We'll Walk In Line, We'll Walk In Line, We'll.....

[tvashtarkatena]

My theory is this (sorry, I have no substantiating linkys to pick apart like cracker crumbs):

 

Individuals that engage in denial in the face of overwhelming evidence and even what their five senses tell them do so because of some deep, underlying emotional needs. It could be mistrust; perhaps a trusted parent turned out to be full of shit. It could be the need to shore up a sense of inadequacy (I need to feel like the smartest kid in the room because I was picked on in school), or the need for uniqueness (I'm one of the few 'in the know').

 

Regardless of the deepseated emotional needs being pursued, the outward behavior of these folks exhibit many similarities.

 

They usually try to prove others wrong, rather than making any cogent point of their own.

 

If they do have a point to make, it is usually general in nature, such as 'liberals are stupid'.

 

They rarely offer solutions to problems, and, if they do, they are usually oversimplified 'silver bullet' (flat tax!) solutions.

 

They never cite reputable media, which they believe has an extreme liberal bias and agenda. Despite this distrust, they have a complete trust in far less reputable media outlets that support their points of view.

 

They cannot differentiate between tabloid anamolies (the Lego incident!) verses real newsworthy events that represent much broader trends.

 

They always look to the past, never to the future. They share a universal inability to imagine a world that has never existed before. Everything must have an analogy in the past.

 

They are generally pessimistic. You will never see them bring up a topic that is wholly positive in nature. Their need to feel like thought leaders in a historical battle between good and evil seems to override such frivolity.

 

They tend to get lost in minutia, and fail to step back and see the bigger picture. They seem to lack the ability to sum up their thesis in a single sentence, unless it's something like "liberals suck".

 

They will never, ever admit they're wrong.

 

And finally, they enjoy ramming live bush babies up their asses in the hopes that a troupe of chimpanzees armed with sharp sticks will come along.

Edited February 28, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Actually my original quote was wrong. Actually the US is doing worse than I said in poverty rates, but better than two countries in federal spending.

 

Now that we've crossed the Ts and dotted the Is PP do you actually have anything of substance to contribute? Or are you going to link to some right wing blog social commentary, copy and paste, and then step away from any opinion?

Edited February 28, 2007 by Jim

[G-spotter]

damn, my pagetop alert went off, but too late

[Jim]

I don't get it. Why is PP and the Heartland Institue (article PP cut and paste from) getting their panties in a bunch? Isn't this a private institution offering something that some parents want? Isn't this how the free market works? Oh the humanity!

 

So back to the original thread. What's the point PP. Why get you shorts twisted over some private institution?

[JayB]

So if people in a country where the median income is $15K have a smaller percentage of people making less than that amount than a country where the median income is $35K, are the people on the low end of the scale in the low-income country better off than those on the low end of the scale in the high-income country when you account for purchasing power parity, etc - just because their income is closer to a lower median income?

 

This reminds me of the claim that the US has the worst infant mortality rates in the developed world. I've seen this claim trotted out a gazillion times, followed by a series of lamentations concerning the wretched state of American healthcare, etc, etc, etc - without anyone ever asking if the definition of "Infant Mortality" in one country is the same as the next. Search the literature for five seconds and you find out that it's not.

 

"Registration artifacts in international comparisons of infant mortality.

 

* Kramer MS,

* Platt RW,

* Yang H,

* Haglund B,

* Cnattingius S,

* Bergsjo P.

 

Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Canada. michael.kramer@mcgill.ca

 

Large differences in infant mortality are reported among and within industrialised countries. We hypothesised that these differences are at least partly the result of intercountry differences in registration of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths vs. live births. We used the database of the International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on Perinatal and Infant Mortality to compare infant mortality rates and registration practices in Norway (n = 112484), Sweden (n = 215 908), Israeli Jews (n = 148123), Israeli non-Jews (n = 52 606), US Whites (n = 6 074 222) and US Blacks (n = 1328332). To avoid confounding by strong secular trends in these outcomes, we restricted our analysis to 1987-88, the most recent years for which data are available in the ICE database for all six groups. Compared with Norway (with an infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000), the crude relative risks [95% confidence intervals] were 0.75 [0.69,0.81] in Sweden, 0.97 [0.90,1.06] in Israeli Jews, 1.98 [1.81,2.17] in Israeli non-Jews, 0.95 [0.89,1.01] in US Whites and 2.05 [1.95,2.19] in US Blacks. For borderline-viable infants, fetal deaths varied twofold as a proportion of perinatal deaths, with Norway reporting the highest (83.9% for births <500 g and 61.8% for births 500-749 g) and US Blacks the lowest (40.3% and 37.6% respectively) proportions. Reported proportions of live births <500 g varied 50-fold from 0.6 and 0.7 per 10000 in Sweden and Israeli Jews and non-Jews to 9.1 and 33.8 per 10000 in US Whites and Blacks respectively. Reported proportions 500-749 g varied sevenfold from 7.5 per 10000 in Sweden to 16.2 and 55.4 in US Whites and Blacks respectively. After eliminating births <750 g, the relative risks (again with Norway as the reference) of infant mortality changed drastically for US Whites and Blacks: 0.82 [0.76,0.87] and 1.42 [1.33,1.53] respectively. The huge disparities in the ratio of fetal to infant deaths <750 g and in the proportion of live births <750 g among these developed countries probably result from differences in birth and death registration practices. International comparisons and rankings of infant mortality should be interpreted with caution.

 

PMID: 11862950 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

What happens when you look at the actual amount of disposable income available to the poor in the US versus Europe when you look at purchasing-power-parity adjusted dollars that wind up in people's hands instead of defining poverty in terms relative to median incomes that differ dramatically from one another? If I moved to Vietnam, I would probably go from a "average" to "tall" relative to the median male height, but I would not be any taller in absolute terms. If absolute height was a proxy for well-being, would I actually be any better off?

 

 

The poor make less money relative to the median income in the US, but are they actually worse off in absolute terms? Neither the data nor migration trends, etc bear this claim out.

 

 

[Mr_Phil]

Yeah, what he said.

[Jim]

At least this is a logical conservative viewpoint. Thanks.

 

I'm confused though - the chart you show refers to Income, while the paragraph before it refers to Disposalble Income(?).

 

Right off the top though the poor in other countries have access to health care, child care, and other welfare programs not available in the US.

 

This link http://www.unicef.org/pon96/indust4.htm shows the effect of child poverty after considering federal programs. You're argument of considering the relative income scale has merit, but it looks like the US still comes up short compared to most developed countries. But we do have the No Child Left Behind Law (sans funding).

[JayB]

I think the most accurate way to compare incomes is absolute terms, once it's been corrected for purchasing power parity, taxes, government transfers, etc - and that's what the chart compares.

 

As in the case of the infant mortality data, it's important to analyze the data and make sure that you are comparing apples to apples before drawing broad conclusions from the data under consideration.

 

I have some other comments that I'll have to save until I have a bit more time.

[archenemy]

I think it is important to keep bringing up the idea of poverty in absolute terms. I have seen people living in poverty--I mean sitting in rags in the dirt with flies buzzing poverty--in other countries. It hurts to see. And yes, I am sure it exists here as well. And it is painful to see young kids pandering on the streets (and figuring that their existance is actually a step up from the abusive situation they may have come from). But it is different. And they do have access to healthcare--emergency rooms turn away no one due to ability to pay.

 

Again, I am not trying to trivialize a problem that clearly exists here. But I don't think trying to "Prove" how horrible America is compared to other countries helps anyone more forward with solving this problem.

[Seahawks]

its a fact that truth is subjective, just like objectivity

 

panties are another story though

 

 

How about these?

[prole]

I don't think trying to "Prove" how horrible America is compared to other countries helps anyone more forward with solving this problem.

 

But showing that the US lags behind the rest of the developed world despite its "richest nation" status might induce one to ask questions as to how this problem might be solved.

[Jim]

I think it is important to keep bringing up the idea of poverty in absolute terms. I have seen people living in poverty--I mean sitting in rags in the dirt with flies buzzing poverty--in other countries. It hurts to see. And yes, I am sure it exists here as well. And it is painful to see young kids pandering on the streets (and figuring that their existance is actually a step up from the abusive situation they may have come from). But it is different. And they do have access to healthcare--emergency rooms turn away no one due to ability to pay.

 

Again, I am not trying to trivialize a problem that clearly exists here. But I don't think trying to "Prove" how horrible America is compared to other countries helps anyone more forward with solving this problem.

 

Certainly there is abject poverty in Third World countries that is far and beyond what is going on in the US. No doubt. I think the general point is that for such a rich country we are failing in many social measurements. Health care access in emergency rooms? Well that has proven to be extremely expensive and does nothing for long-term well being. People go to the emergency room when they are desperate, not for maintaining their health. And we do regularly turn away people for medical and dental care.

 

For being the richest of developed countries we spend a smaller percentage than most for helping the lower end of the economic spectrum. Should we be redistributing income to help raise them up? Certainly not, but IMO, we can be doing much better in securing the health and education of the non-elite portion of our population.

 

Current request to Congress from the Bushies for the Iraq and Afgan adventures $100 Billion, on top of the already allocated $70 Billion. Just to the end of this fiscal year.

[Seahawks]

I think it is important to keep bringing up the idea of poverty in absolute terms. I have seen people living in poverty--I mean sitting in rags in the dirt with flies buzzing poverty--in other countries. It hurts to see. And yes, I am sure it exists here as well. And it is painful to see young kids pandering on the streets (and figuring that their existance is actually a step up from the abusive situation they may have come from). But it is different. And they do have access to healthcare--emergency rooms turn away no one due to ability to pay.

 

Again, I am not trying to trivialize a problem that clearly exists here. But I don't think trying to "Prove" how horrible America is compared to other countries helps anyone more forward with solving this problem.

 

Certainly there is abject poverty in Third World countries that is far and beyond what is going on in the US. No doubt. I think the general point is that for such a rich country we are failing in many social measurements. Health care access in emergency rooms? Well that has proven to be extremely expensive and does nothing for long-term well being. People go to the emergency room when they are desperate, not for maintaining their health. And we do regularly turn away people for medical and dental care.

 

For being the richest of developed countries we spend a smaller percentage than most for helping the lower end of the economic spectrum. Should we be redistributing income to help raise them up? Certainly not, but IMO, we can be doing much better in securing the health and education of the non-elite portion of our population.

 

Current request to Congress from the Bushies for the Iraq and Afgan adventures $100 Billion, on top of the already allocated $70 Billion. Just to the end of this fiscal year.

[Peter_Puget]

Jim’s original post:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003589315_welfare26.html

 

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries. Given that we’re the richest country in the world, shouldn’t we be doing better?

 

This of course will bring out the “government should do more – leave it to the marketplace” rivals. I read an interesting article in the NYT Sunday Magazine a month or so ago. The article took a look at what would be needed to ease poverty effects worldwide by having the rich donate to a fund. The target used was the Millennium Development Goals by the UN Millennium Summit which by 2015 listed:

•Reduce by half the proportion of the world’s people extreme poverty (defined as living on $1/day)

•Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

•Ensure that all children can attend primary school.

•Reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate under age 5.

•Reduce by three-quarters the rate of maternal mortality.

•Halt and reduce the spread of AIDS and incidence of malaria and other major diseases.

•Reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water.

 

Whew! Lofty goals. Estimated price tag by Jeffery Sacs = $121 billion in 2006 rising to $189 billion in 2015. Considering existing aid promises you only need $48 billion in 2006 rising to $74 billion in 2015. So how could we come up with needed money this?

 

People should donate more. If only the top 10% of US tax payers donated you could raise $171 billion. Here’s the offered breakdown.

 

Top 0.01% - donate a third of income. Left with minimum of $4.3M

Top 0.1% - donate a one quarter of income – Left w/minimum of $846K

Top 0.5% - donate one fifth of income – Left w/minimum of $325K

Top 1%- donate 15% of income – Left w/minimum of $234K

Top 10% - donate 10% of income – Left w/minimum of $83K

 

2004 Tax Data Income Minimal Income by group

 

Top 0.01% - $5M, avg $12,7M

Top 0.1% - $1.1M, avg $2M

Top 0.5% - $407K, avg $632K

Top 1%- $276, avg $327K

Top 10% - $92K, avg $132K

 

So – by asking folks in the top 10% of the US to donate, in a manner unlikely to impose significant hardship on anyone, yields a total of $404 billion. Without government intrusion. Likely to happen - I doubt it. Gotta have that lexus and McMansion. And before the bohemian accusations start to fly – I try to donate 10% of my household income annual. Mostly I can’t make that much, but it’s been at least 7% for 15 yrs now. I do some volunteer work to make up. I just though this was an interesting proposal and those interested in private sector solutions might take note.

 

Asking Jim to clarify and then correct an assertion he claimed was important and in his opening paragraph is hardly being petty especially since he was making a comparison that is utter silliness. Anyone who has been around the world realizes that the utter poverty in many countries is simply not comparable to anything in the US. To suggest otherwise is just mindless chatter.

The funny thing is it really doesn’t have much to do with the donation scheme that follows. Here are some issues I would have with any such donation scheme:

 

1) Assuming that donations were made how would a mechanism be created to best delivery the “goods.” Historically billions have been given and squandered. The funds have destroyed indigenous economies and strengthened dictators and corrupt ruling elites.

2) It is these elites and the political economy of these regions that is the primary cause of their current condition. A while ago I posted a link to a paper (JayB I think commented nicely on it perhaps he can remember where it is) The poverty problems of the world in general are process problems not lack of wealth problems.

 

 

EDIT:

 

INteresting read

 

Another good read

Edited March 1, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[Jim]

Fair enough. An opinion rather than some link. We're proud.

 

So you're conclusions are 1)charitable donations will be squandered. and 2) wealth (and supposedly related health issues) are a "process" problem not a lack of "wealth" problem

 

Seems like the Gates Foundation has be rather successful managing funds. They are very effective. So the straw dog of just handing it over to corupt regimes is not valid. There are other models. I'm also sure that countries in Africa and Asia would be glad to know that they have no wealth problem, that they just have to tinker with the "process" 8D

[Winter]

So back to the original question - what's wrong with a private institution teaching kids to build a socialist republic out of leggo my eggos? Or maybe we should prevent private schools from providing an education on social and economic systems other than our own form of democracy and capitalism?

 

Quick look at the little birdy ... I mean let's talk instead about poverty rates and income levels ... or maye let's talk about infant mortality ... or maybe even (god forbid) a little climbing (as a last resort).

[prole]

The good news is that in relative terms, these people are wealthy!

 

Every night 754,000 in US homeless: study

 

1 hour, 42 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - On any given night 754,000 people across the United States are homeless, according to a new government study on the problem released Wednesday.

 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in its first study of the scope of the national homelessness problem in 23 years, said that its "snapshot" study based on a three-month period in 2005 showed that two-thirds of the homeless population are men, 16 percent are women, 59 percent are ethnic minorities, 41 percent are in the 31-50 age range and 21 percent are children.

 

It also said that nearly one in five of the adult homeless are military veterans.

 

However, Philip Mangano, executive director of the United States Interagency Council of Homelessness, said that the snapshot survey does not represent the full extent of homelessness across the country, as measured throughout the year.

 

"There is a divergence of opinion among researchers about the number of people who are experiencing homelessness in the course of a year," Mangano said.

 

"Some say it might be as high as one percent of the US population (three million people); others say it might be as high as two million."

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So back to the original question - what's wrong with a private institution teaching kids to build a socialist republic out of leggo my eggos? Or maybe we should prevent private schools from providing an education on social and economic systems other than our own form of democracy and capitalism?

 

Quick look at the little birdy ... I mean let's talk instead about poverty rates and income levels ... or maye let's talk about infant mortality ... or maybe even (god forbid) a little climbing (as a last resort).

 

I've heard the poverty rate in Canmore is bad. I'm going there to see it first hand in a week or so.

[JayB]

Fair enough. An opinion rather than some link. We're proud.

 

So you're conclusions are 1)charitable donations will be squandered. and 2) wealth (and supposedly related health issues) are a "process" problem not a lack of "wealth" problem

 

Seems like the Gates Foundation has be rather successful managing funds. They are very effective. So the straw dog of just handing it over to corupt regimes is not valid. There are other models. I'm also sure that countries in Africa and Asia would be glad to know that they have no wealth problem, that they just have to tinker with the "process" 8D

 

In my opinion, we should be concerned about absolute rather than relative poverty, and studies that fail to take absolute income with all of the proper adjustments for purchasing power parity, pre-and-post tax income are not only inaccurate and misleading, they are also extremely harmful in that they make it more difficult to pinpoint the real problems that society needs to address. If you can't identify the problems accurately, then it's impossible to solve them, and quite likely that significant resources will be diverted towards solving problems that are less acute.

 

Once you have reliable data, then you've got to have a moral/philosophical discussion about what constitutes a problem or a moral failing on society's part. Are societies that provide more generous welfare benefits irrespective of the ability to work necessarily more ethical? I would argue that they aren't, especially if they have structural factors in their labor market which effectively price the least educated and skilled out of the job market forever. Are they more desirable places to live? Not necessarily. I also think that the long-term viability of various social/economic arrangements fostered by the welfare policies enacted by various societies is worth bringing into consideration. Is a scenario in which people expect to spend the majority of their adult life sustained by the work of others, irrespective of the cost, necessarily more just?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only people that an ethical society are obliged to take care of are are those where those who are incapable of helping themselves, and are suffering on account of factors for which they are not responsible. This generally includes children, those too old to work, or the disabled. If poor children aren't getting the medical care they need, then I would agree that this is a situation that society has a moral obligation to address. Whether we'd agree on what constitutes the best solution to this and other social problems is another matter.

 

With regards to Africa and Asia, how do account for the vastly different levels of income, development, literacy, etc of those two regions today, despite the fact that they were roughly equivalent to one another in terms of GDP per capita, etc as late as the early 1960's? Is this because the US and Europe have given more aid to Asia than Africa since then, or are there perhaps other reasons? Was it US aid to China that's lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of Poverty since the late 1970s?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Fair enough. An opinion rather than some link. We're proud.

 

So you're conclusions are 1)charitable donations will be squandered. and 2) wealth (and supposedly related health issues) are a "process" problem not a lack of "wealth" problem

 

Seems like the Gates Foundation has be rather successful managing funds. They are very effective. So the straw dog of just handing it over to corupt regimes is not valid. There are other models. I'm also sure that countries in Africa and Asia would be glad to know that they have no wealth problem, that they just have to tinker with the "process" 8D

 

Jim You seem to have a consistent problem with comprehension. You see what you want to see regardless of what is written. For an example other than our earlier discussion lets examine the post that I am quoting here.

 

Mt points were:

1) Assuming that donations were made how would a mechanism be created to best delivery the “goods.” Historically billions have been given and squandered. The funds have destroyed indigenous economies and strengthened dictators and corrupt ruling elites.

2) It is these elites and the political economy of these regions that is the primary cause of their current condition. A while ago I posted a link to a paper (JayB I think commented nicely on it perhaps he can remember where it is) The poverty problems of the world in general are process problems not lack of wealth problems.

 

I mention squandering but even more so I refer to the existing cultures and how such an infusion of funds would impact them. Oddly I do show a link discussing ruling elites in my post. You mocked me earlier saying that you doubted I read your "source" documentation but dont seemed to have even looked at mine. These elite are an important part of my critique. You missed that.

 

Zimbabwe's problems are in the long run political. The increasing poverty, violence and unrest are a direct result of the ruling elite. I also posted a link to a Reserve Bank study regarding South America. Read it you might find it interesting. Look at North Korea freaking wasteland. South Korea is somewhere around the 11th larget economy. After looking at pictures of its capital taken by my father just after the Korean war and having been there on business trips I am mazed on how fact they recovered. Look at China - millions dying under Mao now they have changed their process and are becoming rich. Again after being there I am still amazed.

 

The gates foundation gives what 1.2 billion? What you are suggesting is quite a bit more and my guess is it a BS number ot begin with. (much like your poverty study) I stand by my opinion that the biggest problem isnt funds but rather how to deliver them and their impact.

 

By the way I am not saying we should aid other countries I am highly skeptical that your solution will work.

 

[Peter_Puget]

As a sidebar:

 

Jayb I am sure we discussed this before with Jim. I seem to recall posting links and data comparing things like housing square footage, appliance ownership, auto ownership, caloric intake of American 'poor" and french middle class. Anyway Jim would witness lemmings jumping gof a cliff and say their problem was one of lack of health insurance.

[archenemy]

In an econ class I learned something interesting. We were discussing the impact that donated foodstuffs had on local markets. We studied a small, poor, isolated spot in Africa (I'm afraid I don't remember the name) that was suffering pretty bad poverty and starvation. We sent food. As a result, the food which was on the market in that area was not able to be sold at all b/c free and cheaper donated food was suddenly available. The local market, although already shakey, was now completely destroyed. Folks because totally dependent on the donated food. I was surprised by this result (which seems obvious once someone pointed it out to me), but I realized that donation is not always the answer. And the impacts of donation are not always good. Therefore, I have a hard time thinking that donating money, time, talk to a problem is going to solve it.

 

I agree that children need to be taken care of. But what if we didn't have so many in the first place? What if birth control and voluntary sterilzation were made available to all people who wanted it but couldn't afford it. What if there were a concerted effort to reach out to people and let them know that this option were available to them. What if it were available to them right there in a mobile medical unit? What if it worked in concert with a groundswell of changing attitudes toward procreation and women's rights? What if attitudes about manliness and virility changed? What if this were true all around the world? Would that make a difference on the poverty levels?

 

I don't know. But I know that what we are doing and even much of what we are attempting to do right now is not working. If its not working, stop doing it and try something else. I am sure people who study and work in this area must have already discussed all these things. Why are they not happening? Why don't the rest of us who are not educated about these options or initiatives not hearing about it? I have to wonder.

[minx]

although the example not be exactly parallel, one of the things i've learned in the past year how aid to developing countries needs to be appropriate for the area. in my world, it relates to healthcare -- it's all well and good to develop medicines or tests to deal with local area health problems. however, if they are too expensive or worse, culturally inappropriate, it will do nothing to solve the problem. it was a waste of time and money.

 

perhaps the same principals should be applied to economic development. instead of dumping aid on a market, more time should be spent evaluating how to do it.

[tvashtarkatena]

I current wave of sustainable poverty reform in the third world focuses more and more on providing job opportunities through programs that include access to capital, such as micro loans, the use of appropriate, maintainable technologies, such as manual well pumps, birth control (of course), and public education about sources of disease, etc. Often, these can work in concert. In malarial areas, for example, micro loans are provided to local folks to start mosquito net distribution businesses. The sellers provide the public education about malaria prevention. This avoids the inevitable skimming that occurs when you just ship a bunch of food over there (which is necessary in emergency situations).

 

Rx For Survival is an award winning documentary series that describes many of these programs from a public health standpoint. I highly recommend renting it. Way more to the point and educational the arguing about how many toasters Germans have as compared to Americans (completely fucking irrelavent, considering the cultural differences).

[Jim]

Rx For Survival is an award winning documentary series that describes many of these programs from a public health standpoint. I highly recommend renting it. Way more to the point and educational the arguing about how many toasters Germans have as compared to Americans (completely fucking irrelavent, considering the cultural differences).

 

This was an excellent program and really puts the subject in persepective.

 

But, no. On second though. It's better to do nothing.