I guess I owe you guys an apology for this economic mess we're in...

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Some of these politicians need to fall back a bit. Despite what's going on with this ongoing crisis, people tend not to notice that the standard of living has exponentially grown over the years.

economic inequality has risen and so has the concentration of power and wealth
it is not getting any better

 

[eebs7eez]

anyone who can't see the racism in this statement lacks a lot of intelligence. myths about whites being the only racists are ridiculous, and i can'tbelieve how many people from NT just bought into this. how would you feel if the quote read "big nosed blacks are the cause"? it's the samecomment from a different approach than what you're used to seeing. realize it. it's not the fault of any specific race at all. didn't the man ofchange, barack himself, already attempt to explain the futility of blaming a race for a widespread problem? everyone's against racism until it'sagainst whites...

 

[eebs7eez]

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Originally Posted by Cement Greyman

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Its not racist....its true.

LOL...riiight all white, blue eyed people are the cause of our global economic crisis. I guess all dark skinned, brown eyed people are responsible for all the crime in the world too?

That is just foolish.

Racism, by its simplest definition is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[sup][1][/sup] People with racist beliefs exhibit stereotype-based prejudices towards individuals and groups of people according to their race. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.

1) Show me the racism in Lula's statement.

2) I can show you hundreds of thousands of instances of white crime. Show me one "black or indigenous banker" at the heart of this financial crisis.

"Don't worry....i'll wait"

your logic is terrible, and basically the same thoughts that keep racism alive today. go read a book and fix your train of thought.

 

[whph10]

Alright...

I tried to find a way to say it's not true that white people are at fault for this but I can't. They truly are.

However, something in the back of my head is telling me something is wrong with the statements made by Brazilian president and the few members in this thread.

It's rather unfair and snide to say something like "blue-eyed white people" when in reality, not all the bankers had blue eyes. This kind ofstatement carries hate.

Sure, it might be an accepted truth to say something like black on black violence is ending too many lives. However, saying something like, "Those friedchicken eating black dudes are killing each other..." is a statement which carries hate and although it may be an accepted truth, it doesn't take awayfrom the fact that it should not be said, especially by a president of a country.

Also, what is the president's point? What I mean by this is that white ladies can clutch their purses in case a "vicious and dangerous" (sarcasm)black man passes by but I don't see what the average person can do to prevent the blue-eyed white people from controlling the banks.

What, are more white people gonna go around ruining economies cause that's just what white people do? It doesn't even make sense to argue it. It'sjust like having a white, blue-eyed running back in a football game have a fumble or two and then a scouter wouldn't give another white, blue-eyed runningback a chance to play because "blue-eyed, white running backs always fumble the ball"

I just see it as him spewing hate and nothing more.

 

[rexanglorum]

At the very bottom of this matter is the nature of Central Banks. They have the impossible task of having to set interest rates that perfect and reflect thenature of the real supply of and the demand for capital at any given time. No matter what color of your eyes may be, central planning will always cause manyundesirable results. Perhaps Barack Obama can nominate a black man to replace Ben Bernanke so Lula da Silva can rest easily knowing that a man of Africandescent got to have a turn at harming the world economy by setting a price that really ought not be set in the first place.

Also, could we fire Timothy Geithner and get in Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell at Treasury? I am all for less white guys at the top, considering thisparticular individual white guy's skills or lack thereof right now.

The color that really matters is green and orange and pink and grey and the many colors of an array of competing currencies within the US, which would allowfor a true market interest rate to emerge and with that we could avoid many of the problems of easy credit boom, busts and serve malinvestments.


As far as Lula's comments are concerned, from a political stand point, it was mostly made for domestic consumption and we should not read much into it. Hehas consistently tried to be the Latin American leader, who is can be friendly with everyone, from the Liberalistos to theChavistas and everyone in between. In practice, he has been relatively pro American and Western but he is center left and sometime will makestatement to appease a bloc in his left wing coalition. In this case he was trying to make Brazil's Black and indigenous population feel good and for Lulai n Brazil and demagogues else where, taking verbal jabs at unpopular groups is a very cheap and cost effective way of making a voting bloc happy with you.

 

[rexanglorum]

knightngale wrote:

---

reigndrop wrote:

---

Some of these politicians need to fall back a bit. Despite what's going on with this ongoing crisis, people tend not to notice that the standard of living has exponentially grown over the years.
economic inequality has risen and so has the concentration of power and wealth
it is not getting any better


You are right about the disturbing imbalance and concentration of power, Washington DC has way too power and money at its disposal.


When it comes to differences in household income though, there is much less cause for concern. Much of the inequality has been a result of the changing natureof households and much of what has changed the nature of households has been a very real, sustained and profound improvements in standards of living as well associal changes, which libertarians as well as those on the left should appreciate.

The time between the end of WWII and the beginning of the Reagan era, aka the "decade of greed" is held up as time of income equality which we shouldseek to revive. I disagree and consider that period one of relative poverty and much of the household income equality was a result of social bonds, which wehave since largely shed and are all the better for doing so.

In the last quarter century or so, economic and social progress has had the effect of simultaneously pushing some households into the higher income categoriesand at the same time prosperity has led to the creation of many single person households, that would not have existed if our society were poorer.

Because of increasingly available education, advances in technology, changes in tax laws and a variety of other changes, the last 25-30 years has seen a muchlarger share of the workforce become skilled and the number of six figure jobs (all adjsted for inflation) is dramatically higher than it 1979 and the growthof such jobs has been much faster then the growth in population. There are simply more six figure jobs out their than in the '70's and that is a goodthing.

Another good thing, economically and socially, that contributes to "income inequality," is society's changing views on women and on gays. In thelast thirty years, women have been breaking glass ceailing, working more and getting paid more because of increasing levels of skill. Those duel income homesare going to be well above the median household incomes of "traditional" homes with just one bread winner. It is a similar case with gays. Withhomosexuality far more accepated today then it was a few decades ago, we have more gay households and gay households tend to have more education and most areduel income so gay couples are the face of hose evil rich who "get richer."

This the high end. The low end grows and pulls down the median down because increases in standards of living and changing social attitudes have made singleperson, non traditional living arrangements viable. Students, unmarried young adults, the elderly, divorcees and immgrants skew the statistics and create theapperance of expanding poverty when, ironically, if they actuall ywere poorer they would not be able have their household and would likely be part of a largerextended family household.

Wealthy parents can afford to support a child who is away at a University. If that student has an off campus apartment, he has technically has his ownhousehold. The fact that the student has parents who can afford to pay his expenses so that he may get a higher education is a sign of increased wealth in ourcoiety but the fact that he is a "broke college kid" but him among the ranks of the destitute. In past generations, that students may have simplylived at home and worked to support his family. High education was an unattanle luxury in past generations but statistically there is less income inequity.

Less than a century ago in the US, a few decades ago in most other industrialized nations and today in most countries, you lived at your parents home until yougot married. Even then, only one spouse, usually the bride, would move into the house of the husband and live there until perhaps middle age or until theparents died. Despite the high cost of rents in many major cities, most young people are able to move out of home before marriage. In doing so, another lowerincome household is created. If our society was as poor as it wa a century ago, many young people would still be a part of their parent's household butbecause our generation is the most affluent in history, we eventually move out and get modest apartments. While it is gretat hat we have our own place to live,the statistics about household income inequality say things are worse whereas if we stuck it out at Mom and Dad's, income inequality would be less andthings should be better.

Thanks to increased standards of living, more and more senior citizens can retire and live on their own. Those who saved throughut their working lives can havea substantial amount of assets but because they have retired their income is low. By having enough wealth to buy a condo in Arizona or Florida, that seniorcitizen contributed to income inequality. If they had been like other old people and made so little they could save almost nothing, they could move in withtheir children, which was the norm in the old days, back when household incomes were more equal.

Our society also has liberalized its stance of divorce. What was once widely considered adhorant, it now has little or no stigma. This obviously creates evenmore single earner households and technically increasing income inequality because you take one home whose combines income has it in the top quintile or decileto having two homes that are below the media.

Finally, when you have a prosperous society, others want to be a part of that. This Country's economic history is one of general growth, despite set backs,gorwth is the long run norm. This will naturally attract immigration and those, who emmigrate are likely to be people who were among the poorer members of thesociety in the home country. As a result, our prosperity attracts people who will come here and set up households that further bring down the median and meanhousehold income in our country. Generally immigrants, even illegal immigrants contribute to the society as whole and they are better off than they would be ifthey stayed in their home countries. Once again, the societ yand the individual are better off but the househol income statistics look bad.


If the nature and make up of households had stayed constant over the last 25 to 30 years, household income data would have been more better for assesing thesituation. The paradoxical fact is that widespread and undeniable increases in standards of living, along with momentous social changes altered the nature andmake up of the houeshold and created the false apperance of stagnation and increased poverty for most with fantastic increases in wealth for a select few.

It is popular to say that the "rich get richer and the poor get pooer." The reality is closer to "many baby boomers and generation Xers got achance to be upper middle class instead of working class and the poor are usually just member of single income households." I do not say this to down playpoverty. Poverty does exist, it is real, its existing in our midst is shameful and because most Americans are better off due to 30 years or so of sustainedeconomic growth, we should help and uplift every last destitute Americna and eventually every last person in the world who suffers from want.

Unfortunately, curing poverty is not often the center piece of discussons on income inequality. It is usually about how someone else is making "too muchmoney" (this was well before AIG and the bailouts) or how the upper middle class need to pay more in taxes so the middle class can get goodies from thegovernment. In other words, most discussions about income equality oftne times become opportunities from middle and upper class folks to point fingers and findway for them to tax everyone else and get all of the benefits. It is very sad but that tends to be what I have seen in discussions of inequality.

Thankfully we have had about three decades of very strong, generally uninterrupted growth and while perhpas the growth of '04-'07 was largelyillussionary, temporary and fleeting, our country and our World has indeed become much richer. I can only hope that with true poverty greatly reduce from whereit was 30 years ago, that discussions about income inequality will focus on the noble task of bring up those at the bottom, expecting nothing in the return, asopposed using worries over equality to tear down those at the top, for the purposes of hoping to get your share of the loot.

 

[illoquent aka dsk]

"Gordon Gekko 979", eh?

Makes sense...you are who I thought you were, word to Dennis Green.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I'm glad he called out the upper-class of the world but continuing to draw race lines just fortifies racial barriers, something that is unneccesary in thisday and age.

And by blaming white people your not helping to fix the problem. No matter what, the other races in the world are playing the white man's game and it isgoing to continue to be that way. It is the world we live in and the most efficient way to move forward is too work towards solidarity not away from it.

 

[davyjones]

Originally Posted by WHPH10

Alright...

I tried to find a way to say it's not true that white people are at fault for this but I can't. They truly are.

However, something in the back of my head is telling me something is wrong with the statements made by Brazilian president and the few members in this thread.

It's rather unfair and snide to say something like "blue-eyed white people" when in reality, not all the bankers had blue eyes. This kind of statement carries hate.

Sure, it might be an accepted truth to say something like black on black violence is ending too many lives. However, saying something like, "Those fried chicken eating black dudes are killing each other..." is a statement which carries hate and although it may be an accepted truth, it doesn't take away from the fact that it should not be said, especially by a president of a country.

Also, what is the president's point? What I mean by this is that white ladies can clutch their purses in case a "vicious and dangerous" (sarcasm) black man passes by but I don't see what the average person can do to prevent the blue-eyed white people from controlling the banks.

What, are more white people gonna go around ruining economies cause that's just what white people do? It doesn't even make sense to argue it. It's just like having a white, blue-eyed running back in a football game have a fumble or two and then a scouter wouldn't give another white, blue-eyed running back a chance to play because "blue-eyed, white running backs always fumble the ball"

I just see it as him spewing hate and nothing more.

this guy said exactly what i was thinkin

 

[jibbycanoe]

wow dude is stupid. everyone can blame white people all they want but they might as well give up 75% of their daily comforts cus those came from white peopletoo
but I'm all good cus my eyes are grey.
oh and yea it is racist. blaming people of a certain color skin for something that many people had a part in is racist. and I know many of you don'tbelieve anything can be racist if it's AGAINST white people but that is just plain wrong

 

[chi ill]

WOW @ the ignorant people .

Listen to what Haze is saying and maybe you'd learn something .

Then read what the original post is about .
bn
He is going off of EVERYONE saying that BLACKS and POOR people are the cause of the state that we're in right now .

Is that true ? Hell no .

European Americans have ALWAYS been greedy ... & they still are today ... why are we in a recession ?

Haze is stating that Blacks COULDN'T be the cause of it because they don't own banks .

I hate when dudes ignore everything just to make a point . Stop being so ignorant .

& for the dude up there , God I forgot your screenname already ...

But , the "blue-eyed" part is a generalization .

Just like all Republicans generalized that poor people ... Blacks are the cause of everything .

Ridic .

 

[limitedretroog]

Woowww....