Bruce, Not blather, Bruce. It's just reality. I was replying to Chris' statistical bits, pointing out that US statistics are completely skewed by those of the inner cities.
Also, that overwhelmingly the black population are victims rather than killers. I didn't mention that during the later stages of our boom, as the jobless dwindled so did the crime rate. There may be a connection. Certainly, the black kid leaving high school has something like a 50% chance of getting a job of any kind - not exactly an encouraging prospect for a new grad. I mentioned earlier on FW that my heart would sink when facing an inner city class of black kids, bright eyed and bushy tailed, for I would know that probably half of them would never get a worthwhile job. Why? However, if there were not a single black person in the US, we would still have the inner city ghettos with all the problems of jobs, education, and employment we confront now. Wouldn't we? Be careful how you answer that. If you say yes, then it isn't a black problem. If you say no, yes it is. Anyway, if we wish to discuss jobs, education, and unemployment, we must start with the inner cities, where enormous amounts of money are spent to achieve nothing. We patch, and putty, and calk effects even as the causes are lost in the noise. Why? We seem more interested in improving the psychological well-being of reformers than actually finding a solution to something. If they are poor, we give them money. If they are hungry, we provide food stamps. If they are unemployed we make up jobs. Or we train them to be a better class of unemployed. I had a student in Toronto who was an unemployed welder. He got a government job teaching welding and had 22 students in his class. I asked him what happened at graduation. He said: "We had 23 unemployed welders." We try to find jobs for those bright-eyed kids. If you've read in my posts to Keith the two Basic Assumptions of Human Behavior, you would know we don't want to exert and neither do they. Yet. we try to find for an unemployed person some kind of job. which by his nature he doesn't want. Properly, we should be able to work (reluctantly) because we want things that can only be obtained by work. The first Assumption (that we have unlimited desires) indicates that there can never be involuntary unemployment. Yet, there is. Why? And there's the major problem. No one stops for a moment to ask "Why?" Henry George's famous question was: "Why is spite of enormous increase in our power to produce is it so difficult to make a living?" Well, answer it. And don't suggest we need better education. In a natural over-full employment situation, jobs are arranged to fit the available skills. No-one would suggest that in WW2 "Rosie the Riveter" was an aeronautical engineer. What happened was the job of building aircraft was broken down into operations that could be done by unskilled housewives. In a sensible full employment economy, should skills or knowledge be lacking, the jobs will change to fit what's available. I said to Chris: "We don't have gurneys in the corridors either, Chris. Though, I can't speak for the inner cities of New York, and Chicago, and suchlike." He answered (so uselessly): 'This statement symbolizes the recklessness of the "Free" Trade proponents.' Chris' remark exposes the shallow thinking of the left, who have let us down on every issue. They still support class conflict - rich against poor - leaving the bourgeoisie to float around somewhere in the middle. And nowadays, most of us are bourgeoisie - or want to be. Even though the plight of the bourgeoisie appears to be not so much under-employment as too much employment. Too many hours of work and not enough time for their families (a disappearing part of the economy). So, directly to your point, Bruce: "what does your race blather have to do with jobs, education, employment?" In classical theory, one examines the conditions of those at the bottom of the wage pyramid. Improve things at the bottom and everyone else in the pyramid will be better off. Unfortunately, the left is caught in their own construct which would lop off the top of the pyramid and give it to those at the bottom - a hopeless idea that fits well into the "patch, and putty, and calk" policies I mentioned above. However, answer the "whys" above - or at least make a start trying to answer them and we'll find the blather about race is more significant than you believe. I hope you'll continue to be an ex-lurker. Harry _____________________________________________________ Bruce wrote: >Harry, > >And what does your race blather have to do with jobs, education, employment? >Other than in the Zen way that everything is related to everything else? >An ex-lurker, >Bruce Leier > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard >Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 12:47 PM >To: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Fwd: WTO/GATS - a Coup against Democracy > >At 12:52 AM 12/22/2001 +0100, Christopher Reuss wrote: > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > > Of course, > > > > > actually taking on the Fat Cats awash in privilege might be even >more > > > > > worthwhile, but that's difficult so let's try something easier. > > > >[CR:] > > > >On the contrary -- the WTO represents the fattest cats and is the most > > > >difficult 'target'. > > > > > > Such as? > > > >Such as representatives/puppets of the largest transnational corporations > >who "negotiate" behind closed doors and without any public accountability. > >Don't blather, Chris - name them. > > > > Your country is fortunate - like Sweden - not to be involved in a World > > > War. You cannot help but profit from others misery - for which I don't > > > blame either country, though perhaps the 'planes that bombed London > > > contained Swedish steel - as well as Russian fuel. > > > > > > But, without doubt, the two countries came out of the war in good >shape, > > > whereas Britain and, I suppose, most European countries, were close to > > > bankruptcy. So, you invested in social services and they are good. > > > >The US also came out of the war in good shape (even benefited from it), > >but has no good health services (for the majority of citizens, anyway). > >Germany suffered much worse destructions in the war than the UK (and had > >to pay billions of reparations unlike UK), but has better health services > >now. It seems that your lame excuse can't explain reality. > >The revolution in Germany after the war was the Erhart free market >revolution. While Britain was mired in the "wave of the future" - socialism >- Germany's free market policies were producing the real future (or would >have done, perhaps, had Europe become an American type tariff free internal >market, rather than a political monstrosity). > > > > Yet, my health services are also good - and probably as good, or better, > > > than yours. Of course, I have to pay for it - but I probably pay less >than > > > you. > > > >Actually, the US spends more on health care and gets less for that money > >than any industrialized country that offers medical insurance for everyone: > >The US spends 74% more than France; 78% more than Germany, and 110% more > >than the Netherlands. However, the US rated worst in an international > >comparison of general healthcare quality, and 44 million Americans *lack* > >healthcare coverage. I've read that in the US, people die from >appendicitis > >--a trivial complication in developed countries-- because they can't afford > >to go to hospital for appendectomy. > >Most people in the US do well with health care. However, we have problems >that Europe is, perhaps, only just beginning to have. The general figures >for the US are skewed by the inner cities, which areas I referred to in my >last post. > >These are mostly black, though particularly in the south-west and perhaps >New York City, brown is beginning to make itself felt. I believe that >browns are close to half the population of Los Angeles > >Browns are noted in Los Angeles for drive-by shootings, where invariably >they shoot innocent people - notably children. I have cruelly suggested >that we haul in the brown gangs and teach them to shoot accurately. The >they'll shoot each other rather than the innocents. It's difficult not to >get furious when the picture of yet another little kid is shot while >playing on the sidewalk. > >There are a lot of blacks in jail, a condition which gets American liberals >into a flutter of indignation. Yet, the trouble is that 80% of violent >crimes are committed by blacks, who are about 12% of the population. > >How do we know? Economists, politicians and others shouldn't pay so much >uncritical attention to statistics - like your 44% figure. Just isn't true. >Such figures are usually concocted by governments anxious to prove that >their government systems are best. > >So, how do we know? Well, the best thing to do is to infer a conclusion >from statistics that relate to something else, in this case, victims. > >Some 80% of the victims of violent crimes are black. I hope no-one thinks >that gangs of whites go into the ghetto to beat up old black women and take >their welfare money. Unfortunately, it is black killing black. > >Also, I would bet that a lot of black victims don't report violent crimes >because they don't trust the police. An inference that is more tenuous is >that the crimes that are reported are probably serious, requiring hospital >and automatic reporting. The umpteen smaller crimes are mostly forgotten - >except by the > >Probably 99% plus of both black and brown people go about their business >like people everywhere and deserve more protection from the thugs in their >midst. > >So, what happens when they are hurt? Do they lay there waiting for an >appendix operation? Of course not - an ambulance takes them to a hospital, >which probably resembles state hospitals everywhere (albeit with more gun, >knife, and beating, cases than in other countries). I suppose this is where >young interns get practice for the colorless world outside the ghettos. > >So, this is why police "profile" blacks. It's completely unfair to the 99% >of black people who are law-abiding and get into the records only as a >victim, but that's the way it is. Jesse Jackson once said that if he hears >footsteps behind him as he walks home, when he looks back and sees a white >- he is relieved. > >On a first class radio talk show - the liberal host - Michael Jackson - >gave a black leader this question. "Is it true that if a white woman runs >into Emergency with her baby and is approached by a white and a black >doctor, she will hand her baby to the white?" Said the black guest: "If a >black woman brings in her baby, she'll hand it to the white doctor." > >This, from the suspicion that in order to get black doctors at any cost, >things in medical school are made easier for them and those who graduate >may not have suffered the rigor facing the white medical student. > >An unintended consequence of a warm-hearted policy. > >These problems are not confined medicine. New teachers - black and white - >get the same treatment, going to ghetto schools for as short a time as >possible before fleeing to the suburbs. Yes, the blacks flee, too. > >Of course they get danger pay - or rather special remuneration. I've been >in black schools where armed security personnel roam the corridors. > >In California, Spanish speaking teachers got an extra $5,000 a year for >teaching "English as second language" classes to Latinos who couldn't >speak English. After years in which not a single kid graduated in English >the program was dropped. (In spite of howls of protest from teachers who >lost their $5,000 - and heavy opposition from the unions who have forgotten >that teaches are supposed to be professionals.) > >We are lucky in California. We have something called the "Initiative", >which allows us to bypass the politicians and put something directly into >law. As you might expect, the kids learn English outside school, anyway. > >But, all this is a consequence of millions of mostly Mexicans, and mostly >illegals, entering the South-West and flooding the labor market - often >working for equally illegal poverty pay. (Usually, doing jobs that >Americans don't want to do.) > >All this skews the global statistical picture of the US. Using purely >anecdotal evidence, I must say that in almost 40 years in the US, I've >never seen a shoot out. I have never owned a gun. Yet, I live in a lower >middle class, somewhat brown, area. About 10 years ago, the son-in-law of >our neighbors stole some things from their house. Fifteen years ago someone >took 5 gallons of gas from my car - and came back a few days later for >another 5 gallons. The car was parked out front - unlocked - yet he didn't >take anything else. > >I figured he must have needed the gas, so that was that. > >That describes our crime-wave. Probably, different from what you've heard. > >Yet, my experience is no more representative of the US than the inner >cities. This country is a large area saved from balkanization by its >constitutional inability to erect trade barriers around each state. (Not to >mention the wars that inevitably follow trade restrictions.) > >Your country is about twice the size of New Jersey. You cannot compare your >problems with the problems the US encounters. Yet, Americans are pretty >good people. Something I've found - as probably have you - is that people >are pretty much the same everywhere in the world. > >However, the enormous advantage possessed by the States is an internal free >market and until the end of the 19th century - free or very cheap land. The >cheap land is gone while the external trade barriers are cutting into the >advantage of the internal Free Trade area. > >We'll see how things go. > >Harry > > > > Service is excellent - the necessary rationing isn't particularly >evident. > > > I remember having a suspicious sore. I called the doctor on Wednesday >and > > > got an appointment next morning. He looked at it and immediately sent me >to > > > the specialists. They checked it and put me through 'pre-op', which >means a > > > trip through the hospital visiting everyone who has anything to do with > > > your operation. The anesthesiologist tells you the choices and offers >his > > > recommendation, all kinds of nurses and doctors explain things. > > > > > > Monday morning - first thing - It was done and I left the hospital with >a > > > wrapped rose. > > > >You're lucky personally, but what about your fellows who are less lucky ? > > > > > We don't have gurneys in the corridors either, Chris. Though, I can't >speak > > > for the inner cities of New York, and Chicago, and suchlike. > > > >This statement symbolizes the recklessness of the "Free" Trade proponents. > > > >Chris ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
