Black Culture Pathology, What to do?

Just in the last year and a half we have seen them loot, burn, murder, and pillage. Their stats on murder are horrendous. They choose to twerk on an ambulance rather than helping a shooting victim. There is definitely a problem with their culture. You’re 100 percent correct

 

Well that's something we can agree on.

Though I would add: no productivity, no eat. At least that offers those who are not suited to conventional employment, the opportunity to still earn their keep.

 

With the Job Guarantee, in an economy in which the private sector has a significant role (like China after Deng, but NOT like the USSR), we are talking about a small portion of the working-age population, in order to eliminate the final group who would otherwise be forced onto poverty-level "welfare". Most people will of course strive to produce the best outcomes for themselves they can, certainly not interested in "quickly learn how to simulate working without actually putting in any effort or achieving any productive result."

The JG is a local government-managed scheme which matches workers' abilities to local work requirements - outside of employment in the normal full-time public and private sector work-force, usually c. 95% of the available work-force in good ("full employment") times.

 

(Correction for post #999; I didnt have my glasses on when I replied the first time):.

You are still ignoring the reality of the 'musical chairs' aspect of our NAIRU economy.
.
And as to whether people can accept unemployment and homelessness in quiet despair, or react in anti-social ways, the problem of unemployment and homelessness remains..

 

No "productivity"? This is where your market economic orthodoxy fails. eg, a well-maintained public park; and streets free of junk consumer debris,(eg, carelessly discarded cans and packaging that trash the environment) are valuable social assets for the community.

 

Always appreciate being regarded as 100 percent correct.


I am continually amazed by the Liberal's excuse of special exceptionalism because after all, . . . .
My Freshman year at University and the existence of a
Black Students Union with any other racially based student
group forbidden was an eye opener.
And I was a Liberal!

Solution: No Taxpayer supported "thingies" may inquire
about race, gender, marriage status, etc. nor support
"thingies" that do so.

Solution: Only Chinese Tiger Mom types get
"bootstrap" grants as Black types have wasted
decades of those grants.



There are a couple of my solutions.
Anyone got any?


Moi
Support Mainstreaming

​

 

The idea that everybody will work and can hold a job is literally- gross ignorance. A job is a business deal between the employee and employer, with the employer buying the services the employee has to sell. The employer is a CUSTOMER, looking for a product that will enhance his operation

IF YOU HAVE NO PRODUCT OR SERVICES OF VALUE OR WILL NOT DELIVER THEM, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SELL- AND CANNOT HOLD A JOB.
YOU CAN'T GET A JOB BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OR WON'T FILL THE JOB.

Sadly, we have a substantial number of people whose attitudes are precisely like that. We also have far too many people, both citizens and politicians, willing to tell the people who are like that they are entitled to a full share of what they refuse to help earn- and those people literally promote failure BOTH OF THOSE UNMOTIVATED AND OF OUR SOCIETY. They destroy initiative and motivation. They promote dependence- and hostility over being dependent; they are enablers. Some who do that are just ignorant of human nature, some think of themselves as being kind or good, and some are in political power- using this ploy to make people more dependent on politics, thus giving themselves power over people too weak to stand on their own- which they must do because they too are weak and can't earn power or respect by their performance.. ALL these people denigrate this nation- and they do that by choice.

We don't have a fixed number of jobs like they were chairs in a game; that's a convenient excuse for not being willing to produce. It's BS; Hogwash, a Delusion.
What we do have is a lot of people with nothing to sell who are willing to apply for a job with a bad attitude, insuring they will be turned down- which keeps the welfare benefits rolling in. I've signed many a certificate for such people- they use them to prove they "tried" to get a job.

Opportunity is everywhere- but some expect it to be delivered in the form of a free check from government, qualifying for a benefit they don't deserve. That is stolen money- not compensation for the chair they could get.

 

No they won't. They'll take the easy way.

Wrong.

 

oopsy

 

Where is Jesse?
Where is Al?

Youtube Search
"black girls racist Asian"​

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+girls+racist+asian&sp=CAI%3D

Kumbaya Time ​

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-black-girls-charged-anti-155106351.html

Four Black girls charged in anti-Asian
subway train attack in Philadelphia​

Authorities say the Philadelphia subway attack on four local high school students was unprovoked and “based on ethnicity”.

Four Black teenaged girls in Philadelphia were charged Thursday in an attack on a group of Asian high school students riding a train.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office charged the suspects, whose ages range from 13 to 16, with aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.



When will "we" get real about the pathology of Black Culture?

Moi
Recovered Liberal, if any Liberal can truly be termed, "recovered"

View attachment 158974 ​

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-lives-matter-stands-jussie-200238198.html

Black Lives Matter stands with Jussie Smollett
after verdict, ​

Social-justice organization Black Lives Matter is still standing with Jussie Smollett after the actor was convicted Thursday of staging a racist, homophobic attack and lying to police about it. . .


It's Like O.J. all over again.
But, more so.


Moi

Thank You Roma Downy ​

 

<sigh> https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-york...ted-in-campaign-finance-scheme-160907494.html

A Credit To His Democratic Party.

New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin arrested in campaign finance scheme​

New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin was arrested Tuesday morning after surrendering to the police on federal bribery charges.

The five charges revolve around Benjamin’s failed bid for New York City comptroller last year. He is accused of working with a real estate investor in order to arrange for thousands of dollars in illegal campaign donations for which, in exchange, Benjamin directed state funds to the investor. Then a state senator, Benjamin finished fourth in the Democratic primary for comptroller.

According to the indictment, he is facing counts of bribery, honest services wire fraud and falsification of records. . .


BRAVO N.Y. Liberals.
The same dynamic that propelled Kamala through a series
of California (who cares) offices to a heartbeat from
the presidency. Herded by Willi Brown

Lib voters really so ignorant?
Libs, fine. Just require honest candidates


Moi
"They" never caught up to Maxine Waters

​

 

~ Anyone paying attention knows what is going on in western governments these days — social society engineering/manipulation. Psychological " warfare " at play ‐ with mainstream media as the weapon. Fortunately it has been an awful effort — obvious to everyone but the willfully ignorant . Typical of big government .

There is hope ...

 

Your insistence on poverty as the sanction for "taking the easy way" is absurd, in an age where scarcity is artificial.

In an AI and IT assisted economy, everyone can be directed to above poverty employment, because the resources are available.

While most people will no doubt prefer to be incentivized to prosper in the free market, not everyone can compete in a labor market which is characterized by un/under-employment.

(link)
The Case for a Job Guarantee | Wiley

 

Got Hope?
No Al Jazeera nor RT News on "cable"

as before. ​

Keep the masses badly informed.


I was on the telephone with my
Republican Assemblyman representing The O.C.
in the way back time. He tried to express our
textbooks were too worshipful of FDR social
programs and pre-WW2 economy.
I understand better today what he was trying to communicate.
Similar to the quote above, I think.

Somehow I got on the telephone with him
without hardly a gatekeeper.

I was programmed for St. FDR & Truman too.


Moi

​

 

No, it's justice. You don't contribute, you don't get to take.

Scarcity is natural, abundance artificial. Duh.

No, because there is a difference between above-poverty employment and an above-poverty income for simulating employment. The available resources couldn't matter less, just as the fact that there are more women in the world than men doesn't mean every man can get -- or should have -- a wife.

But a job guarantee is a band-aid solution to the problem, which is the artificial barriers to employment. A job guarantee leaves the barriers in place and just tries to push everyone over them. Can't work.

Is garbage I have refuted many times.

 

Weird sense of "justice"; in your reading, it has apparently has nothing to do with the eradication of poverty.

Of course everyone NEEDS to contribute and be rewarded at above poverty level, it's just that the free labour market makes this impossible.

Scarcity is NOT natural when there is more than enough resources to decently house, clothe, feed AND emply everyone. Wakey wakey.

(Note: the Job Guarantee will normally involve a very small part of the the labour market, so incentive and reward will not be negatively affected by public-sector matching of ability and above- poverty reward by those unable to compete in the NAIRU job market.

For example, assisting the nursing staff as directed, and consistent with the worker's abilities, to improve the quality of life of residents in nursing homes is NOT "simulating" employment.

The eradication of poverty has both a moral and practical urgency to it.

Enabling everyone to participate above poverty level, given there is NO resource constraint, is not equivalent to enabling everyone to find the mate of their dreams, (where there indeed might be a 'resource' constraint......)

Of course a JG can work, if you remove your blind "justice" blinkers (a weird sense of "justice", forcing the persistence of poverty). Your Georgism (iirc) won't correct the insufficiencies of a competitive job market.

Get back to me when you concede poverty IS eradicable, via guaranteed universal participation (guaranteed, when necessary).

 

No, it is correct.

Correct. Justice requires poverty for those who take more than they contribute.

Not everyone CAN or WANTS TO contribute at above poverty level.

No, the privilege system does, and there is nothing free about it.

Yes it is. Scarcity is not a question of amount of resources. It is the relation between limited resources and unlimited uses therefor.

Wakey wakey.

The "NAIRU job market" is a contrivance, nothing but anti-economic bull$#!+ intended to obscure the fact that unemployment is caused by privilege.

It is if the value of the resulting contribution is less than the wages paid therefor.

No it doesn't, because those who take more than they contribute -- and especially those who take more than they would if comatose, and contribute nothing -- deserve to live in poverty.

But there self-evidently and indisputably is a resource constraint, and it is false and absurd to claim there isn't.

I didn't say anything about the mate of one's dreams. You simply made that up. And it is very definitely equivalent to enabling every man to have a wife.

No, that is false, because some people deserve to be poor.

It's not Georgism, and yes, it will, by removing the privileges that cause unemployment.

It is eradicable in the same sense that bachelorhood is. And just as inadvisably.

Problem is, poverty is not the problem.

Inequality is also not the problem.

Injustice is the problem, and a job guarantee is at best a band-aid solution that will only obscure the problem, enabling it to fester and metastasize.

 

That's wrong because no-one deserves or requires to live in poverty; and measurement of contribution requires acknowledgement of ability to contribute.

Correct, as noted above; recognition of different abilities is necessary in determining the poverty level.

Of course everyone (of sound mind) WANTS to participate above poverty-level.

No argument from me: privilege is obviously an unjust advantage.

Unlimited uses...AFTER everyone is participating above poverty level, as a minimum condition of participation.

.

NAIRU is theoretical nonsense, yes, designed by orthodox practitioners within the debt-money system, who propose a buffer unemployment pool as the price-stability maintenance tool.
(MMT posits a buffer employment pool, as the price stability mechanism).

"Value" needs to be determined in ways beyond those determined in private sector markets, at least after an economy is capable of providing more than the basic requirements for all.

Addressed and refuted above.

Nonsense; there are sufficient resources to house, clothe, feed and, employ everyone. The problem in today's AI and IT assisted economies is lack of demand, not lack of supply; the result of poor resource mobilization benefiting the few.

eg, re oil production (and phoney current high prices) -soon to be replaced with renewables - should be free, via being nationalized and distributed by currency-issuing governments who don't need to tax or borrow from the private sector (or private banskters who currently retain the sole privilege of creating debt-money).

So every man can't have a wife - but he can satisfy his perceived desires "above poverty level"... (see how that works?)

Addressed above; most normal people want to contribute and therefore don't deserve to be forced into poverty. As for "poor", that is relative; one can be 'poor' but not in poverty.

Privilege is only one cause of poverty in a post industrial AI and IT assisted economy, as noted above.

Addressed above; if there are more women in the world than men, bachelorhood is ineradicable.

As to advisability, that has nothing to do with enforced poverty.

Still, the benefits of eradicating poverty are profound, in terms of community well-being (mental health and physical health, criminality, ie, wasted resources dealing with the consequences of poverty)

Correct, though increasing inequality alongside systemic poverty is a problem for social cohesion.

I could say life is neither "fair" nor "just", but nevertheless we CAN eradicate poverty.

 

No, my statement is objectively correct because lots of people deserve to live in poverty by virtue of the fact that they take more than they contribute.

No it doesn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

No it isn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

Sure, but wanting to "participate" by having above-poverty-level purchasing power does not in any way imply wanting to contribute commensurately.

It's also the cause of most unemployment and poverty, which cannot, repeat, cannot be meaningfully addressed without tackling privilege.

No, there are unlimited uses regardless of whether anyone is participating above poverty level.

Because their only real priority is to rationalize and justify privilege, and that means ruthlessly suppressing the fact that privilege is the problem.

Thus likewise obscuring the fact that privilege is the problem, not poverty, unemployment, or price instability.

No it doesn't, because value is what something would trade for regardless of how much the economy can provide.

Nope. I have refuted your claims.

Resources are still constrained because while there are sufficient resources to do those things, there are other uses for those resources that many people consider to be of higher priority than housing, clothing, feeding and employing everyone, and there are not sufficient resources to do all those things.

No it isn't, as the maintenance of demand and resulting price increases in the midst of COVID has proved. It's lack of JUSTICE.

No, it's the result of the greedy, parasitic few being legally entitled to charge the productive full market value just for their permission to mobilize resources.

I will take all your money on that one.

Nonsense. As long as there isn't enough for everyone to have all they want, non-zero prices provide an efficient allocation mechanism.

We can agree that private banksters should not be legally entitled to increase the money supply in order to provide themselves with unearned interest income. But that is a different matter from how publicly issued debt- and interest-free money should be spent.

No, I don't, because he cannot. You want government to enable every man to do so, but it would be just as possible for government to enable every man to have a wife -- and just as idiotic.

Of course that is correct. But "most normal people" is very, very different from everyone.

The distinction eludes me. It would be useful at this point to have clear, agreed definitions of those terms. Can you offer any candidates? We might start by distinguishing between relative and absolute poverty.

But it is by far the principal cause, and trying to eradicate poverty while leaving privilege intact cannot possibly work: the privileged will just take whatever you try to give the poor. We have seen the proof of this in the skyrocketing rents that have accompanied even the modest distributions of COVID relief funds. The more money you give poor people, the more landowners will demand from them just for permission to live.

Non sequitur.

Poverty resulting from one's own voluntary choices is not "enforced."

Some of the alleged negative consequences of poverty are in fact consequences of the unwise behaviors and undesirable personality traits that lead to poverty.

When people know that it results from injustice. Not so much when they can see justice in it.

The fact that life is not just is not a reason to make it even less just, which raising out of poverty those who deserve poverty would do.

 

~ There no longer is anything democratic about today's progressive " woke " Democrat Party ...

~ This is an over generalization and ignores the psychology of those in the cycle of social economic downturn and poverty. Many of these individuals have been ignored for too long. Politicians are busy pandering for votes instead of actually solving problems. We can do better ...

 

I've done a lot or research on this- not just racial, but how people develop the mindsets they use over the long term, and how that affects their capacity to thrive, to find and maximize their own capacities.

With the black culture or any culture which has a fairly predominant of common set of factors- it is easier to do. While complex, I think much less so than many believe.
The key to how you think is what you are imprinted with when you are very young- the first few years as a child. I say imprinted, because much of this goes to the level of sub-conscious and become the instruments you judge by. If you see violence used as a control mechanism in that environment, you are programmed with it. You may not use it frequently- but it is there, and when frustration is too much- it will be there.

I'm saying that the concept of a nuclear family- a close environment with both parents, demonstrating self-respect, love, responsibility and strong individual values is probably the largest single factor in the shaping of child's mind and personality.

If you compare metrics on the aspects of these things in various cultures, you find much of this is absent, abnormally high- in the black community. The rates of undesirable social conduct- crime, violence, etc- in the adults is fairly parallel to the quality of environment they were raised in. Of course this is not something locked in, it's possible to come from the worst environment and become an outstanding person- or vice versa. However- those are more exceptions than the rule.

The question is- how do we change that - or can we? The answer to that is tied to the fact that we as a society do not have the power to do that, to make people responsible, caring parents.
I've been involved in a major project to help change this- and was totally shocked with the response, the sum of which was the effort was wasted. I think we need to keep doors open, be sure opportunity is not restricted- but beyond that, stop protecting people from the consequences of their own decisions, and stop supporting the idea that other people are responsible for those consequences.
A hand-up is a good thing; it helps a person who wants to be independent and self-sufficient to achieve it. However, a hand-out is a bad thing; it tends to be seen as a long-overdue payment on an old bill, and is not appreciated or used beneficially- it only enables more of the same. Similar efforts have been made all over America in a hundred ways.... and no visible positive result has come from most of them.

I'm saying that this condition is not our responsibility. It is not the result of the slavery of 200 years ago; it's the result of choices being made in the lives of existing people- grandparents, parents and their children- today. Worst thing we can do is help them deny that.
I think you are absolutely right in saying that we have been using the wrong approach. I would add that the needed change must happen within the culture, there is no other way- and we can best promote that by not pretending there is.

 

It's true that some of the non-contributory poor have been traumatized and rendered non-contributory through no fault of their own. But it is fantasy to think that describes all of the undeserving poor. Some people are just born perverse, nasty, lazy, sociopathic, etc.; sometimes the genetic dice come up snake-eyes. And while it may not be their "fault" that they were born that way, that is the way they are, they can't be rehabilitated, they consequently don't (and may never) deserve anything but poverty, and that's no one else's fault, either.

First we would have to understand the problem. Most people do not want to.

 

~ Good thoughts. I feel sorry for the " mentally challenged " and impoverished of society. Sadly there never seems to be any common sense humanity coming off Capitola Hill to deal with the dregs of society.

 

Going along with the discussion between the two of you:

"Common sense humanity" requires government institution of a Job Guarantee to deal with "the dregs of society" , not least because both of you have agreed that no-one "chooses" the genes responsible.

Bringiton is straying into ugly territory, even if it is reality: as you say (I think, certainly I am saying it) , humans can do better than merely accept nature's ugliness. There is no economic reason which would prevent the introduction of a Job Guarantee.