Black Culture Pathology, What to do?

While nobody thinks poverty is a good thing- it's also something you can't eliminate. Many people's idea of fixing things is to throw other people money at it. That might be tolerable if it worked, but all our history of it says it does not. Unfortunately the nature that is ugly in this world- is human nature. Nature itself has produced millions of thriving species that use no government, no doctors, no nothing in the way of constructs to thrive, and they did that without trashing r poisoning the world or using up the natural resources. All the damage to the natural world, as well as the misery of our own problems- are brought about by our own bad decisions and arrogance.

Nature has a short rule list for the process of living successfully- and humans are the only ones that ignore it all. IF we accepted the rules of nature- we would be thriving too. It's not that they are secret, but that we assume we are smarter and can ignore the principles that have worked so well for all other species, and make up our own.

Could we do better? Of course we could. But it won't happen by rewarding people for being unproductive, protecting them from the consequences of their own mistakes, for helping blame others instead of looking to themselves. Society doesn't make people what they are- people make society what it is. When we learn how to breed and raise people right, the society they comprise will do well- but it will never thrive as a people who will not stand on their own feet. A "Guaranteed job" is welfare program. IF a person is productive, they don't need a guarantee. If they are not, they don't deserve a guarantee.

 

MMT "throws" the currency-issuing government's money at it, via the Job Guarantee; note, the 'government's money' (created ex nihilo in its own treasury and reserve bank) is NOT 'taxpayer money', much of which which is created ex nihilo when private banks write loans for credit worthy customers; and which in our system even the government is forced to tax or borrow from the private sector, before the government can spend.

See Warren Mosler's: '7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy'.

Nothing to learn from history, because we are still living in a money-as-debt world, created in the middle ages when money lenders discovered they could charge interest on loans, long before governments considered they had any responsibility for the welfare of their citizens.

Bringiton has a different slant: "It's true that some of the non-contributory poor have been traumatized and rendered non-contributory through no fault of their own. (My comment: very true). 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"

ie faulty genes are the problem. What would you say is the cause of "ugly" human nature (and do only some display 'ugly human nature') ?

That's because humans invent technology, to intervene in nature.
Implementing sustainable prosperity for all is the task of a modern economic system (since such a goal is achievable in the modern AI and IT assisted economy).

Addressed above; humans dream of - and proceed to - exploring space.

It's more complicated for humans. Nature is a survival of the fittest, evolutionary paradigm; humans are dreamers and doers - far beyond the confines of life in nature's predatory 'tooth and claw' hell.

Addressed above, We MUST be smarter than other species, or be subject to the same fate as other species ie extinction.

Refuted above. Your whole argument is based on the erroneous concept of "other people's money" .

Correct, including the government and rule of law required to avoid anarchy.

Genes?

We can all be productive, just not in the competitive free market, 'money as debt' system.... a system which itself is in fact a reflection of the law of the jungle ('survival of the fittest').....

 

Nope. No more than it requires institution of a marriage guarantee, because the dregs of society are no more employable than they are marriageable.

The fact that their genetic identity is not their choice is completely irrelevant. It is what they are, and the best we can do is to treat them accordingly.

The widespread unwillingness to hear, know, or think about unpleasant truths is very much Part Of The Problem.

It's not a question of accepting it, but of determining the best way of dealing with it. Pretending it is not what it is is never a good way.

But there are both economic and moral reasons -- as well as political ones -- that make it a bad idea.

 

But 99.999% of them are extinct.

News flash: we are thriving -- spectacularly -- precisely by defying the rules of nature that other species lack the brains to get around.

Another news flash: our ancestors either out-competed or exterminated all rival hominid species precisely because they defied the ancient natural principles that all those other species still adhered to.

 

Everyone is employable, with the right assistance, but not everyone is marriageable because

1. There aren't enough women,

2. not everyone wants a mate.

3. not everyone can bring the necessary qualities to a successful relationship, whereas as noted above, everyone can be assisted to engage usefully in the economic or at least social life of the community - if you regard, eg, assistance to improve the quality of life for the elderly in nursing homes, has no economic value.

By leaving them to subsist in poverty? The government can do better, at no cost to you, in fact to the betterment of society as a whole, as the negative effects of poverty on the whole community are removed.

But a recognition of a JG as a solution is NOT part of the problem.

I offer the MMT JG, with minimal call on the nation's resources and know how.

What is your "best way" of dealing with the problem?

Addressed above. Your solution?

 

~ The legalization of Psilocybin could be the answer. Psychedelic mushrooms can have profound effects on people — for some it's a kind of epiphany. No religion or faith necessary .

` ' A better world awaits .. .
​

 

Let's first address your responses: Totally- Bovine Excrement. The kind of manure liberal minds produce thinking it rational. Whether you bought it or invented it, same thing,

For those who can think logically and independently, I will address the "My solution" question.

Poverty is not just a financial condition. It is a psychological one- a state of mind, and even more so.

Excluding things such as people in poverty because of medical crisis and some conditions genuinely beyond their control-
we have the people in poverty who are equipped with exactly the same basic tools as everyone else- body, brain and senses.
The difference in their status results almost totally from how well they use those tools. How well they manage their own thinking, how well they assess and perceive their own
position and how that related to the world. Only the individual can control these things, because only the individual has the power. Society doe not.

Being rich or being wealthy are also not just financial positions. They are also perceptions. The assumption that if you have money you will become wealthy- is fantasy. Lottery winners for example quickly acquire enough money to live comfortably indefinitely, yet a very large percentage of them are bankrupt in five years. They are made rich- temporarily, but lacking the understanding of wealth and the capacity to manage it, build and maintain it- they are soon poor again. Wealth is self-sufficient and grows- and it requires a state of mind as well as skills, and you cannot give that to any one. Like a great many thing- if you don't have that state of mind, you can't begin to understand it. IF you understand it, no explanation is needed. IF you do not, no explanation is possible. It can be acquired by someone that does not, but that will be a fundamental change in how they think that can only be completed by the individual. Personal independence is not unlike that; you must develop the abilities to use it, manage and maintain it. That cannot be giftd- you have to work for it, refuse to compromise that objective.

The old proverb of "Giving man a fish and you feed him for a day" is very applicable here. That man is dependent on the next fish, everyday. Humans want to be free- and dependence on others, no matter the good intent behind the support, causes us to feel bound like slaves- and that causes great resentment. The growing philosophy of "entitlement" for example, is a way to tell yourself that you are not dependent on support, but are collecting a long overdue bill from those who have cheated you out of what you rightfully deserved. That only eases the pain of being dependent-by changes the perception of the reality.

his, like many other things growing in favor today- does not relieve poverty, it falsely sanitizes it and perpetuates it. IF a man is to be free of poverty- he must be willing to at least, carry his own load. There is no alternative. If you feel seeing poverty is so painful you must provide money to further enable and perpetuate it- you are buying some kind of feel-good emotion at the price of the pride and independence of the person you "help".

A society can provide leadership and many things to help people in such positions- but where will we lead them? Their greatest need- serving both their financial and psychological needs- is to be free of dependence, to be self sufficient, to be able to feel pride and self-respect. Humans have many natural tendencies, including looking for the easy way out of today's problems, when we really need to be addressing a permanent solution to tomorrows problems. In nature- success of any species is dependent on just a few principle rules, and nature has millions of species that have thrived for millions of years so those rules clearly work. One that is applicable here, crudely stated- is that if you don't hunt, you don't eat. In simple terms- Hunger is the motivator to get to work and produce something. Thus- while poverty appeals to you sympathies, you reaction controls the solution to it. Eliminate the motivation and you perpetuate the dependence- and the problem grows.

The number of people now dependent on some kind of welfare in America is close to 50 million. A large part of them are part of what's called "generational welfare". Many of which are 4th or 5th generation Welfare recipients. For whatever the reason, we have become a culture of dependency in which poverty is a trap. Generation poverty is defined as children of parents in poverty grow up to live in poverty themselves in a continuous cycle for at least two generations.

The best thing we could do to eliminate poverty is to stop perpetuating it.

None of this means we don't help people who are genuinely unable to help themselves. Don't get that confused.

People in poverty, with a few exceptions- have the same basic tools as the rest of us, and are physically capable of doing for themselves. They don't use them- because they have been conditioned to live off others. That is a psychological condition- and gifted money will not cure it; it will perpetuate it. Our history documents that fact.

 

No they are not. You are just denying reality. Furthermore, the advance of AI is certain to mean that fewer and fewer people are employable, until no one is. That proves, repeat, PROVES that employment and jobs are not and never were the real problem.

There most certainly are. It's just that most of the surplus is in the oldest demographics.

NOT EVERYONE WANTS A JOB, EITHER.

Bingo. Likewise with employment relationships.

1. No they cannot;
2. Engaging in the social life of the community is not a job and does not make one employable;
3. To be genuine and not simulated, employment requires that the employee produce value at least equal to the wages, benefits, and other costs of employing them;
4. A lot fewer people are able and willing to do that than are able and willing to engage in the social life of the community, so you are invalidly and disingenuously moving the goalposts.

You greatly over-estimate the number of otherwise unemployable people who would be willing and able to perform such labor. It is not easy, and few have the temperament for it. It is also very difficult to judge its value relative to alternative uses for labor.

Correct. Poverty is what some people deserve.

Wrong. At a minimum, recipients of this proposed largesse are going to be bidding against me for the goods and services I want to consume.

That is an assumption on your part.

But replaced by the potentially greater negative effects of injustice.

Yes, it is, because a JG is not a solution, only a band-aid treatment for one symptom of the disease.

That claim is based on a false notion of resources. Resource prices rise long before all the resources are in use.

Same as the solution to all our other public policy problems: liberty and justice. Specifically, with regard to reducing unemployment and poverty:
1. reduction or abolition of taxes that bear on employment, production and productive investment, including taxes on wage income, value added, broad consumption, capital gains and business profits;
2. abolition of monopoly privileges that artificially suppress production, supply, and employment, mainly patents and copyrights;
3. removal of private banks' privilege of increasing the money supply to provide themselves with unearned interest income, and issuance of all new money to the national Treasury debt- and interest-free by an independent Mint, whose sole mandate is price stability as measured by a commodity price index weighted by value of final deliveries;
4. repayment, by their private holders, of the full rental value of land and other natural resources to the community that creates that value;
5. extension of a universal individual exemption to the above repayment of location value sufficient to ensure everyone has free, secure access to economic opportunity through exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to live on, as just compensation for the removal of their natural liberty right to use all land non-exclusively;
6. expansion of public expenditure on desirable services and infrastructure to encompass all such investments as cannot efficiently be provided by the private sector because of market failure conditions, and which will increase the recoverable rental value of locations or other natural resources enough to defray the cost of such expenditures.

These measures are not as simple and easy to understand as a job guarantee, but they will be far more effective, and will solve multiple other problems.

 

Some work will still need to be done, by whom will be sorted by government; and money created out of nothing (as always) to fund that work is the answer. Hence the equivalent of a job and income guarantee.

Whatever, the moral stance is universal provision of the basic necessities. After the community achieves that much, those who dream of gold-plating their toilets can do so if they have the ability to enforce such a claim on the economy's output.

A weak argument; when the only way to get money is to work, then everyone wants to work

When there are insufficient jobs in the market economy to employ everyone above poverty level, then jobs desired by the public will overcome that insufficiency.

Currency-issuing government can set above-poverty level prices via debt-free money issuance. The private sector will have to compete, to maintain wages above poverty level.

No, you are hung up on market-determined 'value'; social activity also has value.

Local councils can find plenty of non-market work the community would like done, on an ad hoc basis. The issue is funding - which MMT deals with.

You already noted the system drives some people into poverty. 'Nuf said.

Spoken like Louis the XIV. Well done. But the "largesse" is reward for engaging in socially useful work not profitable in the market (as outlined above), funded by the currency-issuing government at minimal cost to you.

 

Just to alert that YOU may not know much about economics and the nature of money:

Who’s afraid of MMT? | Jordan Times

"As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique, that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon".

(my comment: ie they are defending the current illusory, flat earth, money as debt orthodoxy) .

"As a result, tormenting central bankers is great fun. John Maynard Keynes famously tormented Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England (BOE) from 1920 to 1944. Wright Patman and Henry Reuss, two US congressmen who chaired the House Banking Committee in the 1970s, did the same to Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns. I know that Reuss enjoyed it; I assisted him at the time".

Good, let's read on.

I think bringiton and I already agreed with that...and toss in some shitty genes....for which people are not responsible.

And how do you propose to deal with that reality?

But not the same EXPERIENCE of disadvantage (cultural or economic)

You are ignoring the reality of cultural and economic disadvantage; blacks in the US endure five times the incarceration rate, and twice the poverty rate as non-blacks.

Meanwhile, some whites are living in poverty.

How do propose to eliminate those statistics?

Now it's my turn: this is Conservative 'bovine excrement'.

BOTH society and the individual determine the outcome for society and individuals. Poverty alleviation is a task for both society (via government) AND individuals.

The remainder of your post is based on denial of this simple reality of the relationship between individual and collective well-being

 

You have the impression that white people didn't care about or decry the shooting. That is nonsense. You fail to see that the gun rights arguments start with nearly every shooting. They are political. They don't make the shooting OK.

 

I have been a business owner/operator for 53 years. Currently CEO of a small corporation doing business in more that 110 nations. It's the 8th and last of my ventures- I'm old.
That means- I have one hell of a lot of experience with business.... and money. I didn't make the 1% bracket last year- but I did make the 2% bracket. I've never taken a dime in any kind of government support or aid, including the covid checks. I've seen myself through cancer surgery at a time I was dead broke and had no insurance- and paid all my bills. Half the males in my family are millionaires- running businesses I created.
What do you suggest I do next, to learn about "economics and the nature of money:" ??

I had zero economic advantage. I decided to leave a bad job and go into business for myself- having one paycheck in hand, an old pickup truck and some hand tools. I rented a building for a tore by convincing the landlord to trust me, promising to pay the deposit and rent after I had made some money. I convinced a handful of suppliers to take a similar chance, and give me small lines of credit. My "cultural advantage" was that both my parent worked more than 12 hours a day, every day. I worked to help when I wasn't in school or taking care of elderly family living with us. That IS a cultural advantage- I learned that people work for a living, and didn't complain about it. Both of course were veterans of the great depression. People raised in deadbeat homes don't learn that- but they still can think, still can make their own choice.
Hard times make good people people strong and productive. They make lazy people complain and say they can't. My parents told me- it was up to me to make it on my own, and I was always held accountable. for doing my part. That doesn't comes from genes, but from attitude- self-respect, the desire to be independent. It's a choice- that anyone in any circumstances can make. It just takes more character to choose to be something than to choose to be nothing.

Read the paragraph above again.

So here- we get down to the core issue- "eliminating those statistics", and you think that the solution lies somewhere outside the people who create them.
While there are a variety of situations here- the one of critical importance is the statistic created by those who, to quote and old saying- "Would if they could, but can't because they won't.".
There are two basic forms of social assistance. The first can be called a "Hand-up". This is the support by friends, neighbors or community to help someone who is down and out by accident. A couple years ago a farmer I knew had over 2,000 acres of wheat to plant and harvest every year. Not poor, he did well- worked hard. Healthy man, until pancreatic cancer popped up, and harvest was coming. His many friends didn't ask if he needed help, didn't even ask for permission. They just got together, and went out and harvested his crops, got them to the grain elevator- and gave him the receipts. Not charity at all, just community support for a person who had always supported others, and would do the same for them if conditions were reversed. Farmers have done this as a common custom for a very long time. I've helped many people who were in trouble for reasons genuinely beyond their control- but people who only want to get back on their feet and resume their place in the community, or genuinely can't. If I help a total stranger, they may offer to pay me- and my answer has always been "Pass it forward- help somebody else." Last month- I gave an elderly widow living on a farm, a car- Not new; it was Toyota Avalon with 70K on it. Her husband did not leave her secure- money was running out, and her old buick was no longer reliable. Didn't ask, just did it. Paid all the tax and tag expense as well.

The second kind of social assistance can be called a "Hand-out". Totally different than a hand-up, in that the hand up restores a person to a contributing position in the community- where a hand-out insures they will never need to become that. It enables them to get by without contributing- and such people have no problem living with nothing better. That is a character issue you cannot change, cannot influence to change. until the individual chooses to change. The longer you make it possible for that person to avoid the consequences of avoiding responsibility for themselves- the more tolerance they have for living in that condition. Thus, their children often follow suit. This is still a choice that each such person has the power to make- and you cannot force them to make the right choice. But you can enable the acceptance and continuance of poverty, perpetuate the statistics and lower the quality of the community by continuing to offer an option to responsibility. Really bad idea for everybody involved.

Yes, you could eliminate the statistic of poverty- by subsidizing those who refuse to produce by taking the wealth of those who do. It's not society that creates those statistics, nor do we make the decisions for the people who do. If and when the people in poverty decide to change their condition, assistance can help. Until they are dedicated to that end- all you do by giving them other people's money in to insure the hand that is out today... will be out tomorrow. You make it unnecessary for them to support themselves, so they don't. They want the same things you and I have, they just see no reason to work for it. Kind of like another old saying- Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk free?

A "Better World" is not one with a free lunch on every corner. It's one where people recognize the least load occurs when each person carries their own weight, and doesn't expect to ride free on someone else's back. If each person supported just one person- everyone would be cared for. If you are capable of doing that and won't- nobody should help you.

 

Unfortunately, you seem to be limited by the liberal tunnel vision.

Gun rights and crime are NOT the same issue. The anti-gun people try hard to make the gun the criminal, because that fits their near-sighted objective, to relieve their fear of guns. IF they weren't stupid- they would fear the criminal, not the gun. A murder is a criminal act, and a person intent on murder does not need a gun- the same result can be produced by use of most anything as a weapon; a knife, a baseball bat, fists, etc.
So- the guns are not really the key element at all, and focusing on them is a distraction from the key element, which is ALWAYS the violent person. Unlike that person- a gun is a mechanical device and has no malice towards anyone.

IF we applied anti-gun logic to auto accidents, we would be arresting cars instead of drunk drivers. I'm a strong gun-rights advocate- and the constitution backs that up. I'm also a hard-liner on crime. Makes no difference who commits the crime, so long as it is not self-defense or justifiable homicide or accidental- it's murder, and the laws apply to the murderer. I've never met a gun owner who has a problem with that.
When you start confusing yourself, start justifying violence with "socioeconomic" excuses, you have lost your way. Violent crime is a choice- and we are all responsible for what we chose to do.

 

~ Unfortunately today's " progressive " Democrat Party do not live in reality but instead believe in an immature fairly tale " better world" that does not exist. They promote unrealistic goals and ideas based on hope, dreams and change without regard to what actually has worked in the past.
Hopefully the Biden/Harris catastrophe will be the catalyst for change — much like Trump unexpectedly did for the Republican Party.

 

No. Wrong. The work will all be done by AI, because AI will be able to do it better and cheaper than any human being. This proves that jobs and unemployment are not and never were the problem. And do you really think government can decide who does what work? Orwell would like a word with you.

No, I already proved it isn't: paying people to do "work" that does not contribute anything is mere simulated employment, and completely misunderstands the actual problem, no matter where the money comes from. You are just infatuated with MMT's promised utopia, and can't find a willingness to know the relevant facts.

Busywork? Really? That's your "solution"?

There's nothing moral about that. Justice requires that those who do not contribute not be entitled to take from the community of those who do.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

There is no way to create an economy where the only way to get money is to work. It is impossible, and always has been. You are just fantasizing.

Via wasteful and absurd simulated jobs? Busywork? What an outrageous and disgusting notion.

If it is stupid and wants to cause inflation.

Inflation.

That is just an equivocation fallacy. Value in the relevant sense -- i.e., for purposes of productive allocation -- is what a thing would trade for in a market.

You are not paying attention. The issue is NOT funding. The issue is ensuring allocation of resources is not wasteful. Giving money to local councils to throw away on an ad hoc basis does not address that issue.

No, because some is not all, and the absurd MMT JG leaves that system intact. Indeed, AFAICT, that is its intended purpose.

That is an absurd and disingenuous smear with no basis in fact.

And refuted above. The fact that it might be considered "socially useful" by someone does not mean it is worth doing, or paying for.

The cost to me is hardly the point, or the end of the story.

 

Ridiculous; once technology advanced past fire, jobs and employment were THE problem, and still are. (A robot utopia is still a long way away).

Government MUST intervene in the free market; either as directed by the electorate, or by a one party meritocracy.

Already addressed; markets can NEVER be the sole source of value determination if you want a well-ordered community.

That's just your false ideology of 'value' creation.

You are insisting people should be rewarded solely on the basis of contribution to resource development in markets, refuted above.

News flash, in our present economy, the only legal way to get money is to work (other than choose the 'right' parents).

If you have the talent, busking might be immeasurably more valuable than the CEO of Cokacola, who is merely destroying the community's health and wealth.

As to inflation, it is always related to a resource constraint. There is no resource constraint that would prohibit provision of the basics for all.

That's just your narrow view of value.

Note the underlined; who determines "what is wasteful" ? The 'invisible hand' which is the total of self-interested players? Ridiculous. Only intelligence-directed government planning can determine what is wasteful. See Kate Rawworth's sustainable economics.

The purpose of MMT's JG is to eradicate the socially-harmful business cycle.

Refuted above. And it can be paid for by the currency-issuer at no cost to you, so long as the resources are available, to avoid inflation.

Well then stop banging on about funding, or "paying for".

 

Study this, since you are retired:

Innocent Frauds - Mosler Economics / Modern Monetary Theory

"I begin with the innocent frauds of the budget deficit, because they are the most pervasive and most damaging to both the US and the rest of the world’s standard of living".

Mosler gained his stripes in investment banking; like you he was in the 1%, but unlike you he is capable of discerning why most people are not.....

You endless autobiography is getting boring, in the context of this thread.

Why? You have no idea how the macro-economy works; your endless references to your own microeconomic experiences (ie, your life's work) is irrelevant to solving macroeconomic realities.

Because society functions a a whole, as well as the units that make up the whole. There is nothing to prevent the US govt from bulldozing black ghettos and ensuring everyone can gain suitable employment.

Everyone needs some support at some stage, it's matter of determining the best support.

By "accident"...eg being born black in the US; blacks who experience 5 times the incarceration rate.

Pass.

MMT explains eliminating poverty can be achieved without "taking other peoples' wealth". You can choose to ignore this fact.

Yes it is, or rather, the system creates the statistics....

It ought to be the government's task to ensure everyone can participate above poverty level, since it's not the job of the private sector.

'Chicken and egg' argument? We need to bypass that one.

MMT teaches us the hoary old "other peoples' money"...like Thatcher herself....is based on obsolete, flat-earth, 'money as debt' economics.

Who said anything about a free lunch? That's just more Thatcher nonsense.

Note: many billionaires doubled their wealth in their sleep during the covid lockdown, while many saw their life's savings destroyed. Such is the current dysfunctional system - talk about "everyone bearing the load"....

 

First- you won't find me supporting fiscal irresponsibility in government; if it were up to me- there would be no debt or deficit spending, we would live within our means and build a buffer fund to be prepared for the unexpected. My own success embraces that philosophy. Fiscal prudence is far easier to support when you must make your own money, pay your own bills. When you are spending other people money- tax dollars- the tendency is somewhat parallel to a drug addict kid with daddy's credit card. I'm working on a way to fix that. Not a list of complaints- a solution.
On to the rest of your lists of why life is so unfair...

It's easy and popular for those who cannot achieve to tell those who have why they don't know what they're doing. It's also horseshit. If you can't do it and make it work, you do not understand it- and that means your opinion is just emotional expression.

(A) I'm NOT retired. I'm less hands-on, but still the active boss in my business. I make the deals, I sign the chacks.

(B) I KNOW why most people are not wealthy. Unlike your heroes, I've been far more interested in showing them how they can rather than making others do it for them. When the bar has to be lowered and the leaders handicapped for you to get over the finish line- you ARE NOT a winner. So long as you think that's how it works- you won't ever be.

(C) My "autobiography" is there for one reason- to point out that I speak from experience, not speculation. Most of the things I've learned about becoming successful have been learned from people who ARE successful, much more than I. I frequently walked right up to them and respectfully asked them to tell me their secrets- and most will, if you don't make an ass of yourself in the way you approach and ask them.

(D) We all live in the same world- and while we may be in different physical positions or circumstances, it is your mental position that determines your capacity to succeed. How you think-
makes the difference between Elon Musk and the people whose names will never be notable anywhere.

(E) Society DOES NOT function as a whole. It does not make us, we make it. It's not the equivalent of your parent who was obligated to change you diapers- it's the composites of adults, who may or may not
have the mental maturity of adults. Society is not responsible for you - YOU are responsible for it. When you make your life work- when you live honorably- you improve society and the world. When you sit on your ass and blame the world, you are changing it too- to make it reflect your attitude.

(F) The government is also nothing more than the composite of the people. It's job is not to provide for you- but to keep the playing field fair. NOT to drag the slackers to success and comfort, but to make it possible to do well. IF that condition didn't exist- America and American people would not have the history of success it does, and we would not be the place everyone in the world wants to migrate too.
Success is a challenge- much like a mountain. Some climb it, others sit around and bitch because it's too steep; too hard; demand somebody cut it down to the size they want - so they can walk up it. America's challenge is already perhaps the easiest in the world, but the whiners will never find it easy enough- and if it was, they would still fail. They lack the mindset that allows them power over their own destiny; they refuse to take responsibility for themselves, refuse to start where they really are, refuse get up and go for it. No, somebody is supposed to "make it easier". This is the creed of losers. People CHOOSING that mindset-and bitching because it doesn't work- yet never learning.

(G) The "Free lunch" is anything you get by way of government that you didn't earn- which was invariably paid for by those who did.

(H) Yes, many billionaires double their wealth in their sleep. That's what comes from "working smart".
IF you had a sound understanding of money and economics, you would know how they can do that- and that it's the result wisdom and good decisions, not luck.

Let's say two neighbors want gardens. IF you prepare the ground, plant the seeds, keep it watered, clear the weeds, apply the fertilizer, control the bugs and pay attention to business- your crop of fine vegetables will double in your sleep, because you have created the situation for that to happen.

IF you don't do those things, your crop of weeds will double in your sleep, because you have created the situation for that to happen.
Your perceived problems and injustices grow- but your vegetable don't. Your neighbor thrives and harvests bounty; while you have zip. Unfair!!
In your case, your remedy is to attack the guy who took care of his garden, accuse him of taking unfair advantage not available to you, and demand your share of his crop.

>>>
You have the same tools I do. You live in the same world I do. But you CHOOSE what you will do with your tools, whose company to keep, what to believe, which people to learn from or emulate, how diligently you will work to make your life successful, how diligently you will work to blame your failure on others... SAME tools, DIFFERENT choices- and YOU are the one making those choices, not society. The choices YOU make- determine what your position in life will be. Abraham Lincoln once told people that the fact some are rich is proof others can become rich. Success of some should inspire you- not piss you off.

No system is perfect, because it made by people- and invariably, some of those people will be fools, elected by people who embrace the attitudes of fools. Every road has a few potholes, no matter where it leads. If you choose the road to success, it may be harder to navigate at first- but unlike the "easy" choices, it will go somewhere worthwhile.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy was perhaps the worst style of government- except for all the others.
The world is what it is; it offers choices and possibilities. YOU make the choice of what to do with your life.
The starting place on the road to success is to accept the position you have put yourself in, and the responsibility to make the right choices for yourself in the future. Nothing else will; work.
Until you do that- nothing else will change for the better.

IF you don't make good choices- Nothing good will happen, and blaming the results of those choices on anybody else is not going to change it. Get your butt in the driver's seat of your life, and you have control. You can be a passenger in the back, yelling at the world to do your driving- but it's not going to work. Nobody else can fill YOUR drivers seat.

 

On the thread subject....

News this morning has a disturbing report on the results of the liberal philosophies impacts on the enforcement of law, the defunding of police, the softening of prosecution.
Most of this has been hinged on the "racial inequity" of prosecutions while ignoring the inequities in the levels of crime. It's documented that most black people who are murdered- are killed by black people. That hasn't changed; the person most likely to kill a black person is by far- another black person.

This morning, a report states that this liberal shift is having consequences.

"Between 2010 and 2019, there was an average of 5,954 White murders, which is roughly 16% lower than the 10-year average of Black murders. During that same time period, an average of 6,927 Black Americans were murdered each year, meaning Black murders shot up by 43% in 2020 compared to the previous 10-year average.

The number of Black murders was also far higher than White murders in 2020. The FBI data shows there 7,043 White people murdered that year, meaning 2,898 more Black people were killed compared to Whites- while the population ratio is 13% black to 87% non-black.

Pretty clear who is paying the price for liberal policies in the justice system.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-americans-paid-enormous-price-for-defund-the-police-movement

 

Let's look at these two sentences.

1. How is Musk "improving society and the world", by selling joy-rides in space for rich people, when entire nations are sliding toward social and economic collapse. In fact Musk is wealthier than the GDPs of more than half the world's nations. This cannot indicate sensible or sustainable global resource mobilization, ie, we have a systems problem.

2. Few are "sitting on their ass and blaming the world"; most are coping as best they can, often in dire poverty. Sometimes criminality is seen as the only way out.

Your world will come crashing down if society DOES have to the exit the fossil fuel industry ASAP (which is impossible if left to the market) , as claimed by climate scientists. In any case, only governments can deal with the increasingly global problems of environmental pollution.

 

Have the police been de-funded in any way yet? We need better-trained and better-paid police, not less.

But my challenge to you remains: bulldoze the ghettos, and rehouse and teach the inhabitants how to hold down a job. No 'welfare' nonsense,...which is merely a cop-out instituted by a dysfunctional system.

See:
The Case for a Job Guarantee. Pavlina Cherneva.(google it).

 

"Throwing pearls before swine"

 

1.- Just like YOU, Musk is ONE man.
He's responsible for finally making electric cars a great success, a practical choice.
He's responsible for cutting the costs of launching satellites dramatically-
And with his own system, creating a fast-growing communications network (Starlink) that will be available every where in the world, already in operation.
The rich people paying for rocket rides- are helping finance that as well.
Musk didn't start rich; he borrowed $26K from family to start his first business.

He's done a lot more- but lets start there. NOW- What have YOU done beside complain about the people who actually make things happen?

Most of the charitable and environmental organizations in the world today get far more contributions from ordinary citizens than the wealthy... but in small amounts. The bulk of their revenue- comes from the wealthy. Like taxes, these people you like to despise actually carry the bulk of the cost of advancing the quality of your life.


2.- If you believe that, you are blissfully ignorant. Welfare costs are greater than the entire military budget, and constitute 22% of the federal budget.
Employers today will hire anything with a heartbeat- and yet can't get applicants. The number of people waiting for someone to provide for them a free ride is greater than anytime in my life.
The people I'm talking about tell themselves they are willing to work, but think someone needs to knock on their door, apologize for the intrusion and off them a management job.
Like you, they tell themselves what they want to hear to rationalize their position- which they want no responsibility for. On the other hand, anyone who really wants to work can not only find a job, but the prospects for promotion and raises of such a person are very high- because the demand is high, the competition so low. Opportunity- is in full bloom.

The number of homeless runs a bit over 500,000. While events may have caused people to lose their job or home, most of those people still have ability, capacity, skills- and would be employable, IF they chose to get off drugs and booze- and quit feeling sorry for themselves. Yes, that is tough. Most all people have hard experiences in life- some toughen up and get stronger, some just sit down and quit trying.
Every generation has had an easier life than the previous, yet tends to complain more about how unfair, how tough thing are.

No individual, no society no nation really succeeds by complaining. Doing is the instrument of success- productivity. Doesn't make any difference if you dig ditches or launch rockets, if you do good work there is a job for you. I've been broke- and I mean seriously broke, with cancer and no insurance and living in a storage shed for a winter at the same time. I'm not unfamiliar with the conditions of poverty. Anybody can get a job, if they are willing to bring the right attitude to the table. That again- is a CHOICE.

 

~ Another thing about Musk's business that our own pitiful administration could use as example is he created his own supply chain — not dependent on outsourcing .
Of course Musk has great ambitions and motivation — as well as the courage to abandon any vested interest in maintaining the " status quo ".

 

I think he is also an example that describes many unusually successful people, in that his goal, what he pursues, is the achievement; the money is a side effect of that. The motivation for money alone is not near as powerful as the achievement goal.