General

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

mmartillo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:57:18 GMT

I'm not sure whom you're addressing, but since I'm the one with Broca's Aphasia it's probably me, as usual. Reflecting on all this it occurs to me that a circular affect may BE going on. Commerce is human action - economics is an extension of commerce and economic theory is the subjective analysis of the rules and methods of commerce - human action is affected by economics. A loop forms, and so perhaps is part of the sustaining effect on the slums.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

10Brandonr — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:37:29 GMT

I hate to sound rude or unintelligent, but sometimes I swear I need a translator to understand your posts.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

mmartillo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:33:15 GMT

Brandon, OK so now it seems you agree somewhat with Byzantine. Let's see if my jazzed out brain is with it here. If there is no natural reason people congregate then it must be economic, NO? And it seems Byzantine said essential that the real picky geeks more or less squeeeeezed them out of the clean and lovely middle class neighborhoods. So then we kind if have this Marxian thing going too where economics is affecting human behavior, and around we go again. Yikes! if all the schools of economics are valid at the same time, then the feedback loop is a natural thing too. Oh NO! Should I sell my platinum and titanium and buy a McMansion before it's too late?

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

theoriginalanomaly — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:08:00 GMT

I love how we are talking about the fractions of groups that do not survive. And asking why they don't survive. We group them together and make justifications. Hello, there has to be failure for the system to work. And what ends up after failure. Ownership from the state. Because the economy is becoming a closed economy. What happens when money is no longer good for barter around the world? Countries nationalize. AIG, Banks, Health Care. These are all becoming or have become nationalized. That is what happens to the failure, it is eaten by the state. That is why there are more and more failures, so the state can get bigger. Who cares what color they are, who cares why they failed. All that matters is that the system is setup to fail, and that there will be more and more failure.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

theoriginalanomaly — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:00:49 GMT

"Those who do not save, invest, and consume wisely will become poor" The economic system is designed to keep savings very low. Keynesian economics... (wikipedia) "To Keynes, excessive saving, i.e. saving beyond planned investment, was a serious problem, encouraging recession or even depression."

That is why they give out cheap money, so that savings are stolen. So you are then forced to maintain value to invest in something you don't understand. Obviously this would be wise right? Put all of your savings in the stock market even though you don't even begin to understand it.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

10Brandonr — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:28:39 GMT

Byzantine:

The element you're overlooking is that not everybody saves and invests, or even consumes wisely. Nor does everybody "gain skills and specialize."

That's true. And those who don't produce, save, invest, or consume wisely will become poor. That's the markets method of punishing those who do not contribute. Most people don't want to be poor so they do produce, save, invest, and consume wisely. poverty is natural but, there is no natural reason why these people would congregate and establish a neighborhood of isolated poverty.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

theoriginalanomaly — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:30:17 GMT

Yes, I blame nearly all of the problems on fractional reserve banking. If you do not, then you don't understand how it works. It creates limited resources, monies. Because it creates more debt than can possibly be paid off. And it devalues the dollar so that saving is discouraged. That is why you see so many people spending so much money on silly stupid things. The money is silly. We are playing with monopoly money, the banks have all the money. They are collecting interest currently on 45 trillion dollars. Imagine what that comes out to be a day? What is crazy is that there is not 45 trillion dollars in the first place. Limited resources means survival, survival means tribal mentality and grouping. Groups then fight for the limited resource because it is more of an advantage. People who do not win out, then own nothing and are owned by the state. Violence comes from peoples who own nothing but pride. If you have a multi-million dollar mansion, and someone calls you a bad name, who cares. You have personal property which is an extension of you. If all you have is pride and ego, that is all you have to defend. If you had your multi-million dollar mansion and someone came to take all of it, you would fight violently too. It is not ethnic. It is human.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

mmartillo — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:52:53 GMT

That ain't cigarettes their smokin' it's bug dust, and the cans on that street ain't covered.
The Caddies are powered by pure lust, and you slide between cans and get smothered.

Oops... I thought this was 'Poetry in the Ghettos'

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

mmartillo — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:17:29 GMT

Brandon, has your stance changed as a result of a changed focus, from 'inner city ghettos' and the restrictions imposed upon the dwellers 'particularly black americans', to business cycle generated slums and the plight of peoples of all colors?

In terms of economics I think the latter is a better focus since it avoids other issues that come up with the former. Issues that bend the rules of economics. Consider that economics is not a precise science, like physics. This is because the performance of commerce is greatly affected by human behavior, and economics is an element of commerce. Economic theory then is based on the analysis of the rules and methods of commerce. This point is what my joking about circular reasoning was about, but I admit, my sense of humor is warped.

If you tackle questions of culture with the tools of economics then you run into the many anomalies described in this thread. And if you try to 'esplane' human nature with economic theories then you get into a real head splitting feedback loop. So clarity is greatly improved now. Congratulations!

Byzantine, I put my money on mechanical engineers being indistinguishable. Those types make me feel out of place right away.
Good mornin' darlin' , let me see ya STICK OUT THOSE CANS.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

scineram — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:50:59 GMT

Lol @ blaming all shit on fractional reserve banking.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

10Brandonr — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:26:53 GMT

Well, I've changed my stance a little. We all should know that in the absence of government we will not experience utopia. Poverty will absolutely exist. Criminals and beggars will exist, why not?, there is a market for them, after-all. Slums too will exist, usually after mass immigration, abandonment of economic activity (such as railroads being abandoned for highway systems as the more popular mode of travel), and after natural disaster. But if those factors don't cause the people to relocate and create a ghost town, then a slum is created. But without trade restrictions, they will build wealth to sustain themselves, and the slum will only be temporary.

Natural market forces make sure that these people do not remain in poverty for too long. Poor, homeless, uneducated, and unskilled workers will compete for the same jobs, this produces low wages. Other businesses will want to start businesses there because of the low wages and large supply of workers, new jobs produce more wealth which the actors in this economy can use to save, consume, and invest. As the workers gain skills and specialize, the economy grows and stabilizes and the slum dissolves.

It still has nothing to do with race.

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:22:25 GMT

I'm sure welfare programmes, which create dependency and poverty traps, combined with the government's numerous ways of crippling and damaging the economy all do wonders to exacerbate the existence of slums. I'm not so sure they'd disappear in the absence of government - there will always be layabouts, criminals &c. But welfare plus regulation probably intensify the issue.

-Jon

Re: Poverty in the ghettos

10Brandonr — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:11:48 GMT

theoriginalanomaly:

I answered why I thought their were slums in a previous post. I wrote that in response to your previous post. Economic activity has left the slums for many reasons, not just having to do with putting a group in an area. A lot of it had to do with white flight and other factors. Free market trade would not get rid of slums. The fractional reserve banking system requires that there be slums. They are creating fraud money, which means they are stealing. The slums would be the places where individuals live that are being stolen from. Fractional Reserve banking requires the theft of real properties. That is precisely why people, in the slums, have nothing. But for the system to continue the slums must also grow. This is a giant theft. The Federal, National, Fed, central intelligence agency otherwise known as the federal government, is stealing from its citizens.

Where's your evidence for such a claim? I believe that fractional reserve banking produces poverty overall by reducing the value of the dollar, and discouraging savings. But, I don't really see any evidence for it to directly produce poverty in the slums.

Also, historically when economic activity leaves a certain area it produces a ghost town, because usually the actors within that economy leave as well. If they don't leave they set up a new economy using trade. So in the case of ghettos, something is preventing the people from leaving or is preventing them from developing a new and healthy economy in that region.