Are Americans Living in the Past?

[Shad]

Are you seriously under the impression that we're talking about why Denmark is "higher than America"? Come on, Shad. That's outside the scope of this discussion, which is whether Americans are living in the past. Denmark came up in reference to the point that immigration to the US is largely from hell holes like Honduras and Guatemala, and not from countries like Denmark. Shad, please try to focus on the conversation, rather than ramble on and on about whatever your mind wants to discuss.

You brought up Denmark now you do not want to discuss it when pressed. More backpedaling. Take your own advice.....

One is a first world nation and others are not. Pretty obvious.... Also one has an ocean between it and the USA while the others do not. Nor do the others have a 1st world nation in CA nor SA where as Denmark is surrounded by other 1st world nations.

I'll let you get the last word in, but I'm bowing out of this. I don't debate people's fantasies.

Yawn* The cry of defeat. "I do not want to discuss a topic I brought up!" /Whine.

 

[Valjean]

Such as?

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American corporations dominated the economy and virtually ran the governments of the several Central American countries. Much of the population was reduced to serfdom. The US fomented revolutions and installed dictators -- well into the 20th century.
With the exception of 'leftist' Costa Rica, the region never recovered. Elected democratic reformers were removed and co-operative dictators installed by the CIA. Refugees who'd formed into LA gangs were deported, to wreck havoc on the regional populations.

Bone up on your history, Shad. Google "Banana Republic," "Gunboat Diplomacy" or "Contras."
The US broke Central America. We're now reaping what we sowed.

Your article you linked is 6 years out of date based on numbers from 2012. Ironically enough during Obama's years. The article does contain leftist ideology as it is promoting social programs while conflating those programs as opportunities while in reality those just pay someone else's bills.

There were two articles, and they are not 'out of date'. The facts they report remain true. You can google more recent assessments, but I think you'll find they're the same. We are no longer a land of opportunity.

The "leftist ideology" you disparage is historically true. America's Golden Age of prosperity, initiated with Roosevelt's leftist, New Deal and subsequent social programs lasted half a century. Government as a democratic, family values co-op works. Keynesian economics worked.
Imperialism and oligarchy may produce a brief, economic bubble, but they're not sustainable, and Austrian/Chicago school economics don't work.

Many of those policies were never applied in the US nor does paying someones bills equate opportunity

Can you explain what you mean by "paying someone else's bills?"

 

[Shad]

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American corporations dominated the economy and virtually ran the governments of the several Central American countries. Much of the population was reduced to serfdom. The US fomented revolutions and installed dictators -- well into the 20th century.

Yup. And to this day the US is still providing massive aid lest those nations collapse. If the US cuts aid it will create a massive humanitarian crisis when those governments collapse. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

With the exception of 'leftist' Costa Rica, the region never recovered. Elected democratic reformers were removed and co-operative dictators installed by the CIA. Refugees who'd formed into LA gangs were deported, to wreck havoc on the regional populations.

Illegals were deported? So what.

Bone up on your history, Shad. Google "Banana Republic," "Gunboat Diplomacy" or "Contras."

You are assuming I do not know the history of CA and SA. *Yawn.

The US broke Central America. We're now reaping what we sowed.

Not really. The citizens of those nations gave up and left for a welfare state

There were two articles, and they are not 'out of date'. The facts they report remain true.

Not when the numbers such as employment are based on outdated data.

You can google more recent assessments, but I think you'll find they're the same. We are no longer a land of opportunity.

Nope the US is still near the top ergo provides more opportunities than a majority of nations. Other nations caught up so the US is not unique.

The "leftist ideology" you disparage is historically true. America's Golden Age of prosperity, initiated with Roosevelt's leftist, New Deal

WW2 did more than the New Deal did. It also destroyed competitors on a nation scale.The New Deal was not heavily Keynesian. The 37 recession was the switch for FDR by 38 with WW2 on the door step. Becoming the major arms dealer on a global scale tends to generate a lot of money.

and subsequent social programs lasted half a century. Government as a democratic, family values co-op works. Keynesian economics worked.

No it lasted 30 years when the oil crisis caused a recession followed by Reagan's switch back to classic economics. All while the US was riding high with no competitors.

Imperialism and oligarchy may produce a brief, economic bubble, but they're not sustainable, and Austrian/Chicago school economics don't work.

Neither does Keynesian as per the 70s failure.

Can you explain what you mean by "paying someone else's bills?"

Providing free money does not equate providing an opportunity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Providing free money does not equate providing an opportunity.

Actually, the data disagree with you:

Thought became action, with the United States and Canada both trialing anti-poverty income guarantees during these years. In the States, pilots in seven states provided families with a “negative income tax” (or NIT) to add to their earnings, in the first randomized control trials ever conducted in the country. Studies of those pilots found that granting families money with no strings attached had a number of policy effects. The NIT seems to have reduced work effort by a modest amount. It seems to have kept young people in school for longer, extended job searches among the unemployed, and allowed mothers more time to spend with their children — all positive effects, if not one that would boost tax revenue or GDP in the short term. Researchers also found that the families’ consumption patterns did not change, meaning there was no evidence that they “squandered" the cash, as many opponents of the idea had feared. The programs seemed to allow participants to buy homes sooner and to increase their educational attainment, too.

Smart money: Why the world should embrace universal basic income

 

[Shad]

Actually, the data disagree with you:

Cite said data as data cited from other users has zero evidence of person choice being involved. If a son makes 50% less income than his father is it only because of government policy or perhaps could the son have screwed up alone the way? Such as dropping out of school? So unless your data accounts for person choice you have no argument.

Smart money: Why the world should embrace universal basic income

This has failed repeatedly when tried. Toss in your linked an article using a program as an example that was cut..... More so that money went to dead communities thus is life-support for people that refuse to leave dead towns. Thunderbay has been dying for decades. The poverty issue there are due to people refusing to accept this reality and move to an area with jobs.

 

[BSM1]

@BSM1 - I think that this "there's no such thing as luck" mentality is often selfishness masquerading as work ethic.

If a successful person acknowledges the role of outside help and luck in getting to where they are, this can create a sense of gratitude and obligation to the people and systems who helped him as well as a sense of sympathy towards those who weren't successful as him through no fault of their own.

The implication of all this is that the person ought to "pay it forward" and help others as he has been helped. Obviously, there's a cost associated with providing this help.

OTOH, if he can ignore the help and luck that allowed him to be where he is, then he can hold an attitude of "what's mine is mine! Get your own somewhere else!" with a lot less cognitive dissonance and hold onto more of what he has.

Selfishness masquerading as work ethic makes absolutely no sense.

 

[BSM1]

Really? One of my closest friends -- a guy I grew up with and have known almost since he was born -- was raised in a household that subsisted near the Federal poverty line all the while he was growing up. He eventually became a self-made millionaire -- a feat that would be much harder to do today than it was in his time, according to whatever science you want to study.

He's told me more than once that he owes about a third to half of his success to luck. I take him as more of an authority on the matter than you, unless you're a self-made millionaire too.

By the way, three other factors he usually mentions are sustained hard work, connections, and social programs like the Pell Grants that were key in allowing him to attend university and graduate almost debt free.

He was either delusional or just trying to make you feel better. Next thing you'll be selling is that poor people are just victims of "bad luck".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Selfishness masquerading as work ethic makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense: "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, so you can too (which means I don't have to help)!"

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He was either delusional or just trying to make you feel better. Next thing you'll be selling is that poor people are just victims of "bad luck".

They're more often the victims of systemic biases and obstacles, but yes: often, people end up poor because of bad luck.

In the US, it's often bad medical luck.

For instance, maybe someone could make a fortune in the long term by starting his own business, but if he quits his job, he loses the health insurance that's paying for the care of his kid's chronic condition. He wouldn't be able to make it in the short term, so he never gets through to the long term.

 

[BSM1]

It makes perfect sense: "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, so you can too (which means I don't have to help)!"

Did you read the rest of my post?

What in the world does this have to do with "luck"? If we follow your thinking then there is no reason at all to even try if you don't feel "lucky".

 

[BSM1]

They're more often the victims of systemic biases and obstacles, but yes: often, people end up poor because of bad luck.

In the US, it's often bad medical luck.

For instance, maybe someone could make a fortune in the long term by starting his own business, but if he quits his job, he loses the health insurance that's paying for the care of his kid's chronic condition. He wouldn't be able to make it in the short term, so he never gets through to the long term.

Sort of seems like you espouse "pass the buckism".

 

[Shad]

Selfishness masquerading as work ethic makes absolutely no sense.

More so is the claim someone's status in life solely the product of the environment in a 1st world nation with zero individual choice of having any effect even believable? How many use it as a scapegoat for their own failures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sort of seems like you espouse "pass the buckism".

The exact opposite, in fact: as someone who has been fortunate and helped in many ways countless times, the buck stops with me: it's my responsibility to "pay it forward" and help others as I was helped.

The same holds true for every person who was fortunate like me... which includes every successful person.

 

[Shad]

For instance, maybe someone could make a fortune in the long term by starting his own business, but if he quits his job, he loses the health insurance that's paying for the care of his kid's chronic condition. He wouldn't be able to make it in the short term, so he never gets through to the long term.

Save some money and get a private plan or get a plan as part of his new business. This smacks of not wanting to find alternatives nor any sacrifice from the short-term for the long term AKA an excuse.

 

[BSM1]

The exact opposite, in fact: as someone who has been fortunate and helped in many ways countless times, the buck stops with me: it's my responsibility to "pay it forward" and help others as I was helped.

The same holds true for every person who was fortunate like me... which includes every successful person.

But this is still not by any stretch of the imagination luck. This is you making choices.

 

[Sunstone]

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two." -- Doris M. Smith.

He was either delusional or just trying to make you feel better. Next thing you'll be selling is that poor people are just victims of "bad luck".

Let me get this straight. I'm the one who grew up with this guy, who has known him all his life, and you're the one who has never met him, but you know right away that he was "just trying to make me feel better"?

Can you grasp how delusional that makes you look?

 

[Valjean]

Sort of seems like you espouse "pass the buckism".

I'm not following this at all. Care to explain.

More so is the claim someone's status in life solely the product of the environment in a 1st world nation with zero individual choice of having any effect even believable? How many use it as a scapegoat for their own failures.

Who's claiming that?

Save some money and get a private plan or get a plan as part of his new business. This smacks of not wanting to find alternatives nor any sacrifice from the short-term for the long term AKA an excuse.

How obtuse are you? Do you belong to some sort of Objectivist cult? Do you really think environmental factors can always be overcome with sufficient determination? That's some serious indoctrination.

 

[Shad]

Who's claiming that?

Post #71

How obtuse are you?

You mean I thought of alternatives to the scenario? Shocking isn't it. Do not get too upset.

Do you belong to some sort of Objectivist cult? Do you really think environmental factors can always be overcome with sufficient determination? That's some serious indoctrination.

I think the claim that people are in poverty in 1st world nations, with zero data regarding the individual, as not their fault is the ideology. So much so it is slogan tossed around at a whim. Now if you want to provide specific examples of individual along with their history I could agree/disagree based on evidence. Ergo an individual basis not a group. However as I said I reject the generalization. That is what I was attacking.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How obtuse are you? Do you belong to some sort of Objectivist cult? Do you really think environmental factors can always be overcome with sufficient determination? That's some serious indoctrination.

Reminds me of the Sears CEO who sunk his business and put hundreds of people out of a job because he tried to pattern his business after Ayn Randian garbage. But when the business model failed, all he could do was blame employees for not being 'productive enough.'

 

[Shad]

Reminds me of the Sears CEO who sunk his business and put hundreds of people out of a job because he tried to pattern his business after Ayn Randian garbage. But when the business model failed, all he could do was blame employees for not being 'productive enough.'

Which is a specific example of an individual's failure based on evidence, the CEO choices and the results of, not a generalization. Thanks for proving my point