Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:16:11 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
 <1992Nov12.043812.5220@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
 <1992Nov12.092934.20343@RedBrick.COM>
 <1992Nov12.180043.3531@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>

In article <1992Nov12.180043.3531@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) says:
>
>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.)

What happenend in the 1970s was not impossible according to Keynesian
theories.  The practitioners simply paid far to much attention to one
side of the Keynesian theory and ignored the supply elements.  Minor
modifications in the theory since then have updated and improved the
theory and it is still largely in use.  It is certainly not "discredited"
and is still taught at both the undergraduate and graduate level in
economics.  Other theories are taught as well.


>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.

I'd like to see something more than anecdotal support for this.  The
long-term studies of economic mobility (eg. the PSID, the NLS) show
little long-term poverty, much less generational poverty.  One recent
study showed that 70% of the daughters of welfare mothers were not on
welfare during a ten year period.  If you can show me one study that
demonstrates that long-term generational poverty was lower before 1940
than after 1940, I might believe you.  I will insist that you include
persons of all races in your study.

>(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.

I agree with you here.  I just wish you would deal with a few more facts and
a lot less emotion.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs