. Why can't governments just bloody well leave us all alone to get on with life? Why do they feel the need to control every bloody detail?

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 10:21 AM
Peter Costello explains why the Greens were not even close to taking his former seat: their arrogant sense of "moral superiority" (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-take-moral-high-road--and-finish-last-20091215-kuh1.html):


The Greens have a moral superiority complex. In their mind they are not only right but virtuous, which makes their opponents not only wrong but immoral. This is why Hamilton has compared climate sceptics with Holocaust deniers - if you disagree with his policies you are complicit in, or covering, up mass murder. Robert Manne, who launched the campaign for Hamilton, put it this way: ‘’If the Greens can achieve a breakthrough in the byelections … [this] might come to be seen as a turning point in the moral history of this country.’’

In Melbourne on December 5 electors could have turned to good from evil, to Green from Liberal. Instead, by voting Liberal out of concern for their children’s education, or for the lack of aged care, or for their job or business, they demonstrated moral inferiority.

One day it might dawn on Brown, Manne and Hamilton that voters do not like moral condescension. Sanctimony can make you feel good, but it rarely appeals to those listening.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2009, 11:31 AM
Pretty much spot-on too. Mildly hypocritical/simplistic given Costello's sanctimonious "values" waffling at Hillsong in the leadup to the 2004 election (which did him no harm whatsoever and was actually politically very clever) but I won't take too many points off for that.

Clive Hamilton was a truly dreadful choice of Greens candidate. Not only was he a bad choice for that by-election but preselecting him will continue to damage the Greens because it prevents them from taking a clearcut stand on internet filtering, an issue which might otherwise attract them a small number of protest votes from the major parties.

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2009, 03:20 PM
How eugenics poisoned the welfare state (http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5571423/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state.thtml)
Dennis Sewell
Specator (UK) 25 Nov 2009

A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today

We live in a country where the poorest members of society are literally trapped. We pay them millions not to work, simply maintaining them at subsistence level like prisoners of the state. Tied up with bureaucratic regulations and subject to crazy marginal rates of tax, there are few chances to escape for Britain’s welfare-dependent. A million of those out of work have been jobless for a decade or more. They see their chances of getting a job in the future as so remote as to be barely worth considering. The chances of their children ever finding work are beginning to look slim too. The neighbourhoods in which they live are falling apart. The squalor is palpable; crime rampant; local schools are very often failing or ‘sink’ schools. If you think I’m exaggerating, choose any area with a high level of welfare-dependency and go and look for yourself.

So what went wrong with a welfare state that was supposed to make ‘ignorance, squalor and want’ things of the past, and guarantee greater social integration? Or have we simply misunderstood what that project was really about?

...

Given the association of so many of its founding fathers with the dismal pseudo- science of eugenics, perhaps we should not be surprised that our welfare system has ended up preferring safety nets to trampolines, or that it prefers simply to warehouse the poor rather than give people who have fallen on hard times a chance to take responsibility for their own lives. Eugenics infected its adherents with a deeply pessimistic view of the poor, branding them as irredeemably genetically second-rate, and this view has cast a long shadow over social policy assumptions. Labour figures who mock the idea of ‘compassionate Conservatism’ or make light of David Cameron’s focus on our ‘broken society’ need to take a hard look at some of their own history and intellectual heritage. When it comes to who really can claim to care about the problems of the poor, the dividing lines are not so straight as Gordon Brown thinks they are.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2009, 11:37 AM
At U (of Minnesota), future teachers may be reeducated (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr)
They must denounce exclusionary biases and embrace the vision.
Katherine Kersten,
Star Tribune 6 Dec 09

Do you believe in the American dream — the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools — at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.

In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace — and be prepared to teach our state's kids — the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.

...

The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

...

Future teachers must also recognize and denounce the fundamental injustices at the heart of American society, says the task group. From a historical perspective, they must "understand that ... many groups are typically not included" within America's "celebrated cultural identity," and that "such exclusion is frequently a result of dissimilarities in power and influence." In particular, aspiring teachers must be able "to explain how institutional racism works in schools."

After indoctrination of this kind, who wouldn't conclude that the American Dream of equality for all is a cruel hoax? But just to make sure, the task force recommends requiring "our future teachers" to "articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis" of this view of the American promise. In the process, they must incorporate the "myth of meritocracy in the United States," the "history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values, [and] history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology."

What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."

...

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 08:44 AM
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches; would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had Okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had referred to the 58 states that make up these United States, would you have thought him “geographically challenged”?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 10 months — so you’ll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 08:48 AM
How eugenics poisoned the welfare state (http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5571423/how-eugenics-poisoned-the-welfare-state.thtml)
Dennis Sewell
Specator (UK) 25 Nov 2009

A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today



:lol: Nineteenth century eugenics was hardly the lone preserve of 'leftists' ... as implied if not specifically stated.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 10:12 AM
:lol: Nineteenth century eugenics was hardly the lone preserve of 'leftists' ... as implied if not specifically stated.
It's notable that Fabian Socialists in the UK, the National Socialists in Germany, American "progressives" (i.e. liberals), and even liberal "churches" (http://www.eppc.org/publications/bookID.51/book_detail.asp) all loved eugenics in the first few decades of the 20th century. I don't know where "nineteenth century" comes from, since a century ago is still the 20th.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 10:32 AM
It's notable that Fabian Socialists in the UK, the National Socialists in Germany, American "progressives" (i.e. liberals), and even liberal "churches" (http://www.eppc.org/publications/bookID.51/book_detail.asp) all loved eugenics in the first few decades of the 20th century. I don't know where "nineteenth century" comes from, since a century ago is still the 20th.

I moreorless agree with the above (er, Nazis as 'lefties'??) but eugenics was part of mainstream scientific thinking in the nieteenth century - and early twentienth ;) - so specifically linking it to political persuasion back then is something of a furphy (to use an Australianism).

Interestingly, in my own research I have found examples of early NZ educators (1870-1920) administering or teaching in 'Native' (Maori) Schools who, in their writing and/or practice, bucked against the science of eugenics as well as the hegemony of the British education system.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 11:10 AM
I moreorless agree with the above (er, Nazis as 'lefties'??)
Of course. While the National Socialists stopped short of state ownership of industries, they expanded the state control over what would be produced. They also opposed individualism, the free market, private education of children (imposing a uniform and rigidly secular state education); and introduced public works programs, heavily progressive taxation, and ceilings on allowed profits. The UK Fabian Socialists and US Progressives saw the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists as fellow travellers until they launched brutal wars of aggression in the 1930s.

The myth that the Nazis were "right" stems only from their wars on Communists, but that was fighting over roughly the same ideological territory, cf. Stalin v Trotsky. But if "right" means supporting free markets, limited government, and traditional morality — including religious influences — then the Nazis were staunchly opposed to these.


but eugenics was part of mainstream scientific thinking in the nieteenth century — and early twentienth ;)
Unfortunately true.


— so specifically linking it to political persuasion back then is something of a furphy (to use an Australianism).
What the article documented was how much eugenics influenced leftist ideas on the British welfare state.


Interestingly, in my own research I have found examples of early NZ educators (1870-1920) administering or teaching in 'Native' (Maori) Schools who, in their writing and/or practice, bucked against the science of eugenics as well as the hegemony of the British education system.
That's very good.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 12:04 PM
[QUOTE=Jono] What the article documented was how much eugenics influenced leftist ideas on the British welfare state. QUOTE]

I think my point is still valid: eugenics influenced pretty much everyone back then.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 12:22 PM
Of course. While the National Socialists stopped short of state ownership of industries, they expanded the state control over what would be produced. They also opposed individualism, the free market, private education of children (imposing a uniform and rigidly secular state education); and introduced public works programs, heavily progressive taxation, and ceilings on allowed profits. The UK Fabian Socialists and US Progressives saw the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists as fellow travellers until they launched brutal wars of aggression in the 1930s.

The myth that the Nazis were "right" stems only from their wars on Communists, but that was fighting over roughly the same ideological territory, cf. Stalin v Trotsky. But if "right" means supporting free markets, limited government, and traditional morality — including religious influences — then the Nazis were staunchly opposed to these.


Totalitariansim - be it on the left or right - means that normal definitions tend to break down. Even if it wasn't politically 'free', the free market was the stoked up engine that pulled Germany out of the morrass of the Depression. The captains of German industry made (and subsequently lost) fortunes under Nazism. Rather than repudiate religion, the Nazis manipulated it to manufacture a conservative (albeit perverted) morality. Many churchmen of the day fell into line (only a few, such as Bonhoeffer, stood up to them).

So my understanding is that Nazism was a dictatorship with populist origins - and more right-wing ('nationalist') than left wing ('socialist').

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2010, 12:48 PM
Totalitariansim — be it on the left or right — means that normal definitions tend to break down.
Cf. Reagan's 1964 speech which put him on the map, A Time For Choosing (http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.asp):


You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

This was after Leftard propaganda had equated the Nazis with the "right", simply because they fought Communists, although National Socialists were also statists who hated economic freedom.


Even if it wasn't politically 'free', the free market was the stoked up engine that pulled Germany out of the morrass of the Depression.
Nothing free about it. The captains of industry were told what to make and how much.


The captains of German industry made (and subsequently lost) fortunes under Nazism.
This is not the free market but government in cahoots with industry. A free market by definition is the government keeping out of industry except to protect life and property, and to enforce contracts.


Rather than repudiate religion, the Nazis manipulated it to manufacture a conservative (albeit perverted) morality.
Nothing conservative about it, e.g. encouraging Gentiles to divorce a Jewish spouse and keep most of the property, or they would be fired from civil employment. The National Socialists persecuted biblical Christians, imprisoned priests, abolished church schools, and even had a plan to exterminate Christianity completely, as thoroughly documented at the Nuremberg trials (http://creation.com/nazis-planned-to-exterminate-christianity).


Many churchmen of the day fell into line (only a few, such as Bonhoeffer, stood up to them).
Of course, because Germany was the birthplace of liberal theology. Ernst Mayr (1904–2005) wrote (http://creation.com/still-fighting-god)‘there was no Protestant fundamentalism’ in his boyhood Germany.


So my understanding is that Nazism was a dictatorship with populist origins — and more right-wing ('nationalist') than left wing ('socialist').
"Right wing" in the sense of free markets and traditional morality has nothing to do with either nationalism or Nazism.

Tony Dowden
01-01-2010, 01:07 PM
As usual your profound general knowledge and wide erudition makes you a tough opponent to debate Jono!

However, I think that bearing in mind it was the 1930's, my notion of a 'free market' is reasonable. Of course it wasn't an (economically) free market in the Milton Friedman-esque sense. And it was subject to major politically motivated strictures including quotas and prices (and so forth).

But the market itself still worked. It revived the moribund German economy and it generated handsome (if predetermined) profits.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 11:47 AM
As usual your profound general knowledge and wide erudition makes you a tough opponent to debate Jono!
And thanx for the most interesting information about early NZ educationists standing up to eugenics; I'd never have found that otherwise.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2010, 12:13 PM
Liberal colleges and universities seldom have conservative speakers give talks on their campuses, but conservative colleges and universities often have liberal speakers give talks on their campuses. The kind of broad exposure to a variety of views that used to be called a "liberal education" is now available largely at conservative academic institutions.—Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032399.asp)

Tony Dowden
02-01-2010, 01:21 PM
And thanx for the most interesting information about early NZ educationists standing up to eugenics; I'd never have found that otherwise.

Thanks, if you would like specifics remind me to send you the journal reference when it is published later on in the year.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2010, 08:09 PM
The grand fallacy of the political left is that decisions are better made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Much of the 20th century has been taken up proving how tragically mistaken that theory is, all around the world. But those who want to be the third-party decision-makers still remain undaunted.--Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032399.asp)

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2010, 06:00 PM
GREED = Getting Rich Earning Every Dime
COMPASSION = Confiscation Of My Paycheck And Spending Suicidally In Obama's Name

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2010, 10:57 PM
Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insenstive, possibly evil.—Joseph Epstein.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 01:36 AM
Where Best To Be Poor (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/06/30/where-best-to-be-poor/)
By Walter E. Williams, 30 June 2010
...

Forty-three percent of all [USA] poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

...
Yesterday's material poverty is all but gone. In all too many cases, it has been replaced by a more debilitating kind of poverty — behavioral poverty or poverty of the spirit. This kind of poverty refers to conduct and values that prevent the development of healthy families, work ethic and self-sufficiency. The absence of these values virtually guarantees pathological lifestyles that include: drug and alcohol addiction, crime, violence, incarceration, illegitimacy, single-parent households, dependency and erosion of work ethic. Poverty of the spirit is a direct result of the perverse incentives created by some of our efforts to address material poverty.

pax
01-07-2010, 11:22 AM
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
[/list]

Many homeless people have mobile phones too, yet they are still homeless.

Many of the above statistics (especially TVs, DVD players and the like) are due to the fact that these consumer items are orders of magnitude cheaper than they ever were before. The fact that someone has a $50 TV, or a 20 year old car doesn't change the fact that they may not be able to pay the rent or the bills.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Many homeless people have mobile phones too, yet they are still homeless.
Many of these homeless people are in places where rent control makes it uneconomical for apartment owners to do anything but board them up--far more than would be needed to house the,


Many of the above statistics (especially TVs, DVD players and the like) are due to the fact that these consumer items are orders of magnitude cheaper than they ever were before.
As Milton Friedman said, the productive activities unleashed by a free economy have done far more to alleviate material poverty than all the government programs and leftactivism.


The fact that someone has a $50 TV, or a 20 year old car doesn't change the fact that they may not be able to pay the rent or the bills.
It doesn't change the fact that many poor people in America are better off materially than average people in Europe.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 12:08 PM
Where Best To Be Poor (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/06/30/where-best-to-be-poor/)
By Walter E. Williams, 30 June 2010
...

Forty-three percent of all [USA] poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

....

I wouldn't be surpirsed if they don't own any of these things, rather the bank does and it essentially leases them to people. I bet most of those people currently have a negative net worth, in other words they own less than nothing they are in debt.

Any statistics on the net wealth of these people Jono?

I mean I could take out a loan for a new car and I'd actually be less wealthy since the value of the car once out of the show room probably wouldn't be sufficient to cover the value of the debt (not even considering the interest cost). Juding people's wealth by valuing peoples assets with out considering their liabilities is for the financially illiterate.

All you've demonstrated is that access to credit is an important way for improving the living standards of low income people. And that technology becomes cheaper to produce over time. Hardly anything to write home about.

Desmond
01-07-2010, 12:30 PM
It doesn't change the fact that many poor people in America are better off materially than average people in Europe.Are you saying that the average European (whatever that is) doesn't have those things like DVD players? I'd be suprised if that were true.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 12:38 PM
As Milton Friedman said, the productive activities unleashed by a free economy have done far more to alleviate material poverty than all the government programs.

Except of course it is regulated markets that have produced the benefits not free-markets. Government programs such as minimum safety standards and rule of law have reduced consumer uncertainty and allowed markets to grow to unprecendented levels.

Carry on with blind rhetoric!

pax
01-07-2010, 12:41 PM
As Milton Friedman said, the productive activities unleashed by a free economy have done far more to alleviate material poverty than all the government programs and leftactivism.

The ability to buy a DVD player for $50 has done nothing to alleviate material poverty. Housing is key, and it's as expensive as ever.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:48 PM
Except of course it is regulated markets that have produced the benefits not free-markets. Government programs such as minimum safety standards and rule of law have reduced consumer uncertainty and allowed markets to grow to unprecendented levels.
More dishonesty: of course it has been pointed out that the free market entails the rule of law. Compare relatively free markets with the stifling "mixed economy of India and Europe.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:49 PM
The ability to buy a DVD player for $50 has done nothing to alleviate material poverty. Housing is key, and it's as expensive as ever.
Yet as shown, many "poor" people own houses. Also, the most expensive houses are in areas where government has restricted housing supply in the name of "smart building", "town belt", "farm preservation" and other crappy laws.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 03:10 PM
of course it has been pointed out that the free market entails the rule of law.

So you agree that Government's are primarily responsible for facilitating the markets which have generated the most benefits.

You also continue to ignore the fact that well-regulated markets out perform unregulated markets.

You've also ignored the fact that your original post was financially illiterate, in that it used assets as a measure of wealth without considering liabilities. Some reports show that 25% of US households have a negative net worth.

AFAIK the net worth of the bottom 5 percent of US housholds has been declining over the last 20 years.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 03:34 PM
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Another joke, lets compare a living space statistic based on the entire USA including many rural areas, to a few cities that have high population densities. The same comparison would probably hold true for the average living space of of poor Amercian compared with the average living space of a New Yorker. :rolleyes: Or the average living space of a millionaire in Hong Kong



Yesterday's material poverty is all but gone. In all too many cases, it has been replaced by a more debilitating kind of poverty

Yes called financial poverty. Massive credit card debts with crippling interest bills that prevent people from increasing their wealth despite earning a reasonable income.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2010, 04:18 PM
Yes called financial poverty. Massive credit card debts with crippling interest bills that prevent people from increasing their wealth despite earning a reasonable income.
To which lefties propose increased welfare to allow further increase in the debt.
That the debt was a bad financial decision by the individual in the first place is beyond lefties comprehension.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 04:35 PM
To which lefties propose increased welfare to allow further increase in the debt.
That the debt was a bad financial decision by the individual in the first place is beyond lefties comprehension.

Then I am not a lefty. Firstly I understand that the debt is a result of poor financial decisions. What I would propose to do about it is better education around finances. Help people to understand that debt finance only makes sense when the asset it is used finance can generate an income stream with a positive NPV. Most people finishing highschool, and alot that have gone to university haven't got a clue about basic financial principles.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2010, 02:05 AM
Then I am not a lefty.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Firstly I understand that the debt is a result of poor financial decisions. What I would propose to do about it is better education around finances. Help people to understand that debt finance only makes sense when the asset it is used finance can generate an income stream with a positive NPV. Most people finishing highschool, and alot that have gone to university haven't got a clue about basic financial principles.
Good idea, actually.:clap: