The Son Also Rises.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
The Son Also Rises.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful than others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) eventually more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
African Americans may be another group that simply need a lot more time to overcome that disparity. What do you think?
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful than others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) eventually more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
African Americans may be another group that simply need a lot more time to overcome that disparity. What do you think?
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
The Son Also Rises.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful that others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) richer eventually, and more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
African Americans may be another group that simply need a lot more time to overcome that disparity. What do you think?
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful that others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) richer eventually, and more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
African Americans may be another group that simply need a lot more time to overcome that disparity. What do you think?
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60839
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
Networks probably matter as much as wealth. And then there's probably smaller effects like those with the wealth going guarantor for those without it. Actually, that's part of "networks", I guess.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: The Son Also Rises.
So what? That's exactly the point of creating a legacy for one's children and their descendants.Blind groper wrote:http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful than others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
Could it be that rich people instill in their children, generation after generation, the understanding that with hard work and diligence, one can also be wealthy, whereas the dependent class parents of children born into the dependent class teach their descendants that the government will take care of them so there is no need to work at all, much less work hard and exercise diligence in improving one's economic and social position?This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) eventually more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It's much simpler than that. It's liberal guilt that causes economic inequality. Liberals fret and maunder about the plight of the poor and in doing so they patronize the dependent class and drive them ever deeper into dependence by trying to "help" them by giving them largess from the public treasury so that they won't be so put-upon. But in reality what they are doing is assuaging their own personal guilt about being rich by doing exactly the wrong thing, which is to enable dependency with largess. The more oppressed and underprivileged the dependent class become, the more liberals want to throw (other people's) money at them while they simultaneously go to glitzy parties and mingle with the rich and famous and pat themselves on the back for their charitable liberal notions of "helping" the poor, when what they are actually doing is pressing down their boots on the necks of the underclass.It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
It's quite simple: You don't improve someone's economic condition by giving them money. Money, like fish, lasts a day, and then it's gone. But teach the man or woman to fish, and they can feed themselves, their children, and others, and earn both economic uplift and self-esteem in doing so.
The truly cruel, inhumane and deviously Machiavellian plan of the Liberal elite is much, much worse. They know full well that giving poor people money doesn't help them with upward social or economic mobility, they know full well that it does exactly the opposite and binds the poor ever more tightly to the chains of economic dependence. They do this deliberately and maliciously and with evil intent, because by binding the poor, or at present the flood of illegal immigrants being brought in and given Social Security benefits, they are tying those individual to the Progressive liberal cause because by controlling the very basics of life, like food, shelter and medical care, they enslave the dependent class to their cause by threatening to cut off the largess if the dependent class doesn't vote to keep the Marxist Progressives in power.
That's why Marxist Progressivism is so entirely evil. They do it knowing exactly what they are doing; they are creating a majority of voters comprised of the socially and politically dependent class in order to maintain their own power and privilege. They don't give a damn about the people involved, so long as they vote the way they are told to vote.
And the opposition has a difficult time selling the perfectly true fact that one does not become rich by being lazy, and that work creates wealth and self-esteem and is the only thing that will do so, therefore the dependent class have to be provoked into working and earning both their economic boost and their self-respect, not coddled and bought off, which only drives them deeper into dependence. Which is why the Progressives have such an easy time rousing the dependent masses when their political foes even suggest that cutting welfare and putting people to work is best...as was proven by Clinton, a Progressive, when he amended the welfare statutes and limited lifetime welfare benefits, which gave millions of people the motivation they needed to better their skill sets and start up the economic ladder.
The absolute proof of this is Obama's suspending of the welfare-to-work program and the doling out of yet more largess in order that he could get elected. And that's the way the Marxist Progressives like Obama, and Cunt Clinton, want to keep it.
I think they are all capable of functioning in a free market economy and given the impetus and opportunity to enhance their skill set so they become more valuable and useful in the markets, through education and training, that they will overcome the disparity in one or two generations, if they are not deliberately sucked into the black hole of welfare dependence, but instead are forced to take care of themselves, but are given the tools they need to compete in the marketplace.African Americans may be another group that simply need a lot more time to overcome that disparity. What do you think?
Which means that I'm strongly in favor of a massive vocational training program, on a national level equal to that of the war effort in WWII, Rosie the Riveter style, that gives young and old alike the opportunity to learn the basics of a trade and then become an apprentice, at apprentice wages (which customarily include room, board and a small stipend) until they master their trade, whereupon they are of value to the economy. which needs welders and pipefitters and carpenters and electricians and plumbers and HVAC technicians and diesel mechanics and truck drivers much, much more than it needs even one more MBA or Juris Doctor.
I will happily pay higher taxes if the money I send in is used exclusively for vocational training for the dependent class...which may well involve mandatory relocation to places where the skills are needed, provided at public expense.
The
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74216
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
If it's not the direct inheritance of wealth (and I know that some wealthy people severely restrict the amount they pass on, partly to encourage self-reliance), then several other possibilities exist:
1. Better educational opportunities than others
2. Automatically having good personal contacts with other successful families, for easy positions in law firms etc.
3. Conscious or unconscious inculcation into more intense work habits
4. Genetics (very hard to separate from other factors, but not automatically impossible)
1. Better educational opportunities than others
2. Automatically having good personal contacts with other successful families, for easy positions in law firms etc.
3. Conscious or unconscious inculcation into more intense work habits
4. Genetics (very hard to separate from other factors, but not automatically impossible)
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Re: The Son Also Rises.
All probably true, but again, so what? Life is not fair and not everybody is going to enjoy an equal outcome with everybody else outside of a Marxist hell like Cuba or Venezuela.JimC wrote:If it's not the direct inheritance of wealth (and I know that some wealthy people severely restrict the amount they pass on, partly to encourage self-reliance), then several other possibilities exist:
1. Better educational opportunities than others
2. Automatically having good personal contacts with other successful families, for easy positions in law firms etc.
3. Conscious or unconscious inculcation into more intense work habits
4. Genetics (very hard to separate from other factors, but not automatically impossible)
"Equal opportunity" doesn't mean everybody gets the same opportunities, it means that government is not allowed to discriminate using the law to functionally enslave this or that group of people by placing artificial barriers to entry and competition in the free markets.
It also means an equal opportunity for every person to fail at achieving social and economic prominence by not creating a government-supported or enabled aristocracy or entitled class that has legal superiority in the markets over anyone else.
"Equal opportunity" is not about making things equal for everyone, it's about preventing government from oppressing this or that group by choosing winners and losers in the economy.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60839
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
Because some people, not as honest as you (in this particular instance), like to pretend that wealth and privilege don't confer any advantage. Clearly that's bullshit.Seth wrote:So what? That's exactly the point of creating a legacy for one's children and their descendants.Blind groper wrote:http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful than others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
I doubt it very much. What's more likely to play a factor is a more stable and resourceful upbringing. And they'll be better educated and resourced because of it, and that will lead to better opportunities.Could it be that rich people instill in their children, generation after generation, the understanding that with hard work and diligence, one can also be wealthy, whereas the dependent class parents of children born into the dependent class teach their descendants that the government will take care of them so there is no need to work at all, much less work hard and exercise diligence in improving one's economic and social position?This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) eventually more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
It's much simpler than that. It's liberal guilt that causes economic inequality.It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.

Except that reality doesn't work like that. Numerous studies have shown that money isn't a great motivator for people. It's personal achievement and satisfaction that are just as important. Of course, you don't know any poor people, so you wouldn't know this. Most welfare recipients are only short term users of a safety net. The welfare lifers are a very rare species. Hence why your 'theory' is bullshit.Liberals fret and maunder about the plight of the poor and in doing so they patronize the dependent class and drive them ever deeper into dependence by trying to "help" them by giving them largess from the public treasury so that they won't be so put-upon.
Teaching people, and providing employment services for them, costs money, genius. You can't do that stuff for free.It's quite simple: You don't improve someone's economic condition by giving them money. Money, like fish, lasts a day, and then it's gone. But teach the man or woman to fish, and they can feed themselves, their children, and others, and earn both economic uplift and self-esteem in doing so.
You are a fruitcake!The truly cruel, inhumane and deviously Machiavellian plan of the Liberal elite is much, much worse. They know full well that giving poor people money doesn't help them with upward social or economic mobility, they know full well that it does exactly the opposite and binds the poor ever more tightly to the chains of economic dependence. They do this deliberately and maliciously and with evil intent, because by binding the poor, or at present the flood of illegal immigrants being brought in and given Social Security benefits, they are tying those individual to the Progressive liberal cause because by controlling the very basics of life, like food, shelter and medical care, they enslave the dependent class to their cause by threatening to cut off the largess if the dependent class doesn't vote to keep the Marxist Progressives in power.

Paris Hilton become rich by being lazy. What rock are you living under??And the opposition has a difficult time selling the perfectly true fact that one does not become rich by being lazy,

More retarded logic from Seth. Clinton can't be both a Marxist and an economic liberal.Which is why the Progressives have such an easy time rousing the dependent masses when their political foes even suggest that cutting welfare and putting people to work is best...as was proven by Clinton, a Progressive, when he amended the welfare statutes and limited lifetime welfare benefits, which gave millions of people the motivation they needed to better their skill sets and start up the economic ladder.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
I am aware that many countries with social welfare programs have tried out intensive training for welfare recipients. Results have been mixed.
I am more inclined to think that there is a family culture passed on from successful people to their children. This may include such things as valuing education, working hard etc. But some aspects are likely to be quite subtle, and I am not sure that anyone has fully nailed down exactly what is happening.
I am more inclined to think that there is a family culture passed on from successful people to their children. This may include such things as valuing education, working hard etc. But some aspects are likely to be quite subtle, and I am not sure that anyone has fully nailed down exactly what is happening.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60839
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
The idea that poor people don't work hard is nonsense. I suspect it's largely a case of increased opportunity to begin with, and better education and access to influential networks leading to even better opportunities. And that's just the ones who didn't inherit a chunk of money. Those ones are even better off.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
In my family (on both mom and dad's sides), that old Protestant work ethic figured prominently. There weren't any rich people in the mix, just small farmers on mom's side and immigrant Scots-Irish on dad's. But pretty much everybody was reasonably successful, with a few exceptions (there's always a bum or two in big families). They were all, for the most part, hard working, thrifty, self-reliant people, and each generation was more successful than the previous. At least until now, the kid's generation aren't doing so well, TBH. I don't think that's due to a lack of effort or ambition, they all work damn hard, but they're not as careful with their money and their plans seem to concentrate on short term gains rather than security in the long haul. I don't know why that's true, but it certainly appears to be the case.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Re: The Son Also Rises.
Of course it confers advantage, that's why parents do it for crying out loud. So what? You seem to be supporting the Marxist notion that everybody ought to always be equally miserable and poverty-stricken. The advancements in science, technology, medicine and everything else are the product of "wealth and privilege" being passed down generation by generation. It is that "excess capital" that allows the next generation to start out ahead of where their parents did, which makes moving society and technology forward easier and more productive for everyone. If each generation was required to start out with nothing, neither society nor the economy would move forward. The Dark Ages are an excellent example of how that works. The nobility didn't move forward because it spent all its time keeping the serfs in line, and the serfs never advanced because they had no free market opportunity to escape their fate.rEvolutionist wrote:Because some people, not as honest as you (in this particular instance), like to pretend that wealth and privilege don't confer any advantage. Clearly that's bullshit.Seth wrote:So what? That's exactly the point of creating a legacy for one's children and their descendants.Blind groper wrote:http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html
I will admit immediately that I have not read the book of the title of this thread, although I have read its core message.
Economic historian Gregory Clark did a great deal of research on the business of social mobility down the generations.
The core message of the book is that the descendants of very rich and successful people also are richer and more successful than others, and that this holds true for the descendants down to 300 years after the rich man lived.
The whole point and purpose of a free market economy is to produce wealth and privilege for those who are better at exploiting the demands of the market than others. What makes the free market "fair" and provides "equal opportunity" is a government that neither favors nor disfavors anyone in its regulation of the markets to prevent and police force and fraud. This means a government that does not deny opportunity to serfs because they are a legal underclass and does not confer benefits on the aristocracy because they are aristocrats.
Whether a particular individual succeeds or fails in economic or social success is not the concern of government and never should be. That is a product of the natural or acquired talents and drive of the individual. Those who wish to advance themselves and their heirs have the opportunity to do so, which is all anyone can justifiably expect.
Could it be that rich people instill in their children, generation after generation, the understanding that with hard work and diligence, one can also be wealthy, whereas the dependent class parents of children born into the dependent class teach their descendants that the government will take care of them so there is no need to work at all, much less work hard and exercise diligence in improving one's economic and social position?This is not due to inheriting money. Even those who inherited little or nothing were, on average (obviously not in every case) eventually more successful that their peers who were not descended from very rich and successful people. Clark showed that this principle was true globally, and even in nations like China where such descendents were considered enemies of the people, they were still more successful.
I'm sure that has a great deal to do with it as well, but that's an artifact of the accumulation of wealth by the prior generation that is being passed along to the next generation, not necessarily in cash, but in advancing opportunity. Isn't that the goal of most parents, to make life better for their kids?I doubt it very much. What's more likely to play a factor is a more stable and resourceful upbringing. And they'll be better educated and resourced because of it, and that will lead to better opportunities.
It's much simpler than that. It's liberal guilt that causes economic inequality.It occurs to me that this is probably a better explanation for sub-cultures within our societies that are poorer than the majority. Here in NZ, the Maori people are, in general, less well off than the whites. This is ascribed by those who are politically correct as being due to the harm that comes from colonisation. This is something I have been most skeptical about. However, assuming Clark is correct (and he has the data to argue his point), then it is far more likely that the Maori, who have been interacting with western civilisation for less than 200 years, simply need more time to catch up.
How so? The economy is not a zero-sum game. The acquisition of wealth, even great wealth, by one person does not come at the expense of the poor because wealth acquisition in a free market society is limited only by the abilities and drive of the individual. There are simply too many examples of "poor" people becoming very, very wealthy through their own innovation and labor to deny this. Bill Gates is a prime example, as was Steve Jobs.No, it's greed and corruption that cause economic inequality.
Certainly corruption in government has the potential (and does) inhibit the ability of some people to advance economically and socially, as I've already pointed out in detail. And corruption in business does have the potential to cause economic harm to the competitors of a powerful business entity, but that's what the government is supposed to be policing. If the government is not doing so, then it's corruption in government that's the problem, not the natural functions of the free market.
Liberals fret and maunder about the plight of the poor and in doing so they patronize the dependent class and drive them ever deeper into dependence by trying to "help" them by giving them largess from the public treasury so that they won't be so put-upon.
Except it does.Except that reality doesn't work like that.
Indeed. But it is a great de-motivator when assigned to that purpose by those who would keep the dependent class dependent for political gain.Numerous studies have shown that money isn't a great motivator for people.
It's personal achievement and satisfaction that are just as important.
More so in fact. It is personal achievement and satisfaction through one's own efforts that makes society operate and advance.
Of course, you don't know any poor people, so you wouldn't know this.
I don't? How do you know that?
Most welfare recipients are only short term users of a safety net.
Then why did Obama eliminate the welfare-to-work regulations?
The welfare lifers are a very rare species.
I disagree. In urban slum areas it's not just welfare lifers, it's welfare generations who are kept that way and created by politicians who want to control their votes by controlling their economic and social status.
Your rude opinion is noted. And I thought things were going so nicely...Hence why your 'theory' is bullshit.

It's quite simple: You don't improve someone's economic condition by giving them money. Money, like fish, lasts a day, and then it's gone. But teach the man or woman to fish, and they can feed themselves, their children, and others, and earn both economic uplift and self-esteem in doing so.
Absolutely correct. The good news is that the amount of money needed to train up one individual to a skill level that permits them to earn a living wage, and more, is much, much less than the costs of supporting them and their kids on welfare, which makes such educational efforts a much better use of taxpayer money.Teaching people, and providing employment services for them, costs money, genius. You can't do that stuff for free.
The truly cruel, inhumane and deviously Machiavellian plan of the Liberal elite is much, much worse. They know full well that giving poor people money doesn't help them with upward social or economic mobility, they know full well that it does exactly the opposite and binds the poor ever more tightly to the chains of economic dependence. They do this deliberately and maliciously and with evil intent, because by binding the poor, or at present the flood of illegal immigrants being brought in and given Social Security benefits, they are tying those individual to the Progressive liberal cause because by controlling the very basics of life, like food, shelter and medical care, they enslave the dependent class to their cause by threatening to cut off the largess if the dependent class doesn't vote to keep the Marxist Progressives in power.
Ad hominem fallacy and unresponsive to the debate, not to mention insulting and deliberately provocative and a violation of the forum rules. I don't appreciate it at all, and I've been trying hard to be civil so far, but if you persist, this debate will soon degenerate as usually happens when Leftists run out of rational arguments.You are a fruitcake!![]()
And the opposition has a difficult time selling the perfectly true fact that one does not become rich by being lazy,
No, she became rich because her father was most definitely NOT lazy. Yes, there are some people who do nothing and get a lot from prior generations, but they are the exception, not the rule, nor is it important that they are wastrels because they represent the exception to the rule. Society likes to parade them as bad examples, which they are, because they think it justifies expropriating the wealth of all of the wealthy to show that a tiny minority of them abuse their wealth.Paris Hilton become rich by being lazy. What rock are you living under??![]()
Which is why the Progressives have such an easy time rousing the dependent masses when their political foes even suggest that cutting welfare and putting people to work is best...as was proven by Clinton, a Progressive, when he amended the welfare statutes and limited lifetime welfare benefits, which gave millions of people the motivation they needed to better their skill sets and start up the economic ladder.
Of course he can. Even Marxists will do non-Marxist things if doing so advantages Marxism sometime in the future. They are unprincipled pricks who will manipulate a situation to the ultimate benefit of Marxist Progressivism even if it means a short-term concession to their enemies.More retarded logic from Seth. Clinton can't be both a Marxist and an economic liberal.
And since you started it, you can go fuck yourself. Don't say I didn't try to remain civil.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The Son Also Rises.
I think you're right, and it's a complex web of behaviors and reinforcement that creates both camps and maintains them that's difficult to untangle. What I do know for certain is that enabling dependency out of a false motive of faux compassion is more harmful that being supportive but demanding effort on the part of those in need so that they learn not to be needy is utterly wrong.Blind groper wrote:I am aware that many countries with social welfare programs have tried out intensive training for welfare recipients. Results have been mixed.
I am more inclined to think that there is a family culture passed on from successful people to their children. This may include such things as valuing education, working hard etc. But some aspects are likely to be quite subtle, and I am not sure that anyone has fully nailed down exactly what is happening.
You don't do that with kids who whine about having to do chores instead of playing "Call of Duty," and there's no reason why society should do so for anyone who is even remotely capable of learning and labor. You tell them to get off their asses and get to work or suffer the consequences.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The Son Also Rises.
It's true because they have been subtly indoctrinated by the education system to believe that there's nothing wrong with dependency and that they deserve to spend their money on fripperies rather than being frugal and saving up for the future because they have been taught to believe that the government will always be there to bail them out, either with welfare or social security or some other form of government largess to which they have been told they are entitled.laklak wrote:In my family (on both mom and dad's sides), that old Protestant work ethic figured prominently. There weren't any rich people in the mix, just small farmers on mom's side and immigrant Scots-Irish on dad's. But pretty much everybody was reasonably successful, with a few exceptions (there's always a bum or two in big families). They were all, for the most part, hard working, thrifty, self-reliant people, and each generation was more successful than the previous. At least until now, the kid's generation aren't doing so well, TBH. I don't think that's due to a lack of effort or ambition, they all work damn hard, but they're not as careful with their money and their plans seem to concentrate on short term gains rather than security in the long haul. I don't know why that's true, but it certainly appears to be the case.
If they had grown up as I did, knowing, accepting and taking to heart the idea that nobody's going to take care of you in your dotage and it's up to you to provide for your golden years or you will end up living in a cardboard box, they would be less inclined to blow their money on hedonistic instant gratification.
Then again, they may also believe they are the last generation and that nothing really matters because before they get old, everybody will be dead from either "global warming" or nuclear holocaust.
I fought the latter ennui for some years as a young man, having lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cold War, when it seemed that at any moment I could be vaporized by a Soviet nuclear device. I was doubtful I'd reach 30. I never expected to reach 40, and was very surprised that I did. I was confounded when I hit 50. And I have absolutely no idea at all how I managed to hit 60 years old. And now I'm almost certain I won't see 65, much less 70.
That doesn't help to drive the entrepreneurial spirit or support long-term economic planning.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The Son Also Rises.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
Are you aware, Seth, that the greatest hero of the Cuban missile crisis was a Russian submarine commander (Vasili Arkipov - as in the reference above), who stopped a submarine captain from firing a nuclear missile at the American fleet, which would definitely have set off WWIII. There is a pretty good chance that the only reason you are alive is due to the heroic actions of a Marxist Soviet soldier of the sea.
Are you aware, Seth, that the greatest hero of the Cuban missile crisis was a Russian submarine commander (Vasili Arkipov - as in the reference above), who stopped a submarine captain from firing a nuclear missile at the American fleet, which would definitely have set off WWIII. There is a pretty good chance that the only reason you are alive is due to the heroic actions of a Marxist Soviet soldier of the sea.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests