|
|
On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source
Inconceivable. Unless Romney himself is dumb enough to brag about this to someone, this investor is his CPA, or this investor works at the IRS and is illegally peeking at his tax records, there's no way to know this.
The logic of the last few sentences doesn't make any sense at all so we won't go there. Also, it's not "you guys" who have said his wealth is $250 million, that's what he has disclosed.
|
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.
Sure, I definitely think that there's a self-selection element at play here, and I have seen numerous articles argue as such.
As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Eh, who knows with regards to the genetic differences. I know that there are studies out there concerning genetic differences between the races with regards to ability. I tend to think that, if true, it probably plays a minor role. However, I think that the largest factors are cultural. Those definitely need to be controlled for first before looking at the genetic disparities.
|
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Uh... did you just say that conservative = racist?
I mean I would say that's just scientific racism. I wouldn't characterize it as conservative. I'm not exactly sure why xDaunt characterizes it as liberal arguments, but I guess he's just trying to use it as a pejorative because he's actively trying to be a douchebag.
|
On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source
It's a bold accusation, that's for sure.
Reid better know what the hell he's talking about.
|
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B? I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.
Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.
Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).
The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.
Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.
|
On August 01 2012 12:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:45 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups. The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place. To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about. I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this. Yes, there are some very good points raised here -- particularly the point about the Asian immigrants who are succeeding today possibly not having any relation to the initial waves of Asian immigrants. Honestly, I don't know whether this is the case or whether the "original" Asian immigrants have had the same problems as African Americans. I would be curious to find out. As for your comments about the "model minority Asians," I definitely agree that they're out there but I find it hard to believe that they constitute the majority of "successful" Asians in the US. For example, I can't imagine that there's enough of them to fill up the University of California school system the way Asians have. Also, I don't think that the wealth of the few is a dispositive explanation for the differences between Blacks and Asians either. Pretty much every immigrant that came to the US started off predominantly poor, and almost all have worked their way up and integrated into society.
During college, I was involved in several programs that specifically reached out to underprivileged Asian kids, and it was surprising to me as well how large the disparity was. There are a large number of "original" Asian immigrants still (in a sense) stuck in Chinatown/Koreatown, the ones running the dry cleaners, convenience stores, take-out restaurants, cheap buses, etc. The earlier Chinese immigrants, Hmongs, Laotians, (some) Vietnamese... primarily southeast Asian, but not necessarily. Their lives are completely different from mine, and while I do think that more of them make it out of poverty than to Blacks (proportionally, but it's really not that different) it's quite similar. Socioeconomic status is still a big determinant in America, and being part of a minority race just helps to make it worse.
The UC situation you describe is a special case. The vast majority of modern 1st generation Asians immigrating to the United States for school end up on the West Coast and so the numbers in the UC system will be a bit higher than you might have expected (most of my relatives residing in the States are there, very few ended up in the Midwest like I did). Closer to home, nicer weather... Demographically, they represent the vast majority of Asians in the United States. For every successful Asian in the Ivy Leagues, there are plenty more that never even finished community college.
|
could someone answer my noob question? Why in US there are only democrats and republicans? In Europe we have many parties that participate in all elections, and even independent persons can do that. US citizens want to state that they are free, but what is freedom when you always pick from 2 candidates of 2 different parties that never changes?
|
On August 01 2012 12:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Uh... did you just say that conservative = racist? I mean I would just say that's just scientific racism. I wouldn't characterize it as conservative. I'm not exactly sure why xDaunt characterizes it as liberal arguments, but I guess he's just trying to use it as a pejorative because he's actively trying to be a douchebag.
No, my argument is that liberal = politically correct, to the point of ignoring science.
Liberals typically believe in cultural determinism (genetics are irrelevant, and that people are the same biologically regardless of ethnicity or gender). This belief has absolutely no basis in science, however, as biologists can tell you that there are obvious genetic differences between various racial groups as well as genders.
That said, I don't think it would be unfair to claim that there is a certain segment of American conservatives who do trend towards racist.
|
On August 01 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source It's a bold accusation, that's for sure. Reid better know what the hell he's talking about.
Don't forget that McCain said that he reviewed all of Romney's tax returns as part of the VP selection process in 2008 and saw nothing underhanded or concerning.
|
On August 01 2012 12:18 M4nkind wrote:
could someone answer my noob question? Why in US there are only democrats and republicans? In Europe we have many parties that participate in all elections, and even independent persons can do that. US citizens want to state that they are free, but what is freedom when you always pick from 2 candidates of 2 different parties that never changes?
We also have a Green Party, a Libertarian Party and a few others, but they're all kind of small compared to the Republican and Democratic Parties. Each party has factions within it that want different things though. Since the two big parties are so monumental, its very difficult for so called "third-parties: to gain any traction.
|
On August 01 2012 12:18 M4nkind wrote:
could someone answer my noob question? Why in US there are only democrats and republicans? In Europe we have many parties that participate in all elections, and even independent persons can do that. US citizens want to state that they are free, but what is freedom when you always pick from 2 candidates of 2 different parties that never changes?
In part due to the electoral system, which is winner-take-all. We don't have proportional representation like most European countries do. Independents certainly can and do participate in the U.S. system, but they almost never win against richer and stronger candidates. In some European systems, you don't necessarily have to win outright, just win a certain percentage in order to get some representation. Not in the States, though.
For example, if I remember correctly, in Germany the number of seats a party has in the legislature depends on the proportion of people that voted for their party. If a *party* wins 34% of the vote, they get 34% of the seats. This isn't the same as voting directly for a certain legislator. But in the States, it's essentially politicians running against each other for a seat. If they win, they make it into the legislature, and if not, they don't. There is no "party list" where you vote for the party and not a particular candidate.
|
On August 01 2012 12:15 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:04 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:45 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups. The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place. To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about. I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this. Yes, there are some very good points raised here -- particularly the point about the Asian immigrants who are succeeding today possibly not having any relation to the initial waves of Asian immigrants. Honestly, I don't know whether this is the case or whether the "original" Asian immigrants have had the same problems as African Americans. I would be curious to find out. As for your comments about the "model minority Asians," I definitely agree that they're out there but I find it hard to believe that they constitute the majority of "successful" Asians in the US. For example, I can't imagine that there's enough of them to fill up the University of California school system the way Asians have. Also, I don't think that the wealth of the few is a dispositive explanation for the differences between Blacks and Asians either. Pretty much every immigrant that came to the US started off predominantly poor, and almost all have worked their way up and integrated into society. During college, I was involved in several programs that specifically reached out to underprivileged Asian kids, and it was surprising to me as well how large the disparity was. There are a surprisingly large number of "original" Asian immigrants still (in a sense) stuck in Chinatown/Koreatown, the ones running the dry cleaners, convenience stores, take-out restaurants, cheap buses, etc. The earlier Chinese immigrants, Hmongs, Laotians, (some) Vietnamese... primarily southeast Asian, but not necessarily. Their lives are completely different from mine, and while I do think that more of them make it out of poverty than to Blacks (proportionally, but it's really not that different) it's quite similar. Socioeconomic status is still a big determinant in America, and being part of a minority race just helps to make it worse.
Those same disparities exist among whites, too.
The UC situation you describe is a special case. The vast majority of modern 1st generation Asians immigrating to the United States for school end up on the West Coast and so the numbers in the UC system will be a bit higher than you might have expected (most of my relatives residing in the States are there, very few ended up in the Midwest like I did). Demographically, they represent the vast majority of Asians in the United States. For every successful Asian in the Ivy Leagues, there are plenty more that never even finished community college.
I'm not even considering Ivy League students. There are too many problems with the those schools to consider them representative of the general population. The UC schools provide a better sample. Yes, Asians are concentrated on the West Coast, but they are still greatly over-represented at the UC schools.
|
On August 01 2012 12:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:15 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 12:04 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:45 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups. The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place. To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about. I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this. Yes, there are some very good points raised here -- particularly the point about the Asian immigrants who are succeeding today possibly not having any relation to the initial waves of Asian immigrants. Honestly, I don't know whether this is the case or whether the "original" Asian immigrants have had the same problems as African Americans. I would be curious to find out. As for your comments about the "model minority Asians," I definitely agree that they're out there but I find it hard to believe that they constitute the majority of "successful" Asians in the US. For example, I can't imagine that there's enough of them to fill up the University of California school system the way Asians have. Also, I don't think that the wealth of the few is a dispositive explanation for the differences between Blacks and Asians either. Pretty much every immigrant that came to the US started off predominantly poor, and almost all have worked their way up and integrated into society. During college, I was involved in several programs that specifically reached out to underprivileged Asian kids, and it was surprising to me as well how large the disparity was. There are a surprisingly large number of "original" Asian immigrants still (in a sense) stuck in Chinatown/Koreatown, the ones running the dry cleaners, convenience stores, take-out restaurants, cheap buses, etc. The earlier Chinese immigrants, Hmongs, Laotians, (some) Vietnamese... primarily southeast Asian, but not necessarily. Their lives are completely different from mine, and while I do think that more of them make it out of poverty than to Blacks (proportionally, but it's really not that different) it's quite similar. Socioeconomic status is still a big determinant in America, and being part of a minority race just helps to make it worse. Those same disparities exist among whites, too. Show nested quote + The UC situation you describe is a special case. The vast majority of modern 1st generation Asians immigrating to the United States for school end up on the West Coast and so the numbers in the UC system will be a bit higher than you might have expected (most of my relatives residing in the States are there, very few ended up in the Midwest like I did). Demographically, they represent the vast majority of Asians in the United States. For every successful Asian in the Ivy Leagues, there are plenty more that never even finished community college. I'm not even considering Ivy League students. There are too many problems with the those schools to consider them representative of the general population. The UC schools provide a better sample. Yes, Asians are concentrated on the West Coast, but they are still greatly over-represented at the UC schools.
Oh, I certainly agree there are large disparities among white people. Just pointing out as many others have that you should be careful about lumping "Asians" together as a sign that "if one group can do it why can't another", and the fact that there are large disparities within this group should weaken the "cultural" argument somewhat, and put slightly more emphasis on the opportunities afforded.
I use the term "Ivy League" somewhat colloquially - basically, I mean 4-year higher education and above. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by over-represented. Over-represented in proportion to their population in California? Or overall in terms of their demographic in the United States?
|
I honestly would say that Romney's Israel remarks had a fair bit of truth to them.
Israel is successful in an environment that does everything to destroy it because of culture. The ones who founded the country did so with the intent of creating a homeland in which they would finally be safe to live in. In general, Jews tend to value higher education and business practices more than average. That certainly helped them succeed when they were given a golden opportunity by the UN.
The priorities of many in the MidEast are certainly out of place. They act in ways that are very much not good for their economy, so no doubt they are going to be less successful.
However, this excludes a key x-factor: culture is quite versatile. Many forces can cause that culture to change, such as the advent of industrializaton. Look at pre and post-1917 Russia for example. A change like this happens naturally, though often quite slowly.
|
On August 01 2012 12:27 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 12:15 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 12:04 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:45 Funnytoss wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. It is because you might be a bit confused about Asian immigration, or at best you're mixing two groups together. While some Asians certainly started out in the States in unfavorable situations similar to those faced by African-Americans at that time, the vast majority of the so-called "model minority Asians" you see dominating the Ivy leagues and such are from a different wave of immigration. My father had graduated from the best university in Taiwan and came to Florida for his Ph.D program in the 1980s, and it would be extremely insulting to compare my future potential with that of a Vietnamese refugee in the 1960s. It's two different things. I don't think I'm that much smarter or my cultural heritage helped me to become successful while the black kid in the projects failed because his culture sucks. I started off on much better footing than he did, because my parents came to the states already advantaged compared to many immigrant groups. The examples you're speaking of are perfect examples of institutionalized discrimination against Asians, and I don't think it helps your case very much. In fact, as a result of those policies, it was very had for Asians to "make it" at the time. A majority of the Asians making it now are completely different from the Asians back then, and it's not because our culture made us that much smarter. It's because the U.S. became somewhat less racist, and (most of) those that were able to make it to the States in the 80s were fairly well off in the first place. To be sure, I think there are *some* aspects of so-called Asian culture and so-called Black culture that make a difference, all else being equal - for example, emphasis on education certainly will provide some better prospects, but certainly not to the degree that you're talking about. I think you're misreading history to further your *own* ideals, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that you're simply a bit uninformed on this. Yes, there are some very good points raised here -- particularly the point about the Asian immigrants who are succeeding today possibly not having any relation to the initial waves of Asian immigrants. Honestly, I don't know whether this is the case or whether the "original" Asian immigrants have had the same problems as African Americans. I would be curious to find out. As for your comments about the "model minority Asians," I definitely agree that they're out there but I find it hard to believe that they constitute the majority of "successful" Asians in the US. For example, I can't imagine that there's enough of them to fill up the University of California school system the way Asians have. Also, I don't think that the wealth of the few is a dispositive explanation for the differences between Blacks and Asians either. Pretty much every immigrant that came to the US started off predominantly poor, and almost all have worked their way up and integrated into society. During college, I was involved in several programs that specifically reached out to underprivileged Asian kids, and it was surprising to me as well how large the disparity was. There are a surprisingly large number of "original" Asian immigrants still (in a sense) stuck in Chinatown/Koreatown, the ones running the dry cleaners, convenience stores, take-out restaurants, cheap buses, etc. The earlier Chinese immigrants, Hmongs, Laotians, (some) Vietnamese... primarily southeast Asian, but not necessarily. Their lives are completely different from mine, and while I do think that more of them make it out of poverty than to Blacks (proportionally, but it's really not that different) it's quite similar. Socioeconomic status is still a big determinant in America, and being part of a minority race just helps to make it worse. Those same disparities exist among whites, too. The UC situation you describe is a special case. The vast majority of modern 1st generation Asians immigrating to the United States for school end up on the West Coast and so the numbers in the UC system will be a bit higher than you might have expected (most of my relatives residing in the States are there, very few ended up in the Midwest like I did). Demographically, they represent the vast majority of Asians in the United States. For every successful Asian in the Ivy Leagues, there are plenty more that never even finished community college. I'm not even considering Ivy League students. There are too many problems with the those schools to consider them representative of the general population. The UC schools provide a better sample. Yes, Asians are concentrated on the West Coast, but they are still greatly over-represented at the UC schools. Oh, I certainly agree there are large disparities among white people. Just pointing out as many others have that you should be careful about lumping "Asians" together as a sign that "if one group can do it why can't another", and the fact that there are large disparities within this group should weaken the "cultural" argument somewhat, and put slightly more emphasis on the opportunities afforded.
Right, but the point is the comparison of races as a whole. Asians and whites as a whole are pretty much on par economically in the US. Blacks and Hispanics, on the other hand, lag significantly behind. Hispanics are a more recent immigrant group, so I think that it's a little too early to write the book on them. Blacks, on the other hand, are well-established and "should" have caught up by now. Really what I am asking is why haven't they.
I use the term "Ivy League" somewhat colloquially - basically, I mean 4-year higher education and above. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by over-represented. Over-represented in proportion to their population in California? Or overall in terms of their demographic in the United States?
Both. Asians don't constitute a large enough percentage of the population nationally or in California to match their representation in the UC system.
|
On August 01 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source It's a bold accusation, that's for sure. Reid better know what the hell he's talking about. Don't forget that McCain said that he reviewed all of Romney's tax returns as part of the VP selection process in 2008 and saw nothing underhanded or concerning.
Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Yeah, they do their homework.
Seriously, it blows my mind that you think McCain's VP vetting process should be some sort of authority in setting the record straight, when in reality, it's probably the biggest reason he isn't President right now.
|
On August 01 2012 12:33 Leporello wrote:
Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Yeah, they do their homework.
Seriously, it blows my mind that you think McCain's VP vetting process should be some sort of authority in setting the record straight.
Because she really said that. Reid better have something more than just a source on this.
|
On August 01 2012 12:33 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source It's a bold accusation, that's for sure. Reid better know what the hell he's talking about. Don't forget that McCain said that he reviewed all of Romney's tax returns as part of the VP selection process in 2008 and saw nothing underhanded or concerning. Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country. Yeah, they do their homework. Seriously, it blows my mind that you think McCain's VP vetting process should be some sort of authority in setting the record straight, when in reality, it's probably the biggest reason he isn't President right now.
Nah, despite all of her baggage, Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance in unusually adverse election conditions. He blew it by fumbling the ball when the economic crisis hit.
|
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B? I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention. Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society. Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits). The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.
No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.
You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.
Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.
Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?
|
On August 01 2012 12:18 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:14 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Uh... did you just say that conservative = racist? I mean I would just say that's just scientific racism. I wouldn't characterize it as conservative. I'm not exactly sure why xDaunt characterizes it as liberal arguments, but I guess he's just trying to use it as a pejorative because he's actively trying to be a douchebag. No, my argument is that liberal = politically correct, to the point of ignoring science. Liberals typically believe in cultural determinism (genetics are irrelevant, and that people are the same biologically regardless of ethnicity or gender). This belief has absolutely no basis in science, however, as biologists can tell you that there are obvious genetic differences between various racial groups as well as genders. That said, I don't think it would be unfair to claim that there is a certain segment of American conservatives who do trend towards racist.
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
