New study finds racial wealth gap quadrupled since mid-1980s

[rashi]

where do you think education falls into this? college costs are absurd and i feel like thats a major problem for the black race because most ppl just can't afford it and a college degree is almost the standard in the us today

College costs are absurd because public universities are HEAVILY subsidized by the federal government. FAFSA and government loans put pressure of colleges because they do not pay the full price of credits that universities charge per credit. So the colleges have to make up the money they lose by taking students with FAFSA and that trickles down to the other students.

Please elaborate.  Yes, the government built the public housing projects which were a complete disaster but aside from that they didn't build the majority of the housing in any community.  And what price controls are you referring to that helped create conditions for widespread inadequate housing?

Usually, at the local level where they have price controls they have someone who makes a lot of money coming in and taking up all of the vacancies and renting them out, usually at a higher price because they want to make profit. Price controls are all over the city of New York and have been for a very long time. Rep. Charles Rangel should all too much about that. When you do not own something you do not take care of it as it was your own. There have been housing projects that have been privatized and they are clean, utilities work, when something is broke it is fixed immediatly, low crime rates. When something is privatized and there is ownership, people take care of it because there is an incentive to take care of it.

Well, in 1850, with NO government interference, people of African descent were held as slaves with no civil or human rights... things were much better without any government involvement, right?

Slavery cannot exist without government?  What about the practice of the enslavement of prisoners of war and others by certain Native American tribes who had no form of official government?

Slavery is defined as kidnapping that is legally and physically perpetuated by the state?  What about those enslaved in the sex trade in the U.S. today?  The U.S. government does not condone or perpetuate this practice...

Your point that the government was in fact actively involved in perpetuating the slave trade in the antebellum U.S. is correct.  However, your argument that slavery cannot exist without government cooperation in general is simply incorrect as I've pointed out.  On the flip side, it could be argued that protection from slavery cannot exist without government....

I think he was insinuating that you cannot have institutional slavery without government.

not sure one is really needed...integration made assimilation the focus, and in that, the necessary insular community where there is the tendency to have a sort of common stake in said community that was born in forced segregation began to go to the wayside. so that once black people of accomplishment/merit/status had the means to, their goals and opportunities became "larger," for better or worse, than the black community; and as a result the communities began to crumble...of course, there are plenty of other factors like globalization & the move from being and industrialized to a service economy that continue to keep the status quo where it is today...

I guess because of my view of supreme individual sovergnity, I dont look at things like "well, Black people have to do things for Black people". The theory of Racism is a form of Collectivism, where the individual has no rights or merits, but his work has to belong to the group that he is classified in by the State.

 

[tokes99]

Originally Posted by rashi

not sure one is really needed...integration made assimilation the focus, and in that, the necessary insular community where there is the tendency to have a sort of common stake in said community that was born in forced segregation began to go to the wayside. so that once black people of accomplishment/merit/status had the means to, their goals and opportunities became "larger," for better or worse, than the black community; and as a result the communities began to crumble...of course, there are plenty of other factors like globalization & the move from being and industrialized to a service economy that continue to keep the status quo where it is today...

I guess because of my view of supreme individual sovergnity, I dont look at things like "well, Black people have to do things for Black people". The theory of Racism is a form of Collectivism, where the individual has no rights or merits, but his work has to belong to the group that he is classified in by the State.



it is not really "black people have to do things for black people" in perspective...nor is it any impedance to any type of individual sovereignty, it just that if in any community the people that would have the means to sustain & uplift the community leave it, it probably will not bode will for that community...to be sure it was an unintended consequence, but prior to integration, the limited options formed a richer, tighter community. even the most ambitious self-interested person in such a climate it would have to think they'd be better served in their own community in which there is a common interest. to an extent, integration just exacerbated other problems in the society at large, like while the fight for black kids to go to schools with/to the same schools as their white kids was "won" there was still de facto segregation and it did little to bring schools in black communities to the same levels as their white counterparts; while AA was instituted to "correct" institutionalized racism, it didn't really change the institutions. so while integration definitely afforded some greater affluence, it could be argued something was lost while integrating namely the building up of the black community and positive black institutions...

who knows though, maybe things would have ended up even worse if things went the "separate but equal" route, there numerous examples of black communities being terrorized by whites...it is interesting the think how things would be different though?

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by rashi

where do you think education falls into this? college costs are absurd and i feel like thats a major problem for the black race because most ppl just can't afford it and a college degree is almost the standard in the us today

College costs are absurd because public universities are HEAVILY subsidized by the federal government. FAFSA and government loans put pressure of colleges because they do not pay the full price of credits that universities charge per credit. So the colleges have to make up the money they lose by taking students with FAFSA and that trickles down to the other students.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here other than you seem to be blaming the government for the high cost of a college education.  However, I don't understand if you're arguing that the government needs to completely "subsidize" these institutions or student tuition or not do so at all.  Or some alternative argument?
I would like to hear your rationale on this...

rashi wrote:

---

Please elaborate.  Yes, the government built the public housing projects which were a complete disaster but aside from that they didn't build the majority of the housing in any community.  And what price controls are you referring to that helped create conditions for widespread inadequate housing?

Usually, at the local level where they have price controls they have someone who makes a lot of money coming in and taking up all of the vacancies and renting them out, usually at a higher price because they want to make profit. Price controls are all over the city of New York and have been for a very long time. Rep. Charles Rangel should all too much about that. When you do not own something you do not take care of it as it was your own. There have been housing projects that have been privatized and they are clean, utilities work, when something is broke it is fixed immediatly, low crime rates. When something is privatized and there is ownership, people take care of it because there is an incentive to take care of it.

There are numerous problems with this argument(s).
First, rent controls don't exist everywhere so whatever argument you have is severely confined to cities with rent controls.

Second, you're not making a clear delineation between rent controls and how they contribute to inadequate housing... at all.

Third, you're talking about rent control and then you talk about ownership as the desired alternative yet provide no link whatsoever between rent control and its affect on people's ability to own a home.  

Fourth, I'm not sure what projects you're referring to but Chicago's housing projects have been operated and managed by a private company for almost a quarter of a century.  If you know anything about the projects in Chicago, you will know that they're very different from the picture you painted of privatized public housing.

Fifth, what about the inhumane slum housing conditions that were rampant in many urban (and other) areas in the latter half of the 19th- and first half of the 20th-centuries?  These conditions existed and flourished without government "interference."

rashi wrote:

---

Well, in 1850, with NO government interference, people of African descent were held as slaves with no civil or human rights... things were much better without any government involvement, right?

Slavery cannot exist without government?  What about the practice of the enslavement of prisoners of war and others by certain Native American tribes who had no form of official government?

Slavery is defined as kidnapping that is legally and physically perpetuated by the state?  What about those enslaved in the sex trade in the U.S. today?  The U.S. government does not condone or perpetuate this practice...

Your point that the government was in fact actively involved in perpetuating the slave trade in the antebellum U.S. is correct.  However, your argument that slavery cannot exist without government cooperation in general is simply incorrect as I've pointed out.  On the flip side, it could be argued that protection from slavery cannot exist without government....

I think he was insinuating that you cannot have institutional slavery without government.

I will await his reply but I hope that's not the case as it is painfully obvious that no institution can exist without government... but that does not make government "bad."  On the other hand, it is hard for people's human rights to be protected without government, either so I'm really not sure what his argument is.

tokes99 wrote:

---

rashi wrote:

---

not sure one is really needed...integration made assimilation the focus, and in that, the necessary insular community where there is the tendency to have a sort of common stake in said community that was born in forced segregation began to go to the wayside. so that once black people of accomplishment/merit/status had the means to, their goals and opportunities became "larger," for better or worse, than the black community; and as a result the communities began to crumble...of course, there are plenty of other factors like globalization & the move from being and industrialized to a service economy that continue to keep the status quo where it is today...

I guess because of my view of supreme individual sovergnity, I dont look at things like "well, Black people have to do things for Black people". The theory of Racism is a form of Collectivism, where the individual has no rights or merits, but his work has to belong to the group that he is classified in by the State. 



it is not really "black people have to do things for black people" in perspective...nor is it any impedance to any type of individual sovereignty, it just that if in any community the people that would have the means to sustain & uplift the community leave it, it probably will not bode will for that community...to be sure it was an unintended consequence, but prior to integration, the limited options formed a richer, tighter community. even the most ambitious self-interested person in such a climate it would have to think they'd be better served in their own community in which there is a common interest. to an extent, integration just exacerbated other problems in the society at large, like while the fight for black kids to go to schools with/to the same schools as their white kids was "won" there was still de facto segregation and it did little to bring schools in black communities to the same levels as their white counterparts; while AA was instituted to "correct" institutionalized racism, it didn't really change the institutions. so while integration definitely afforded some greater affluence, it could be argued something was lost while integrating namely the building up of the black community and positive black institutions...

who knows though, maybe things would have ended up even worse if things went the "separate but equal" route, there numerous examples of black communities being terrorized by whites...it is interesting the think how things would be different though?
Correct... although I definitely see integration as having a positive overall impact compared to what would have been the realistic alternatives.

 

[rashi]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here other than you seem to be blaming the government for the high cost of a college education.  However, I don't understand if you're arguing that the government needs to completely "subsidize" these institutions or student tuition or not do so at all.  Or some alternative argument?
I would like to hear your rationale on this...


I am blaming the government for the high cost of college. If thy are subsidizing college, they are not paying the full price of the credits, therfore the excess cost is passed down to other students to make up for the loss e.g. higher tuition rates. What is there not to understand?

I will await his reply but I hope that's not the case as it is painfully obvious that no institution can exist without government... but that does not make government "bad."  On the other hand, it is hard for people's human rights to be protected without government, either so I'm really not sure what his argument is.

Government doesn't do a good job at protecting rights either...

There are numerous problems with this argument(s).
First, rent controls don't exist everywhere so whatever argument you have is severely confined to cities with rent controls.

Second, you're not making a clear delineation between rent controls and how they contribute to inadequate housing... at all.

Third, you're talking about rent control and then you talk about ownership as the desired alternative yet provide no link whatsoever between rent control and its affect on people's ability to own a home.  

Fourth, I'm not sure what projects you're referring to but Chicago's housing projects have been operated and managed by a private company for almost a quarter of a century.  If you know anything about the projects in Chicago, you will know that they're very different from the picture you painted of privatized public housing.

Fifth, what about the inhumane slum housing conditions that were rampant in many urban (and other) areas in the latter half of the 19th- and first half of the 20th-centuries?  These conditions existed and flourished without government "interference."The


Because with price controls, the supply of existing housing declines. The landlords provide less maintence and repair under price controls, since the housing shortage makes it unnessecery for them to preserve the appearance of the building in order to attract other tenants. With that, deterioration is faster. Shortages mean that a landlord has no longer have to please the tenant, because at artificially low prices there is a higher demand than the amount of supply. Keeping that in mind, there will be no urgency to keep up with repairs and maintenance because there is an artificial high demand.

Rent and price controls discourage ownership because these laws close the opening the conversion to condos and co-ops ownership, so it does not compete with regulated housing. In some cities it is illegal for people who own condos and co-ops to live in a home that they own. The local government does this under the guise of trying not to diminish the "supply of rental housing". There is a law in Cambridge, Mass that would evict people from their own property. If that isnt discouraging someone from ownership, I don't know what is.


Privatized public housing? If it is public housing, it isn't privatized nor is it private property. And if you do, give me an example of "Privatized public housing".

Slum housing? How could you consider what people lived in at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century "slum housing", the standard of living was completely different at that time. Majority of people not living in metropolitan areas didn't even have access to electricity because lack of technology at the time, there is no comparison. Have you ever been outside of the country? What you consider "slum housing" here would be 10 times worse in "slum housing" in places like the Gaza or Thailand or Mexico.

 

[mytmouse76]

Posting fo later when I get to a PC.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by rashi

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here other than you seem to be blaming the government for the high cost of a college education.  However, I don't understand if you're arguing that the government needs to completely "subsidize" these institutions or student tuition or not do so at all.  Or some alternative argument?
I would like to hear your rationale on this...

I am blaming the government for the high cost of college. If thy are subsidizing college, they are not paying the full price of the credits, therfore the excess cost is passed down to other students to make up for the loss e.g. higher tuition rates. What is there not to understand?

The schools get their money one way or another- through direct payments from students (parents), government grants, loans, etc.  What "excess cost passed down to other students" are you referring to?  It's not like for students receiving $10,000 in financial aid the school is not going to see that $10,000... so it's not like another student who receives no financial aid will have to make up for that $10,000, or "subsidize" the cost of education for their less affluent peers.  The government does that.  The "full price of the credits" IS met, what are you talking about?

Your argument makes no sense.

Originally Posted by rashi

I will await his reply but I hope that's not the case as it is painfully obvious that no institution can exist without government... but that does not make government "bad."  On the other hand, it is hard for people's human rights to be protected without government, either so I'm really not sure what his argument is.

As compared to who or what?  What alternative are you proposing?  Where is your evidence that this alternative will protect people's rights better than the government will?

Originally Posted by rashi

There are numerous problems with this argument(s).
First, rent controls don't exist everywhere so whatever argument you have is severely confined to cities with rent controls.

Second, you're not making a clear delineation between rent controls and how they contribute to inadequate housing... at all.

Third, you're talking about rent control and then you talk about ownership as the desired alternative yet provide no link whatsoever between rent control and its affect on people's ability to own a home.  

Fourth, I'm not sure what projects you're referring to but Chicago's housing projects have been operated and managed by a private company for almost a quarter of a century.  If you know anything about the projects in Chicago, you will know that they're very different from the picture you painted of privatized public housing.

Fifth, what about the inhumane slum housing conditions that were rampant in many urban (and other) areas in the latter half of the 19th- and first half of the 20th-centuries?  These conditions existed and flourished without government "interference."The

Once again, your theories involving rent controls apply apply to a minute fraction of housing in this country making your arguments completely irrelevant when speaking on a national scale... but at least you provided some actual arguments this time around.

As for the projects, you do know that the "projects" are the same thing as "public housing" in this country, right?  You yourself made mention of "housing projects that have been privatized."  I also gave you the example of the entirety of Chicago Housing Authority being privatized for 23 years.  How are you confused?

Of course there was a different standard of living at the turn of the 20th century than there is now.  That has nothing to do with the fact that a lack of government oversight allowed for despicable living conditions to flourish during that time.  And what does that have to do with the living conditions in other countries?

And for the record, I was born in the favelas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. 

at you presuming to know something about me.

 

[rashi]

The schools get their money one way or another- through direct payments from students (parents), government grants, loans, etc.  What "excess cost passed down to other students" are you referring to?  It's not like for students receiving $10,000 in financial aid the school is not going to see that $10,000... so it's not like another student who receives no financial aid will have to make up for that $10,000, or "subsidize" the cost of education for their less affluent peers.  The government does that.  The "full price of the credits" IS met, what are you talking about?

Your argument makes no sense.

No dude, you just don't get it. Everything has a real cost, including college education. Government subsidies increase a higher demand and with that you reduce the supply of education services i.e. professors, classrooms, books, ect. In most states in this country there are imposed tuition caps which prevent the rise in tuition, you have other things that will go up in cost i.e. parking fees, higher room/board, lab fees, ect. You also have to account for the rise of inflation as well, because it isn't just public universities it is also private universities who experience higher tuition, and who do not receive any government subsidies. Year after year, especially in public research universities professors spend less and less in the classroom, but yet their pay continues to rise. If the government would stop the subsidies, it would force the schools to take a market driven approach. That mean the schools would compete with one another to lower their costs to attract more students, not just artificially raising the demand through government subsidies, why? Because competition always lowers cost. When something is "not-for-profit" there isnt much concern for cost of doing things.

That isn't my argument, it's called Supply and Demand.

As compared to who or what?  What alternative are you proposing?  Where is your evidence that this alternative will protect people's rights better than the government will?

In my opinion, the governments true role is to protect life, property, and the freedom to accomplish your own means. They cant even do that right, did you know that this government can take you property under the guise of "public use" or more recently popular "homeland security" purposes? You think you have freedom? You think that the government having access to you medical records, financial records, able to listen on your phone and email records is freedom?

Once again, your theories involving rent controls apply apply to a minute fraction of housing in this country making your arguments completely irrelevant when speaking on a national scale... but at least you provided some actual arguments this time around.

As for the projects, you do know that the "projects" are the same thing as "public housing" in this country, right?  You yourself made mention of "housing projects that have been privatized."  I also gave you the example of the entirety of Chicago Housing Authority being privatized for 23 years.  How are you confused?

Of course there was a different standard of living at the turn of the 20th century than there is now.  That has nothing to do with the fact that a lack of government oversight allowed for despicable living conditions to flourish during that time.  And what does that have to do with the living conditions in other countries?

And for the record, I was born in the favelas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. 

at you presuming to know something about me.

Nobody claimed that price controls were on a national scale, it hasn't been since WWII. If housing projects are privatized, they aren't "housing projects" anymore, they are converted into condos/apartments. You didnt give and example of anything, the CHA is a 501(c)3, which means they are not-for-profit and they have a governance of Board of Directors that are appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. There isnt anything "private" about the CHA, why? because they recieve funding through either direct/indirect funding from the public via taxation and government and subsidies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The only thing "private" about them is that they contract out to private firms, and that is from there own website.

"Despicable living conditions", huh? You know most housing projects in my area have full access to broadband and cable TV? I can guarantee that in every housing project in this country most tenants own a TV, a microwave, or even maybe a computer. The conditions you speak of are subjective to each tenant, but you cannot deny the standard of living has gone up regardless if you live in a ghetto or in suburbia. It has a lot to do with living conditions in other countries, because while people here +%#%% and moan about the living conditions here, there are people around the world do not have access to clean water, food, or clean clothes. Yet, our worst places have TVs, recent technologies, running water, and electricity.

For the record, I don't care where your from.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by rashi

The schools get their money one way or another- through direct payments from students (parents), government grants, loans, etc.  What "excess cost passed down to other students" are you referring to?  It's not like for students receiving $10,000 in financial aid the school is not going to see that $10,000... so it's not like another student who receives no financial aid will have to make up for that $10,000, or "subsidize" the cost of education for their less affluent peers.  The government does that.  The "full price of the credits" IS met, what are you talking about?

Your argument makes no sense.

No dude, you just don't get it. Everything has a real cost, including college education. Government subsidies increase a higher demand and with that you reduce the supply of education services i.e. professors, classrooms, books, ect. In most states in this country there are imposed tuition caps which prevent the rise in tuition, you have other things that will go up in cost i.e. parking fees, higher room/board, lab fees, ect. You also have to account for the rise of inflation as well, because it isn't just public universities it is also private universities who experience higher tuition, and who do not receive any government subsidies. Year after year, especially in public research universities professors spend less and less in the classroom, but yet their pay continues to rise. If the government would stop the subsidies, it would force the schools to take a market driven approach. That mean the schools would compete with one another to lower their costs to attract more students, not just artificially raising the demand through government subsidies, why? Because competition always lowers cost. When something is "not-for-profit" there isnt much concern for cost of doing things.

That isn't my argument, it's called Supply and Demand.

You just posted a completely different argument from the one you were making in your last post (again) and then acted like I "just don't get it."  At least you're making a semblance of a reasonable argument this time.  The problem with it is, while I agree that college tuition would be reduced if the government was not subsidizing college costs, it would also eliminate the ability for people of lower socioeconomic means to attain a college education; thus, the university would return to its elitist roots (to a greater degree than it already is).

Would you like for this to happen as an alternative to what is occurring now (rising costs of college education with the government subsidizing it for students of lower income)?

Originally Posted by rashi

As compared to who or what?  What alternative are you proposing?  Where is your evidence that this alternative will protect people's rights better than the government will?

In my opinion, the governments true role is to protect life, property, and the freedom to accomplish your own means. They cant even do that right, did you know that this government can take you property under the guise of "public use" or more recently popular "homeland security" purposes? You think you have freedom? You think that the government having access to you medical records, financial records, able to listen on your phone and email records is freedom?

I guess the questions in my last post that you quoted in yours were not clear because you didn't answer any of them...

To address your questions... Where did I say anything about freedom?  When did I say that we were "free" in this country?  Where are you getting this from?

Originally Posted by rashi

Once again, your theories involving rent controls apply apply to a minute fraction of housing in this country making your arguments completely irrelevant when speaking on a national scale... but at least you provided some actual arguments this time around.

As for the projects, you do know that the "projects" are the same thing as "public housing" in this country, right?  You yourself made mention of "housing projects that have been privatized."  I also gave you the example of the entirety of Chicago Housing Authority being privatized for 23 years.  How are you confused?

Of course there was a different standard of living at the turn of the 20th century than there is now.  That has nothing to do with the fact that a lack of government oversight allowed for despicable living conditions to flourish during that time.  And what does that have to do with the living conditions in other countries?

And for the record, I was born in the favelas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. 

at you presuming to know something about me.

Nobody claimed that price controls were on a national scale, it hasn't been since WWII. If housing projects are privatized, they aren't "housing projects" anymore, they are converted into condos/apartments. You didnt give and example of anything, the CHA is a 501(c)3, which means they are not-for-profit and they have a governance of Board of Directors that are appointed by the Mayor of Chicago. There isnt anything "private" about the CHA, why? because they recieve funding through either direct/indirect funding from the public via taxation and government and subsidies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The only thing "private" about them is that they contract out to private firms, and that is from there own website.

"Despicable living conditions", huh? You know most housing projects in my area have full access to broadband and cable TV? I can guarantee that in every housing project in this country most tenants own a TV, a microwave, or even maybe a computer. The conditions you speak of are subjective to each tenant, but you cannot deny the standard of living has gone up regardless if you live in a ghetto or in suburbia. It has a lot to do with living conditions in other countries, because while people here +%#%% and moan about the living conditions here, there are people around the world do not have access to clean water, food, or clean clothes. Yet, our worst places have TVs, recent technologies, running water, and electricity.

For the record, I don't care where your from.

YOU argued, and I quote: "But who built those buildings and inadequate housing? Who created those price controls that discourages self-ownership? Your local and federal government."  And "Usually, at the local level where they have price controls..."  Were you not trying to apply these arguments on a broad, national scale?

As for CHA, they did not even control the projects in Chicago for the last 23 years, a PRIVATE property management group, Habitat Co. did.  Off of Habitat's website: "We are one of the largest private residential property managers in Chicago and the Midwest. We have over 35 years of experience in providing the highest level of quality & service in every property we manage."  And yes, they remained HOUSING PROJECTS.

If you read my last post correctly, you would understand that when I referred to "despicable living conditions," I was referring to slums at the turn of the 20th century.  Where did I ever deny that living conditions and the standard of living has improved over the last century-plus?  That was part of my point- that increased government oversight of living conditions has helped them improve over the last hundred-plus years.  What was your argument?

Do you even know what you're  arguing?  You !%%$ on the U.S. government at every turn and seem to blame them for every problem in this country, yet you simultaneously argue how great the living conditions are for the most impoverished and marginalized member of our society?  How do you reconcile this?

The only reason that I stated where I'm from was because you presumed that my experiences were limited to this country, which they are not.  You asked me "Have you ever been outside of the country? What you consider "slum housing" here would be 10 times worse in "slum housing" in places like the Gaza or Thailand or Mexico" as if I had no concept of these things, when in reality I know first-%!%!@%%-hand.  You don't have to "care" about where I'm from...

 

[rashi]

You just posted a completely different argument from the one you were making in your last post (again) and then acted like I "just don't get it."  At least you're making a semblance of a reasonable argument this time.  The problem with it is, while I agree that college tuition would be reduced if the government was not subsidizing college costs, it would also eliminate the ability for people of lower socioeconomic means to attain a college education; thus, the university would return to its elitist roots (to a greater degree than it already is).

Would you like for this to happen as an alternative to what is occurring now (rising costs of college education with the government subsidizing it for students of lower income)?

I didn't post a completely different argument. In a previous post you asked me if I was making a case for blaming the government for the high cost of education and so because you didn't understand my initial point, I had to be more specific on why it is the governments fault for the abhorrently rising cost of education.

Your comment on the lower classes not being able to afford college without subsidization it just simply not true. Standard of living has changed, people are now making more money than they were 50 years ago. There have been plenty of Blacks that went to college that came from poor areas and some also came from the Jim Crow south, but still managed to go to college. If it weren't for the subsidized cost of education, the tuition would still be low because of competition from the schools and since more jobs require a college degree the open market would take care of the supply and the demand of college education. You assuming that college education is a right, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If you want to go to college, but cant afford it at one point is it that big of a deal to have to work and save money to pay for your education instead of you using tax payer money to pay for your education? This is also another problem with the government being involved in education, they make education compulsory and forcing kids to go to school. Some kids aren't good in school and they are wasting time in a classroom when they could being working, learning on the job training and skills, and missing out on opportunities to move up in a company without needing a high school diploma.

I guess the questions in my last post that you quoted in yours were not clear because you didn't answer any of them...

To address your questions... Where did I say anything about freedom?  When did I say that we were "free" in this country?  Where are you getting this from?

Dude, you stated in a previous post that "who but government could protect human rights". I countered stating tht government doesn't do a good job of it and I never proposed an alternative like you think I did. I simply told you the proper role of government, in sense is a alternative anyway because they do not do what I said what their role should be.

YOU argued, and I quote: "But who built those buildings and inadequate housing? Who created those price controls that discourages self-ownership? Your local and federal government."  And "Usually, at the local level where they have price controls..."  Were you not trying to apply these arguments on a broad, national scale?

Yes because the federal government has imposed price controls on housing in the past, that was one of FDR big accomplishments as President and so did President Nixon impose price controls on the entire country. I did clarify who imposes price controls, I mean you are aware of the difference between local, state, and federal government, right?

As for CHA, they did not even control the projects in Chicago for the last 23 years, a PRIVATE property management group, Habitat Co. did.  Off of Habitat's website: "We are one of the largest private residential property managers in Chicago and the Midwest. We have over 35 years of experience in providing the highest level of quality & service in every property we manage."  And yes, they remained HOUSING PROJECTS.
This is from their website:

"CHA contracts with five private firms to maintain its entire portfolio of family and senior developments.  These firms (The Habitat Company, East Lake Management Group, H. J. Russell & Company, Woodlawn Community Development Corporation and the Hispanic Housing Development Corporation) provide property management services for nearly 16,000 families living in CHA properties."

CHA properties. Those companies do not own the land nor the building itself, they just provide a management services. When something is private there is no government involvement. I have a cousin that lives in Eastchester Heights in the Bronx which use to be a public housing project, it is now owned completely by a investment company. That is private, not a building owned by the housing authority that contracts out property management services. Truth be told, the CHA was probably begging for companies to take up those services considering the huge deficits that Chicago is facing. I think its now a half Billion, good thing he privatized those parking meters, huh?

If you read my last post correctly, you would understand that when I referred to "despicable living conditions," I was referring to slums at the turn of the 20th century.  Where did I ever deny that living conditions and the standard of living has improved over the last century-plus?  That was part of my point- that increased government oversight of living conditions has helped them improve over the last hundred-plus years.  What was your argument?

In the turn of the 20th century there wasn't any federal government funding for housing. That didnt start happening until 1930's. Even though, what great lengths has government "oversight" done? Still high crimes rates and poverty.

Do you even know what you're  arguing?  You !%%$ on the U.S. government at every turn and seem to blame them for every problem in this country, yet you simultaneously argue how great the living conditions are for the most impoverished and marginalized member of our society?  How do you reconcile this?

Government is bad. Government is sick, cancerous, coercive and oppressive. Government wants to rob people of their rights and freedom to keep them under control. They want to subsidize as much as possible to have total utter control over what their subjects do because the want to be able to decide what they do. They start wars and make up terrorist attacks to have people scared and complacent. They create disease to scare people into getting their administered vaccines. They create imaginary crisis' and then tell people they are the only ones to fix the problems they have created. So they create taxes and tell you that the world is going to end tomorrow. If you do not choose to accept this illegal confiscation of private property, they will send government agents to your house with assault weapons.

Standard of living have risen as a result of unintended consequences. Amazing people, private citizens throughout history have had revolutionary ideas. Henry Ford changed the world with his idea of an automobile and with it, he created the assembly line that made the production of a car faster and less time consuming and selling his product lower than everybody else. James Cash Penny or better known as JC Penney had an idea and expanded from a few hundred stores to over a thousand by the end of the 1920's, making other companies like Sears Robuck convert from solely mail order to actual department stores. Kodak use to be the worlds largest camera and photography company, with the development of new technology, more companies were created and because of unintended consequences by the CEOs of these companies that wanted to make profit, you now have digital cameras. Bill Gates is the reason why you are reading this post right now. All of these people had huge hand in the development in technology thus increasing the standard of living through time. These were private citizens coming from modest backgrounds, had and idea, and invested private capital.


What, you think the government did all of this? You think this is a result of great government minds? Government is the great destroyer, limiting the individuals capacity to invest private capital pursuant per their tyrannical and oppressive taxation. People who work for the government are talentless identification numbers, these people cannot compete on the open market for employment because they are worthless and rely on the only employer that will never fire them because this employer has a piggy bank called the Federal Reserve and benefits from having a wide work force.

 

[-Red-]

Your hatred for the government is apparently all-consuming.  The propaganda you're spewing is damn-near overwhelming... "The government is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country... there are no other factors..."

"There were plenty of successful black folks attaining college degrees during Jim Crow... let's go back to how things were back then, it was much better... less government interfering in people's lives."

"Government interference is solely responsible for any and all issues related to inadequate housing... it was the government that burned thousands of residential buildings in cities like Chicago and New York down, often killing tenants, and collected insurance money... government interference is why people's rent is high, why their sink is leaky, why their basement smells musty... government interference made people move out of their neighborhood and convert their former homes into three-flats for which they stop making repairs and which inadequately serve the needs of their tenants who could no longer find sufficient affordable housing in their community..."

As someone who has a severe distrust of government myself, you take such sentiments to their illogical conclusions.  What makes it so bad is that you have some interesting and potentially-good points but they stem from half-baked theories which fail to account for the majority of whatever phenomenon you are speaking on yet you take them as universal truths... You hate and despise the government for its propaganda yet you appear just as guilty on a personal level...

 

[superflyinchopstickninja]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Originally Posted by Much Respected

Asians are still getting money. They have the highest median income.

You know it. 

 Indian but it's still in Asia!!

yep.  and people talk about freedom and segregation (regarding only blacks).  internment camps weren't that long ago either.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by rashi

In addition to what MeloVP stated above, the same can be said for integration leading directly to the deterioration of urban black communities as middle- and upper-class black folks often left the traditionally black communities as opportunities for housing in formerly all-white areas arose.  With them left much of the financial wealth of the communities and what was left in many black communities was essentially the working and lower-classes.  Many black businesses were forced (or chose) to close as the economic condition in the neighborhood deteriorated.

See, you guys have to understand something here. We can all agree that these urban neighborhoods are not the "little house on the prairie", right? Ok, since we can agree on that, now you have to talk about a few things that happen as a result of living and running a business in a high crime area. First, if you choose to open up a business on the South Side of Chicago, or on 139th and Lenox in Harlem, or in Overtown, Miami there is a very high chance that your rent will be higher in that area than in a Middle Class neighborhood, why? There is more risk, lack of structural vacancies, you will end up have to pay for higher insurance because you live in that neighborhood, and on top of it you will have to take into account security technology that all costs money. So what happens to the people who live in that neighborhood? They end up paying higher prices for goods, like food, because of the money that was invested. So a loaf of bread may cost $2.00 market in a Middle Class neighborhood, will have a higher cost in a bad neighborhood because the owner has to charge high enough to cover the extra expenditures he has to pay just to operate a business in that area. Since about of a quarter of Blacks in this country live under poverty levels, where is the personal capital for most them to invest in a business? Do you want to deregulate the banks (like the lady in the article elaborated on)...again, to expand credit to people who have no assets or anything to put down? You want the banks taking those huge risks...again?

Larger single family homes were converted into duplexes and three-flats which were then rented out instead of owner-occupied and were often inadequate to house large families who had few other housing options due to financial circumstances.  Such inadequate housing creates living conditions which make spending time outside the home (in the streets) much more attractive as opposed to being crammed in a two-bedroom apartment with your parents and three siblings.  Being in the streets leads to...


I agree that inadequate housing and poverty breeds crime. But who built those buildings and inadequate housing? Who created those price controls that discourages self-ownership? Your local and federal government.

In the end it boils down to capitalistic society we live in. The European thrives in the system because he created that very system. Self interest or the"invisible hand" as Smith puts it, drives the ecnomy. Jews were able to rise up against this obvious dilemma by banding together (historically they are merchants dating back thousands of years). as stated in this thread, a jew would rather give 10 dollars to a jew than to a non-jew. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of whites fell under the same thought process. Blacks however, have been brainwashed into capitalism so thoroughly, that they will run to the nearest Walmart before going to their black owned butchery down the street for the swine. We must break this out for ourselves nonsense that has desensitized us from realizing our commonhood, rather than focusing what side of the neighborhood we were raised on, we should worry supporting our businesses, churches, and other municipalities on any side of our neighborhood.

What Capitalist society are you talking about? Our government spends the majority of federal revenue on public entitlements and socialized programs, that is not Capitalism. Government intervention has destroyed the Black neighborhood, family, and work ethic. Proof of this? Look at Black participation percentage rates between 1890-1930 (which it was higher than Whites) where there was no Minimum Wage Laws or the government involvement in organized labor. Look how these Minimum Wage Laws have taken away jobs from Black youths denying them a jump start and giving them the opportunity to save, make plans for themselves, and give them the opportunity to learn on the job experience. Instead, they're left out in the streets and looking to make money another way. The "invisible hand" only exists where there is a society without coercion of government, but in those neighborhoods government coercion and intrusion is so rampant is suffocating.


Biblically speaking you are right about the Jews being merchants and so forth, but their entrepreneurship has been trickled through generations because they have a history of living in a society where they did not have a government, hence why you have the book of Judges. People were free to do what they want, no oppressive taxation like other societies did at that time, and most of things were voluntarily privatized.

It's discussions like this that make me wonder why Frederick Douglass's "What the Black Man Wants" isnt more known as opposed to Lil' Wayne or Jay-Z lyrics.



you can't be serious- the government spends a majority of it's income on socialized programs? - If socialized programs count as defense systems

The invisible hand is self interest so I fail to see your correltaion. on what it has to do with government interaction. Even smith realized that some intervention was necessary.