200 Years of Protectionist Measures and All You have to show for it is this

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by LM1

This is much like the shrieking that occurs whenever you point out racial disparities in crime and blacks (or black "partisan types") point out that, in a country that's 76-some-odd% white, the "majority of people in prison are white", as if that somehow negates the gross criminal disparity that occurs in the black community.
It's about as statistically dishonest as saying the "majority of white people are poor" simply because the majority of a white population isn't upper-middle to upper class. That's an issue of pure economic resource. Unfortunately, in a capitalist system, not everyone can be upper class but even if one were seeking to compare, white achievement still outclasses almost all other identifiable races, save for Asians...



It's undeniably apparent that black culture hasn't achieved a remotely par degree of success with European culture, while other races, peoples and cultures have endured similar hardships (if not worse) than blacks- American or African- and overcome them. I think if black culture is to finally prove once and for all that the races truly are "equal", they're going to have to do so with something far more tangible than a few bizarre theories, given that everything that exists before our very eyes speaks directly to the contrary.

.

LM1, we've always had some pretty good debates, but these are the two paragraphs that are easy as hell to argue out of. You obviously have some understand of economics all i did was apply it to what is uniformly referred to as "white privlidge" and explain why it has been inefficent. Whites will soon find, that protecionism similiar to "affirmative action" for blacks in the end gives them no real noticable advantages, when the government drops the program and makes them face the music of competition.

In fact LM1, based on the statistics and the protectionist measures taken by the US government to protect unskilled white labor over the past 100 years it is really hard for you to argue why more than 30% are not college educated and why only 48% graduate from college. Just think if in 1870 the government held up and applied the constitution to all citizens. What would have would have happend? (My bet is that just like when baseball, which had anti-competitive measures you noticed, that most white baseball players could not compete. I can cite predominitely white industry after white industry that the government has subsidized at the expense of slave labor, foriegn labor, and a host of other anti-competitive measures, that have been taken by government in favor of unskilled white labor. You really cannot argue out of this LM1.

Remember you state no statistical evidence whatsoever in any of your post. Black Americans if seperated out as a country perform far better than 95% of all European Countries. Countries, that had no slavery, have homogenous groups of people living with one another etc.

My biggest issue with you has always come around race, because you fail to tackle reality. Reality LM1, Jewish, Irish, Poles, and Italians all had murder rates comparable to inner city blacks in Detroit today. I pointed that out in another forum. You cannot run from those facts, but what they do tell us is that none of this is a black or white issue, but there are certain human characteristics, that populations display, because of societal disadvantages, hardships, government legislation, government intervention, and a host of other variables. The culture that inner city blacks display is not a "black" culture its a culture of poverty. They are not the first nor the last group to display this sort of behavior. I wish i could bring you to South Boston in the 1990's, so you could see an all white inner city neighborhood, that had shootings, high murder rates, crack heads, high rates of children out of wedlock, and a community that lived by the "code of the streets."

When you've been well travled enough to visit Eastern Europe, Africa, Irael, and a host of different places, that all share high homicide rates, poverty, and distinct social characteristics, that lead people to failure you then realize none of this ever had anything to do with race. It is going to be a tough challenge for someone like you, but one you should take on. (not traveling, but exploring human characteristics). You cannot say you divorce human characteristics from the individual then attempt to apply it collectively to a group. You cannot have both.

The irony is that i've cited evidence, historical, factual, about every last group that has had a high rate of homicide, but you people (whites/blacks) continue to fall victim to stereotypes. Do you know what they said about the high Jewishs and Irish Homicide Rates in the 1920's??? They said "IT's BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS AND IRISH" However, not less than 30 years after they finally assimiliated, which was much easier, because they did not have the racial element there children were law abiding american citizens.

Most Blacks in America have assimilated and to say anything otherwise is dishonest, which is what is often said. However there is a small group of 8 million, that continue to display signs of poverty characteristics. They are anti-social, anti-education, prone to violence, mis-guided, and a host of other ills of those sorts of people. This is no difference then how the Irish, Jews, and a host of other ethnic minorities were discribed upon enterting hte new world.

Anyway, like i've stressed before those of you that continue to look at race as the sole answer to problems of human nature are doing all of us a disservice and you all will never accomplish anything more than continuing to keep races seperated. When you finally have the gulll to study and judge things based simply on human characteristics devoid of racial context, then you will start to notice there's only two sorts of characteristics poverty complex and the success complex. There is an in between complex, but i'm not sure how to label it. You deal with only opinion and things you've personally witnessed. I deal with facts and things i've personally witnessed across contact with large numbers of different groups. What they share in common is human characteristics and often times the biggest difference rest in their skin tone, but after that they're either of poverty complex or successful complex nothing more nothing less.

Anyway, I digress, i've gotten way off topic, but you did not answer any of my questions. I possed fact, you again posted opinion as fact. Point of the matter is simple economics like it or not if you're white and unskilled you've enjoyed the most liberal protectionist measures in terms of competiton. What you don't understand about the dangers of this, is that these people in 50 years will be the new white underclass, because you people are so drunk with you love for the 30% of upper class whites, that vacation in the Hamptons and fly private jets. Stereotypes that don't deal in reality are very dangerous whether they are good or bad. You fail to think about the 70% of your race, that is uniformily either poor, lower middle, or middle class. Facts are facts i don't challenge them i only attempt to explain them with other facts.

[gallowsCalibrator]

In all honesty - I'm color blind to a fault. I don't see crime as a result of "black people living there". I don't see "asian kids doing well in school".

History was color-orientated. However, we are in the 21st century. My daughter will learn the same values I have been instilled with. The color of your skin should not make you who you are.

Respect your roots - just don't expect them to earn you any difference in my eyes.

And in honesty, I wasn't offended by the racial interludes about blue collar workers. What offended me is the insinuation that all Blue Collar Workers are "poorly unskilled". You basically called my mother "poorly unskilled" (She's a Pepsi Production Technician and Mechanic with respective degrees) - and I'm sure anyone would defend their mother's honour in that respect.

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by Kuharai

In all honesty - I'm color blind to a fault. I don't see crime as a result of "black people living there". I don't see "asian kids doing well in school".

History was color-orientated. However, we are in the 21st century. My daughter will learn the same values I have been instilled with. The color of your skin should not make you who you are.

Respect your roots - just don't expect them to earn you any difference in my eyes.

And in honesty, I wasn't offended by the racial interludes about blue collar workers. What offended me is the insinuation that all Blue Collar Workers are "poorly unskilled". You basically called my mother "poorly unskilled" (She's a Pepsi Production Technician and Mechanic with respective degrees) - and I'm sure anyone would defend their mother's honour in that respect.

To me it looks like the cards have already been set in motion by big government for a massive population divide along race. They subsidize unskilled white labor for hundreds of years. Then in the 1970's, they all of a sudden change policy and start to subsidize black labor and education (when all they should have done was uphold the freaking law of 1870 and enforce it, which the federal government had power to do over states!). Now, they will open the unskilled white labor up to competition effectively destroying jobs for our largest labor segment of the population. However, this group will not blame government for subsidizing them. They'll turn to blacks, hispanics, asians, and other minorities and vent there hatred for them and in some cases probably start to attack them. The new underclass this will create will be extremely hostile to anyone in the educated class, but especially minorities.

This is all created through poor government planning. This is what i eventually see happening in the next 50 years.

Anyone that is college educated will not face much competition, but anyone that is poor, working poor, or lower middle class will face extreme amounts of competition. Hence the problem with subsidizing unskilled white labor for such a long period of time, they are not going to be able to compete on their own. To that extent the newly formed lower middle blacks that now work in these industries will be hurt, because government protectionist efforts, its really going to hurt the white population more, because you're larger and have more workers in these various industries.

Then government will again probably bow to the demands of a large umployed sector the economy by practicing discriminator policies and attempting to protect jobs, that is what i see coming for low skilled wokrers.

This is way government needs to be reduced at all cost. People need to be able to fairly compete or get out of the way and move into another field. The reason only 30% of your race are college graduates is this exact reason. If government had not subsidized so many white industries for so long. I bet most whites would have 50% college educations or more.

The effects of protectionism are bad for workers, consumers, and the economy in the long run. You really reap what you sow.

Code word when people say "Stop sending American Jobs to China" what they're really saying is "Why the hell isn't the government protecting poorly skilled white guys anymore?"===This will have horrible effects on our race relations in this country. I can almost bet in 50 years this group will blame affirmative action and the advances of blacks for their problems. When in reality the problem was created by government from start to finish!

[MamaBee]

Originally Posted by truthhurts

Mama, well you just made my job much easier if you only want us to go from 1981? Is this correct?

Well, in that case you notice, that from 1981 to 2000 most minority high school graduation rates actually were at their lowest point. In certain areas they were comparable to white graduation rates. You'll also note, that the income specifically blacks from 1981-2000 went up from 20,000-35,000 roughly doubling. You'll also note that the fastest change economic class change in that decade occured from middle class blacks to upper middle class.

Why were a lot of these possible? During a Regan/Bush/Clinton run adminstration?

1. Education Gains (Now All blacks had access to college)
2. Employment Gains (better more skilled employment due to educational gains)
3. College Attendance sky-rocketed for blacks specifically through 1980's and 1990's.

Again allowing everyone to freely pursue there own individuals rights started to finally take place. Now, we should not have needed an amendment in the 1965 to have this done. It should have happend on its own if government would have followed through on there initial 1870 amendment to equal rights regardless of previous servitude.

Now, hehe, by closing in on 1981 you're really attempting to some how make the parents of children born in 1981 obsolete. However, that does not go away, so for all those parents who faced discriminatory policies in getting a higher education those lost wages or not gone etc.

Do you understand protectionism?

Do you understand what it means to compete fairly?

Do you understand the tenants of free-competition and what makes them work?

For us to continue this argument I need to know you understand them or else this is an exercise in futility, which it has been thus far. You have not answerd any of my arguments or questions. I was very specific in what i said in the OP. If you're going to try to avoid directly answering those i cannot participate in weaving around the initial topic. I stated clear as day in my first post how a felt about today and why i felt that way.

Many of the same industries I cited earlier, which at this point, because of policy changes now included unskilled white and black labor does not change my opinion.

You stated that for the past 100 years there have been protectionist advantages in place that protected whites, and I clearly stated that I have not seen this in my lifetime. I asked you to let me know the what the protectiontist advantages since 1981 were because that is the year I was born, it's idiotic to discuss the parents of children born in 1981; I specifically asked for the "protectionist advantages" during my lifetime. You have not cited any.

Nor have you given examples of how whites as a group were economically advantaged; in fact, you've cited how much blacks as a group have acheived success...doesn't that negate your OP?

In 2005 dollars, the average income for a white person was $18,418; in 2005 it was $26,496. So where is this protectionist advantage you were talking about when your last post showed how much blacks have succeeded in the past 26 years?

I understand your question but I also stated previously that your questions are biased. They are clearly loaded questions and no, I won't answer them.

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by MamaBee

You stated that for the past 100 years there have been protectionist advantages in place that protected whites, and I clearly stated that I have not seen this in my lifetime. I asked you to let me know the what the protectiontist advantages since 1981 were because that is the year I was born, it's idiotic to discuss the parents of children born in 1981; I specifically asked for the "protectionist advantages" during my lifetime. You have not cited any.

Nor have you given examples of how whites as a group were economically advantaged; in fact, you've cited how much blacks as a group have acheived success...doesn't that negate your OP?

In 2005 dollars, the average income for a white person was $18,418; in 2005 it was $26,496. So where is this protectionist advantage you were talking about when your last post showed how much blacks have succeeded in the past 26 years?

I understand your question but I also stated previously that your questions are biased. They are clearly loaded questions and no, I won't answer them.

Mama, I’ll quickly point out all the protectionist measures, which were extremely anti-competitive and subsidized unskilled white labor at the expense of the entire nation. Also note your income numbers are way off is that per capita it certainly is not the white median income?

For more than 80 years, from 1870-1950 Jim Crow laws prevented able bodied blacks from directly competing with unskilled white labor for jobs. (One example of a protectionist measure up held by state governments to protect unskilled whites from competition. (This is always bad for business, consumers, and the country btw)

Now from 1900-1940ish, blacks were not allowed to participate in labor unions, which helped protect unskilled white workers again and also raised wages, prices, and hurt the American consumer.

Okay, for another 14 years from 1950-1968 – the US up-held Segregation/ Apartied and the theory of “separate, but equal.” This was another anti-competitive measure, which protected unskilled white labor from competition. However, what I have not noted thus far is that this protectionist effort for unskilled whites had an unintended effect of creating a black entrepreneur class from 1870 onward. However, because of race, these individuals were not able to pursue their freedoms to the best of their ability. In other words a black could not start a chain of businesses in the north and expand the business into southern white neighborhoods, whereas an Poles, Irish, or Jewish white could. This is a huge piece of creating wealth. Now, obviously some blacks did become wealthy just off of servicing the black population A.G Gaston, Madame CJ Walker, John H. Johnson etc. But I digress.

1970-1980, protectionist measures, which were once in favor of unskilled whites, were now in favor of unskilled blacks. They (the government) set quotas’ on education and labor. This lasted for 10 years (Regan Stopped Quotas) following 94 years of favorable laws that protected unskilled white labor. (Anyway even the reverse form of protectionism and subsidizing unskilled blacks was the wrong thing to do by the government. Better idea would have been to eliminate big government and all programs, which subsidize anyone. Thus allowing all of us to compete freely, which is where we are slowly headed in todays society.

During the 1980’s Unions, which are predominately white were heavily subsidized (unskilled white labor), Farming Subsidies to predominately white farmers, Dairy Subsidies, and various other manufacturing subsidies for steel and the automotive industry helped to continue subsidizing unskilled white labor, at the greater expense of all Americans. (eg we bought Japense cars in the 80's)

Today we have steel, farm, and oil subsidies, which continue to employ large amounts of unskilled white labor at the expense of our entire nation.

The smartest thing whites did over those 100 years of protectionism, was consolidation of all the various white ethnic groups into one racial group. If they would not have consolidated, Irish, Jews, Poles, Italians, WASP, and etc under one umbrella it would have made any gains even under protectionism impossible, because all of these various groups irish, jews, poles, Italians etc would have each been asking the government for individual subsidies. It was the smartest move from a “business” stand point, because all the native blacks were already united (in sense, because they were of only one ethnic group). The best way to fend off competition from a huge competitor is to merge, because it gives you more voting power, political power, cuts cost, increases purchasing power, and eliminates competition between intra-racial ethnic groups. Had this not been done WASP would still be the dominate white power etc, which if you could break the white race down you’d probably notice they still hold the majority of white collar jobs etc. Similar to Mulatto or fair skin blacks in today’s society. Why? It all comes back to how many freedoms the government protected or subsidized in your thier favor.

Okay hopefully that summed up all the protectionist measures of the last 100 years.

The main point of this thread, was to point out a topic like protectionism, and attack the race of the individuals. This is very similar to what many people were doing in reference to blacks and crime. Not attacking the problem, but attacking the race. The problem does not lie in the race of people being subsidized, but the fact, that the government allows inefficiency at a considerably large expense to all of us in America. The second point is simple there has never been fair competition between blacks and whites up until the 1980’s, because of competitive protectionist measures taken by the government to protect unskilled white labor. The government still protects unskilled white labor, but now that laws have changed there is a segment of unskilled black labor within those industries, that recieves protection. The reason this is happening is because blacks are allowed to engage in whatever activities they want with the most freedoms. There are no Jim Crow laws, Unions (that do not allow black membership etc), to directly protect unskilled white laborers etc. The government no longer supports this sort of activity, but it still allows for a lot of "hidden" subsidies to take place. Farmers, Manufacturers, Import Quotas, Affirmative Action, Diary Subsidies, Oil Subsidies, are nothing more than protectionist measures.

The final point is, that if the government up held the constitutional law written in 1870, which gave all blacks freedom to pursue whatever they wanted, I highly doubt we would be having this discussion, because there would have never been any need for “civil rights laws.” Why? Well if we were all allowed to compete equally for 100 years I bet most black and white education and income gaps would not exist. In fact, it’s fair to say, that blacks would most likely be on parity with whites in almost every statistical category especially wealth, because that is really what protectionist efforst of poorly skilled whites limited the most. Since 1970-1980 we are all finally being allowed to compete on the same level and this is why you’re seeing tremendous gains, because people are allowed to pursue whatever the hell they want to with the most freedoms.

However, the biggest obstacle in my opinion to “leveling the playing field” is simply government. The bigger government gets the more handouts it doles out to unskilled whites, blacks, women, elderly, etc the list could go on. Big Government will keep taking from one group to support another at the expense of us all. It the basic theory of scarcity and why Government has no freaking business rationing out protections for various groups. There are trade-offs at each step.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/regionsummary.php?fips=00000

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD8133CF935A15754C0A96F9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/oklahoma_caskets/backgrounder.html

http://www.oah.org/meetings/2001/honey.html