Why America Is Becoming More Divided

Hey- I'm for a solution. I'm sympathetic to the people in that position. I want to see all people strong and self sufficient and whole- and at the same time I know that is mostly possible, I know it is not going to happen because those who accept poverty are not going to change. I know that without that change in the person, their destiny will be unchanged.
So- I'm waiting for you to suggest some plan that will work without using up the rest of society without their consent.

I simply state that without the determined effort and cooperation of the people you wish to help, you are wasting everyone's time and money- and that is damaging.
I simply state that until you have that- you have zero is the way of a solution, so finding a way to create that in those people comes before everything else.
Before we can fix it- we have to figure that out.

I know how to do it for me- I do not know how to impose it on someone who doesn't want it.
If you do, great. We would all like to hear how it can be done.

Every time we use some outside cure and fail, we harm ourselves. That is not only a waste of the money and resources, but it depresses the desire in people to offer help.
Everything I have offered in the way of the nature of the problem, and thereby some insight in to what is possible- you reject out of hand. I have no choice but to accept that you don't have an open mind or can recognize wasted efforts, and want to continue doing what doesn't work. By all means, tell us how doing the same thing over again and expecting different results makes sense.

Do you have a working answer besides we can't ignore it? Anything?

 

So lacking a plan that actually works, you would subsidize the problem and suppress the motivation factor that otherwise might offer some a way out. NOT good enough. And I'm not religious in the usual sense= I;m a naturalist. Mother Nature makes the only real rules that work, she is the only higher power. Save the sermons; been there, done that and learned better.

 

Because many people refuse to accept the 2016 election results and to just move forward and work with the President until he leaves office. I suspect many of these people (The ones so angry over losing the election and refuse to accept the results) are just entitled and have no actual clue about why or how they lost.

President Trump is a great President and there is a reason he won. The Middle Class and the country needed him to get things back on track. No sense crying over the election, just move forward and get the best we possibly can out of the next 1-5 years. He will not be the last President to serve. We should all do our best to support whoever is in office. Debate the policy, argue the facts and move ahead.

 

We the people tell our various governments what to do. So, suggesting they are doing something without our consent needs some explanation on your part.

There isn't going to be one plan. The problem isn't shaped like that. Even the problem of homelessness doesn't come in one shape, as many homeless have at least one job, have some form of incapacity, or other various issues = each of which doesn't have one single solution - even just for that one aspect of the problem.

I will say that healthcare is a right, not a product as per capitalism. There are obvious reasons for that. Once we decide that people don't get healthcare, there really isn't some other form of help that is going to solve the problem. Having people declaring bankruptcy, having people who aren't just out of work, but are reducing the ability of other family members to work, etc., etc. Look what happens when people don't get vaccines - we can't afford to create an environment that results in disease spread. Even outside of the morality of denying healthcare, it makes NO sense.

 

No. Once again you made a guess and thus failed.

And, mother nature is fine with people dying due to solvable problems of lack of food, medicine, shelter, etc.

The USA doesn't view our citizens with that kind of disdain - though we DO value our citizens much less than other countries value THEIR citizens. I don't know why.

 

When you are battling to solve the rather widespread problems of the human race- poverty, drug addictions, huge deficits and all the failing issues we have, consider that millions of species of animals in nature have been thriving for millions of years, with no government, no psychiatry, no lawyers or courts or debts- and they have been doing that without trashing and poisoning the world or using up all it's resources, and they all do it with nothing more than nature gave them to start with. Can you do that? Do you know any human that can do that? Until man came along to do the gross damage we have done to nature, and so much damage to their habitats and brought all the wasteful violence down on them- they had no problems at all compared to us. That's not disdain; it's success on a scale that humanity has never been able to come close to. If we could live as successfully as those species have, you wouldn't be whining about poverty.

Maybe- they know something we don't know, and we should shut up and pay attention. You do agree that those who can't do anything right should learn from those who do everything right, don't you?

 

I'm always impressed with posts like this. I know whomever posts such wisdom has probably either lived in poverty at one time, or has experienced it up close. The fact is, we already have a solution and it's the best we can do. We've frittered around the edges for a hundred years and nothing substantive has resulted.

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." I guess he got that right. Poverty is a human condition for a lot of reasons and Darwin hasn't managed to solve it. The United States has more money than God, so we can afford to write checks to our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We also have an army of social workers and accounts that work every day to see that money goes to the deserving. Listening to them isn't a bad idea. The answer isn't to torpedo the Food Stamp program or other enlightened cost savers.

If you really want to reform all those straphangers, beggars, criminals, and leaches then get off your judgmental ivory tower and go walk among them. I really sucks but it is very educational. Then come back and tell us what to do.

 

No; again you misrepresent the position.

Teaching is at least initially needed by everyone, in order to "teach a man how to fish", (as the proverb says) so that he can support himself over a life-time.

[But bear in mind in today's complex, fast-changing economic environment, continuous education re job skills will often be necessary].

Now, you bring up the matter of cost again. [btw, you should reply to my post 460, which you have not commented on at all. In fact that post (which I will assume you missed), needs a reply if we are to proceed with a good-faith debate].

Interesting thing about education: it is a type of 'renewable resource' since it is the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student, which as far as 'cost' is concerned, is 'free' in terms of 'resources consumed'.
ie, the state cannot 'run out' of (non-infrastructure) 'scarce' education resources, which plays into MMT's theme that the state can purchase any resources available for sale (in this example, teachers with knowledge) in the currency that the state issues, by creating deposits in the central bank, instead of drawing on private sector savings.

Firstly, by 'I', I assume you mean the state (leave aside funding, which I addressed above).

Secondly, while the mere existence of poverty CAN destroy morale, motivation and basic life skills, the number of people in poverty who are still amenable to positive input via education will be MUCH greater than those "with the motivation of a doorknob and no intention of ever learning a damn thing". This is why we have social work departments (though they are underfunded , due to the fact that many people don't like paying higher taxes required to properly fund such departments..... which is why I'm attracted to MMT, because it explodes the sham funding arguments re "how will we pay for it", as explained briefly above).

Addressed above.....

You misunderstand that proverb also.

Obviously we must all FIRST be taught how to "catch the fish" (as in the Chinese proverb) by a teacher in a universal (state) education system (yet due to pre-existing poverty some will need further support as noted above...and a few will end up in prison).

In contrast, your 'oriental proverb' refers to the psychic inner life of each individual - concerned with far more than mere state-teachable job skills, as he/she progresses through life.....and indeed the 'teacher' (not necessarily one with a degree), needed for this unique "self actualisation*" enabling inner development by EACH individual at that point in time may (or will, so the proverb claims) 'magically' appear (which I won't deny, by the way...)

(*see Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

It's interesting to see how you have so strikingly misread both proverbs.....and the consequences for your subsequent analyses.

 

I haven't misread any of it. You follow the biblical stuff for your personal reasons, including trying to bring a legitimacy to your argument by making the bible your witness - but don't seem to ask yourself if it makes sense or is a genuine answer in the long run. Teach someone to fish but keep giving them fish and they have no motivation to work at fishing- because you are doing it for them..... and will be indefinitely, because you weren't smart enough to walk away when the class was over. The act of teaching described was to offer a hand up that another man might become self-sufficient. Good thing to do. The continued providing of sustenance is welfare, insuring that the person will never become self-sufficient; always be dependent on others. Very bad thing to do. You don't seem to understand how devastating that is to human spirits.

The Asian proverb about being able to see the teacher is about everything in life. It's most important point is somewhat like the self-actualization you refer too- but what it really can do is open your eyes to the understanding of the core causes of nearly all problems, and the capacity to see when a solution is in your power and what it is- and when it's not in your power and your interference only makes things worse. It expands the capacity to understand, to be effective in what you do, to vastly improve the results of your efforts- and perhaps most importantly causes a person to experience genuine empathy, often for the first time in their life.

When you try to teach these things to people who are not ready to learn- they virtually spit on you for trying. They take it as disapproval for where they are at; talking down to them instead of an invitation and pathway to grow and gain. A lot like you trashing what I'm saying now because you think that if you don't see it, it can't be real. The person standing in the way of most people's ability to reach all their potential is- themselves. I'm used to that, and it's a brick wall protecting their egos- but it imprisons the person it belongs to, not the person trying to speak truth to them.

People aren't about to change until they are ready to change, and often they have to reach a major crisis point in life to find the motivation. Some of the fastest learners I ever worked with in teaching this were recovering drug addicts. People who had hit bottom so hard that it broke them free of all the flawed beliefs they had been shackled with all their lives, people who were ready to find new concepts and had a clean slate to write them on. Sadly for most, things never get bad enough to cause that, and they lack the courage to do it by choice. Neither you nor I have the power to change that- nobody but the person themselves can do it. Consequences of bad choices can create the right situation, like the drug addicts found... unless some self-righteous jackass comes along thinking he is helping by shielding the person from the consequences of their own behavior, insuring they will never reach that point and never be able to break free.

Our great and generous society does that to people everyday, so some of us can tell ourselves we are kind and caring.
You don't know what you don't know, but everybody is in school everyday. However it's not enough to be present in the classroom of planet earth. If you want life to improve, actually want things to change for the better- you have to pay attention and learn, and then live by it.

 

[I will reply to this and the following section first, because the passage in green in your post did not appear].

Given today's complex economic arrangements (re job skills, job acquisition, amid persistent underutilisation of available labour - this latter which is a systemic macroeconomic problem in "invisible hand" markets - your interpretation of the proverb is erroneous, as usual.

If you "teach someone to fish" (...it's a metaphor.....) they will be indeed be equipped to "fish" for themselves. {The proverb is literally correct in a simple hunter gatherer society)

But if the "fish" (ie, income producing jobs) are not even available, then poverty, depression, criminality or lassitude will result.

You persist in supposing teaching job skills is YOUR responsibility- it is not. It is the community's responsibility, given the reality of today's complex economic arrangements, mentioned above

I understand all that perfectly. That's why I reject the concept of welfare in favour of a job guarantee, I have mentioned this before, so please don't ignore it. AND I pointed to the impossibility of "invisible hand markets" to employ everyone who is willing to work at above poverty level, a systemic problem noted above. MMT explains how a JG can be realised, operating alongside the insecure job markets that are a feature of "invisible hand markets

Well...yes, depending on what you mean by that....

I expected you would be OK with that bit....

There you go again, confusing "YOU" with government mandated teaching .., and hence jumbling thoughts in a nonsensical manner.

So this ubiquitous (in time and place) "teacher" who can "open YOUR eyes to the understanding of the core causes of nearly all problems", etc, can in no way be compared to propagating the basic knowledge required by ALL individuals in order to participate in a community. See my post 460, if you want further discussion on this point.

Agreed: see how a pattern is emerging of me agreeing with some of your conclusions, even though your premises are in the main entirely false.
Interestingly the first word in that paragraph, ie "It", might, i think, be compared to the "invisible hand" of erroneous classical economic theory, since "it" does not refer to a teacher who will in practice stand up and teach basic skills to ALL the students in the class.
(However, your point does relate to my desire for a more 'complete' public education sector, - see my post 460 - that's a discussion that might be worth pursuing).

Well that is ideological nonsense. NO CHILD will "spit on you" for teaching the '3 R',s' - though problems may emerge later, as LESS ADVANTAGED individuals - as they see the disconnect between what they are being taught, and the conditions in the real word employment market which they must face - begin to sink in.

Addressed above

No. By now it should be clear that I am perfectly capable of identifying and addressing ALL your errors.

Tell me about it......but this has less to do with an individual's failure to see your "opportunity that is everywhere" and more to do with an individual's environment, experiences, mistakes, backgrounds etc.

Depends what "truth" you are trying to impart to them. Your basic premise, ie, the unfettered agency of the individual to succeed, is inadequate (ie, only half the story), to which I am patiently trying to open your eyes.

BTW, 90% of the gains since the GFC have gone to the top 1% (of which you are likely a member, because of the central bank-inspired upward spiral in stock prices; the poor don't directly own stocks)
AND the reality that 50% of Americans can't find $1000 in savings to deal with an emergency, amidst growing wealth inequality...that's why "America is becoming more divided".....
showing that your micro/individualistic world view is applicable for some but ignores macroeconomic realities.

Some truths, in that paragraph, but mostly misconceptions, all of which have been addressed above. Just repeating your agency of the individual mantra in an infinite variety of ways won't achieve much for your particular view of reality.

[QUOTE}Our great and generous society does that to people everyday, so some of us can tell ourselves we are kind and caring. [/QUOTE]

Nonsense . The homelessness that confronts us in the inner cities after dark is a disgrace for which we are all responsible - or at the very least puts the lie to "our great and generous (!) society".
(Show me a nation in which everyone is decently - with some security - housed, which is a basic human right, and I will look at your concept of 'generosity' again....)

"so some us can tell ourselves we are kind and caring"?
Well, YOU are claiming we are "a great and generous society" , while the rest of us who do care are willing to at least ensure the basics are in place. (perfectly achievable without harming incentive or reward for effort..... which is a major underlying concern of yours).

(yawn) agreed (again....), but please note the inadequacy/incompleteness of your proposition " If YOU want life to improve, " etc, ....in the insecure macroeconomic economy in which ALL individuals must attempt to prosper.

To be continued....

 

Nonsense . The homelessness that confronts us in the inner cities after dark is a disgrace for which we are all responsible - or at the very least puts the lie to "our great and generous (!) society".
(Show me a nation in which everyone is decently - with some security - housed, which is a basic human right, and I will look at your concept of 'generosity' again....)

"so some us can tell ourselves we are kind and caring"?
Well, YOU are claiming we are "a great and generous society" , while the rest of us who do care are willing to at least ensure the basics are in place. (perfectly achievable without harming incentive or reward for effort..... which is a major underlying concern of yours).



(yawn) agreed (again....), but please note the inadequacy/incompleteness of your proposition " If YOU want life to improve, " etc, ....in the insecure macroeconomic economy in which ALL individuals must attempt to prosper.

To be continued....[/QUOTE]


Let's think about some of what you have said:

If you "teach someone to fish" (...it's a metaphor.....) they will be indeed be equipped to "fish" for themselves.
Not if they are not interested in learning. Not if they are not interested in working at it- and if you fish for a living instead of recreation, it does become work. Being able to work but not willing to work is something at the very core of the poverty issue. Surely you are no assuming that everybody really wants to work, but just doesn't know how? You can't possibly be that naive.

You persist in supposing teaching job skills is YOUR responsibility- it is not. It is the community's responsibility, given the reality of today's complex economic arrangements, mentioned above.
But I am, and all of us ARE the community. Society is the total of it's people- not a separate entity. It reflects the preferences of it's people. And apparently- a lot of society is tired of supporting deadbeats.
Not talking about good people in genuine need, but the larger percentage of those on the public dole who are deadbeats, which you refuse to recognize as such. Society- we the people who make it up- are tired of supporting those who will not do for themselves. The community has no responsibility other than the will of the people who are it's members.

There you go again, confusing "YOU" with government mandated teaching .., and hence jumbling thoughts in a nonsensical manner.

So this ubiquitous (in time and place) "teacher" who can "open YOUR eyes to the understanding of the core causes of nearly all problems", etc, can in no way be compared to propagating the basic knowledge required by ALL individuals in order to participate in a community. See my post 460, if you want further discussion on this point.

You seem to be having trouble with the identities of the individual and the society. Everyone in society (ie; every individual) is living in the same world. While some people who have done better make things easier for their children, that is or should be- important for all parents. Teaching is not just going to some school. Teaching requires Learning, and learning requires a mind interested in acquiring knowledge and skill. A great many of our highly successful people have had surprisingly little formal education, but that has not left them illiterate or ignorant, because life and the world is a school open to every on every day.
How for example do you think all the various animal species that have thrived and been so successful learned to survive? Their parents boot them out early or even at birth- but it's amazing what they learn from life, and how quickly they do so. That is because everything is created with everything it needs to be what it is- and do it well. You are probably not aware of it, but the majority of small business owners in America do not have a college degree. Hell, John D Rockefeller didn't have a high school education. Nor did Henry Ford, or Kirk Kekorian, or Sir Richard Branson. Billionaires- with no education- but graduated from the college of self-taught billionaires. And you think we need to teach someone who won't get off the couch how to get up and do a day's work?? Even at the base level, this is all welfare, compensations for the lack of ambition far more than any lack of opportunity. To "participate in a community" is not the right to suck your subsistence from it, but to be rewarded for your contribution to it.

Freedom- includes the freedom to do nothing, to be nothing, to put in nothing. I don't like that, but it's the opposite end of the freedom to be the best you can. I can allow those who chose it to live with it- because it is not in society's power, nor yours, nor mine to change it. I think you object to not only their freedom- but to the freedom of others, because you think we should all subsidize those who won't do for themselves.

Well that is ideological nonsense. NO CHILD will "spit on you" for teaching the '3 R',s' - though problems may emerge later, as LESS ADVANTAGED individuals - as they see the disconnect between what they are being taught, and the conditions in the real word employment market which they must face - begin to sink in.

I didn't say the 3R's, or the basic public education. That is not as all related here- and we do that free for everyone, as you well know. I refer to the idea that you can teach a person to motivate themselves, which is the capacity needed to allow them to be self sufficient. Just the inference that they might benefit from that ability is taken as a statement that they are falling short- and they damn sure will object to that. Go out to some skid row and tell the people there that they need to try harder, to seek jobs, to contribute. Tell them you will arrange a job,
come and get them; drive them to work- remove the barricades of excuses they use for staying where they are at. See what kind of reception you get talking that way to them.

In the housing project we had pressure from government to hire their long term unemployed; get them off welfare. One in particular was listed as a drywall installer. The government reviewed all payrolls, so they knew he wasn't getting hired. Our man explained- that the man hadn't come in. A month later, we were still catching the same crap over the same guy. So- we told the government guy we would hire this man, sight unseen and without qualification- all he had to do was come to work. They said they would advise him and he would be there the following monday. No show, we advised the government rep. A week later he called and asked for his first weeks pay in advance, so he could get a car and drive to work. We refused that. He never showed. How are you going to "educate" that person? You are not, and you know it. But he will take your free money- and laugh at you for being fool enough to give it to him. That may not literally be spit in your face- but it's close enough.

If you sit on the couch, have no motivation and don't take part in life- it would be true that you will see less opportunity. If you want to catch fish- you not only have to know how to fish...
YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE RIVER.

I'm open to rational discussion. You don't understand anything I've said, and drone on with the same belief that "society" shorted these people and we owe them a good life. You are wrong- they owe themselves a good life, but they don't want to work for it. I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to get you to see past that limitation.

 

Ever heard of involuntary un/underemployment?
(measured as 'U6' in the US, currently around 8%! (more if we include those who have given up looking, and therefore do not even register in the stats).

In a representative democracy, government is a separate entity, elected by the people.

No wonder you draw the wrong conclusions at every turn.

More inaccuracy. It reflects the preferences of the - often very slim - majority.

eg at this stage, only slightly less than 50% of US citizens support single payer healthcare:; and while most repubs don't support it, a small majority of Dems do.

In this you are in effect claiming the repubs are "the public" ... another egregious error. ​

And what of those "good people in genuine need"? ie those who number among the U6.
You will need to show me a very low U6, before I will seriously consider your "deadbeats" theories.

Explained above:
Meanwhile, disparities in world views divide the community. . That's why I want public examination of divisive ideologies. (Are you unable to reply to my post 460?)

Mostly by instinct and copying the instinctive behaviour of parents. Sorry, wrong again!

On the other hand, humans quickly discover their ability to behave in non-instinctive ways (through conscious thought).

Wrong again, as to be expected, following the erroneous premise (ignoring instinct).

.

And Bach was self taught, and composed the B Minor Mass; and Mozart wrote a symphony at age six.

So we have named six individuals...but guess what...there are 350 million in the US and 7 billion in the world. And you forgot to name the world's "richest" person, who has been earning $1 BILLION a month for
at least ten years, and he is little more than a retailer reaching a global market on the back of the internet..
an example of absolutely grotesque and absurd "reward for effort".

Like I said, most of us are not geniuses, and faced with U6 of 8% or more, and employment agencies who are content to fob people off onto welfare, your "someone who won't get off the couch" scenario is grossly unfair and lacking awareness of job market realities, quite apart from reality of life in poverty-scarred ghettos.

A JG is not 'welfare'; it is above poverty reward for provision of useful services desired by specific customers in specific localities, organised by local government centres.

Agreed...…(as explained immediately above).

And I suppose there are about 200 people in the US who are so afflicted...even crime is more attractive for those excluded from the conventional job market.

I envision participation by all (except maybe the c.200 mentioned above), thereby eradicating poverty, depression, and crime.

In contrast, you accept Trump's "neighbourhoods like war zones".....apparently in the name of "freedom".

The first part of that sentence is correct, the second part is incomplete, resulting from the fact you ignore the reality of the condition of the macro economy. manifesting in the U6 number; if sufficient jobs aren't available, self-sufficiency - though possessed - cannot be realised by all. Obviously.

Firstly, skid row membership has complex causes, but those unfortunates are only a very small proportion of the U6 cohort.

So this guy had no car: and no public transport was available?

Your example shows the government should not be in the business of pressuring the private sector to take on long term unemployed - you did not have the capacity to deal with those sorts of issues.

A JG job agency would deal with those sorts of problems, via local government (funded by the Fed).

Perhaps the metaphors have passed their usefulness...

Well I pointed to errors in the first several points you made at the beginning. Maybe you can deal with those?

Meanwhile, "it's the economy, stupid"; but I can see why you don't want to consider that aspect of "why America is becoming more divided".....even though we've got the resources to fix the economy so that most do feel included, without requiring burdensome taxation of the private sector.

Ie we should be asking "do we (the nation) have the resources" rather than, "do we (the nation) have the money".

 

Obama spent eight years race agitating while our leftists cheered and yet leftists dare talk about the Right operating in bad faith even while the political Left is using the INTENT of the Constitution as toilet paper in order to conduct a partisan political farce of an impeachment pogrom against Trump? It's a wonder that their brain cells don't rust away from disuse.

 

There was once a man who hated a particular beach, so he went there everyday to sift through the sand and collect flyspecks- to prove that it was a shitty beach....

I think your objective must be similar. My impression is that your vision seems severely limited by your own perspective, you can't see what you don't want to see, so that what you do want ot see- real or imaginary- is the summary of the facts. You can convince yourself that you alone understand and can save the world, and all that is needed is for everybody to think like you think and do things the way you tell them to do.
Yes sir, you may well be the person put here to save the world. Congratulate yourself. Run for office.

Yes, this is satirical. But then, your post made that appropriate.

 

Internecine conflict is the norm for political discourse. Very few people are actually interested in listening to the opposition. Why have a conversation and seek common ground when it’s easier to stand ones ground and be intransigent. If people look at their political counterparts as the enemy, than tribalism has won....

 

Of course, you make a good point; no meaningful discussion takes place when people are unwilling to acknowledge all the facts, and discussion becomes adversary argument without rules. Nobody really wins.

The right element of control is self-control; having standards of character that you will not violate for political gamesmanship- and that requires self-esteem. Sadly we cannot effectively require character by legislation, and the social and cultural constraints that have promoted those qualities in the older generations are being attacked and eroded today for not being perfect.

Nothing happens when people are at the extremes, left or right. Progress is achieved in the middle, and that requires people prioritize progress and growth over ego and emotion. A certain basic respect for others, including your adversary, is a necessity.

The bar is so low right now one would think it couldn't get worse- but I think it will.

 

My purpose here to show there are solutions to the problem of our increasingly divided democracies.

Basically, you think the solution is with the individual (assuming you even agree there is a problem*); I think the solution is with government intervention based on new insights provided by MMT.

* obviously your little fable reveals you cannot admit of problems needing community - even global - management. [That's why the Right hate the possibility that climate change - CO2 is real....it requires global cooperation at governmental level].

It's also obvious you cannot reply to the many specific points raised in my posts, and so you have chosen to bail out of the debate, preferring to soliloquize eg with the philosophical waffle posted above (including your bottom-of-post aphorisms open to various interpretations).

'Spirit-guide'? With that many errors? I don't think so....

Anyhow, I accept your concession of defeat, which is the only conclusion to be drawn, since you can't refute, eg, that government is a separate set of individuals, not as you said, "the public".

 

I'm open to debate; my posts 460 and 487 answer spiritgide's many erroneous constructs, while he has simply ignored post 460 and bailed out of 487, with his subsequent comment (following yours):

"no meaningful discussion takes place when people are unwilling to acknowledge all the facts, and discussion becomes adversary argument without rules".

I have never denied necessity for individual 'self actualisation' as far as is possible, but I insist on establishment of real equality of opportunity, which requires government intervention, since individuals have wildly different capacities, and since justice demands no-one live in poverty (when the resources are available and useful work can be created outside the private sector) ie, poverty caused by, eg, lack of above poverty jobs, while others are rewarded - by the "invisible hand" hand market - at astronomical levels making a mockery of "reward for effort".

Spiritgide has proved himself unwilling to acknowledge that simple reality.

 

That's a pitiful display from someone using "Better world" as a handle.

You aren't entitled to interrogate and demand answers or judge answers from anyone. Your are entitled to express your opinion, no matter how poor or irrelevant it may be. And the handle "spiritgide" was given to me by a people in a class I taught 35 years ago in Lifeskills- because their life was changing for the first time ever, and I was teaching them how to do it. The name stuck, because that is what I did and still try try to do- guide people to a path that enables them to change their lives. While it is hard, I know it is possible, and the rewards vastly exceed the price and even the expectations. People without hope need a guide- to put them on the path, to show them it's possible. Not a boss, not a nanny- just someone to point the way, to coach them until they find the courage to begin the journey. That is what the name means, and I've earned it.

You on the other hand, are a person who seems to think that people can't do that; that doubts they have the desire or ability to ever be free, and believe they they must have a keeper or nanny- in the form of a government that makes sure that their life is tolerable, while their spirit stagnates in a sort of coma for the rest of their lives. That insures that they will be dependent on that "nanny" indefinitely. It insures they will never know the feeling of strength that comes from knowing they can cut it on their own. That they will never have self-confidence or the feeling of personal freedom and independence. It insures they will blame the nanny for keeping them weak and addicted to support. And apparently, you think they will be or should be grateful for that deprivation. They won't be.

YOU would imprison people- and keep those the already are securely locked in the same position they are now, with no hope of escape. That is not to care about the quality of life at all, but it tells me you really have no idea what that is or what it's worth. So with the typical logic of a person in that condition- you argue against even the existence of a hope that doesn't depend on using somebody else, or there being any possible way for you to find it. If you look back in my posts you will find multiple references to that being the typical reaction of people seeking their salvation from government instead of self. They can't face it, so they dispute it. Just as you do- so I'm used to it. Always makes me sad to realize that I'm talking with someone who is just not ready to take a chance on believing in themselves.

And you are proud and pompous in your righteousness. Awesome.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

A debate requires addressing specific points raised - obviously.
I have maintained that requirement throughout our lengthy exchange, you have not.

Well......thank you again.....

As you well know I have been at pains to stress your promotion of the means of self actualisation is legitimate: my point is your approach represents ONLY half the story in our complex macroeconomic environment.

Denied above; I want attention given to the COMPLETE environment - internal and EXTERNAL - which individuals must face. You have simply refused to acknowledge that duality, hence your refusal to debate #460 and #487: whereas you will NOT be able to point to any issue raised by you that I have failed to address. While a debate does NOT require agreement, it does require honest examination of the issues.
Observers can then draw their own conclusions

More of your 'half the picture' micro analysis. If the jobs aren't available, the "feeling of (inner) strength" that you are teaching can't help everyone to achieve above poverty participation in the economy. Obviously.

See the absurd conclusion you reach (caused by only seeing half the picture)? I "would imprison people"....no, I would empty the prisons, literally. Let's worry about metaphorical imprisonment, AFTER people are no longer in jail because of the macro economy.

Quality of life requires implementation of Article 25 of the UNUDHR, namely guaranteed access to above poverty participation, which is a macro economic issue. That's the minimum requirement to be established by the State. After that, the responsibility for a quality life is indeed the individual's.

Firstly, I am not a person in that condition ie "no idea what that is (quality of life) or what it's worth"; OTOH, freedom from externally imposed poverty (in an economy with entrenched U6 stats) is a basic requirement for quality of life.

Secondly, I'm very hopeful that the macro economy can be changed, as required, to work for the benefit of people, not capital.

As for me, I'm one of the lucky ones who are indeed fortunate enough not to be "seeking salvation from government". It just makes me sad that I talking with someone who can't see the myriad problems arising from the processes of the erroneous macroeconomic doctrine of our neoliberal "invisible hand" private sector markets not sufficiently balanced by planned public sector intervention.

"It's the economy, stupid" or - for a more recent update on that formulation - "it's the available resources, not money, stupid!").

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm more interested in debating the substantive points raised above and eg in #460 and #487.

 

BW, you are limiting the scope of things, seeing only part- then assuming that what you see must be important, while unaware of the rest. IF what you see is all there was- it would be important. I tell you about the rest, and it's not real because you aren't there to see it.

Life IS NOT a controlled experience, where everything is regulated or reliable. It's more like crossing a pasture with the goal of coming out the other side with a good experience. Just imagine if someone says they can't proceed, because a cow has taken a dump on the path. He didn't do it, so he blames the cow and wants someone to fix it because he is at a dead end until they do, and he can proceed. It's really his excuse for refusing responsibility. On the other hand, if he can think for himself and is just a tiny bit creative and just a tiny bit motivated, he adjusts to the problem and by-passes the cow pile. Now that's a crude analogy, but pretty much the way limited people seem to think.

IF a person is able to think independently, what government has done is only an obstacle or possible assist to be dealt with. It government built a bridge over the creek, you use it. If they did not, you find a place to wade across. If there is none, you swim across. If you can't swim, you either learn to swim or you build a raft. What you don't do is have your trip come to a dead end because "you can't" until somebody fixes it for you. The point is that government never has and never will be able to make a clean, no hassle, stable and dependable path for you to travel, so you might as well learn to navigate for yourself- because IF you can, what government does is virtually irrelevant. The core of reliance on any government promise is that you can't depend on it nor control it, that is not in your power- so like it or not, you will still be having to compensate and navigate your way through the maze they create. Anything and everything they do "for the people" will be subject to irrational change every time an office changes, or even the administrator of it changes. It will invariably be done for the politics first, and the "for the people" image more of a justification. You are saying we should take that route. I'm saying No, we should end it. Not interested in discussing a way to expand what should be terminated.

Some people will settle for being a passenger on the government bus they can't drive and allow politicians- who never really have their best interests at heart- to control their destiny. IF that is who you choose to be, that is your choice. But as it's not mine; I'm not the slightest bit interested in taking up the battle to make other people clear the path so it will be more convenient for such persons, easier to travel. While you are waiting for that to happen, the person who has got his head and his house in order will be far ahead of you, and in full charge of his destiny. He finishes the trip with clean shoes and a basket of wild flowers- as well as clean shoes. In the mean time, the other man is still waiting for the government to clear his path, and will probably die there before it happens.

I won't settle for less; you obviously will. That is the difference in our positions. Your perception is controlled by your viewpoint, and it's simply not the whole picture.

I answer your points, but you don't think I have because they don't fit into what you perceive is the appropriate responses. You and I aren't thinking on the same plane, nor using the same fundamental tools and priorities. I do understand what your points are- and I see them as only applicable to those who won't think for themselves, and need keepers. But you aren't even close to understanding my points, which tell you the keeper is unnecessary if the person will accept the basic responsibility of caring for themselves- and that is what you want to help him avoid. IF the person accepts that responsibility, the need for a keeper is moot- irrelevant, useless... and will do more damage than good.

I think I have more confidence in people than you do. I will never tell a man he can't find a way. I won't help him believe that he can't. He may never come to the conclusion that a better life is possible for him, but it won't be because I kept feeding the weakness that limits his chances. I give people who are trying hard a hand-up, knowing they will pay it forward, and that improves the world. You are advocating hand-outs, and they do the opposite. They keep people from trying and insure they will never be free.

 

Back to why America is divided.

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against Trump on Tuesday, saying he had abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct regarding Ukraine.

The U.S. President will face a trial in the Senate probably in January.

Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are both looking ahead to the Senate impeachment trial, but there is a growing divide between the two over what that trial should look like.

The foreign minister of an unfriendly power met with Trump in the Oval Office for the second time. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is in Washington for a scheduled meeting and met with Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

The president of an American ally, Ukraine, fighting the aggression of that hostile foreign power has not met with Trump in the White House. Trump has refused to meet with Zelensky.

The DOJ’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, rejected one of Trump’s main attacks on the F.B.I. and declared the bureau had adequate reason to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump's A.G., Bill Barr, strongly disagrees with his own I.G.'s report. Trump attacked his own FBI director for supporting the report.

Vladimir Putin must be enormously pleased by all this.

Judging from posts by Trump's fans, they, too, seem to be quite pleased with Trump's performance.

 

52% are pleased with Trump's performance.

Also, it takes a Senate vote to remove him. Best of luck

 

talk about the kettle calling the pot black.....I accept the need for self actualisation as half the picture in the macroeconomic environment. You say it's the whole picture.

demonstrably wrong, I'm still waiting for replies to 460 and 487, while you can't identify any point of yours that I have failed to comment on.

Whether I think they are appropriate is irrelevant....and not in dispute here; care to identify those 7 I have not responded to?

Translation: we have different world views - yours based on classical liberalism and (IMO) a delusion that free individuals will voluntarily cooperate (Anarchism) to produce the best outcomes, mine based on acceptance of rule of law and need for promotion of the common welfare via reality-based macroeconomics.

But that does not preclude debate.

….and so you don't need to directly refute those points...

So the Great Depression....leading to Keynes' response and FDR's New Deal, both disputed by orthodox classical liberal economists...with these disagreements eventually being 'solved' by WW2.....

A 'keeper' is irrelevant? Certainly, irrelevant to the 40 million dead, as a result of that conflict...but not irrelevant to the present failing economic orthodoxy responsible for tearing our democracies apart as more and more are struggling to keep abreast of rising costs while enduring stagnant mean wages growth and increasing job insecurity.

Maybe...but that's irrelevant.

I define a "hand-up" more broadly, learning from the experiences of the global population, following mass unemployment in the Great Depression, noted above. Your definition is restricted (no doubt unconsciously) so that it fits your world view based unrealistically on individual agency alone, as noted above.

Today, any involuntary unemployment (accepted by mainstream macroeconomists) is a travesty of justice. Obviously.

"It's the availability of resources, not money, stupid".

 

"It's the economy, stupid" or in MMT parlance, "it's available resources, not money, stupid".

Concentrating on Trump, when 52% are pleased with his performance (according to Army Soldier) won't achieve much for your Democrat cause.

Rather, we need 75% support for an economic policy that works for everyone.