Best income inequality books according to redditors
We found 273 Reddit comments discussing the best income inequality books. We ranked the 55 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
6. The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
8 mentions
PENGUIN
>Look at the last Great Depression; it might have lasted a decade, it might have been very worrying for people living through it, but when it was finally over with and we'd recovered, America was a world superpower and enjoying prosperity like never before.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that America came out on top at the end of WWII because (a) our government took on massive amounts of debt and taxed the rich at the highest rates in history to invest heavily in our manufacturing sector; (b) that manufacturing sector and the greatly improved infrastructure that came with it were left completely intact after the war because we weren't bombed to oblivion like Europe; and (c) because of said bombing of Europe, our former economic rivals were in complete shambles and unable to compete with us for a long time.
If you want to use the Depression & WWII as a precedent, you're effectively saying we should bomb the hell out of our competitors (say, China), have the government take even more debt than now and jack up taxes on the rich to 94%, then use that money to build the best damn manufacturing sector in the world that can now dominate the world without competition. (Which actually wouldn't work as well this time around anyway because our "competitors" are actually our customers, too, and buying a LOT from us.)
>the EXPERIENCES of the Great Depression helped instill a national idea of "things getting better" and renewed optimism for the future.
This is true in the sense that it did seem to make them a wiser generation, but then a few decades later we had another crisis because their kids & grandkids forgot or ignored those lessons. What makes you think if we go through another Depression that the lessons won't eventually be forgotten again?
Edit: reworded some things for clarity
Edit 2: For further investigation I recommend this book to you as well. In it Krugman argues that the higher tax rates in the wake of WWII actually helped build the middle class, and as those rates got cut down--especially starting with Reagan--the American middle class and the way of life it created was cut down with them.
Edit 3: Hat tip to cuteman's comment for pointing out that the majority of the funding for manufacturing came from government debt, not taxing the rich.
That's a good question. I believe the answer is split in two parts.
Optimism. I consider myself a rational optimist. I know that things can go very bad (and often times they do), but research in neuroscience suggests over and over that the way we look at the world influences greatly the outcome of our actions and that of the people around us. This of course has nothing to do with any quantum-woo bullshit, it's simply a recognition that if you feel hopeless, scared, and defeated, you are less likely to come up with solutions to whatever problem you are facing than when you are open to the possibilities.
Also, we are objectively getting better at most everything (see the book of my good friend Peter Diamandis Abundance, the Future is Better Than You Think): better health, less violence, fever wars, etc. This is an often overlooked and underplayed fact by the pessimists and by the environmentalist community. However, there are two things that are getting progressively worse: wealth inequality and environmental degradation. This is an often overlooked and underplayed fact by the techno-optimists and by the Singularity crowd. I stand right in the middle, I see the opportunities, as well as the perils, and I try to think of solutions accordingly.
Achievement. I honestly have no way of knowing if humanity will achieve the goals that I propose. All I can do is strive to make it happen, and inspire others to do the same. Since it's not an impossible goal, merely a very difficult one, it's not a delusional state of mind. It's simply a rational optimist approach. By having this attitude I'm increasing the probability of achieving the goal, and even if I contribute to a mere 1 part in 10 thousand, the collective effort of others like me has more chances of succeeding.
GMO is so good for struggling farmers, unfortunately some uninformed idiots think it's bad and dangerous but they don't know any of the facts. It's inevitable whether you try to stop it. it's coming, and it's a good thing. For further reading,
Here's Bill Gates, talking this year about GMO foods, breaking down why it's a good thing.
In the video he recommends a book called Tomorrow's Table
Also, Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis
It's written by the guy that started the X prize, he's an MIT professor and Harvard MD.
He basically says GMO foods are gonna change the poor parts of the word for the BETTER and goes on to describe the harm that kooks are causing trying to stop them.
Too true. Since the late 70's the media arm of the GOP has done an excellent job at demonizing the words Democrat and Liberal. They're literally used as general derogatory descriptors in Texas.
EDIT: For those saying or insinuating that the left is equally guilty of this, not by a long shot. Of course Democrats will take any opportunity to disparage all Republicans even if it's only some of them behaving badly - but that's not what I'm talking about. The GOP has honed this craft to a fine art through talk radio and various propaganda outlets which masquerade as "news." It was a brilliant strategy, really:
Step 1) Portray "government" as the problem to everything
Step 2) Drive home the message that Democrats/left are the party of government
Step 3) Ensure that government cannot actually function in order to fulfill Step #1
Step 4) Win elections by pointing to #1 and #2
The dysfunctional, hyper-polarized political environment that we find ourselves in now is not equally the fault of both parties and one party has clearly done a better job at whipping it's base into a frothing fury over the last 30 years.
Two good books (one from a long time ex-Republican strategist) if anyone is interested in learning more about how we got here and what can be done to change it:
The Party is Over
It's Even Worse Than it Looks
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City
We (Milwaukee DSA) are currently reading it for our book club and it's a surprising but not too surprising look at poverty in the inner city not too far from where we live.
From Amazon.com:
In Evicted, Harvard sociologist and MacArthur “Genius” Matthew Desmond follows eight families in Milwaukee as they struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Hailed as “wrenching and revelatory” (The Nation), “vivid and unsettling” (New York Review of Books), Evicted transforms our understanding of poverty and economic exploitation while providing fresh ideas for solving one of 21st-century America’s most devastating problems. Its unforgettable scenes of hope and loss remind us of the centrality of home, without which nothing else is possible.
> Sorry, I depend on science and facts
You should read The magical thinking of guys who love logic. "Science" is not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.
There is no existing "science" which will accurately predict what the 327 million people of the United States are going to do politically and socially over the next few years, so if your standard for taking action is to wait for the science, you're going to sit around like a useless lump while the United States travels a very dark path.
> Especially when the op actually claims science supports such statements with at least one model and analysis.
That's not what they claimed. They described a "consensus among scholars and survivors." There are plenty of scholars who are not scientists, as you'll see below. What op is referring to is presumably the many warnings that have indeed been raised by scholars and survivors, of which the OP post is one. I'll list just a few of the more prominent ones, but if you search, you'll find many more.
I'll also point out that it takes effort to produce such a list, so if you take the fact that people you're arguing with just don't bother, perhaps because they perceive you as not worth the effort, you're going to find yourself wallowing in ignorance while at the same time thinking you know it all. Which is precisely the problem that gets us into situations like the current one. If you want to be part of the solution, you have to take responsibility for educating yourself better.
Yeah, you can all pretend that all this shit started in 2016 after the election of Trump but this movement toward oligarchy has been going on since the 80s and it would have been absolutely no different with Hillary considering her VP pick voted for the same fucking bill. Read Listen Liberal and you'll understand that Trump is just a symptom of a larger systemic problem. As long as you think the corrupt, fake left-wing party known as the Democrats are the answer and that Trump is responsible for the very broken system that enabled him to get elected in the first place, this stuff is completely over your head.
Nuclear war a problem with Trump? That's funny considering Democrats voted to increase the Pentagon budget under Trump's watch to the highest levels in U.S. history.
Matt Taibbi wrote an interesting book that talks about this. Here's a link if you're interested, he actually talks about this example between the HSBC (the bank that channeled money for the Sinaloa cartel) and minor drug offenders.
Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal is pretty much required reading if you are left/curious
Yeah, I don't know how to do it, but I don't think it's impossible.
One of the most bizarre discussions I had semi-recently was at a family gathering the same weekend as the Milwaukee riots where a very conservative relative recommended this book about inner city poverty as background for how bad it was there (despite the author being "a bit of a wacko socialist"), but then supporting the sheriff ordering a National Guard crackdown to preserve law and order (and he thinks Obama undermined the moral fabric of society by releasing some drug offenders).
Per Nisbet and Deneen, it does logically follow that a hyper-liberal view of immigration (it is immoral to bar people from moving across states, open-borders), would require an expansion of the state to uphold order and replace the stability and social trust original communities had a priori the effective dissolution of them via widespread immigration. Individualism and the state march hand in hand.
But this political compass is fucking absurd, on that I think we can all agree.
> It sure as hell ain't democratic, or even a proper republic.
I would argue that it never was
There are a lot of reasons for this. You have a bicameral legislative system that few other countries have. You have no proportional representation. You also have the electoral system that is rigged against people at the bottom of the voting polls (immigrants and minorities).
It's tough being the first democracy, but our democracy needs an upgrade from the 1.0 version.
I’m a huge Paul Krugman fan, and this topic is a perfect example of when liberalism and economics can clash in a big way (not to say that they are related, but Krugman wrote The Conscience of a Liberal so that’s why I bring it up). So while it might be on some small level a good thing to have rent control for that particular family who benefits from it on an anecdotal level, it just doesn’t work in the big picture long term if cities zone for growth.
Rent control is popular because it seems to help out the little guy, but in the long term it creates ghettos and traps renters from ever leaving.
Before you jump all over me for generalizing and making value judgements; macroeconomics is the definition of making generalizations and my labels aren’t judging.
Anyone read The Divide:American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap? Just started it, and its getting me all pissed about the late-00's financial crisis again.
I swear every 6 months or so, I read something that gets me all fired up on this topic.
This is not surprising to me. Section 8 vouchers initially seem like a good, non-distortionary, market-based way of providing low-income housing. But while that's true in theory in practice many U.S. municipalities, including Seattle, have restricted the development of any new housing to the point that Section 8 vouchers are impractical due to costs and simple apartment availability. Without doing something about NIMBYs and local zoning processes, Section 8 vouchers will not be effective.
Matthew Desmond's book Evicted is pretty good on this point (see my remarks here). I've written or worked on Section 8 proposals, as well HUD 811, 202, HOPE VI, and related programs; the people who run them, especially in high-cost cities like LA, SF, NYC, and Seattle are well aware of the problems that local zoning imposes on affordable housing. But most voters are homeowners and, despite what one sees people say in public, most like blocking development as a way of attempting to increase the value of their own homes.
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447459/ref=nodl_
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America https://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0312626681/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=nickel+and+dimed&qid=1566530665&s=gateway&sprefix=nickel&sr=8-1
> I found nothing insightful in this article.
You misunderstand. Reporting isn't about providing insight. That's what books, analysis articles, editorial articles, op-eds, and think-tank white papers are for.
Want insight? Read a Pulitzer prize winning book. Or alternatively read an editorial article. You could also try a white paper from a professor at Harvard University. All of these three are from a guy named Matt Desmond. Maybe you should email him if you want insight.
Reporting is the documentation and dissemination of information. It does not include analysis of said information. I didn't know the eviction process very intimately, and I'm willing to bet that many people that read this article didn't know the eviction process either.
Does this article have a wide scope? Yes. So it's sweeping.
Does this article include in-depth interviews collected over the course of several months? Yes. So it's intimate.
I read a book that included a chapter about this. Holy shit, was it infuriating. Thanks for sharing, def wanna check it out.
Education policies are kind of in shambles right now. One of the problems are policies like No Child Left Behind which put such a high emphasis on testing that students ended up learning how to take the test rather than learning fundamentals. Basically what happens is that federal funds are funneled to schools that are already well funded because those schools can afford the necessary materials to get high test scores (a good book to read if you're interested in this topic is Jonathan Kozol's The Shame of the Nation). The problem, then, what mechanism should we be using to allocate federal funds to public schools? I'm of the mind that property taxes should go to the state and all school districts should be funded equally, then standardized tests can be used (though maybe not as heavily emphasized) to determine which schools need different management. Obviously that has many political implications, though.
Also, the current state of the public education is so entrenched in a system that isn't working very well and leaves little wiggle room for educators to try to innovate they way that students learn. Often educators are not given much leeway when they see that students aren't learning in the traditional way and should be given the ability to alter their teaching styles to innovate and accomodate these students.
This is depressing. For anyone interested in learning more about inequalities in schooling, I recommend checking out the work of jonathon kozol. It'll really make you believe we're living in a country of two vastly different Americas.
The Gaslit Nation podcast hosts (Sarah Kendzior & Andrea Chalupa) just made a strong recommendation for a book called "The Road to Unfreedom". I haven't ordered it yet but they said it lays out the roadmap for the next steps of moving the US towards a Russian dictatorship and advises on how to cope with and counter those steps.
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/dp/0525574468
completely agree ! reading a great book at the moment called "Abundance; the future is better than we think https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217 which backs up what you just said.
you're kidding, right? read this book. check out this excerpt:
> And this is part of the disorderly conduct statute here in New York, but this is one of these offenses that people get roped in for. It’s part of what a city councilman in another city called an "epidemic of false arrests," basically these new stats-based police strategies. The whole idea is to rope in as many people as you can, see how many of them have guns or warrants, and then basically throw back the innocent ones. But the problem is they don’t throw back everybody. They end up sweeping up a lot of innocent people and charging them with really pointless crimes.
long story short, people get ticketed or arrested for "breaking" laws that they didn't really break. and once the prosecutor realizes they were wrong, they offer a plea. here's the catch, when people take a deal, this is basically the prosecutor admitting that the police either falsified or exaggerated a charge. if the person actually committed the crime, then it would be easy to get a guilty verdict.
do yourself a favor and read up on the subject. your original comment is very uneducated.
That is pretty much exactly the point of Matt Taibbi's recent book The Divide
How the hell can you know all of that? Are you fucking psychic? Did you put on cerebro and read thousands of minds at once and determine that 100k worth of russian ads made bernie voters vote for trump and swing the election?
Try this: https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1250118131/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27N26CMXK04D2&keywords=listen+liberal&qid=1562273683&s=books&sprefix=listen+lib%2Caps%2C199&sr=1-1
Briefly I want to develop some comments I was making in reply to another thread.
By publishing this article now, and having another one titled "I’m a Shooting Survivor. If You’re Going to Pray for Us, Here’s How" beside it, it can be argued that CT is linking racism to one recent mass shooting and ignoring others, and by doing so accepts and reinforces a simplistic narrative that makes the problem worse.
I only have 10 minutes, I will just say we have to move beyond racism as a monolithic explanation.
What is the Church doing about the War on Boys? Fatherlessness and divorce?
The collapse of community? Liberalism's devolution into narcissism and boutique identify formation?
(Ran out of time for links.)
About the loss of dignified work for those unable or uninterested in college? About the cosmopolitan elites densification efforts?
About the total despair of a generation whose has been hysterically told there is no hope since birth because of impending climate disaster? That 22% of millennials say they have no friends (alienation). Young men told they are toxic? The rise of nones and incels?
Not to mention mental illness, still stigmatized by many Christians as a lack of faith?
First of all, you're moving the goalposts. Instead of "influencing opinion" now its "spreading misinformation".
Second of all, you do ignore it. It's literally in the leaked DNC strategy documents that they should recruit celebrities to influence people. And it was happening while the democrats were the elected government in power. That certainly fits your definition of an elected government using celebrities for targeted propaganda.
If you want a source on influence peddling read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Marketing-United-Jennifer-Lees-Marshment/dp/0415632862
Or even this classic, which everyone should read
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1250118131/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510674209&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+frank
Ed: Lol reddit, ask for sources, provide sources, downvote anyway because you don't like what those sources say. Classic.
There's the cosmopolitan elite and the non-cosmopolitan elite, which of course Carlson won't talk about. But the Democratic Party has been the party of the cosmopolitan elite—the professional class, as Thomas Frank calls it—for some time. This is the standard fascist play, though—notice that Carlson never calls for a party of labor.
Patrick Deneen's much talked about recent book Why Liberalism Failed critiques liberalism from a communitarian perspective. Although Deneen is not left-wing, his views significantly overlap with leftist criticisms of liberalism. His critique is multi-faceted and I cannot do justice to all of it in one comment. I recommend you read this article written by Deneen which summarizes his position.
In short, liberalism is based upon the system that autonomous individuals stripped from all contingencies would decide upon. These individuals are either those in Locke's state of nature or behind Rawls' veil of ignorance. But we are not, in fact, such autonomous individuals fully separate from social ties. Through the institutions liberalism has put in place, however, we are increasingly made into such individuals. This has profound negative effects in many aspects of life, including high levels of loneliness, declining marriage and birth rates, and the predominance of capitalism which leads to great economic inequality. Thus, liberalism is failing because we are facing the effects which result from its success.
If you'd like to read his full book, you can buy it here.
He also has direct oversight of the AG's office, which should have been responsible for prosecuting the culprits of the 2008 crash.
More on this failure in a book by the author of OP's post.
Why the hell does this only have 289 upvotes? I think there's a 0 missing at the end...
Btw read his book guys, it's very addictive and you'll wanna read it in one shot.
Referrer-free linky:
http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
https://www.amazon.com/Before-Church-State-Sacramental-Kingdom/dp/1945125144
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/01/liturgy-of-liberalism
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/a-christian-strategy
https://www.amazon.de/Why-Liberalism-Failed-Politics-Culture/dp/0300223447
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/01/conservative-democracy
***
It's not that hard to find reasonable conservative critics of 'the liberal order' who are not calling for a LARP-y reconstruction of western institutions. Unlike the left, the anti-liberal right actually has states that it can point to (e.g. Hungary, Poland) as reasonably good cases of their politics at work.
If you are at all interested in the topic of housing, consider reading Evited by Matthew Desmond. The book chronicles the stories of people living in the poverty and their struggle to find housing, and it takes place in Milwaukee.
By far mostly non-violent, in fact.
Have a read of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X
The USA truly does have a two tier justice system at the moment, worse than in the recent past.
As for links, I think one book absolutely everyone should read is this. Its called Evicted: Poverty and Profit in an American city. It looks at patterns of persistent poverty and eviction practices in Detroit. Its an absolutely crushing look into the daily lives of people caught in cycles of persistent poverty and can teach you a lot about how hard it is to get ahead, or even stay current on basic necessities in depressed areas, coming from a depressed background, with little education or ability for upwards momentum.
As for historical economic disparity, most of that is inference from documentaries and one particular lecture series called The Early Middle Ages which is an Open Yale Course available for free to the public. The professor is incredible and I listened to this whole thing in about a week. I'm not sure you will get as much out of it as I have, because I have a massive background in social theory.
To really understand how radically capitalism changed the power structure of the modern world, Marx is a great place to start. His communist theories are a bit whack, and a bit too black and white for me. But if you look at what was changing around that time in the world, and try and understand where Marx's ideas came from, you can start to understand the massive changes that capitalism and the industrial revolution had on the world.
Another interesting theory to take a look at is Weber's essay(s?) on bureaucracy, and his "Iron Cage." Which sums up how trapped and unimportant an individual or even group is/can be in todays world.
Arms and Dudes. The skies belong to us. One of us. And, though not really true crime in the sense of these others, I highly recommend Evicted.
You'd be surprised that today, it's rare to be black in an all-white neighborhood. Even education today is more segregated than it was in 1968 (the height of the civil rights movement).
"White flight" has resulted in all-minority neighborhoods in America. This results in less funding for local schools, lower property values, and fewer businesses wanting to establish themselves in low-income, racially segregated areas. This means that even grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables don't want to be in a low-income, high-minority neighborhood, limiting their access to healthful foods. Instead, they rely on the local corner store that doesn't even primarily sell food.
There isn't just an unequal standard of living, but also unequal access to opportunity. Your network (from family to your college alumni) can be so important when you're trying to find a job, but if you couldn't afford to go to college and your family has always been working class, you're already set up to have unequal opportunities compared to the kid whose parents are lawyers or doctors. Even if you look in the news today, you'll see instances of discrimination by banks, hiring managers, and federal regulations.
If you're really serious about learning more about why it's more difficult to be Black in America today, I urge you to pick up a book. Here are some of my suggestions:
American Apartheid by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol
One thing we could do is use data, like all the other countries have. Rather than relying on these religious like ideologies.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594205515/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493159134&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=a+fine+mess&dpPl=1&dpID=413VeXM0sBL&ref=plSrch
Actually Cheney restructured the VP position to be a 'co-presidency.' He wanted to drive policy and with the powers he assigned to the vice presidency he did. Hillary has gone forward with policy imitatives that Obama did not approve. She has a cozier relationship with the CIA and some generals than Obama does. Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government http://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0525428348?ie=UTF8&keywords=deep%20state&qid=1463018297&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
> wouldn't that make trans people just bullshitters?
if race is a social construct, wouldn't that make black people just bullshitters?
no, because a social construct isn't the same thing as playing make believe. it's honestly super complex and r/sunbakedsnowcave gave probably the simplest, neatest answer you could hope for already
here's one explanation that's widely -though not universally- accepted
you might need to do some background reading
if you need to do background reading for that, find a soc 101 text on amazon they're like 2 bux and a lot of fun
I honestly wish more social scientists would take some advice from Alice Walker. Holy fucking shit, Butler. Lacan is not someone you should be taking notes on style from.
Here’s the sequel
It's more about society changing (like the book Abundance, which is a great read) than people, but I think a lot of use share some of these visions. Thoughts?
In Sweden and New Zealand, their equivalent of the IRS essentially mails you a completed tax return that you look over and just have to verify.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11380356/swedish-taxes-love
https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Mess-Global-Simpler-Efficient/dp/1594205515
It's not just this one tactic. The Trump "administration" is using multiple strategies and figures from the Putin regime. The fact that Paul goddamn Manafort was his campaign manager right after working for Yanukovych (Putin's stooge in Ukraine) set off so many alarm bells, but it was mostly dismissed as an "out there" conspiracy theory at the start. The "lock her up" rhetorical tactic was also seen first in Ukraine, and Putin himself has used boisterous, aggressively nationalistic rallies.
I can't recommend strongly enough that people read Timothy Snyder's Road to Unfreedom. It lays out in full the similarities in both Putin's and Trump's assaults on democracy, as well as their connections.
Okay, here I am channeling my inner Grady Harp. It isn't polished, I did it in about 6 minutes. It is on this book, which I do hope to read at some point: Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City
Matthew Desmond's critically acclaimed book, "Evicted," came with lofty expectations. First, several media sources have heavily praised and promoted Desmond's book even when he seemed almost reluctant to do so. Second, the heavy criticism that befell Alice Goffman's ethnography work has made readers skeptical of the style.
Desmond has met these expectations and perhaps gone beyond them. The book follows several families in abject poverty, including Arleen who is a single mother doing the best she can to raise her two children on $20 a month after paying for rent at an apartment that she would not choose but for pure desperation. "The rent was $550 a month, utilities not included," Desmond writes, "Arleen couldn't find a cheaper place, at least not one fit for human habitation, and most landlords wouldn't rent her a smaller one on account of her boys. The rent would take 88 percent of Arleen's $628-a-month welfare check."
The book also profiles the landlords who seemingly control the lives of their poor tenants. One landlady, Shereena, is benevolent at times while a shrewd businesswoman at others. "'I'm gonna have a hard time doing this,'" Shereena tells a handicapped man she must evict, "'I feel bad for the kids. Lamar's got them little boys in there.... And I love Lamar. But love don't pay the bills.'" Whether she takes advantage of the tenants or is their savior when they cannot find any other shelter is left for the reader to decide, as Desmond writes in an observational, naturalistic style. He seldom takes moral positions.
Landlords and banks are evicting tenants at a higher rate than ever before, and Desmond makes a compelling argument that this is a crisis that will significantly impact the lives of all Americans as it can lead to economic despair and even to crime. I enjoyed every single page of this book, which I read carefully and did not in any way do a quick Google search, look at the first few pages, and paraphrase the synopsis.
really-i-care March 6, 2016 ©
Edit: Ever important name and date.
Can I convince you the future will be perfect? no.
Are all of your concerns legitimate? Absolutely.
However, as NewFuturist said, this is only the latest in a long line of periods in which people thought that the world was ending. While there is a sort of deep, visceral sense that our problems are more serious than those in other times, we must examine that belief to see if its really true. Personally, although I do believe that humanity is facing its most difficult period ever, we also have the most amazing tools to defeat it.
If I could recommend one book to read to convince you that we at least have a shot, please read Abundance by Peter Diamandis. It is a wonderful book that breaks down the challenges that humanity faces one by one. You can see that there is significant progress being made in all of the areas where humanity is in trouble. We can't know for sure if we're going to make it. But personally, I believe its a very real possibility. That's why I've decided to make a career out of this stuff.
Step 1: Watch this
http://vimeo.com/34984088
Step 2: Read this
http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
Step 3: Post here. Tell me what you thought.
And to do with the Democrats not being much of a working-class party anymore. The establishment is more Clinton’s party than FDR’s. Sanders is trying to change that back, but the Clinton-wing will fight tooth and nail to keep their Wall Street donor money.
Read Thomas Frank’s “Listen, Liberal: What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” for the full scoop.
Compelling book for those interested in what it is like to live, profit off of, and lose money from poor sections of our city:
https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484068855&sr=8-1&keywords=evicted
Your answer is sufficient.
I also blame the Republican Party starting with the Reagan administration. The Reagan administration was the first time the Republican Party started using culture war issues to win elections while their governance did little more than gut welfare programs and ignore labor unions.
Source: Conscience of a Liberal
Feel free to politicize your answer to best accommodate your teacher. Sociologists are pretty liberal, so s/he might appreciate the more partisan answer.
This book is American but the same problems apply here, it's well worth a read.
https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447432
Hey there! To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about this specific issue although Evicted is on my reading list.
I agree with you on the educational point. The Republicans have completely overhauled how education is done in North Carolina over the past 7 years, this is a great overview. I'm not convinced that "choice" is the solution to our education woes.
My high school's district is actually drawn like you're proposing -- it pulls from both country clubs and housing projects. It was a formative experience, to be sure.
If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend taking a look at San Francisco's school assignment process which is the solution they've taken to solve this problem. They've seen interesting externalities when implementing this, such as wealthy families opting out of the public school system altogether. (As an aside, this is what happened in my hometown when they desegregated schools in my hometown -- the wealthy families founded a private school with tuition so high that no black families could afford it).
Read this
http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X
They may not all be pregnant, but black people in many areas are getting beat down and tossed in jail for no real reason in stunning numbers. Dare to resist in any way and you're liable to end up dead.
It's a very well written piece by State Journal standards. The series it is part of on housing and homeless issues in Madison is better written and researched than normal for them.
UW-Madison's Go Big Read book for the 2016-17 academic year is Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City http://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447432?ie=UTF8&keywords=evicted%20poverty%20and%20profit%20in%20the%20american%20city&qid=1465487438&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1. The author is Matthew Desmond, who is now at Harvard, but got his PhD from UW-Madison. The book describes his experiences interacting with multiple landlords and tenants in Milwaukee around 2008 to 2010. He profiles an African-American area on the north side and a trailer park near the airport. It's a very enlightening and sobering read because all of the individuals involved are portrayed as very human.
Is there any proof that people on welfare are stupid? If you could please provide it, I would appreciate it.
Edit: it seems you lack a lot of understanding about people on welfare. I recommend you read a book called $2 A Day. It gives you a much better idea as to what many people go through, and how it isn't as simple as just finding a job to get out of welfare. Many people are born into much worse circumstances than you have been, and this doesn't automatically make them stupid. It does make you sound unintelligent though.
Have you heard of this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
I agree this is a major problem today. The price of a good data plan is out of reach for many in Africa. That's a limiting factor for Bitcoin. But it is a solvable problem.
Providing access to sell to the first-world or lowering costs for network operators are two options. The idea of spreading Bitcoin to Africa is a good one, but it needs to be cultivated.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
Some of the (non-technical) books I've recently read:
Though, a lot of these quotes are from journals of mine. But many of the above books are great spring boards to other readings (especially the "Infinite in All Directions" book).
This is very true! I encourage everyone to read this book that has referenced data to back up all of those claims.
The book is called Abundance: the future is better than you think by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler
Not a real textbook but a good read ain't no makin' it
I have used this one before berko
inequality reader
very big and probably more for a grad course but nonetheless a good resource grusky
Not directly related, but a book was just written about families (and others) getting evicted ...
https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447459
http://evictedbook.com/
I would also recommend Matthew Desmond's "Evicted." Harrowing stuff.
The thing that really galls me about the "deep state" concept is that the right wing took the original concept and subverted it. The term was coined by Mike Lofgren, and he said that people like the Kochs were the real power behind the GOP, and that the Democrats had become ineffective at a national scale. But then conservative pundits took the phrase and turned it around on the left.
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0143109936
Thanks for doing an AMA!
A long time ago I read Black Wealth, White Wealth on the advice of a friend, and it changed my perspective on economic justice. My question: what kind of concrete steps can we take (individually and through public policy) that would help close the racial gap in wealth?
You are arguing semantics when many, many people agree this is a thing that exists.
Here is an article about it in Erdogan's Turkey:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/03/12/the-deep-state
Here's a book about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0143109936
And a great article from The Atlantic about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/why-its-dangerous-to-talk-about-a-deep-state/517221/
Maybe it doesn't exist in the US, but it's ignorant to just stick your head in the sand about it because you don't like the concept.
While we're making a list of required reading:
Listen, Liberal!
>Weighing those results, Pastor says, is where the disagreements emerge. A housing advocate’s “stability” is an economist’s misallocation of resources, as regulation entrenches mismatches between apartments and renters (big families in small apartments, small families in big apartments, people not living where they otherwise would). But stability is also a primary focus of housing policy, prompted by work, like Matthew Desmond’s Evicted, that shows the devastating effects of housing uncertainty.
This is actually a good summary of the issue. If you don't have any rent control (even a tenancy-based one), you are essentially saying that an apartment ought to go to whomever can pay the most for it at any time. Basic economic models call that an efficient outcome, because they figure the people willing to pay more for the apartment get more utility from it. But anyone can understand that this is an absolutely brutal regime for low and middle-income workers, who risk losing their home due to factors totally beyond their control. Both the human and economic costs of housing instability are very real and important to voters, so I think this is why policymakers have been turning to rent controls. Admittedly, it's something of a second-best policy, but more fundamental reforms have proven to be a slow, difficult process. Economists would do well to look harder at how to make some of these stopgap measures work - well-designed rent controls can be fairly effective, while poorly designed ones can be disastrous.
> Liberalism, writes Patrick Deneen, "has been for modern Americans like water for a fish, an encompassing political ecosystem in which we have swum, unaware of its existence.”
>
>Deneen, a political theorist at Notre Dame, isn’t talking about the liberalism of the left, the liberalism of Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi. He’s talking about the liberalism that drives both the left and the right, the one that elevates individual flourishing over groups, families, places, nature.
>
>That’s the liberalism that is wrecking our societies and our happiness, Deneen says, and while the left and the right often disagree on how to achieve it, they're both disastrously bought into its core ideas.
>
>Deneen’s book, Why Liberalism Failed, has become a quiet sensation, gaining plaudits from conservative pundits and even showing up on Barack Obama’s reading list. His is a radical critique, and while I disagree with much of it, the things it gets right are important.
​
It would take too long. Try reading a book. Here's one for people like you. And that's the most charitable evaluation of the Democratic Party.
This?
Here, let me help you.
The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender, 2nd ed edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi
This is a text I use to help tutor sociology. It was referred to me by a professor of sociology who uses it in her graduate classes. It should explain the very basics of race and racial hierarchies/discrimination in the US and other Western states for you. It includes so much more than that as well.
I haven't read either of the books, but Abundance and The Better Angels of Our Nature claim that the world is getting better. But, just because it's getting better by some measures, it doesn't mean the world is good or we live in a "steady state." Just look at the North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran. Pretty soon nuclear arms will be in the hands of the wrong people, and if you take a long-term view, how soon before technology allows a rogue suicide bomber can strap a nuclear bomb to himself?
I'm 57 and posting about college/jobs, but not about me. Im 57, dropped out of the corporate world in 1993, broke, started my own business, and doing well - I pay all my bills and my checks never bounce.
But posting to all the posts about college/jobs, most likely from the under 40 crowd. The BIG question that must be answered by YOUR generation is "what if we simply don't need everyone to work to provide ALL the goods and services needed and wanted by our society?"
It's only a theory (thus the LIE) that a capitalistic economy forever expands to provide (good) jobs for everyone who wants one.
Computers are in the 2nd half of the exponential curve of chip power, doubling in capacity every 2 years (Moore's Law) since 1958. Computers/robots/machines are now on-net eliminating human jobs.
READ: "Race Against the Machine": http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-Machine-Accelerating-Productivity/dp/0984725113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333472572&sr=8-1
AND: "Abundance" http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333472597&sr=1-1
and if you want to read an ancient novel, there's the 1952 book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. "Player Piano" about a society where machines do ALL the work: http://www.amazon.com/Player-Piano-Novel-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/0385333781/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333472653&sr=1-1
This "lie" you've been told is not ever again going to become a "truth"... spoiled milk put back in the refrigerator does not become good again. This "recession" and/or high-unemployment is not just a cycle. True, there have been many "crying wolf" since the early 1800's when British laborers violently protested the automation of sock making, but I for one just don't see how "creating jobs" can happen in a world were we can produce so much stuff and services so efficiently with the aid of a computer.
I think that's an over simplification, as it's a representative democracy. But there are ample checks and balances against the people.
There's a great book by Robert Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution. It kind of reads like a whiny checklist of how the US isn't as democratic as it claims to be, but it also does a good job of enumerating the checks against the people and why they're important.
Sometimes institutions move more slowly than public opinion (gay marriage, for example). Other times, public opinion would never move without the institutions acting against the will of the majority (e.g., racial equality/civil rights).
The electoral college no longer serves this purpose, but it was intended as one of these checks against the tyranny of the majority.
A good question, and neat coding skills :) I meant to ask, what are all the cool things you would want to add to the creator tool? Maybe it helps us add some of the tools for everyone. (We are slightly careful to not add much bias to the creator tool; say we offered a gradient maker, that would start to push the world look into having many more gradients. Which is fine if that's what the creator specifically wanted for a tile, of course, but it's hard to tell before when offering a toolbox. A line tool would almost mean we'd need to also add circle tool, polygon, oval, rectangle and so on in order to not skew into one direction. If the tool is rather sparse, then it means it's also really open to your personal style and imagination.)
Generally, intent should be more important than tool, but sometimes the two are connected. We as community will always be the ones voting on what we want to have in this world, and creativity, originality, care and craft are probably what we prefer together if we all want it to be sustainable. Transparency of the creation process helps us with that voting... e.g. was it a line tool, or a copy tool, or...
(I've had a look at some terrific new earth-grass-toned solids and slopes yesterday and was wondering, what was the creator and artist thinking? How did they go about it? Everything we understand by analyzing and then doing ourself will be a toolbox that we add to our own creativity, mixing it into a personal style that tickles other people's brains because it shares our view on the world. That's how we learn and improve, and Manyland is a shared world of abundance that can really help with that. Even looking at outside pixel art, of course, can help us understand creation processes, and maybe the currently often detrimental-to-progress copyright laws written by campaign donations will one day be changed by society into a system where the focus is voting on originality and credit, not putting up copyright barriers. As it is, we want to try together to avoid many letters from lawyers in the future as we want this to be a sustainable world.)
As far as official APIs or support for more tools go, I think we have to look at this again together in some way in the future. We're currently trying to get the fundament right together, and some things will probably more naturally fall into place. Maybe we as community decide that the 'manual' drawing is just the right thing for us to make this world ours and full of character, style and soul. In terms of support, already we are spending some time to help with reports coming in from third-party browser extensions -- say, a translation tool in Chrome that somehow throws an error -- and every minute we look into that, we can't work on the many features like adding new block types that we really want to give to you. Happines of all of us manyzens is the number one priority guiding all other decisions.
Update: Thanks again for triggering all these thoughts. We now internally discussed just what to add to the terms to clarify the stance and not leave anyone wondering, and we now added to the terms what we think benefits the Manyland world and community the best, and makes it the most sustainable and best for all of us to maintain (and live in) together. We hope you understand and can help with the goal, and thanks again for bringing up all this!
Yo I want in on this because I like fun
The Inequality Reader by David Gruskey & Szonja Szelenyi is a fantastic collection of articles on inequality. I used it to study for my doctoral exam in Social Stratification and I still pick it up to read every once and a while. If you don't feel like buying it, you can check out some of the essays in it by just googling some of the titles in google scholar (click the link and then press the "look inside" button amazon offers to check out the contents). The reader features classics like Marx and Weber but also authors like William Julius Wilson, Massey and Denton, Sharon Hays, Hochschild, Laureau and other pretty notable scholars. It also has the added benefit of giving you a taste of some of the different areas of social strat and a good portion of the essays/articles are excerpts from long books, so if you see something you like there's likely an option to read a lot more.
edit: PS if you have a particular area of interest within I'm happy to recommend some books, but if you're getting your feet wet this reader is really great. Where are you in your academic career?
> The other concerns are not so easily dismissed. “How would we pay the pensions?”
Yes it is easily dismissed. The chronologically "old" people would be biologically as young as 25 or 30 (that's the plan at least). They wouldn't need pensions. They wouldn't even retire, and hence would contribute to the economy.
> This takes us to another concern he dismisses: “dictators would rule forever”. Is this proposition (if not taken literally) ridiculous?
Yes it is ridiculous if I don't see George Monbiot writing an equally acrid article against ongoing "traditional" research on cancer, Alzheimer, and so many other age-related diseases.
> de Grey’s mockery becomes most offensive when invoked by his fourth rhetorical question: “what about starving Africans?”
George Monbiot's (potential) hypocrisy becomes most offensive when he picks only the longevity research out of all the "cutting edge" research topics and attacks it using "dull edge" topics (by 'dull edge' I mean the effort to make existing technology widespread across the developing countries using the methods of economics, sociopolitics, logistics, etc.).
For example, starving Africans is more a problem of diverting resources from obese Americans (just to give an example, not to criticize any nation), not a problem of dwindling resources (I encourage him to take a look at Peter Diamandis's book Abundance).
NOTE: I called it 'potential' hypocrisy since I haven't read his other works and not familiar with his overall worldview. But if it's truly in line with what he has said here, about all other cutting edge research as well, biotechnology, cancer, alzheimer, nanotechnology, space, fusion, supercomputing, artificial intelligence, robotics, particle accelerators, and so on, then he is, not a hypocrite, but someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.
> Life extension science could invoke a sunlit, miraculous world of freedom from fear and long-term thinking. Or a gerontocratic tyranny. If it’s the latter, I hope I don’t live long enough to see it.
There's plenty of non-gerontocratic tyranny around the world in the present time if you decide to look around. Does that warrant you to put an end to your life? I don't think so. By being against longevity research, and pointing out a remote scenario of a worst possible dystopian future, you're doing exactly that, i.e., you're being suicidal.
And I agree with the sentiment that these programs should be temporary things that encourage people to get back to work. My difference here is that I don't think, given the numerous stories of people living below the poverty line, that people staying poor because the programs they're on don't encourage them enough to try to lift themselves out is really a truly significant problem. If anything, right now the programs are so stingy and force people to jump through so many embarrassing hoops that it encourages bad decision-making. Additionally, there are many businesses (Payday lenders, etc.) that further punish people for being poor.
If you're interested in reading about these, the huffington post did a series called All Work, No Pay that encouraged those living just above the poverty line to share their stories. There's also a really good book on the subject called Evicted that does a good job of portraying what it's like to be poor in America.
Edit: Poor in America not American
This essay and the book based on it lay out the case for a de-facto ruling class whose interests are often not aligned with those of the public.
Elites who primarily create value in their professions should be celebrated, but rent seekers who use wealth and connections to divert resources from productive uses to themselves, not so much.
> Don't humans do just that? I once went for a ride on a tour bus in a developing country. I didn't expect one of the tour stops at a small village ravaged by poverty.
You went to a poor village in Africa?
> Where will the money come from to fund the negative income tax when the automation displaces practically the full workforce?
I'm thinking short-term, you're thinking long term here.
Automation will not displace the workforce all at once. It will happen gradually. Negative income tax will become higher and higher the more wealthy civilization as a whole becomes. Capitalism will crumble. Socialism will take over. This is all talked about in the book Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. It's a really great book and critically acclaimed. I really recommend you read it.
> We inherit the idea of taxes from civilizations that lived thousands of years ago. We wear it like a ball and chain. We can't seem to imagine a future without taxes. I wonder if the alien tourists who visit Earth pay taxes. Maybe we Earthlings have to agree to pay taxes as part of the first contact protocol. I can see it now. It's income tax day and I have to send a Singularity Transaction to record my debit voucher to the Internal Revenue Ministry of the Galactic Planetary Union.
Someday people are going to have to wake up and look at the future that is changing around them. I know it may seem hard to imagine, but there is literally no way capitalism can work anymore in such a wealthy society. It'll happen by force if need be. (unlikely, because they'll realize they are greatly outnumbered, and I don't believe most are so adverse to the idea, I don't believe most are sociopaths.)
Matt taibbi just wrote a book about this if you're interested in the concept.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X
It's a good book, worth the time.
This is analogous to how politicians are influenced by lobbyists' donations even if they honestly aren't aware of the influence. There's a deeply-ingrained psychological tendency in people to reciprocate when someone does them a "favor". There's a good book that goes into this called The Party Is Over.
wanna read about it? This and some other stuff is in this book
ok here is a good book by leftist Matt Taibbi: https://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X it’s highly critical of obama’s brutal immigration policy
>Are they killing people in mass numbers in detention centers? If so, proof?
no that isn’t what the words I said mean
>Why does the "progressive" left shut down any bipartisan action instead of working on a solution?
Because bipartisan action is always just more brutal nationalistic violence against innocent people. The point is to fight against evil, not make it work smoother.
>Can you show any sources or facts on subjects that matter?
It’s not clear what sources you want, or that sources will change your opinions. You are after all a violent nationalist zealot.
>You subjects that provide resolution to a problem instead of placing false blame and calling everyone nazis that doesn't agree with your fantasy world.
You aren’t resolving a problem, you are the problem. And you aren’t even able to think critically about it.
>My stem background proves I have more common sense in a pubic hair than a whiney baby from the Chapo trap house with no logical facts.
That is what STEM people tend to believe about themselves. But really you just don’t know how to think critically about political/moral/historical issues.
How about a Nobel economist?
https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393333132
I think that this book should be read publicly. In every city in Europe.
The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (Timothy Snyder)
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America-ebook/dp/B074YM8W91/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=3LAJ9YPXC6FHN&keywords=timothy+snyder&qid=1567754959&s=gateway&sprefix=timothy+sn%2Caps%2C237&sr=8-2
From Amazon:
>Mike Lofgren was the first to use the term Deep State, in an essay and exclusive interview on Moyers and Company, to refer to a web of entrenched interests in the US government and beyond (most notably Wall Street and Silicon Valley, which controls access to our every click and swipe) that dictate America’s defense decisions, trade policies and priorities with little regard for the actual interests or desires of the American people.
More simply put and updated, the "deep state" has now become all those career government employees working in the intel community to assist the FBI in uncovering the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Trump regime.
I really recommend anyone who is interested in Orwell or Huxley's perspectives also read books like Abundance which lay out a detailed statistical case for why so much shit in the world today is measurably and immeasurably better than it ever has been.
The main positive and negative of the modern age isn't so much we live in some realization of a literary dystopia but that the stakes are much higher as a global society than they ever have been. We can easily mess things up in terms of climate change, nuclear war, and other kinds of societal breakdown but we are also on the verge of eradicating some of the greatest and historical problems mankind has ever faced.
People forget how much a fact of life things like plagues were. Philadelphia just straight up shut down as the US capital three times between 1776 and 1800 alone due to random outbreaks of plague to say nothing of how things were across the world.
Yes. I barely own any possessions. I sleep on a mattress on the floor even though I work a good paying white collar job, and all of the furniture in the place is my roommate's.
I just don't feel comfortable with the 'permanence' of furniture.
Everything that I do buy has to be rationalized as being functional and it's something that I'll use everyday.
My NMom on the other hand goes absolutely batshit when she's extended just a little bit of credit, or inherits a little bit of money. I came home one time on holiday and stopped counting at 200 pairs of shoes. She had entire rooms of her house, which she inherited from her father, full to the brim with crap from ebay and gem stones. Then, she comes hat in hand when it's time to pay the property taxes at the end of the year and I have to hear about all the 'sacrifices I did for you!'
She doesn't have to work because she managed to get SSI for her fibromyalgia. She's very lucky that she owns her own house. I read Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City and know how bad of a situation it can be if you're on disability and are forced to rent. She on the other hand prioritizes shit from ebay over her property taxes and home owners insurance, and like clockwork I get a panicked call on December 31 how she needs me to send her thousands of dollars so she doesn't lose her house.
> I guess kind of how ideas were formed, how did the Democratic Party become progressive/liberal, how did the Republican Party become conservative?
Although it is not the main topic of the book, The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman does a pretty decent job of examining how the Democratic Party became liberal + how the Republican Party became conservative. He spends a lot of time going over the New Deal, how it turned the South Democratic, and why the South flipped back to the GOP. There's also a pretty lengthy examination of how conservatives became the dominant faction of the GOP.
Ofc, a couple of chapters are pure policy talk and he ties much of the ideological shifts to economic factors (he is a Nobel laureate in economics so it makes sense) but overall it was a good read.
read listen liberal by the after mentioned thomas frank, it shows the modern shift to the center right and the harm the third way did to people .
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1250118131
I was reading up on the book "The Road to Unfreedom". Not that I like being paranoid, I wonder how much of the British politicians are compromised by Russia.
https://www.amazon.ca/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/dp/0525574468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537805521&sr=8-1&keywords=road+to+unfreedom
There's a pretty good book on this sort of thing.You need to go digging through historical biographies and text to get a more typical view of what life was like back then (I'd start with those I recommended above.. A lot of people, myself included aren't a fan of Churchill's politics, but if you look at him through the lense of his era and keep in mind his differences to you or I... As in we weren't born in a palace as the son of a lord, on a first name basis with all of the richest & most powerful gentry. Getting to hang out in his teens & taken places by the Prince of Wales/the future King, Edward VII (who his mother was probably sleeping with)) its a great read and will give you a decent insight into what life was like for both the gentry & the people who worked for them:
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932/dp/0385313489
The book on how great today is:
https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
I am a transhumanist (member of Humanity+ and IEET).
If you like books that look to the future, and give you a hopeful (or at least a better) outlook, try these:
Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think
https://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
And pretty much anything by Michio Kaku.
I just read this book by TR Reid about tax policy, it is pretty informative if you are interested. The tldr is that tax rates need to be low enough so that people are not making financial decisions based on tax avoidance as that screws everything up. The VAT is somewhat regressive but that can be more than offset by lowering or eliminating any income taxes paid by those below or close to the poverty line. Or those same people can receive public assistance benefits that address their needs directly.
The US is basically the only rich country without a VAT, the author of that books argues that the VAT is an innovation. VATs generate a massive amount of money because they follow the BBLR principle of tax policy, broaden the base and lower the rate. Countries that instituted VATs were able to lower their corporate and personal income tax rates substantially.
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Former Congressional Staffer Mike Lofgren
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Mike-Lofgren/dp/0143109936
I've been enjoying this book, 'Abundance' lately. It's a detailed examination of where technologies might lead us to a post-scarcity society.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451614217
This is a chapter in Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think by Peter Diamandis.
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377569779&sr=8-1&keywords=abundance+the+future+is+better+than+you+think
I saw Peter Diamandis speak at a convention where he gave away this book. His speech was pretty amazing and the book is even better. Here's a short version of the speech I saw him give, this one was for TED. http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html Around 7:00 mark he speaks about aluminum. The book/speech are very entertaining as well as educational, do yourself a favor and watch the video and/or go buy the book.
Diamandis is a badass. Plain and simple.
Nevermind Clinton, I think the numbers and the effort has been very similar under Obama.
I only read about it in a chapter in this book, but the process is ongoing and very, very large.
In a way, death and the unknown, actually comfort me. Kind of a proof of an ultimate peace.
Also, though, these might be interesting to you:
war and violence on the decline
abundance: the future is better than you think
Don't know what you are specifically looking for, but I would venture into the area of sociology more if I was you since you are starting to see a pure financial/economic analysis of the world is incomplete:
Hottest book right now is Evicted:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0553447459/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Just won a Pulitzer.
More books focused on poverty and societal issues:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/054481195X/ref=tmm_pap_title_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
The New Jim Crow, more focused on racial inequality:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595586431/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492095495&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+new+jim+crow&dpPl=1&dpID=51GxNVbFjCL&ref=plSrch
If you are looking for more historical stuff biographies are always good.
> For the next two years, I delved into the literature on Venezuela with renewed interest. Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold’s book, A Dragon in the Tropics, it turned out, was particularly well-researched and compelling. Since I could no longer get my writing published in any of the outlets for which I’d previously written, I redirected my energies into making a new film entitled In the Shadow of the Revolution with the help of a Venezuelan filmmaker and friend, Arturo Albarrán, and I wrote my political memoir for an adventurous anarchist publisher. But what preoccupied me more and more were the larger questions of socialism versus capitalism, and the meaning of liberalism.
>
> I’d visited Cuba twice—in 1994 and again in 2010—and now, with my experience of Venezuela, I felt I’d seen the best socialism could offer. Not only was that offering pathetically meagre, but it had been disastrously destructive. It became increasingly clear to me that nothing that went under that rubric functioned nearly as well on any level as the system under which I had been fortunate enough to live in the US. Why then, did so many decent people, whose ethics and intelligence and good intentions I greatly respected, continue to insist that the capitalist system needed to be eliminated and replaced with what had historically proven to be the inferior system of socialism?
>
> The strongest argument against state control of the means of production and distribution is that it simply didn’t—and doesn’t—work. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding—and in this case, there was no pudding at all. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen socialism fail in China, fail in the Soviet Union, fail in Eastern Europe, fail on the island of Cuba, and fail in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. And now the world is watching it fail in Venezuela, where it burned through billions of petro-dollars of financing, only to leave the nation worse off than it was before. And still people like me had insisted on this supposed alternative to capitalism, stubbornly refusing to recognize that it is based on a faulty premise and a false epistemology.
>
> As long ago as the early 1940s, F.A. Hayek had identified the impossibility of centralized social planning and its catastrophic consequences in his classic The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s writings convinced the Hungarian economist, János Kornai, to dedicate an entire volume entitled The Socialist System to demonstrating the validity of his claims. The “synoptic delusion”—the belief that any small group of people could hold and manage all the information spread out over millions of actors in a market economy—Kornai argued, leads the nomenklatura to make disastrous decisions that disrupt production and distribution. Attempts to “correct” these errors only exacerbate the problems for the same reasons, leading to a whole series of disasters that result, at last, in a completely dysfunctional economy, and then gulags, torture chambers, and mass executions as the nomenklatura hunt for “saboteurs” and scapegoats.
>
> The synoptic delusion—compounded by immense waste, runaway corruption, and populist authoritarianism—is what led to the mayhem engulfing Venezuela today, just as it explains why socialism is no longer a viable ideology to anyone but the kind of true believer I used to be. For such people, utopian ideologies might bring happiness into their own lives, and even into the lives of those around them who also delight in their dreams and fantasies. But when they gain control over nations and peoples, their harmless dreams become the nightmares of multitudes.
>
> Capitalism, meanwhile, has dramatically raised the standard of living wherever it has been allowed to arise over the past two centuries. It is not, however, anything like a perfect or flawless system. Globalization has left many behind, even if their lives are far better than those of their ancestors just two hundred years ago, and vast wealth creation has produced vast inequalities which have, in turn, bred resentment. Here in California, the city of Los Angeles, “with a population of four million, has 53,000 homeless.” Foreign policy misadventures and the economic crash of 2008 opened the door to demagogues of the Left and the Right eager to exploit people’s hopes and fears so that they could offer themselves as the solution their troubled nations sought to the dystopian woe into which liberal societies had fallen. In his fascinating recent jeremiad Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen itemizes liberal democracy’s many shortcomings and, whether or not one accepts his stark prognosis, his criticisms merit careful thought and attention.
>
> Nevertheless, markets do work for the majority, and so does liberal democracy, as dysfunctional as it often is. That is because capitalism provides the space for ingenuity and innovation, while liberal democracy provides room for free inquiry and self-correction. Progress and reform can seem maddeningly sluggish under such circumstances, particularly when attempting to redress grave injustice or to meet slow-moving existential threats like climate change. But I have learned to be wary of those who insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good, and who appeal to our impatience with extravagant promises of utopia. If, as Deneen contends, liberalism has become a victim of its own success, it should be noted that socialism has no successes to which it can fall victim. Liberalism’s foundations may be capable of being shored up, but socialism is built on sand, and from sand. Failures, most sensible people realize, should be abandoned.
>
> That is probably why Karl Popper advocated cautious, piecemeal reform of markets and societies because, like any other experiment, one can only accurately isolate problems and make corrections by changing one variable at a time. As Popper observed in his essay “Utopia and Violence”:
>
> > The appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.
>
> Losing faith in a belief system that once gave my life meaning was extremely painful. But the experience also reawakened my dormant intellectual curiosity and allowed me to think about the world anew, unencumbered by the circumscriptions of doctrine. I have met new people, read new writers and thinkers, and explored new ideas I had previously taken care to avoid. After reading an interview I had given to one of my publishers a year ago, I was forwarded an email by the poet David Chorlton. What I’d said in that interview, he wrote, “goes beyond our current disease of taking sides and inflexible non-thinking. I’m reading Havel speeches again, all in the light of the collective failure to live up to the post-communist opportunities. We’re suffering from a lack of objectivity—is that because everyone wants an identity more than a solution to problems?”
>
> Clifton Ross writes occasionally for Caracas Chronicles, sporadically blogs at his website, [www.cliftonross.com](http://www.cliftonross.com/) and sometimes even tweets @Clifross
>
> Note:
>
> 1 Considerable confusion surrounds the definitions of “socialism” and “capitalism.” Here, I am using “socialism” to mean a system in which the state destroys the market and takes control of all capital, as well as the production and distribution of goods and services. I am using “capitalism” here to refer to a market economy in which the state, as a disinterested party, or a “referee,” sets guidelines for markets but allows private actors to own and use capital to produce and distribute goods and services.
> (continues in next comment)
I just finished Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City and it was probably the greatest non-fiction book I've ever read! It made me want to get into politics. He really makes you care about the people in the story and my jaw dropped multiple times throughout.
>Why would the same cabal that is espousing homosexuality and transgender Etc. In the media want to preserve the masculine ones!?
I have been internally debating this for a long time. The deep state is completely money motivated, so it's essentially politically neutral. Mike Lofgren thinks it is neoconservative by alignment. The MSM has a liberal bent, but is pretty much owned by the deep state at this point. How do we disentangle this apparent contradiction? I think we can trace it to CIA director William Casey, who said "We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False." If we take his statement literally, then the answer is obvious. You assume a certain cabal is in power because you've been convinced of the falsehood they've sold. This is especially true for intelligence contractors, since they can be misinformed from within, and they're financially motivated to be deceived.
There's no real rhyme or reason for the political factions at fault. All men and women are ultimately wicked, and money lust manifests it.
>Ever think that maybe higher testosterone leads to a longer life?
No, because women live longer than men.
Exactly. I just finished Griftopia by Matt Taibbi and Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank. Income inequality is the BIGGEST issue facing the country - and it seems way down the list of concerns to most people.
I visit /r/politics multiple times per day, and the top stories are always the most salacious bullshit that's coming out of the latest Trump scandal. I get it. It's all important - but you can't help but feel that those in charge like it when there's more outrage of what porn star got paid off - not the ever widening gap between the haves and everyone else.
> Unless you have something valuable to contribute
I think many people would argue that democracy and capital markets generally benefit from greater participation by diverse agents (people). Indeed, it is often argued that the economic successes in the United States were fueled in part by immigrant influx. So, if these people are able and willing to even minimally participate, there's a case to be made that it would be economically and perhaps politically beneficial.
Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer talk about this in their fantastic book, Gardens of Democracy.
there is a new book talking about that very subject http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397163858&sr=1-1&keywords=devide i have not yet read it but i intend to. i have heard the author speak on the book and it seems like a good read.
That is not an attempt to trample. This is a broken down argument with sources as you've provided. I don't see how my break down and arguments could be a "trample," as it is exactly what you asked for presented in an organized fashion...?
Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education -
http://books.google.com/books?id=hD3qp2tvrLcC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22Routledge+International+Handbook+of+Critical+Education%22+by+Apple&source=bl&ots=aIKpiv-kAT&sig=TI2gblhjDQ2WRJB6svWy2pkO75A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xbhNU8yFOYinsQSS3oCAAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Routledge%20International%20Handbook%20of%20Critical%20Education%22%20by%20Apple&f=false
Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations -
http://books.google.com/books?id=7Q93YGc6kngC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Handbook+of+the+Sociology+of+Racial+and+Ethnic+Relations%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F7lNU9evI4HIsASNxoLoAw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Handbook%20of%20the%20Sociology%20of%20Racial%20and%20Ethnic%20Relations%22&f=false
Kozol's book isnt available in PDF but is available for purchase or at the library - http://www.amazon.com/The-Shame-Nation-Restoration-Apartheid/dp/1400052459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397602657&sr=8-1&keywords=shame+of+the+nation+by+kozol
I'd also like to note that just because we disagree, it doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm wrong. You don't have to get angry or upset because we have differing views. If you actually provide an argument against mine (absent attacking my structure), the great thing about discussion is that its a great way to learn about opposing views and opinions. We can both find support for what we're saying, probably many sources. What I (usually) like about Reddit is that you can take a step back from academia and really get down to what the other thinks about the topic. We could learn from each other, if you allowed it.
This still comes back to peoples' perceptions of "someone getting something for nothing" and a type of jealousy that is rampant on the low end of the scale (supposed handouts) as much or more than it is at the high end of the scale (tax breaks, subsidies, etc).
We're going as far as to criminalize poverty, ffs. With cities playing games with its homeless, pawning them off on each other, destroying property and whatnot.
Matt Taibbi, covers examples of how America Has A 'Profound Hatred Of The Weak And The Poor' in his book:
The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap
which alludes to the larger problem:
What's the Matter with Kansas?
People voting against their interests because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed future millionaires rather than a couple pay checks away from potentially serious trouble.
While I'm sure you may have your own stories, I have stories that jive with Taibbi, specifically about judges.
This supposed self-righteous notion about "dependency" has us performing counter-productive actions such as the above, such as drug testing for people receiving aid (yet no drug testing for wall street, that seems a bit curious).
I think the "double-edged" sword is that as a people we expect that if you aren't already in a hole, we'll create one for you just to make sure you're "poor enough" which has nothing to do with dependency at all, but our own misconceptions and prejudices, that will cause the system to be less efficient than it could be back once again...
..gasp...
...it may seem like someone is getting something for nothing and we somehow must put a stop to it, even when there are people who get something for nothing every day to the tune of billions, and that's were okay with.
Prejudice and ignorance is the double-edged sword that cuts everyone that gets in its way.
Wrong, I think you need to read this. Both parties are complicit, but the level of complicity is not equal.
I like libertarian ideals, personal responsibility and accountability for your actions, the NAP especially. I like that they are rising in awareness. But they are ideals, a "libertarian" utopia like society where the unfettered free-pmarket controls all, is not reality. A place 'without a government,' is going to form one.
If your society is advanced enough to develop spaceships that can travel faster than the speed of light, then you probably resolved scarcity of resources. Some think we're on the brink of solving that issue on our own planet.
sure!
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City
Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America
The Working Poor: Invisible in America
Another Day in the Death of America: A Chronicle of Ten Short Lives
Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-hand Clothes
TR Reid does a fine job of explaining why this is the case. The tl;dr of his thesis is that the US tax system is geared towards enriching tax accountants.
https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447459
I see a lot of disagreements here about what the construction of more luxury apartments does to the supply and pricing of lower income housing. I'd encourage everyone who is concerned about housing prices to read this book. It won a Pulitzer, and I think it is probably the best full discussion of how the housing market works, specifically for lower income folks. The book is very approachable, rooted in the stories of several individuals, and does a good job of connecting up individual stories with larger trends.
And as someone who did some work in low-income LLT/Housing law, I'll say that it rings pretty true.
> You do realize that Donald Trump now has access to all of these data, correct?
The "deep state" & IC would beg to differ.
Need to know, compartmentalization, etc.
Also, data & its analytics don't mean anything when you don't know what the fuck it actually it or its capabilities. The cronies around him can only imagine the tip of the iceberg, and even then it's highly distorted. The IC doesn't hand over their troves just because there's a "peaceful transition of power".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0143109936
Take it with a grain of salt though. The reality of the infrastructure is more nuanced than the conspiracy theory.
The Divide by Matt Taibbi - it's super infuriating and super interesting, doesn't play favorites to either party, just policies that are choking society ad contributing to making the richest richer!
https://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X
Suggest you read this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0525428348
Obama continued the New Democrats policies of the Clinton administration to a lesser degree, and failed due to the mistaken belief that the problem was one of argument, and that if you could just get the experts in a room the solution would be found. It's why a good crisis like the financial crash went wasted, we got the New Deal out of an equivalent event in the 30's but this time we got nothing.
If you're interested about this topic, "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank made me understand why as someone on the left I always felt betrayed by the modern democratic party despite their lip service.
I know people are going off the rails, but I would recommend this book. Abundance. Remember that news sells FUD. The reality is things have never been better and it's likely to continue.
Beyond that I'd tell you is that when you reach a problem. "If there's something you can do about it, why worry? If there's nothing you can do about it, why worry?"
Obama expanded the wars (not to mention the drone program) and passed Romeny Care... That's not why I voted for him in 2008. Not to mention he also failed to prosecute the bakers responsible for wrecking our economy, opened the arctic up for drilling twice, relentlessly went after whistle blowers, and was the first president to drop a bomb everyday of his presidency. He could have done so much better despite the GOP. Read Listen Liberal if you want more information about how much he failed us.
Evicted: Poverty & Profit in the American City
https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447459
I disagree :)
You should watch this TED talk. Read his book too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI
http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217
Came here to recommend any Joseph Ellis, he has this topic cornered down. Also, it's really interesting to take a step further and look at the Constitution itself...this book is pretty fascinating, plus it's a quick read.
You might try reading something positivesomething positive to counterbalance whatever negative news is getting you down. The world is overall pretty great and getting better, but our perspective is easily skewed if all we read are bleak sounding headlines.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
Arms and Dudes
The skies belong to us
One of us
https://smile.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/dp/0553447459/)..)
---
Never forget to smile again | ^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0143109936
For more information on this please see:
Dahl How Democratic is the US Constitution?
A thoughtful and insightful reply deserves my upvote.
I'm reading this book right now... so hopefully I'm not naive in thinking we really can solve homelessness. (well, maybe not the people who purposely CHOOSE a homeless lifestyle,.. but we could solve the problem of people who don't want to be homeless).
I think you are right though.. .it IS a complex and multi-faceted social problem.
I'm still gonna keep a positive outlook... ;)
Yeah I'm with you, I do want to hear the other side. I did read Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal, where IMO he does make a strong case for why universal health care is a very efficient system. But that doesn't address medical innovation. We could have a very efficient system in terms of getting care to everyone (and I'm all for that), but what if the trade off is that medically we stay stuck in the year 2012 for decades? Extreme, I know, but it presents the situation starkly.
Side note: I did reply below with what I hope is a decent elaboration of the "free market" argument for medical innovation. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can destroy my arguments, because I do learn the most when that happens.
hey, good luck.
The Public Schools
Jim Crow's Children
Ghetto Schooling
We Make the Road By Walking
Teacher in America
Women's Education in the United States, 1740-1840
Savage Inequalities
Shame of the Nation
also, i'll second Tyack's One Best System
a few authors to read/study: John Dewey, Horace Mann, W.E.B. Du Bois, Maria Montessori, Myles Horton, Dianne Ravitch, Jeannie Oakes, bell hooks, Howard Gardner, Betty Reardon, Howard Zinn, Cathy Davidson
topics: Native American boarding schools, ethnic/racial biases of original IQ test designs, desegregation, resegregation, Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, Bloom's taxonomy, multiple intelligences, tracking, career and technical education, the Common Core, school choice, special education, peace education, types of schools: traditional public, charter, contract, private, independent; the superintendency and school governance, elected/appointed boards, mayoral control, teacher cooperatives; resource inequalities, the incorporation of technology, teacher training, mind brain education, learning environments, standardized testing, accountability, teacher evaluation...
a list like you've requested could never be exhaustive, but that should be enough to keep you busy for awhile.
Black wealth white wealth is a great read. More geared towards an anthropological/sociological perspective but interesting regardless. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Wealth-White-Perspective-Inequality/dp/0415951674
> I'm more than happy to compromise on reforming safety nets (that work better and are cheaper, such as a negative income tax)
I'll amend this to say I'm happy to compromise on reforming safety nets that work better and involve less government (which often means cheaper, but that's not necessarily the goal), such as negative income tax. I'd rather be free and poor than unfree and rich, I also happen to think that freedom and prosperity are closely related, if not in a causal relationship.
A negative income tax is superior to our complicated welfare system because (in order of importance to me):
I'm essentially willing to support anything that reduces the scope of the government, even if it increases taxes, though I'd prefer lower taxes. I think the government should be as limited as possible to maximize individual freedom first, and minimize cost second, and I'm willing to sacrifice the latter to get the former.
> After watching this congress, I have zero hope we'll ever see free market healthcare
I try to steer conversations away from who pays and focus on how much is being spent. I don't think it's worth pushing for repealing the ACA until we deal with regulations and whatnot that are driving costs up, but I do think repealing the individual mandate is an important part of it, so I guess I'm in favor of pushing for partial repeal, but only after fixing some of the other major problems.
For example:
Etc, etc, etc. Even if we make healthcare universal or whatever, we'll still have these problems driving up costs, and it could even get worse since patients don't see the costs.
We can make an immediate impact by enacting a few of the above, which will show people that opening up the market does drive down costs, and then we can use something like a Negative Income Tax to subsidize people who can't afford the current system (e.g. we can slowly erode the ACA subsidies with a cash based system). People like cash, so I think this could be an attractive solution.
Like you said, it's not ideal from a libertarian standpoint, but it's far better than anything that's been proposed by either side of the aisle, and even has appeal to poor people (getting cash from the government is definitely a win over getting goods in kind).
> I think you have a misunderstanding of the crash. I would recommend the book courage to act from Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke
Thanks, I'll check it out in a few months.
What I was getting at, when calling it like a Ponzi, is the idea that the solution to the last recession (I'm going to call it this now, instead of a depression, like I did before), is that the Government, just put a band-aid on the problem with QE. I think the rates are so low right now, to encourage spending, that when the next shock hits, there will be no more play room to address it other than printing more money.
Ponzi was definitely a wrong word to use, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when the current system is based on Consumption. You need more consumption in the future then you had in the past or you have a recession or a Depression. That strikes me a Ponzi, in that constant consumption is impossible, before something gives or breaks.
> globalization monetary system?
The whole shebang. Everything.
> Magic of the market. (Oil is still down)
Oil was just a random example I used, to display any variable of causes attributable to "Reasons why XYZ happened, happens, is happening" when economist or journalist try to explain how or why.
Pension system, I feel, will not be fixed. I'm more pessimistic then you are.
Health care needs to become Universal, but again, I'm more pessimistic then you are and don't think it will happen.
Refugees are what I think will cause the next "big thing". WW3? Collapse of the system..I have no idea...10 years, 20 years from now...I have no idea. I think two books, very controversial, but worth reading regarding this matter are The clash of Civilizations and Culture Matters by Samuel Huntington. Helping people help themselves is the only way to truly help someone and the manner of letting people flow undocumented into countries is not going to end well for those people or those countries.
> Each generation will adapt to the changes before it. Just like we used to have 80% workforce in agriculture. Now we have 2%. The next generation will do something else (always)
Definitely...but at what cost? Revolution? Civil War? Civil Discord? War? Change does equal Reaction....how will they react? (in general, well and good, or violently and with fear?) I guess depending on how fast the change happens will determine how violent the reaction will be.
>
> Timescales. Maybe, but Whether the system collapse in 100 years or 1000 years matter. The system has thus far shown resiliency to large external shocks (2008). Idk if it will survive a ww3 though
Agreed. So long as the resiliency is Real which would lead to assuming what the Government did to solve the last shock was applying a band aid to a necessary amputation. We will see when the next shock happens, 5 10 100 or 1000 years from now
The book I referenced does this. I don't recall what they find precisesly, however, if my memory serves me, after accounting for ethnicity, the wage gap becomes statistically insignificant in all age ranges.
If you really want a fight over wages, the fight is in minority women. This class of women have a statistically significant wage gap.
If you want to know where the real fight is, however, it is over wealth. Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Wealth-White-Perspective-Inequality/dp/0415951674
Here is the desktop version of your link
I recommend this book if you are looking to always have a good outlook on life.
>Despite years of so-called reverse racism, whites remain atop every indicator of social and economic well-being when compared to the African Americans and Latinos who, it is claimed, are displacing us from our perch: employment data, income, net worth; you name it, and we are the ones in better shape without exception.
>Indeed, in some regards the gaps between whites and folks of color have grown in recent years, as with wealth gaps, which have actually tripled since the 1980s, now leaving the typical white family with over 20 times the net worth of the typical black family and 18 times that of the typical Latino family. Even when comparing families of middle-class income and occupational status, whites possess 3-5 times the net worth of middle class blacks, suggesting that even African Americans who have procured good careers and obtained college degrees lag well behind their white counterparts, due in large measure to the inherited disadvantages of past generations, affirmative action efforts notwithstanding.
>This is why, despite affirmative action — which may well be eradicated (at least so far as higher ed is concerned) by the Supreme Court within the month — white racial advantage remains a real and persistent phenomena in American life, and one with which fair-minded persons should still be prepared to grapple.
>To claim that affirmative action not only disproves white privilege, but indeed suggests its opposite — black and brown privilege[...] is to ignore the entire social context within which affirmative action occurs[...]
>In other words, when whites critique affirmative action, we typically ignore everything that came before such efforts — and which unjustly skewed the historical balance of power and access in our favor — and even that which continues to favor us now, from funding and other advantages in the schools that mostly serve our children, to preferential treatment in the housing market, to ongoing advantages in employment.
In other words, quit being a dufus.
Well anyways, here's a NRx reading list I'm slowly making my way through...
​
Introduction
The Dark Enlightenment Defined*
The Dark Enlightenment Explained*
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment*
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment*
An Introduction to Neoreaction*
Neoreaction for Dummies*
Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell*
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land*
The Neoreactionary Canon
The Cathedral Explained*
When Wish Replaces Thought Steven Goldberg *
Three Years of Hate – In Mala Fide***
****
The Decline
We are Doomed – John Derbyshire*
America Alone – Mark Steyn*
After America – Mark Steyn*
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan***
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens
****
Civil Society and Culture
Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell
****
Western Civilization
Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne
****
Moldbuggery
Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.*
****
​
> Safety nets only kick in when the market has failed people.
In an ideal world, sure, but in many cases they kick in when people have failed the market. In fact, many social programs are set up to keep people in the system instead of helping them get out of it. Check out $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America for examples of people that are completely missed by our current welfare systems. In short:
If we are to have a useful social safety net, it needs to be partially, if not entirely, cash based. For example, I think we should replace Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, etc with a Negative Income Tax, which should reduce costs and increase utility in those who are willing to apply themselves.
> When America was great
America is still great, why do you think it isn't? Sure, we have some problems, but our laws have so far prevented government from completely screwing things up. All we need is a reevalutaion of some key programs to make sure they're actually helping people that need it instead of helping the wealthy.
You are so right - it is the illusion of a democracy - our very own Matt Taibbi NYT best seller is all about this;
[Griftopia, The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404573129&sr=8-1&keywords=Griftopia%2C+The+Divide%3A+American+Injustice+in+the+Age+of+the+Wealth+Gap)
How many democratic states aren't currently threatened by the rise of populist demagogues, of either ideological flank?
Democracy worked really, really, really, really well between... oh, probably about the end of World War II in 1945 and the election of Vladimir Putin in 2000. It took another decade to see that Putin was no aberration, and that liberalism, broadly speaking, was actually starting to fail under the weight of the democratic mob. Now we've got populist demagogues rising up or already in power in nearly every polity. Most of those polities have been democracies for less than a century; many for less than thirty years. There is not a single person currently running for President in the United States who is not a populist demagogue -- even people who are not constitutionally inclined toward demagoguery have been forced to adopt it to appeal to the mob, like Elizabeth Warren. Since Walter Mondale destroyed the caucus system with the "smoke-filled room" canard, very few presidential candidates have been statesmen, and certainly all those actually elected did so on the backs of populist demagoguery.
Unshackled democracy has been wildly successful for our whole lives, but we're not that old. A political system that falls apart after a mere century doesn't seem all that successful to me, nor would it to John Adams -- hence that quote. Hopefully we aren't actually witnessing the end stages of liberalism. Liberalism is wonderful. But we are going to need to make significant structural reforms, I think, including reigning in the will of the mob, if we want to save it.
Well first of all the premise is a little odd, since Ukraine wasn't anti-Russian they simply wanted the president (who since fled to Russia) to sign a pro-EU association agreement. This was supported by the people and parliament of Ukraine. He said he would sign it. At the last minute he decided not to sign (probably from external pressure from Putin). This caused peaceful protests in the capital. At a certain point the president (who has since fled to Russia) decided to use lethal force against the protesters. This prompted the parliament to begin impeachment proceedings and only increased the number of protesters. At a certain point the president fled to Russia to avoid impeachment and not face the consequences. The Euromaidan wasn't about hate of Russia, the hate came when Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied Crimea and Donbas. If you want a more in-depth breakdown there is the documentary on Netflix called Winter on Fire and the book The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder has a chapter dedicated to Ukraine.
Here are the links to the referenced material:
What straw man? At no point am I redirecting from my point.
Here's a book of essays by social scientists. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465031765?vs=1
Culture Matters is the title.
There's better outcome in those countries... and how do you suppose it got that way? Did the almighty FSM just wave his magical spaghetti arms and say, "You may have social progress." Or do you think that their social values might have had something to do with it? I shouldn't have to target a specific study for it. Being at the top of the HDI is prima facie evidence that their cultural values are better. How else do you get to that level of progress? Care to explain another alternative to them being at the top of t he HDI other than cultural values?
My conclusions are born out of realistic expectations. Not everyone is of equal ability or values... of so we'd all be millionaires... or equivalently poor.
Show me evidence or even a reasonable conclusion as to why African countries still linger at the bottom of development that doesn't involve cultural issues.
At no point have I mistreated anyone I'm the community but I'll definitely voice my frustration with a lack of integration.
This book talks about exactly that problem.
(edit: I'm not hawking this book, it just talks about exactly this issue that culture evolved faster than our brains, and we're still fine tuned to live in a fight or flight environment where we're at great risk of being killed each day. It's a good read, and gives excellent perspective on why these are not the worst of times, and how things are not going down the shitter)
This right here. Faced with a political system that has been grinding to a halt for may years, and a tiny economic elite waging war on society, this book helps explain how the US came to its current crisis.
Arrest Quotas. If you want more insight into it, Matt Taibbi's book The Divide, is a great short read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X16300977
*Why the downvote? If you want to discuss gentrification then this study is required reading. He wrote a Pulitzer prize winning book about it: Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City if that's more your style.
Yes, when it involves very rich people or people who work in or own large banks. What's the saying: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one?
Here are two books which should look good in your paper:
http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X/ref=la_B001JRUQ4S_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418868&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418918&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=glenn+greendwald
Both books deal with how prosecutions these days are not being done if you are rich enough and powerful enough. My favorite statistic is the number of bankers that liberal Ronald Reagan's DOJ put in jail during the S and L crisis of the 80s' (thouands? 1,800?) versus Barak's prosecution of NOBODY, basically, in the large banks. And, worse, DOJ admitting, yeah, we're not prosecuting them. HSBC money launders for Al Queda and drug lords. No problem. Civil or criminal fine is enough. No jailtime for anyone.
DOJ had a press conference and Holder admitted, yeah, we're not going to prosecute big banks because they're too big, we'd worry about the impact. Huh what? That's something truly new and worthy of your attention. More sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214
Deep state doesn’t exist? An unelected, unaccountable, secret society government making decisions behind the scenes with a rotating roster of cronies doesn’t exist?
Please read. https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0143109936/