Fixing the Ghetto

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And you certainly can’t have ghettos filled with homeless, jobless, starving people.[/quote]

Why not? Result–people either rally from within to pull the community together, or they move away to another community where the members, on the whole, give a shit and control those who don’t.

Ghettos are places where communities have failed themselves.

And yes, some innocents will suffer because of this. But that is they way it has always been, and that’s not going to change.

142

[quote]Fiction wrote:
Ghettos are places where communities have failed themselves.

And yes, some innocents will suffer because of this. But that is they way it has always been, and that’s not going to change.[/quote]

I don’t buy into the fatalism.

It’s not difficult to envision actions that would reduce the proliferation of “ghettos” by making it easier for people to succeed. In particular, there’s no need to run away and assume that “once a ghetto always a ghetto”.

Shit, just beeming a movie about “How To Escape Teh Ghetto” might have some effect. You know, people don’t always have the imagination, knowledge or resources to figure out the path from one place to another while dealing with their current realities.

Horrible analogy time…

If I was lost on an island, with no technology, I might just wallow in the sunshine sitting on a hammock the rest of my life. However, if someone airlifted a map with a note saying “hey, dumbass, there is a pass on the other side of that there cliff leading to civilization” I might decide to take the trip… if it seemed credible.

Then again, maybe not, I like hammocks!

143

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.[/quote]

We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now
Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

144

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.

What theories? That protectionism is good? Hardly. I don’t need to create a theory. Adam Smith and the Austrians have given us the best we have. Until we can get remotely close to that, there is little chance of improving on it.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

Yep, and free trade will always be better for the country as a whole than protectionism.
[/quote]

You state your opinions as though they are fact, they are opinions just as every other person?s opinion

It is my opinion that most people that believe in free trade with no rules do them selves a disservice. We need to bring the third world countries out of the dark ages and not go into the dark ages to compete

145

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now

Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them
[/quote]

Even if you bought the idea that the age of manufacturing was over… it would be more than appropriate to allow a new industry to develop and flourish before killing off the last one completely.

What idiot would suggest that sending an entire segment of society into an economic tailspin is optimal in an economic sense? Converting the resources present (even if only the buildings, land and employees but no machinery) to other purposes is much more cost effective than letting them all fall into disuse.

The speed of change greatly changes the impact of the change… and it’s not a race.

146

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.

We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now

Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

[/quote]

I agree, but manufacturing needs to come back on it’s own accord, through a sane economic policy. GOV’t run or subsidised factories aren’t going to help us all that much as a nation.

however, lowering taxes and regulation is taboo to the moonbats.

147

[quote]vroom wrote:
Fiction wrote:
Ghettos are places where communities have failed themselves.

And yes, some innocents will suffer because of this. But that is they way it has always been, and that’s not going to change.

I don’t buy into the fatalism.

It’s not difficult to envision actions that would reduce the proliferation of “ghettos” by making it easier for people to succeed. In particular, there’s no need to run away and assume that “once a ghetto always a ghetto”.

Shit, just beeming a movie about “How To Escape Teh Ghetto” might have some effect. You know, people don’t always have the imagination, knowledge or resources to figure out the path from one place to another while dealing with their current realities.

Horrible analogy time…

If I was lost on an island, with no technology, I might just wallow in the sunshine sitting on a hammock the rest of my life. However, if someone airlifted a map with a note saying “hey, dumbass, there is a pass on the other side of that there cliff leading to civilization” I might decide to take the trip… if it seemed credible.

Then again, maybe not, I like hammocks![/quote]

Ghetto dwellers are not retarded. How to escape the ghetto is not a mystery. You get a job. You go to school. You get a better job. You buy a house not in the ghetto.

They problem with the ghetto is not that they don’t know how to get out, the problem is they don’t want to get out. The ghetto is what they know, and the world outside the ghetto is a cold, hard, unforgiving (and likely in their minds racist) world out there that is tough dealing with.

The ghetto is what they know and what they are comfortable with, and to be honest…life really isn’t that bad. They probably feel like they have no prospects anyway, so its not a big deal.

And ultimately it comes down to the parents. Parents must represent positive qualities, and instill in their children positive values. They need to teach their children that they need to get out of the ghetto and try and live a better life.

Unfortunately the government has elected to adopt the role of parent through various care systems, and parents are left to do what they want, rather than deal with their primary responsibility.

And I have no sympathy for people who have unplanned pregnancies, because a) birth control is available free and b) abortion is legal.

As to your analogy, you probably would not chill in your hammock for long if you did not have enough coconuts to support yourself. If your life was truly horrific or you knew you would die if you were inactive, I’d guess you start scouring every means necessary to escape.

148

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.

What theories? That protectionism is good? Hardly. I don’t need to create a theory. Adam Smith and the Austrians have given us the best we have. Until we can get remotely close to that, there is little chance of improving on it.

Are you trying to be thick on purpose? The theories I referenced above.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

Yep, and free trade will always be better for the country as a whole than protectionism.

I seriously wonder if you read what others post before you type sometimes. What in the world do you think I have been saying?[/quote]

I do. And you keep saying “i am for free trade, but…” I am saying there is no but.

149

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.

We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now
Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them
[/quote]

We need jobs. This we can agree on. The type of job matters little. We need people to have the oportunity to earn a livable wage. The inuits in Alaska don’t have manufacturing. Bahrain (sp?) doesn’t have manufacturing. You need to get over this.

Now, how do we compete for jobs? How do we get investment and companies to come here?

High corporate tax, or no corporate tax?

Artificially high cost of goods, or world price for goods?

Restictive labor laws, or freedom of association?

Huge Bureaucracies sucking capital, or keeping capital in the market?

Irrational monetary policy, or sane policy that allows speculation of return on investment?

People spending more money on few goods and services, or people having a surplus after purchasing these same goods and services?

As soon as well all understand that we are competing for jobs and investment, the solutions become very clear. If accept that gov’t can create or legislate jobs, we are in trouble.

150

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You state your opinions as though they are fact, they are opinions just as every other person?s opinion
[/quote]

It’s much more than my opinion. If you don’t have the capacity or desire to understand real effects of protectionism, there is no point in continuing this disgussion.

Good for you. Completely ignoring basic economics again. Completly ignoring ration and reason.

151

[quote]vroom wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now

Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

Even if you bought the idea that the age of manufacturing was over… it would be more than appropriate to allow a new industry to develop and flourish before killing off the last one completely.

What idiot would suggest that sending an entire segment of society into an economic tailspin is optimal in an economic sense? Converting the resources present (even if only the buildings, land and employees but no machinery) to other purposes is much more cost effective than letting them all fall into disuse.
[/quote]
how do you propose this be accomplished. It is protectionism that put us in this situation. Do you suggest we use it to get us out of this situation? Without protectionism the market changes organically. Without protectionism we have industries flourishing that are not even here today.

Again, you chose. Short term discomfort or impending collapse.

[quote]
The speed of change greatly changes the impact of the change… and it’s not a race.[/quote]

I am not sure what you are proposing. I don’t give a shit if you phase out tarrifs over time, just phase them out. You want to extend unemployment? fine.

First we need the fed to act. They need to lift restrictions that actively keep jobs and investment out. That’s right, they are keeping jobs and investment out of this country.

Then states and and communities need to compete for the investment and industry that comes flooding back. If they can’t, people need to move to communities that do offer opportunities. States like MN will likely get few jobs, and states like texas will likely get more.

If people want jobs, they need to quit fucking whining and make the correct votes. They need to demand easily attainable solutions. Problem is most would rather bitch and watch American Idol, than take any real interest in policies that directly effect their employment options and quality of life.

152

[quote]vroom wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now

Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

Even if you bought the idea that the age of manufacturing was over… it would be more than appropriate to allow a new industry to develop and flourish before killing off the last one completely.

What idiot would suggest that sending an entire segment of society into an economic tailspin is optimal in an economic sense? Converting the resources present (even if only the buildings, land and employees but no machinery) to other purposes is much more cost effective than letting them all fall into disuse.

The speed of change greatly changes the impact of the change… and it’s not a race.[/quote]

That Idiot was Ronald Reagan; he was the biggest enemy of the working class back in the 80’s.The steel valley still has not recovered from Reagan

153

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Who is receiving more of what from whom?

if you are talking about individuals…it depends.

if you are talking about some group of people that participate in various industries…those with no trade restrictions.

If we are talking about net benefit, the only beneficial application of trade restrictions would be with those that hostile. This decision would be tacticle not stratigic.

"You do understand in the this example we are getting more from China then we are giving in return. "

What more are we getting, other than a huge hole in our manufacturing base and a boat load of tainted products. China is walking away with a lot of American dollars, is that what you are talking about?

All you have to do is try just a little bit. What can they do with American dollars? Those dollars have to be spent in America eventually. It would be silly not to get as much in return for them. So we get a bunch of goods that we wouldn’t have had for the same amount domestically. They then have to spend or invest those dollars here, creating jobs in areas we are actually competitive in.

We need manufacturing jobs like we need wagon and buggy manufactures. The specific job matter little. What matters is that we get as much for our dollar and that jobs are created overall.

We need manufacturing jobs, back in the old Steel Valley, now referred as the rust belt; you have a whole generation of young men that never had a job that could support themselves let alone a family. This area used to be strong middle class, everybody had a job, and it is poor now
Your opinion that America does not need manufacturing boggles my mind. We do not need many buggy or whip factories, but we need a numerous other manufactured goods. We need more jobs than we have to do them

We need jobs. This we can agree on. The type of job matters little. We need people to have the oportunity to earn a livable wage. The inuits in Alaska don’t have manufacturing. Bahrain (sp?) doesn’t have manufacturing. You need to get over this.

Now, how do we compete for jobs? How do we get investment and companies to come here?

High corporate tax, or no corporate tax?

Artificially high cost of goods, or world price for goods?

Restictive labor laws, or freedom of association?

Huge Bureaucracies sucking capital, or keeping capital in the market?

Irrational monetary policy, or sane policy that allows speculation of return on investment?

People spending more money on few goods and services, or people having a surplus after purchasing these same goods and services?

As soon as well all understand that we are competing for jobs and investment, the solutions become very clear. If accept that gov’t can create or legislate jobs, we are in trouble.[/quote]

What jobs do you recommend to have a reemergence of the middle class?

154

[quote]Fiction wrote:
vroom wrote:
Fiction wrote:
Ghettos are places where communities have failed themselves.

And yes, some innocents will suffer because of this. But that is they way it has always been, and that’s not going to change.

I don’t buy into the fatalism.

It’s not difficult to envision actions that would reduce the proliferation of “ghettos” by making it easier for people to succeed. In particular, there’s no need to run away and assume that “once a ghetto always a ghetto”.

Shit, just beeming a movie about “How To Escape Teh Ghetto” might have some effect. You know, people don’t always have the imagination, knowledge or resources to figure out the path from one place to another while dealing with their current realities.

Horrible analogy time…

If I was lost on an island, with no technology, I might just wallow in the sunshine sitting on a hammock the rest of my life. However, if someone airlifted a map with a note saying “hey, dumbass, there is a pass on the other side of that there cliff leading to civilization” I might decide to take the trip… if it seemed credible.

Then again, maybe not, I like hammocks!

Ghetto dwellers are not retarded. How to escape the ghetto is not a mystery. You get a job. You go to school. You get a better job. You buy a house not in the ghetto.

They problem with the ghetto is not that they don’t know how to get out, the problem is they don’t want to get out. The ghetto is what they know, and the world outside the ghetto is a cold, hard, unforgiving (and likely in their minds racist) world out there that is tough dealing with.

The ghetto is what they know and what they are comfortable with, and to be honest…life really isn’t that bad. They probably feel like they have no prospects anyway, so its not a big deal.

And ultimately it comes down to the parents. Parents must represent positive qualities, and instill in their children positive values. They need to teach their children that they need to get out of the ghetto and try and live a better life.

Unfortunately the government has elected to adopt the role of parent through various care systems, and parents are left to do what they want, rather than deal with their primary responsibility.

And I have no sympathy for people who have unplanned pregnancies, because a) birth control is available free and b) abortion is legal.

As to your analogy, you probably would not chill in your hammock for long if you did not have enough coconuts to support yourself. If your life was truly horrific or you knew you would die if you were inactive, I’d guess you start scouring every means necessary to escape.[/quote]

Ghetto dwellers are no different than you and I. Some are poor and can?t afford better, some have inherited their property. As far as education, some will get it, some won?t. We need industry that can support adults, even if government has to subsidize these industries to get them up and running.

155

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The theories are about the best we got right now, if you can design a better one, please do so, you’ll probably win a Nobel.

What theories? That protectionism is good? Hardly. I don’t need to create a theory. Adam Smith and the Austrians have given us the best we have. Until we can get remotely close to that, there is little chance of improving on it.

Are you trying to be thick on purpose? The theories I referenced above.

Again, I am arguing FOR free trade (I’m not sure how many times I can say this). But trade affects segments of an economy. It affects income and poverty. period. So long as you’re not denying this, we are in agreement.

Yep, and free trade will always be better for the country as a whole than protectionism.

I seriously wonder if you read what others post before you type sometimes. What in the world do you think I have been saying?

I do. And you keep saying “i am for free trade, but…” I am saying there is no but.
[/quote]

Are you trying to argue you don’t see any costs affiliated with free trade?

Realization of the realities on the ground is, I think, extremely important. This is primarily why I’m not a libertarian. Most libertarians that I’ve met have picked and chosen their favorite theories and ignore both realities on the ground and any theory that doesn’t 110% agree with them.

BTW, it wasn’t a “but” it was a “When we move towards free trade, these things have to be taken into account”

The devil, as always, is in the details.

158

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Fixing the ghetto?

How many of us can actually speak the language of people living in shitty sections of various inner cities?

You don’t fix an “us vs them” situation by sitting on the outside being a “them” trying to impose your view of the world.

Not sure if this was meant for me, but I know, and have known, some of ghettoist motherfuckers around from some of the worst places. But I’m curious as to what people think can bring those areas back.

I’m not quite sure how dhicky gets into these discussions about economics text books in every thread, but that’s not the answer. In the best of times and in the worst of times, there’s ghettos, so that doesn’t make sense to me.

Hell, I remember dating a young woman many years back, and she was amazed at some aspect of my measly middle class life. She never believed it existed. She thought all the happy loving well-adjusted families on television were just entertainment, and that they didn’t really exist.

I here you.

The police are often hated, assumed to be abusing power, as power often invites. At the very least they interfere in our life from time to time whether or not there may be cause.

Right. I’m far from fond of cops in any way because I’ve seen that corruption. Just the same as the criminals, just wearin different colors.

The people who actually succeed are far and few between, those that do packing up and disappearing as fast as possible. Crammed in shit hole housing, with annoying neighbors, big attitudes, drugs, prostitution, violence and whatever the hell else all around.

You want to fix all that? Give people an alternative and then protect them from those that won’t let them escape.

How do you protect them? [/quote]

With cops. But, they’re criminals wearin different colors, so toss that out. Apparently small government, personal responsibility, prudent moral decisions, and the unintended consequences of entitlements is also not worthy of discussion. That leaves…redistributing even more wealth, mailing out bigger entitlement checks, etc.

I’ve always wondered why, if the left can see very costly and counterproductive consequences stemming from the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, why can they not see the same with the War on Poverty?

159

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Fixing the ghetto?

How many of us can actually speak the language of people living in shitty sections of various inner cities?

You don’t fix an “us vs them” situation by sitting on the outside being a “them” trying to impose your view of the world.

Not sure if this was meant for me, but I know, and have known, some of ghettoist motherfuckers around from some of the worst places. But I’m curious as to what people think can bring those areas back.

I’m not quite sure how dhicky gets into these discussions about economics text books in every thread, but that’s not the answer. In the best of times and in the worst of times, there’s ghettos, so that doesn’t make sense to me.

Hell, I remember dating a young woman many years back, and she was amazed at some aspect of my measly middle class life. She never believed it existed. She thought all the happy loving well-adjusted families on television were just entertainment, and that they didn’t really exist.

I here you.

The police are often hated, assumed to be abusing power, as power often invites. At the very least they interfere in our life from time to time whether or not there may be cause.

Right. I’m far from fond of cops in any way because I’ve seen that corruption. Just the same as the criminals, just wearin different colors.

The people who actually succeed are far and few between, those that do packing up and disappearing as fast as possible. Crammed in shit hole housing, with annoying neighbors, big attitudes, drugs, prostitution, violence and whatever the hell else all around.

You want to fix all that? Give people an alternative and then protect them from those that won’t let them escape.

How do you protect them?

With cops. But, they’re criminals wearin different colors, so toss that out. Apparently small government, personal responsibility, prudent moral decisions, and the unintended consequences of entitlements is also not worthy of discussion. That leaves…redistributing even more wealth, mailing out bigger entitlement checks, etc.

I’ve always wondered why, if the left can see very costly and counterproductive consequences stemming from the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, why can they not see the same with the War on Poverty?

[/quote]

Every cop is a criminal , all the sinners saints

160

[quote]vroom wrote:
As for the benefits of free trade, from the point of view of economic theory there is no doubt at all.

However, large economic shifts, as we are living through now, cause a lot of turmoil and ruin a lot of dreams.

Changes, such as establishing free trade, does not have to be done so quickly that companies do not have time to adjust and generate jobs in new areas. There is an inertia… the economy is not as simple as an economic model.

I’m tired of listening to ivory tower economic theory and just glossing over the human effect of such massive changes.

I guess as long as you and/or your family still hold a good job, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, right?[/quote]

You keep making claims about economic “shifts” causing damage. Please show us one instance of “shifting” to free trade having any ill effect on any economy in history.

161

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That Idiot was Ronald Reagan; he was the biggest enemy of the working class back in the 80’s.The steel valley still has not recovered from Reagan
[/quote]

Dude. Get over the steel valley. So we put tarrifs on all steel coming into this country just to save the steel valley. How many industries will no longer be able to compete in the world market for finished steel goods? I guess they can all shut down and move over seas as long as the fucking steel valley is ok.

162

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What jobs do you recommend to have a reemergence of the middle class?
[/quote]

Why do you think the middle class has gone anywhere. Time to start thinking for yourself. Like a big boy.