Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts

2012-08-01

Culture To Blame

It is an interesting fact that the left thinks that economics determines culture and that the right thinks that culture determines economics. Romney said as much when he said "Culture makes all the difference" when comparing the relative differences between Israel and neighboring Palestinian areas (as well as those of U.S. and Mexico, and Chile and Ecuador). Romney reiterates the idea in his article here.

This has caused the left to wring their hands and worry that these "offhand" remarks are overshadowing, that it is tearing at his campaign, was a gaffe and is a problem for Romney. Why? Because the left does not see values or culture as the basis for societal success. They are inclined to blame economics when the poor commit crimes. Blaming the culture, values or the individual is viewed as unsophisticated and lacking nuance whereas blaming poverty is considered enlightened and progressive.

However, when the rich commit crimes, the left cannot use poverty as the scapegoat for crime. They are then forced to conclude what everyone else concludes, that values and culture may have more to say about why a person committed a crime and hold the individual accountable. This must create some level of cognitive dissonance for the left.

Another bout of dissonance must certainly erupt when those on the left contemplate why crime isn't rampant in some of the places around the globe where there is grinding poverty. To be sure, some impoverished places are smothered with crime, but if poverty is the major reason for crime, those poverty stricken places that have low crime rates must cause mental indigestion. The 'but Palestine is occupied' argument creates similar hiccups.

How are areas of low crime and high poverty explained by those on the left? How are financially and morally backward places that are not occupied explained by the left? They aren't. But here's a hint: values may be the answer you are looking for.

So the left is unhappy with Romney's assertion that culture might be the cause of financial disparities. And how does the left counter an argument that makes them unhappy? You guessed it - cry racism.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat informs:
Oh, my God, this man needs a lot of education. What he said about the culture is racism.
If culture is a set of ideas, beliefs, and ways of behaving of a particular group of people and race is essentially genetics, what about what Romney said was racist?

As Prager has noted, "Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not." Israel shares the western world's views on issues ranging from corrupt dictator-types, to feminism, to homosexual rights, to independent judiciaries. But the left loves leftism more than it loves the causes for which it professes love.

Culture, not race, has determined the successes and failures. Romney solidified this argument in both the Israel/Palestine comparison and the Chile/Ecuador comparison. Both comparisons juxtapose similar races with different cultures.

The left's reflexive dismissal of Romney as racist is embarrassing and depressing in that it suggests that the left is incapable of distinguishing between race and culture. They are happy to explain the differences between weather and climate, but for some reason their nuance filters get clogged on the race/culture issue.

As John Podhoretz notes:
Of course, for saying this, Romney was called a “racist” by Saeb Erakat, the longtime slavering lackey of every Palestinian murderer and thief. Erakat blames “occupation” for Palestinian poverty. But the PA has dominion over almost all of the West Bank and Hamas has control over all of Gaza, so the word “occupation” is all but meaningless — except as shorthand for “Israel still holds Jerusalem.”
Poverty. Occupation. Racism - anything but culture and values.

Romney eloquently makes the case that culture determines economics:
But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.
The right believes that it is values that are responsible for the relative success of the US and other democracies around the world. This is the root of the American exceptionalism that runs deep for those on the right. The right doesn't attribute America's exceptionalism to race, but rather to culture. Because the left sees economics, egalitarianism and equalism as the foundations of great cultures, and not values, they are not able to see America as exceptional.

UPDATE: (8/2) Victor Davis Hanson
Few believe that a unique micro-geography in North Korea explains why its way of life differs from the South, or that climate ensures that Tijuana is a very different place from San Diego, or that the differences between East and West Germany were due to genetic or racial variables, or that China between 1964 and 2012 underwent climate change. “Western” does not denote a race, but rather a set of values and protocols that originated in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem and were adopted, modified, and expanded through the next two millennia of European history -- and are undergoing radical changes as we speak.

...the hysteria is over candor, not truth

UPDATE: (8/8) Goldberg:
Though conservatives are more likely to tout this fact than are liberals, the truth is virtually every serious liberal believes it to be true to one extent or another. When you hear liberal politicians celebrate diversity as essential to a 21st century economy, they are making a point about culture. When they lament the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow as a partial cause for the various challenges facing the black community, they are making an argument about culture. When they talk about the “culture of corruption” on Wall Street, they’re not talking about advances in computerized trading.

2011-08-21

Wealth Decency

If economics shape moral behavior and poverty causes crime, shouldn't wealth create ever increasing decent behavior? If so, why are the rich so hated?

How are decent people in the poorest corners of Ethiopia or India explained? Who runs the orphanages in these places?

Clearly values are more important than one's economic status.

2011-08-17

Philly Phlash Mobs

Article

One side is cheerleading for personal responsibility and values that transcend race.

Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives:
Mayor Nutter deserves credit for stepping up and being a leader. Nutter is doing what Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, President Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus have thus far failed to do by speaking out against the epidemic of violent 'flash mobs' and rampant, random crime and violence.

The other side blames it all on economics and says that "Nutter's strong language enables white society in America to downplay poverty as the root cause of the black community's problems."

Frederick Harris, Columbia University political scientist:
If this discourse was led by Ronald Reagan, for instance, people would call him on his racism, but now that you have a black face to these explanations it gives it legitimacy.

Apparently Mr. Harris believes it is racist to ask the poor to act decent. And prior to a "black face" espousing these ideas, they were illegitimate? There is no legitimacy to asking young men (no matter what their race) to act responsibly and not bring thuggery to the public square?

If Mayor Nutter's "language enables white society to downplay poverty," does that mean any other explanation is not legitimate? Is suggesting that values are more important with respect to behavior than what one earns on a paycheck crazy talk that can only attain fraudulent stature when enabled by a black man? Only poverty can explain criminal behavior?

Don't we have the same expectation of decency from all other poor groups no matter what the race? Don't we rightly expect poor Hispanics, Japanese, Ethiopians, Latvians, Australians and Jews to act with civility? Or should certain races be excused of their behavior? Is there something unique about the black person's genetics or psyche that prevents them from adopting respectful values? Is Mr. Harris suggesting that it is only poor blacks who cannot embrace personal responsibility and eschew violent behavior?

What does he mean when Former Mayor John Street says that Mayor Nutter is "not a black mayor ... just a mayor with dark skin." Is there a genetically programmed way for a black man to think? How does believing in personal accountability disqualify one from being a member of a race? Is there something about dark skin pigmentation that compels one to excuse criminal behavior or to adopt certain beliefs?

Isn't what Messrs. Harris and Street are saying racist?

Food Stamps are a Stimulus

The Obama administration sees food stamps as an economy booster.


According to the demand side hypothesis, infusions of money from the tax coffers stimulates the economy by creating demand for goods and services where it did not previously exist. In fact, the effect of these infusions is said to create a multiplier effect – each dollar spent has better than a one dollar effect on the economy. ($1.84 according to Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.)

The argument for a demand side economy goes something like this:

Capitalism is driven by demand not by supply; supply just responds to demand. If that demand is not there, investors will be reluctant to fund a project, no matter how innovative it may be, choosing instead to put their money in investments that offer lower return but are safer and more secure. Supply side largesse for the rich might not go into capital formation, but might simply make the rich richer. While investment capital is extremely important in getting an innovative process started, it is consumer demand, not supply, that drives the process and keeps it going.

This Seattle Post Intelligencer article highlights a typical (in that they stimulate the supply side of anything 'green') infusion of money by demand siders.

  • The question that immediately comes to mind is, why are those that insist that government spending should enter the economy on the demand side (such as food stamps) spending $20 million (or any amount) on the supply side? Doesn't this violate the very nature of demand side philosophy?
  • If, as noted in the demand side description above, there is little or no demand (3 homes weatherized seems like low demand), won't the money just wind up in lower return, secure hideaways?
  • Why is this stimulus spending not simply making the rich richer in accordance with demand side philosophy?
  • From a Keynesian perspective, wouldn't this money have been better spent by giving out vouchers earmarked for weatherization upgrades to homeowners and let the supply side respond in accordance with the demand side philosophy?

2011-08-03

Notable Quotable

If there were a contest for the most misleading words used in politics, "poverty" should be one of the leading contenders for that title.

If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size.

People who say they want a government program because "I don't want to be a burden to my children" apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people's children.