From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:00:43 GMT

I've been asked in e-mail to direct this discussion away from ne.politics,
so I've altered the follow-up line accordingly.

In article <1992Nov12.092934.20343@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>  However, the facts you state are in error.  During the so-called
>  "dog-eat-dog" era (which I calculate ran roughly from the Civil
>  War to the beginning of the Great Depression, very few so-called
>  poor peopl escaped poverty.

During that time, the bulk of the urban poor were European emmigrants
(mostly Irish and Italian, if memory serves.) Since this is no longer 
the case, I think it's safe to assume the overwelming majority of these
groups escpade poverty.
  
>  Unions were formed out of this horrid
>  sick society.

Which is _also_ a "dog eat dog" institution, with workers organizing 
themselves so that they could do some of the eating. It seems to have
worked very well for factory workers.

>  But the industrial level of our society had not
>  really started to progress.

Are you seriously suggesting that there was no major economic
growth in the period you refer to (1865-1928)? The United States
certainly wasn't industrialized in any great extent 1865, but our
industrial output was a significant issue in (for example) the First
World War. It would seem there was quite a bit of growth during
that period.

>  FDR put much of the country back to work during the Depression and
>  some gains were made in working conditions.

Unproven, and debated by economists. FDR implimented programs, and
eventually the Depression ended. Many of the programs he tried out
were failured, some _appeared_ to have an effect. But there is no
evidence the two were connected (Keansian (sp?) ecomonic theory doesn't
count, since those theories were largely discredited in the 1970s, when
they totally failed to predict the behavior of the ecomony. In fact,
the economy did things that were _impossible_ according to these theories.)
If FDR had sat in the White House and chanted voodoo spells, and the
Depression had eventually ended, would you give him credit?

>  What finally started to process was
>  World War II.  Our industrial capacity increased dramatically.
>  Was this due to investment?  Of course not.

Nor was it due to World War Two. During the war, we focused our industry
on a single goal, but the industry existed before the war: For example, after 
visiting the United States in the 1930s, Japanese Adm. Yamamoto was
_extremely_ impressed by American industry, and predicted Japan could
not win a war with the United States if American industry (e.g. ship 
building, etc...) became a factor (By the way, this was one reason
of the Pearl Harbor attack: To enable a rapid victory _before_ American
production could become a factor. Yamamoto correctly predicted that this
would give them about a year to win or else American producion would
start to hurt them.) So, at least one very intellegent, respected observer
considered American pre-war industry capacity _even_during_the_deperssion_ 
to be among the greatest in the world. Pre-war industrial growth,
by the way, _was_ due solely to investment.

>  Still, things
>  got even better after the War when former soldiers were GIVEN
>  (yes, GIVEN) things like the GI Bill which they used to put
>  themselves through school and purchase homes. 

I never said giving things away as always a bad policy. I've just been 
pointing out the existance of the gifts. (We do both agree that this
benifited the soldiers, right?)

>  We also had
>  Social Security so people who were previously left to rot as
>  elderly poor were able to keep their apartments and eat.  All
>  of this was what gave us the vast middle class.  Not making
>  it "tough" for the poor, but giving them a gentle hand up.

It was also at this time the begining of _permenant_ poverty in this
country: Large numbers of people being born in poverty, living their
entire lives in poverty, and raising childern who did the same.

(By the way, do you have and references or facts to support the claim 
that the large middle class was solely a post-war growth? You seem to
industrial capacity was (which isn't really the case, see above) so
I'm doubtfull of this claim about the middle class.)

>  So I think it is VERY clear.  Poor people have the same needs,
>  feelings, desires as us middle class and you rich.

Sure, and two of those desires (to which the rich are _very_ subject
as well as the poor) are laziness and a desire for comfort. If
someone has a comfortable standard of living, he isn't (usually)
inclined to work. Conversely, if he's unhappy about his standard
of living, he has an incentive to do something about it. It seems
to me self-evident that suffering causes people to act, and remove
the casue of their suffering. (At least, this both makes logical 
sense and matches my personal experiences.) If you eliminate all
the bad things that go along with poverty, you also eliminate the
strongest motive to escape poverty.

>  ...Most of them would work if there were
>  jobs.  There aren't any.  The choice is simple.  Heartlessness
>  or helpfulness.  I think your concept (that heartlessness may
>  be a better way to "help" them) is so devoid of intellect OR
>  emotion  that it clearly shows you for what you are.     

Perhaps living in proximity to the Berkeley, CA homeless for five years
has given me the wrong impression (I rather doubt that group is "typical"...)
But I think most of the homeless (the real extreme of poverty) will
work _only_ as much as they have to in order to survive. I'd 
generalize this, to say people (everyone, not just poor people) tend
to work _only_ as much as they have to, to obtain some standard of
living which they consider tolerable. I don't find this conclusion
deviod of intellect: It seems a very reasonable one to draw from
my expreience. Is it "devoid of emotion"? Possibly, but at least by
training, I consider that an advantage: We ought to be considering the
world as it exists and how it works; _not_ how the would "should" be,
or what would make up happy _if_ it were true. Unpleasent, emotionally
disturbing facts are still facts, and concepts based on emotion instead
of fact don't solve very real problems. 

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
                                                


Xref: sparky ba.politics:7057 talk.politics.misc:59848 alt.politics.elections:23621 co.politics:1869 ne.politics:2935 alt.politics.clinton:16988 alt.politics.democrats.d:493