Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Dragon]

I cannot disagree with the above; this is not an easy task. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid massive wealth inequities as this generally leads to revolution. I tend to be pro-capitalism since this offers the best opportunity for all. However, capitalism does not change the inequities among the population. It is a very human thing to "keep up with the Jones". We tend to measure poverty in relationship to those on top.

Your image is wrong when comparing to the current situation. The middleclass is shrinking rapidly and the top 1% should be on a box with a hight like the Empire State building to correctly reflect the current situation. The fact that most of the 1% richest citizents pays less taxes than most of the 10% with the lowest income shows precisely what is wrong and why people are angry.

 

[Paul]

Your image is wrong when comparing to the current situation. The middleclass is shrinking rapidly and the top 1% should be on a box with a hight like the Empire State building to correctly reflect the current situation. The fact that most of the 1% richest citizents pays less taxes than most of the 10% with the lowest income shows precisely what is wrong and why people are angry.

You are making my point. It is the concept of relative poverty.

BTW, poor people that live in capitalist western nations tend to have a high BMI. That is a first in world history. In the past poor people have a very low BMI. They also receive subsidies for rent and food and many get a stipend or UBI. Are they poor? Yes, they are poor in relationship to the so-called top 1%.

BTW, it turns out the top 1% pays pays the larges portion of the total federal income tax.

The bottom 50% earners pay very little federal taxes.

The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to a high of nearly 40.1 percent in 2018. Over the same period, the share paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers fell from 4.9 percent to just below 3 percent.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data

New IRS federal income tax data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

 

[SystemShock]

I cannot disagree with the above; this is not an easy task. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid massive wealth inequities as this generally leads to revolution. I tend to be pro-capitalism since this offers the best opportunity for all. However, capitalism does not change the inequities among the population. It is a very human thing to "keep up with the Jones". We tend to measure poverty in relationship to those on top.

Thee name of that picture has "facebook" in it; figures... anyway, true capitalism looks like this. And just so you understand it, the people inside the park are the haves, the ones outside the have-nots.

 

[Paul]

Thee name of that picture has "facebook" in it; figures... anyway, true capitalism looks like this. And just so you understand it, the people inside the park are the haves, the ones outside the have-nots.

One of the biggest defects of capitalism is that it does not solve the issue of inequality. Marx made this clear and he was 100% correct. Therefore, in every generation the young fall in love with the idea of equality (now labeled equity). The sad reality is that there is no such thing as equality. All humans are different from each other. Even identical twins with the same DNA achieve differently. Each human is unique.

The left also assumes each human is a blank slate and that opportunities can make them achieve as much as others. Sadly, it does not work that way.

 

[Goatman saint]

Equity is a great as long as you do not take from those on top to create equity. If you can elevate the bottom that is great. However, bringing the top down to get that equity does not work.

Who says anything about bringing down the top? We can get into a discussion of the ridiculous insane worth of the .1% at a later date, however there is no historical record that supports a stable country with this level of wealth inequality.
The point you continually are missing it’s not even about wealth distribution. It’s about a fundamental change in regulations, systems, zoning, all of that to allow an equal chance.
You keep crowing about people’s fighting spirit, let’s give those people a better chance to succeed.

 

[SystemShock]

One of the biggest defects of capitalism is that it does not solve the issue of inequality.

Doesn't solve the issue? It creates the issue.

equality (now labeled equity).

No.

The sad reality is that there is no such thing as equality. All humans are different from each other. Even identical twins with the same DNA achieve differently. Each human is unique.

The sad thing is not reality, is your argument: biology has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

The left also assumes each human is a blank slate and that opportunities can make them achieve as much as others. Sadly, it does not work that way.

And more sadness... "the left" doesn't assume that. The point is to give equal opportunity, not guarantee equal results.

 

[Goatman saint]

One of the biggest defects of capitalism is that it does not solve the issue of inequality. Marx made this clear and he was 100% correct. Therefore, in every generation the young fall in love with the idea of equality (now labeled equity). The sad reality is that there is no such thing as equality. All humans are different from each other. Even identical twins with the same DNA achieve differently. Each human is unique.

The left also assumes each human is a blank slate and that opportunities can make them achieve as much as others. Sadly, it does not work that way.

You are using the terms incorrectly for what’s happening. You are stuck thinking that everyone in the end has to have exactly the same outcome. Not one single person is saying the outcomes need to be the same except you.
In the late 1990s/early 2000, California’s business leaders and politicians realized that by 2030 there were simply not going to be enough people, heck anywhere near enough, of traditional means to power California’s economy. So, they started looking at how to fix it. The short term was importing high quality people. Which they did. India, Asia were recruited heavily in the technology and medical fields. Problem was is that by bringing in people of different cultures and countries they could always choose to leave the US, there could be immigration changes, all this. Plus there are many fields where you have to be an American citizen to work in them. Immigrants are not allowed to do them.
So, that’s when this whole push started to bring up and better educate, and improve the social structures because they rapidly found out that the future of California’s economy rested in the people that up to that time they had been fine with writing off to farm labor and low level labor.
Now what you are seeing is a lot more equity in some places. Once Obama opened up DACA it gave those kids a chance to become educated and contribute. If you can step away from the immigration argument and look at the success of that population it is remarkable. Because they were given a chance through better education opportunities.
The labor shortage right now has been seen coming for years as baby boomers left the workforce. There are simply not enough people to replace them. The pandemic coming on the heels of the recession has gotten people to get educated, to use those skills, use those new educational opportunities to improve. Even during the recession, people with college degrees were barely harmed, even though it trashed lower skilled labor jobs. The pandemic same thing. Your educated workforce as a general rule had the distance ability or were able to find ways to still stay employed. Lower income and labor suffered greatly. Millennials aren’t stupid. They saw this. But it only made the change happen faster as boomers have been killed off at a pretty rapid rate this last year.
So, while you sit there and talk about bringing down Buffet to field worker income (your example of socialism) in an overall big picture this has to happen. This country will fall off if it doesnt

 

[zztop]

BTW, poor people that live in capitalist western nations tend to have a high BMI. That is a first in world history. In the pat poor people have a very low BMI.

I don't know if you noticed but most of the cheap food is also the most unhealthy. Processed meats, fast food, etc.

 

[Paul]

I don't know if you noticed but most of the cheap food is also the most unhealthy. Processed meats, fast food, etc.

A salad stand in some of those areas would not make a profit. Uneducated poor people favor junk food. Schools should teach nutrition.

 

[Paul]

Thee name of that picture has "facebook" in it; figures... anyway, true capitalism looks like this. And just so you understand it, the people inside the park are the haves, the ones outside the have-nots.

The system will always have "haves" and 'have not". That has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. Some people naturally gravitate to the gutter. HOwever, I will say that if I was at the bottom I would be a socialist. Why? Because I have nothing to lose.

 

[Dragon]

A salad stand in some of those areas would not make a profit. Uneducated poor people favor junk food. Schools should teach nutrition.

Again - upper class/lower class thinking. Being poor does not equal uneducated.

A salat stand would not make a profit because it would not offer as many calories as junk food/$
People don't eat junk food because they are uneducated but because they are poor.

 

[Paul]

Again - upper class/lower class thinking. Being poor does not equal uneducated.

A salat stand would not make a profit because it would not offer as many calories as junk food/$
People don't eat junk food because they are uneducated but because they are poor.

I did not mean to sound rude with the term uneducated, but I could not find any other descriptive word. Junk food is very popular among all groups of people. That is why we have an epidemic of diabetes and heart disease in all socio economic strata. However, BMI tends to go down with greater economic achievement (Trump is an exception). BTW, Bill Clinton used to enjoy junk food and paid the price.

 

[SystemShock]

The system will always have "haves" and 'have not".

Sure, but there is also another tier that was created through social programs, the middle class.

However, I will say that if I was at the bottom I would be a socialist. Why? Because I have nothing to lose.

What the fork is that supposed to mean?

Ah, Winston Churchill, the Rudy Giulliani of WWII, but with style and much better quotes.

One of the biggest issues when discussing Capitalism and Socialism today, is that people look at the U.S. currently and think all that society has accomplished has been done so through Capitalism exclusively, and completely ignore government-driven social programs that created the middle classes.

 

[V Chip]

Uneducated poor people favor junk cheap food.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Paul]

Sure, but there is also another tier that was created through social programs, the middle class.

Social programs paid for with the wealth generated by capitalism are a beautiful thing. BTW, that is not a socialist economy.

What the fork is that supposed to mean?
Think about it! If you are at the bottom socialism may improve your socioeconomic standing.


Ah, Winston Churchill, the Rudy Giulliani of WWII, but with style and much better quotes.

Yeah, the quotes are great.

One of the biggest issues when discussing Capitalism and Socialism today, is that people look at the U.S. currently and think all that society has accomplished has been done so through Capitalism exclusively, and completely ignore government-driven social programs that created the middle classes.

No disagreement.

 

[zztop]

A salad stand in some of those areas would not make a profit. Uneducated poor people favor junk food. Schools should teach nutrition.

Some of those salads at fast food joints are just as unhealthy as those hamburgers. Natural, organic foods/meals tend to be more expensive because they are harder to mass produce.

Some people naturally gravitate to the gutter.

Some people are born in the gutter and not given the same tools or opportunities. If you are born into poverty your life will be a lot harder in various ways vs if you were born into wealth, or even middle class.

 

[The moose]

You are making my point. It is the concept of relative poverty.

BTW, poor people that live in capitalist western nations tend to have a high BMI. That is a first in world history. In the past poor people have a very low BMI. They also receive subsidies for rent and food and many get a stipend or UBI. Are they poor? Yes, they are poor in relationship to the so-called top 1%.

BTW, it turns out the top 1% pays pays the larges portion of the total federal income tax.

The bottom 50% earners pay very little federal taxes.

The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to a high of nearly 40.1 percent in 2018. Over the same period, the share paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers fell from 4.9 percent to just below 3 percent.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data

New IRS federal income tax data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

You are completely missing the boat when your graph from the irs is about income tax. Last I checked the filthy don't pay themselves a taxable income. Warren buffet has paid himself exactly 21 bucks that is counted as income since the turn of the century. So yes a person making minimum wage for one day paid more in income tax than the sixth richest person in the friggin world did for twenty years.

This thread started about generational wealth not allowed to people of color. Watch the video it is blatantly obvious if you do. Even if you don't like john Oliver he makes is dead simple to follow.

No matter how many cartoons you post about people looking over a wall at a baseball game it won't change a thing. Your cartoon is about people that can't afford a ticket and are poor the upper middle and higher are at the game.

Generational wealth is a real thing. I have plenty of white friends that have huge nest eggs from the ww2 home loans their grandfather got that appreciated and has been passed down.

 

[UriUT]

Some of those salads at fast food joints are just as unhealthy as those hamburgers. Natural, organic foods/meals tend to be more expensive because they are harder to mass produce.



Some people are born in the gutter and not given the same tools or opportunities. If you are born into poverty your life will be a lot harder in various ways vs if you were born into wealth, or even middle class.

Comically, he chose to explain why the poor choose unhealthy food with a social darwinism angle instead of a supply and demand one. As a profess capitalist, he should understand the cost of production, maintenance, and distribution drives poor folks out of the fresh food market (poor means no wealth -> can't afford fresh food + time to prepare said product). However no. He went for the stupid angle, therefore not worth the time and effort to stay healthy. Ergo, survival of the fittest. It is the easiest explanation I suppose. It's easier to demonize than to understand.