archduke

Nation states very rarely act rationally. You point to Chechyna. I could point to Georgia

Bull. Nation States act rationally far more than irrationally.
Maybe you're too close to the irrational invasion of Iraq ?
But in the case of Georgia, Russia certainly acted rationally.
You see it wasn't about Georgie but about South Ossetia. A region ethnically different than the rest of Georgia, and which had been divided by Stalin back in the day, as a way of limiting the Ossetians sense of nation hood. (Many of his Obalasts were constructed in this manner, including some that were made out of thin air like the jewish autonomous oblast)
For years the Ossetians had aspired to reunite. Georgia was actually acting irrationally in attempting to keep a region that wanted out. especially since Georgia was doing little to endear themselves to the ethnic Ossetians.
The irrational actors were the US conservatives who thought it might be wise to get involved militarily. Years after the conflict, whats happened in the region? Has Russia gotten tough with Georgia again? No.
They simply assimilated a part of Georgia into the Oblast of Ossetia that should have been there (if ethnicity counts, if an expression of self determination counts) anyway.
I'm not saying Putin is all about freedom. I'm saying he acted in a rationale manner in Ossetia.
Now if McCain had his way, would the US have acted rationally?

Ray Jay wrote:I'm sure you have more experience in this area than I do. It also depends on how you interact with the given population. How much of your experience is influenced by that? If your interaction with a disadvantaged population was as, I don't know, let's say a grief counselor, you may feel differently (although maybe not). As I write that I chuckle to myself because of a conversation wtih a friend who rotated as an ER doc in central Boston; he said that he saw so many alchoholics and drug users, and they were an incredible drain on our society. I'd be intereseted in other views based on actual experience.

I have seen people in poverty who have just learned to live that way. I know a couple who have a couple of kids. Both parents work. Their marriage is dysfunctional--separate budgets, separate goals, etc. As a result of this, smoking, and other bad habits, they are poor and will remain poor.

Again, observation alone, the poor are disproportionately to the rest of society, smokers. As expensive as it is, they still smoke. This is amazing to me.

Yes, that is one family, but I could go on for hours. Almost every struggling family I see is struggling because of lifestyle choices.

Now, are there families who have struggled the past 4-5 years who never struggled before? Yes, but that is not "poverty." The vast majority of those will recover when the economy does. The lower class, economically speaking, are often trapped by their own choices.

Waste 3 minutes of your life and watch this or take the heart of it: in 1962, 6% of Americans received government aid. Today, 35% receive government aid (excluding SSI and Medicare).

I think he's right in this sense: the more the government is depended upon, the more likely we are to see such programs expanded. In other words, we are heading for, or may have arrived at, a place where a presidential candidate can win by simply promising some people more of other people's stuff. That seems to pretty much summarize the President's campaign: appealing to one group after another, promising them this or that.

The poor do not wellon IQ tests and in our information society that means they are not likely to be successful. Here is an article discussing the causes of why the poor do not do well on IQ tests. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/5-5-96/povertyiq.html

If the poor do not well because of their environment or their genetic IQ, then it is not the result of their choices. Find me a significant number of poor people with a high IQ and I think Fate's argument will be substantiated. Otherwise, by the time a poor person has become an adult, and therefore we can hold them accountable for their choices, their typically low IQs mean that they do have much of a chance to have successful lives.

So the poor's actions do not make them responsible for their poverty? A person who smokes 2 packs a day ($11 in NY) totals up for $660/mo. That is enough to take a chunk out of poverty. Shall I calculate alcohol costs?

What about illegal activity? That makes it more difficult to be employed, hence less income. Is that society's fault?

Many poor bring their condition upon themselves. (No Danivon, not all of them).

Anecdotally, I am one who was below poverty levels as a child, and my mom started getting out of the situations she was bringing on herself, and bettered the life she had. I continued bettering myself by making good life decisions. I could have started drinking and smoking after I was an adult and brought my life down. I could have started producing children out of wedlock and having child support payments that take a bite out of income levels. I could have started a path of criminal behavior, and lost opportunities of employment.

I could have, but I didn't. Why?

I don't think of the poor as having high or low IQ as a reason. I see their actions. Not all poor are criminals or substance abusers. Not all rich are smart and productive. A trend can be made about each though. The harder you work, the more possibility of success.

bbauska wrote:So the poor's actions do not make them responsible for their poverty? A person who smokes 2 packs a day ($11 in NY) totals up for $660/mo. That is enough to take a chunk out of poverty. Shall I calculate alcohol costs?

Nicotine is addictive. So is alcohol beyond a certain point. It's not that easy to just cut down or give up such vices. Sure, we can not start, but it's not always that simple either (particularly not with alcohol, which is usually just fine for most people in moderation).

Many poor bring their condition upon themselves. (No Danivon, not all of them).

Especially not those born into it. The problem with basing policy on a moral need to 'crack down' on people having kids when in poverty is that such things tend to affect those kids.

Low IQ could well be related to low ability to make the 'good life decisions' that you did. If it comes down to that, then is it really someone's fault that they aren't capable of taking the rational long term better choices?

So Fate and Bbauska the poor deserve to be poor?
Okay.
Then why are there more than twice as many poor Americans as poor Swedes as a percentage of the population?
Does that mean more Americans are deserving of poverty than Swedes?
Surely the institutional decisions that have been made have had a significant impact in Sweden, because I can't believe Americans are genetically disposed to poverty.
Or perhaps you have evidence of this being the case?

RickyP,
To answer your question, YES! If and only if, they are not using good judgement and decision making.

Poor and alcoholic... Personal fault
Poor and drug user... Personal fault
Poor and single parent due to non-marriage (not a widow/widower)... Personal fault
Poor and criminal record... Personal fault

Poor and divorced because spouse left... NOT personal fault (People must achieve in spite of adversity, though)
Poor because of medical issues... NOT personal fault (People must achieve in spite of adversity, though)

I do not believe the Americans are genetically disposed to poverty. Do you think Swedes are genetically disposed to success?

Do you think the poor ever bring their predicament upon themselves?

Poor and not willing to work . . . personal fault.

bbauska

I do not believe the Americans are genetically disposed to poverty. Do you think Swedes are genetically disposed to success?

No.
So then how d you explain the startling difference in the level of poverty? If Sweden has it down to just over 6% why can't the US do so as well? Why should the US suffer a rate at 15%? (With a much larger GDP per capita.)
Purple's answer is to drop US military spending to the same GDP as Sweden... And then hand out checks making poor people wealthier ...

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I do not believe the Americans are genetically disposed to poverty. Do you think Swedes are genetically disposed to success?

No.
So then how d you explain the startling difference in the level of poverty? If Sweden has it down to just over 6% why can't the US do so as well? Why should the US suffer a rate at 15%? (With a much larger GDP per capita.)
Purple's answer is to drop US military spending to the same GDP as Sweden... And then hand out checks making poor people wealthier ...

Well, first of all, you have to ask what would our military look like with, what, an 80% cut in military spending? Probably something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1zzvMKZ ... re=related

We would also have the people just above the poverty line crying about not getting "theirs."

It's such a brilliant idea--until you actually think about it.

rickyp wrote:ray

rickyp wrote:ray

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions

The poverty rate in Sweden is much lower than in the US.
Whats different? Swedish institutions of social welfare mostly. (Largely medical, educational and unemployment benefits) Unless you want to suggest that Swedes are a more motivated hard working people than Americans.

Ray

Ricky, just because you can only fathom 2 reasons for an occurrence, doesn't mean that there are only 2. Please don't give me your false "ors" until you've bothered to consider other reasonable possibilities.

I offered the question Whats different? .. I provided what I know to be big significant differences... Somehow, this small Euorpean nation, has acheived a remarkably low poverty rate. If you have other explanations than the four being raised on this board have at them. (The 4 being, their social systems of health, education and unemployment insurance and the lower military spending).
If on the other hand its the typical," yeah but the US is different... " Don't bother. Nothing is identical, and nothing seems to be similar enough for some Americans to beleive they can learn from another nations experiences.

First of all, I think there is plenty that America can learn from other countries. I haven't said otherwise, so this is just another small example of your discussion style being insulting.

Sweden has a different history and a different culture than the US so there may be other explanations. Sweden is smaller and less diverse. Sweden does not have 50 diverse states with varying economies.

Spain also has social systems of health, education and unemployment insurance and lower military spending. Why doesn't it work there?

ray

Sweden has a different history and a different culture than the US so there may be other explanations. Sweden is smaller and less diverse. Sweden does not have 50 diverse states with varying economies

.

If their history and culture may offer other explanations they should be easy for you to identify as reasons. Vaguely waving in their direction, is no answer. Its a dodge.
And usually the history and culture of the US is suppossed to be a strength no? Certainly net immigration has always provided the US the benefit of a natually expanding economy ... Something Sweden has not been able to depend upon.

What you may not be aware of is that Sweden faced a crunch in the nineties in its fiscal policies. It was spending too much and taking in too little revenue and it was chasing away business investment. A period of austerity, and targeted tax relief applied at a time of robust growth turned Swedens finances around to where they have one of the best "balancee sheets" of European countries.
I suggest that whatever comparisons you want to offer with Spain (who's social safety net does not compare with Swedens) fiscal responsibility is not one of them.
One of the interesting things about Sweden was that its unemployment benefits are very generous according to American standards. When the recession hit Sweden and unemployment went up the benefits for the unemployed kicked right in and the effect of that income meant that consuemr demand remained high. As a result Sweden's recession was much less severe and the recovery much quicker.
Which meant that the "deficits" were also contained to a briefer period.
But if you really think that culture and history are significant difference makers in terms of lowering poverty than the US, I'm sure you'll be able to illustrate that with ease.

ray

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions

ricky

The poverty rate in Sweden is much lower than in the US.
Whats different? Swedish institutions of social welfare mostly. (Largely medical, educational and unemployment benefits) Unless you want to suggest that Swedes are a more motivated hard working people than Americans

.
ray

Ricky, just because you can only fathom 2 reasons for an occurrence, doesn't mean that there are only 2. Please don't give me your false "ors" until you've bothered to consider other reasonable possibilitiesray

ray

I haven't said otherwise, so this is just another small example of your discussion style being insulting

.

Why is it that everytime one of your assertions is challenged and you can't back up the assertion you decide to be insulted?

A reread will indicate that I offered an open ended question..." Whats different?" and what I believe are the logical answers to that...
That you choose to interpret what I said as a limited to either/or is your problem.

In the end, you've gone beyond my alternatives anyway .... how flexible of you and you've decided that "culture and history" could be alternative answers to why Sweden has managed to limit poverty so much more effectively than the US..., though without any evidence of how... so I'll wait to see how you explain that.
(I always thought that was what American Exceptionalism embodied...a history and culture that uniquely provided the USA with advantages .... Are you now suggesting that Swedish Exceptionalism is a flavour better? )

Ricky, Sweden is different. I haven't said it is better; I haven't said it is worse. Sweden has fewer than 10 million people. The US has over 300 million people. I"m guessing that over 70% of Swedes have Swedish ancestry. I suspect that there is no one ethnic group in the US that has over 30% of the population. You cannot prove your case by just looking at Sweden.

If you don't like the comparison to Spain how about comparing to France which I presume has similar social welfare policies and an economy that is not functioning well.

I find your quotes to be dishonest because you don't put the context of each of my remarks up against the quote by you that prompted it.

ray

Ricky, Sweden is different. I haven't said it is better; I haven't said it is worse.

I have said that Sweden has a lower poverty rate than the USA. 6.4% versus 15% And its backed up with a source.
Unless you want to argue that poverty is a good thing...whats your point?

ray

Sweden has fewer than 10 million people. The US has over 300 million people. I"m guessing that over 70% of Swedes have Swedish ancestry. I suspect that there is no one ethnic group in the US that has over 30% of the population. You cannot prove your case by just looking at Sweden

.
And what does this ethnic homogenization (which you are guessing at) have to do with the rate of poverty in Sweden?
Are you trying to claim that ethnic homogenization should some how lead a nation to have a lower rate of poverty? Say Albania which is 94% ethnic Albanian should now have a lower rate of poverty?

Is that why the rate of poverty in the US went from about 20% in 1959 to the low of just over 10% in 74, to the rate of 15.5% today? The ethnic mix changed?

The major reason Sweden has a lower poverty rate than the US, despite having a lower GDP per capita, is that there are government programs in three areas that have eliminated many of the causes of poverty. (education, health care and unemployment insuracnes) Part of the reason they can afford these government programs is that they aren't funding a military industrial complex the way American tax payers fund theirs.
The fact that they are ethnically homogenous is irrelevant.