Too poor for pop culture

[88m3]

condo three floors, benz four doors, looking for your Victoria Secret whores in drawers, yo I love hoes who blow dikk without asking, waking up in the morning head action

 

[NZA]

i dont think living in a private house is going to make an employer more likely to hire sick old poor black women. some people are fukked no matter how hard they try.

 

[Blackking]

idk.


but i do know that when your poor you don't have time for social media.. or trying to fit in with socialite culture. they need to stop w that shyt.
i was worried bout stilling cereal bars from 711 when I was poor not fitting in. .


now i pop bottles w functioning coke heads and dimes pieces.. or building with some good brothers on some community shyt. But only cuz I'm not poor. The mentality of the poor helps makes classicism and oppression much easier.

 

[RAX 010]

 

[Brown_Pride]

Some people are fond of systemic poverty, and will not entertain ideas outside it...

I'm willing to entertain some of these ideas.
Fire when ready

 

[DEAD7]

I'm willing to entertain some of these ideas.
Fire when ready

Sure, but let me take a different approach.

First, do you "think" systemic poverty is worse than poverty by chance?
and second, how do you feel about Dr. Claude Anderson's 'group economics' proposal for blacks?

 

[Brown_Pride]

Sure, but let me take a different approach.

First, do you "think" systemic poverty is worse than poverty by chance?
and second, how do you feel about Dr. Claude Anderson's 'group economics' proposal for blacks?

I"m not sure there is "chance" poverty, poverty IMHO is a result of whatever system governing the poor. Secondly, from what i remember group economics works, the problem with group economics in the AA community is that the AA community is governed by a system that doesn't promote that type of thinking. At least it seams that way to me; else wise why hasn't it been done already?

In order to have group economics you need to have business owners and land owners, in order to have that you need capital, sadly things being what htey are it's harder for an AA to get said capital.

Couple that with urban flight once said capital is gained you end up siphoning off the successfuly people out of the AA community by virtue of the community being so fuked up. Outside of altruistic motives people smart enough to start their own business will tend to follow money and sadly there isn't enough money in most ghettos.

So again, poverty is always systemic; our current system helps create poverty in AA communities.

 

[DEAD7]

I"m not sure there is "chance" poverty, poverty IMHO is a result of whatever system governing the poor. Secondly, from what i remember group economics works, the problem with group economics in the AA community is that the AA community is governed by a system that doesn't promote that type of thinking. At least it seams that way to me; else wise why hasn't it been done already?

In order to have group economics you need to have business owners and land owners, in order to have that you need capital, sadly things being what htey are it's harder for an AA to get said capital.

Couple that with urban flight once said capital is gained you end up siphoning off the successfuly people out of the AA community by virtue of the community being so fuked up. Outside of altruistic motives people smart enough to start their own business will tend to follow money and sadly there isn't enough money in most ghettos.

So again, poverty is always systemic; our current system helps create poverty in AA communities.

Great, now lets look objectively at the free market(unregulated market)... or at least the theory of it.

Group economics are not only feasible, but easily accomplished, making the "free market" an avenue for black wealth.
Now if we compare the economic quagmire we are in now to the freedom we would have to control our situation in an unregulated market, surely its worth consideration, no?

By chance poverty, I am referring to those who would suffer windfall losses in an open market.
As well as those who choose not to compete, though these people really wouldnt be victims of chance.


edit: keep in mind i'm just saying the unregulated market should be seen as a real option

 

[Brown_Pride]

Great, now lets look objectively at the free market(unregulated market)... or at least the theory of it.

Group economics are not only feasible, but easily accomplished, making the "free market" an avenue for black wealth.
Now if we compare the economic quagmire we are in now to the freedom we would have to control our situation in an unregulated market, surely its worth consideration, no?

By chance poverty, I am referring to those who would suffer windfall losses in an open market.
As well as those who choose not to compete, though these people really wouldnt be victims of chance.

edit: keep in mind i'm just saying the unregulated market should be seen as a real option

the idea is sound, it's turning ideas into reality that pose a problem. We've seen were group economics works and were it helps propel a group upward in terms of social status, particularly when you look at groups like the jewish community, particularly in terms of their political power vs their populations.

Let me ask you something. The asian american group economic model has worked relatively well no? Why don't we see the same level of political presence for asians as we do for Jewish people?

Let me propose this. RACISM. Yeah it's a crap ticket to toss out but I believe in this case it's actually warranted. Jewish people are able to "pass" as white people, asians cannot. Ironically the same system that is currently preventing the AA community from effectively practicing what you're hoping for is what's keeping the Asian community out of Washington, and out of power.

The heart of the problem with regards to poverty and THAT solution to combat it is that it requires something that doesn't exist, an organized and in my opinion most importantly a MOTIVATED AA community acting as one.

Why doesn't it exist? Well theories abound but again IMHO it has to do with the systemic institutions that do help to perpetuate certain mindsets. That being said, a complete "free for all" market like your suggesting, I believe, would result in an even more horrific situation for not only the AA community, but the country in general.

A lot of the social programs that exist, including things like SS, medicaid, SNAP, etc, etc aren't effective not because they couldn't work, but because they've been fuked with so much that they can't work in their current state.

It's sorta like having a watch to tell time, smashing the watch with a hammer and then saying, "see, watches don't work".

You know something @DEAD7 you would do well to take a few sociology and psychology classes to better understand how people ACTUALLY work vs the way NUMBERS work. A lot of what you believe (or what i've gather you believe) works well in theory, but again the problem is putting theory into practice...particularly when you're dealing with deep rooted sociological issues.

 

[DEAD7]

Why doesn't it exist? Well theories abound but again IMHO it has to do with the systemic institutions that do help to perpetuate certain mindsets. That being said, a complete "free for all" market like your suggesting, I believe, would result in an even more horrific situation for not only the AA community, but the country in general.

A lot of the social programs that exist, including things like SS, medicaid, SNAP, etc, etc aren't effective not because they couldn't work, but because they've been fuked with so much that they can't work in their current state.

I don't think it would or could be anywhere near as bad as the systemic poverty we are trapped in currently. By allowing markets to benefit, and remain under the direct control of whites and those who can pass as white, we have no chance IMO... zero.
Essentially i'm looking at it as a choice between "comfortable" poverty(which is really what they are offering) and competing in an open unregulated market.

You know something @DEAD7 you would do well to take a few sociology and psychology classes to better understand how people ACTUALLY work vs the way NUMBERS work. A lot of what you believe (or what i've gather you believe) works well in theory, but again the problem is putting theory into practice...particularly when you're dealing with deep rooted sociological issues.

Absolutely, but this idea is still in the inception phase for the AA community, and implementation of it is another issue altogether... and a challenging one for sure.

Moreover I'd argue that the "deep rooted sociological issues" are stronger and more of a burden in a regulated system where members of one or two demographics hold all the keys.
Curiously deregulation, and the removal of barriers are oft painted as being bad for the AA community, yet its regulation not deregulation that those who want to keep minorities 'in their place' seek. At some point we have to put 2 and 2 together...


Question where does this belief that whites are going to give up, or decentralize power come from?
Liberals blacks strike me as being okay with white supremacy system as long as they can eat, and not be mistreated while conservative blacks think its purely economic and they can join the ruling class.

...and obviously libertarians seek to reduce and/or eliminate the amount of power any demographic can have over others.

 

[acri1]

the idea is sound, it's turning ideas into reality that pose a problem. We've seen were group economics works and were it helps propel a group upward in terms of social status, particularly when you look at groups like the jewish community, particularly in terms of their political power vs their populations.

Let me ask you something. The asian american group economic model has worked relatively well no? Why don't we see the same level of political presence for asians as we do for Jewish people?

Let me propose this. RACISM. Yeah it's a crap ticket to toss out but I believe in this case it's actually warranted. Jewish people are able to "pass" as white people, asians cannot. Ironically the same system that is currently preventing the AA community from effectively practicing what you're hoping for is what's keeping the Asian community out of Washington, and out of power.

The heart of the problem with regards to poverty and THAT solution to combat it is that it requires something that doesn't exist, an organized and in my opinion most importantly a MOTIVATED AA community acting as one.

Why doesn't it exist? Well theories abound but again IMHO it has to do with the systemic institutions that do help to perpetuate certain mindsets. That being said, a complete "free for all" market like your suggesting, I believe, would result in an even more horrific situation for not only the AA community, but the country in general.

A lot of the social programs that exist, including things like SS, medicaid, SNAP, etc, etc aren't effective not because they couldn't work, but because they've been fuked with so much that they can't work in their current state.

It's sorta like having a watch to tell time, smashing the watch with a hammer and then saying, "see, watches don't work".

You know something @DEAD7 you would do well to take a few sociology and psychology classes to better understand how people ACTUALLY work vs the way NUMBERS work. A lot of what you believe (or what i've gather you believe) works well in theory, but again the problem is putting theory into practice...particularly when you're dealing with deep rooted sociological issues.

You know, I think this kind of gets to the root of why I tend to disagree with Libertarians/free-marketers.

They tend to look strictly at economic models and theories (where everyone acts rationally and in their interest) and assume that they automatically apply to the real world. When, truth be told, human beings very often don't act rationally and in their self-interest, much less fairly. And also that many other factors outside of pure monetary self-interest influence economic behavior...social factors, psychological factors, poor information about the market, culture, etc.

Personally I find the idea of "group economics", at least as I understand it, kind of unrealistic for a large population such as African-Americans. It's pretty difficult to get that many people to actually modify their behavior in a meaningful way.

 

[DEAD7]

You know, I think this kind of gets to the root of why I tend to disagree with Libertarians/free-marketers.

They tend to look strictly at economic models and theories (where everyone acts rationally and in their interest) and assume that they automatically apply to the real world. When, truth be told, human beings very often don't act rationally and in their self-interest, much less fairly. And also that many other factors outside of pure monetary self-interest influence economic behavior...social factors, psychological factors, poor information about the market, culture, etc.

Personally I find the idea of "group economics", at least as I understand it, kind of unrealistic for a large population such as African-Americans. It's pretty difficult to get that many people to actually modify their behavior in a meaningful way.

rationally probably not, but for the most part, people do act in their own best interest.

 

[acri1]

rationally probably not, but for the most part, people do act in their own best interest.

Well, people act in what they believe is in their best interest, but I think that can be pretty different than what's actually in their best interest. And to be honest, the idea of self-interest is kind of vague anyway and can change depending on social/psychological/cultural factors. For example a poor person may believe that buying expensive shoes that they can't really afford is in their best interest, because they're in style and they want them. Another equally poor person may be more rational and avoid buying things like that. If you were to account for these two people in an economic model, you'd expect them to behave similarly (based on similar socioeconomic status) but in this case social/personality factors caused them to behave in two completely different ways.

An economic theory wouldn't be able to account for this type of thing, yet these kinds of things make large differences even on a large scale. And it could apply to lots of different arguments, for example -

You could argue that if you lower taxes on corporations they'll hire more people. This might be a prediction made by an economic model, but it might not account for the fact that people in management might not want to hire more people and would rather just pocket the extra money instead. Or maybe, less malevolently, during the recession many companies learned that they could get by with fewer people and thus don't feel much need to hire more regardless of tax rates. Or maybe they're waiting to see if other companies hire more before they start hiring.

My point here is just that discounting social factors when it comes to economics is, IMO, naive.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I don't think it would or could be anywhere near as bad as the systemic poverty we are trapped in currently. By allowing markets to benefit, and remain under the direct control of whites and those who can pass as white, we have no chance IMO... zero.
Essentially i'm looking at it as a choice between "comfortable" poverty(which is really what they are offering) and competing in an open unregulated market.




Absolutely, but this idea is still in the inception phase for the AA community, and implementation of it is another issue altogether... and a challenging one for sure.

Moreover I'd argue that the "deep rooted sociological issues" are stronger and more of a burden in a regulated system where members of one or two demographics hold all the keys.
Curiously deregulation, and the removal of barriers are oft painted as being bad for the AA community, yet its regulation not deregulation that those who want to keep minorities 'in their place' seek. At some point we have to put 2 and 2 together...


Question where does this belief that whites are going to give up, or decentralize power come from?
Liberals blacks strike me as being okay with white supremacy system as long as they can eat, and not be mistreated while conservative blacks think its purely economic and they can join the ruling class.

...and obviously libertarians seek to reduce and/or eliminate the amount of power any demographic can have over others.

As @acri1 has pointed out "libertarians" really don't have a finger on the pulse of HUMANITY and like to apply number theory to often unpredictable people.

Companies don't hire when taxes are low, it makes no sense.

People don't save even though it's in their best interest. People don't go to college even though it's in their best interest. They don't eat correctly. Hell take a look at the vast majority of america and based on health, credit score, education level, divorce rates, etc, etc can you really say they do what is in their best interests vs what they BELIEVE is in their best interests?

See again, The problem isn't that people make bad choices, the problem is that any system of governance should take into account that simple undeniable truth.

A completely free market devoid of regulation doesn't take into account people.

in a perfect world a complete and utter free market where all people act like robots and "do the right thing" then sure, that would be teh way to go. But, in a world with greedy ass people who can't see past their own self interest, well, we need regulation.

 

[DEAD7]

Well, people act in what they believe is in their best interest, but I think that can be pretty different than what's actually in their best interest. And to be honest, the idea of self-interest is kind of vague anyway and can change depending on social/psychological/cultural factors. For example a poor person may believe that buying expensive shoes that they can't really afford is in their best interest, because they're in style and they want them. Another equally poor person may be more rational and avoid buying things like that. If you were to account for these two people in an economic model, you'd expect them to behave similarly (based on similar socioeconomic status) but in this case social/personality factors caused them to behave in two completely different ways.

An economic theory wouldn't be able to account for this type of thing, yet these kinds of things make large differences even on a large scake. And it could apply to lots of different arguments, for example -

You could argue that if you lower taxes on corporations they'll hire more people. This might be a prediction made by an economic model, but it might not account for the fact that people in management might not want to hire more people and would rather just pocket the extra money instead. Or maybe, less malevolently, during the recession many companies learned that they could get by with fewer people and thus don't feel much need to hire more regardless of tax rates. Or maybe they're waiting to see if other companies hire more before they start hiring.

My point here is just that discounting social factors when it comes to economics is, IMO, naive.

This seems pretty spot on, I just don't believe we need to account these people. Accounting for the ignorance of individuals seems(to me) like something that can lead to some very ill advised economic policy.


This may sound cold, but I truly believe that if you tie being ignorant to whats going on to starving to death. That ignorance will begin to slowly vanish. Leaving you with a much more informed/educated populace...