Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (608)	6/9/2005 6:23:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541604

I would say to Sowell: Define welfare state in an operational way. Define multiculturalism in an operational way. Define incentives for the poor and prove the causal relationship between your incentives and actual measurable outcomes. Define new ways of life and their causal relationship to the rising up the economic ladder and provide statistical proof. Its an article not a book. He has written books as well, some of which deal with these type of issues. I don't think defining the welfare state is really all that necessary. There might be differences of opinion at the margin but people basically understand what it is. You might have more of a point with multiculturalism, particularly in terms of him presenting an argument about how it reduces incentives. I think I could make one, and I think he may have made one in his books, but there is none in that article. It's no different from those liberal intellectuals he demonizes who cheap-shot the right with grandiose assertions about their motives and actions and their outcomes. I don't think he was demonizing anyone. Making negative comments yes, but nothing that approaches deionization. No "worse than Hitler", or "as bad as the terrorists", or "un-American", or "Nazi", or "full of hate", or even "stupid". I don't see him even insulting any individuals or groups, let alone demonizing them. I just reread the article and I can't see anything about anyone's motives, or personal qualities, he is only talking about his perception of the outcome of certain ideas and policies, not deionization there. Its like someone who is against the war in Iraq saying that more people have died or suffered because of the war, than would have died or suffered from Saddam's actions. True or not its not demonizing Bush, or Republicans, or the US military, or supporters of the war. His principal point is, "The welfare state and multiculturalism both reduce the incentives of the poor to adopt new ways of life that would help them rise up the economic ladder." That and - "So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions. " and "Many comparisons of "classes" are in fact comparisons of people in different income brackets — but most Americans move up from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent over time. " Tim

To: Dale Baker who wrote (608)	6/10/2005 9:47:18 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541604

Couldn't the same be said of the article by Dionne that you just posted? Dionne offers no proof that any of the ideas proposed by Kerry in the last campaign that he (Dionne) says were great would actually work in practice or where the funding would come from. Your assertion to the contrary, Dionne has a long history as being not much more than a cheerleader for Democrats. Just because someone is published in the Washington Times does not make them automatically wrong any more than being published in the Washington Post makes them automatically right. It seems to me that you are highly dismissive, bordering on insulting, of thoughts and articles that do not conform to your preconceived notion of what is the right direction or the correct thing to do.