Political Roundtable - Part VII

[Zonkerbl]

Well, it's just that all these facts that Nate posts as evidence that African Americans are an inferior race are in fact evidence that AAs have been subjected to systematic discrimination. It doesn't prove anything except that white's behavior toward AAs has been reprehensible.

[nate33]

But we now know what the transfer would look like. Or at least the start of the negotiation. I would think it would be somewhere between 0 and $182.74B. You could make the argument that it should be $125B or $100B.

In order for it to be zero, you would need to assert that slavery didn't hold back blacks in this country. That there shouldn't be reparations.

Warning - same arguments held for abortion and gay marriage...

Prepare yourself: HateStats are about to follow.

I did some calculations based on percentage of income taxes paid by income bracket, and by proportion of different ethnic groups within each income bracket. The best I could determine is that blacks pay approximately 4% of all income taxes today despite being 13% of the population. Over the past 50 years, that income tax number would surely be lower because the income tax was more progressive and there were fewer high paying jobs in entertainment and sports. So let's assume that blacks have paid, on average 3% of income taxes over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, they've been reaping the benefits of government spending, whether for general infrastructure, education, law enforcement and defense; or for specific welfare transfer payments to them (where blacks take in roughly 50% of welfare spending). The wealth transfer to blacks has already been in the trillions of dollars - probably tens of trillions.

Those trillions of dollars have not appeared to help blacks. What makes anyone think a reparations payment would be any different?

"HateStats" -- your word, man.

I don't think reparations are workable, so this is a purely academic discussion. It does seem nonsensical to me, however, to deny the long-term impacts of kidnapping people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to perform unpaid work -- and then subjecting them to discrimination in housing, education, and employment, as well as denying them basic rights (like voting).

So, you're welcome to continue posting BS race-based factoids, but so far, non of it addresses the REALITY of how discrimination has affected black people in this country in a way that has been unique, persistent, and damaging.

I never denied that there were long term impacts to the legacy of slavery. I'm just saying that there has already been a MASSIVE attempt at addressing those long term impacts, and so far, the impacts are either minimal or actively counter-productive. By nearly every social metric, blacks were better off 50 years ago than they are now.

[dckingsfan]

This is preposterous. It presupposes that the cause for the wealth disparity is solely due to white racism. Let's try it this way:

Jewish people on average earn 20% more than their non-Jew counterparts. Jews are 2% of the American population but constitute 35% of the Forbes list of the 400 Richest Americans. Clearly, Jew Privilege as it work here because Jews are also massively overrepresented among government policy makers, opinion makers and media. We need reparations. Jews, on average, earn about $12,000 more than non-Jews. There are about 325 million non-Jews in America so American Jews should pony up $3.25 trillion dollars and we'll call it even.

But we now know what the transfer would look like. Or at least the start of the negotiation. I would think it would be somewhere between 0 and $182.74B. You could make the argument that it should be $125B or $100B.

In order for it to be zero, you would need to assert that slavery didn't hold back blacks in this country. That there shouldn't be reparations.

Warning - same arguments held for abortion and gay marriage...

Prepare yourself: HateStats are about to follow.

I did some calculations based on percentage of income taxes paid by income bracket, and by proportion of different ethnic groups within each income bracket. The best I could determine is that blacks pay approximately 4% of all income taxes today despite being 13% of the population. Over the past 50 years, that income tax number would surely be lower because the income tax was more progressive and there were fewer high paying jobs in entertainment and sports. So let's assume that blacks have paid, on average 3% of income taxes over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, they've been reaping the benefits of government spending, whether for general infrastructure, education, law enforcement and defense; or for specific welfare transfer payments to them (where blacks take in roughly 50% of welfare spending). The wealth transfer to blacks has already been in the trillions of dollars - probably tens of trillions.

Those trillions of dollars have not appeared to help blacks. What makes anyone think a reparations payment would be any different?

Your points are really to the point Would this be just another bad policy with unintended consequences.

For most American Indians, being put on reservations has just lead to stifling poverty (although some tribes have become quite rich).

[TheSecretWeapon]

Prepare yourself: HateStats are about to follow.

I did some calculations based on percentage of income taxes paid by income bracket, and by proportion of different ethnic groups within each income bracket. The best I could determine is that blacks pay approximately 4% of all income taxes today despite being 13% of the population. Over the past 50 years, that income tax number would surely be lower because the income tax was more progressive and there were fewer high paying jobs in entertainment and sports. So let's assume that blacks have paid, on average 3% of income taxes over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, they've been reaping the benefits of government spending, whether for general infrastructure, education, law enforcement and defense; or for specific welfare transfer payments to them (where blacks take in roughly 50% of welfare spending). The wealth transfer to blacks has already been in the trillions of dollars - probably tens of trillions.

Those trillions of dollars have not appeared to help blacks. What makes anyone think a reparations payment would be any different?

"HateStats" -- your word, man.

I don't think reparations are workable, so this is a purely academic discussion. It does seem nonsensical to me, however, to deny the long-term impacts of kidnapping people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to perform unpaid work -- and then subjecting them to discrimination in housing, education, and employment, as well as denying them basic rights (like voting).

So, you're welcome to continue posting BS race-based factoids, but so far, non of it addresses the REALITY of how discrimination has affected black people in this country in a way that has been unique, persistent, and damaging.

I never denied that there were long term impacts to the legacy of slavery. I'm just saying that there has already been a MASSIVE attempt at addressing those long term impacts, and so far, the impacts are either minimal or actively counter-productive. By nearly every social metric, blacks were better off 50 years ago than they are now.

Those efforts weren't aimed at the ROOT of the problem, which is discrimination. Lots of challenges in addressing discrimination -- in part because many whites take the "it doesn't happen" or "it's not that bad" position.

[dobrojim]

Prepare yourself: HateStats are about to follow.

I did some calculations based on percentage of income taxes paid by income bracket, and by proportion of different ethnic groups within each income bracket. The best I could determine is that blacks pay approximately 4% of all income taxes today despite being 13% of the population. Over the past 50 years, that income tax number would surely be lower because the income tax was more progressive and there were fewer high paying jobs in entertainment and sports. So let's assume that blacks have paid, on average 3% of income taxes over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, they've been reaping the benefits of government spending, whether for general infrastructure, education, law enforcement and defense; or for specific welfare transfer payments to them (where blacks take in roughly 50% of welfare spending). The wealth transfer to blacks has already been in the trillions of dollars - probably tens of trillions.

Those trillions of dollars have not appeared to help blacks. What makes anyone think a reparations payment would be any different?

A couple thoughts come to mind

One is along similar lines to discussions which I think we may have had back in the wake of
the 2012 elections re the 47%ers.

One side sees it as blatantly unfair that such a huge number, nearly a majority, are getting
what seems in many ways like a free ride ie that our politics are really messed up to allow
this to happen. They're citizens but they don't pay 'any' taxes.

The other side sees an economic system where so much wealth, and much of the power that
goes along with it, is concentrated in so few hands, no I'm mean wallets, we have no hands
(sorry, JK). The politics have attempted to implement progressive policies in order to correct
for this but the bottom line is that median income is much lower than would be desirable.
So this side sees/wants a political adjustment in an attempt to make the econ system more 'fair'.

One side sees that poor (or black) people don't pay anything or enough into the system.
The other side sees (black) people too poor to be expected to have to pay into the system.
(that's thought one)

The other thought is in response to your comment that AAs have been 'reaping the benefit
of govt largesse' (paraphrasing) well in excess of their contribution. The problem I have
with this is that historically, and many would say to this day, AAs have not had significant
political power with which to distribute largesse.

If we want to talk about largesse, I think there are plenty of other places in the govt
(were it not for banks ie where the money is) Willie Sutton would go before he went to the
welfare office.

[dckingsfan]

I think there is another view of what is going on...

1) Overall taxes are regressive. SS is regressive. The gas tax is regressive. Parking tickets are regressive. Only income taxes aren't regressive. This continues to hurt those most in need. Continuing to raise taxes is one of the most regressive things we can do...

2) We need growth to create opportunity - currently our federal expenditures prioritize defensive and entitlement programs squeezing out investment in growth - reducing the opportunity - especially for AA youth

3) Our welfare programs haven't been effiecient in the past, why would we think this would change going forward.

4) There is still a great deal of discrimination (root cause), this may be the biggest reason that AAs have not advanced as quickly as one would hope. President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on crime has been one of the biggest discriminators - especially in the jailing of drug users.

5) Government intervention into many of the issues (housing & education) have backfired badly, why do we think more of the same will work?

[Dat2U]

Prepare yourself: HateStats are about to follow.

I did some calculations based on percentage of income taxes paid by income bracket, and by proportion of different ethnic groups within each income bracket. The best I could determine is that blacks pay approximately 4% of all income taxes today despite being 13% of the population. Over the past 50 years, that income tax number would surely be lower because the income tax was more progressive and there were fewer high paying jobs in entertainment and sports. So let's assume that blacks have paid, on average 3% of income taxes over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, they've been reaping the benefits of government spending, whether for general infrastructure, education, law enforcement and defense; or for specific welfare transfer payments to them (where blacks take in roughly 50% of welfare spending). The wealth transfer to blacks has already been in the trillions of dollars - probably tens of trillions.

Those trillions of dollars have not appeared to help blacks. What makes anyone think a reparations payment would be any different?

"HateStats" -- your word, man.

I don't think reparations are workable, so this is a purely academic discussion. It does seem nonsensical to me, however, to deny the long-term impacts of kidnapping people, shipping them across the ocean, and forcing them to perform unpaid work -- and then subjecting them to discrimination in housing, education, and employment, as well as denying them basic rights (like voting).

So, you're welcome to continue posting BS race-based factoids, but so far, non of it addresses the REALITY of how discrimination has affected black people in this country in a way that has been unique, persistent, and damaging.

I never denied that there were long term impacts to the legacy of slavery. I'm just saying that there has already been a MASSIVE attempt at addressing those long term impacts, and so far, the impacts are either minimal or actively counter-productive. By nearly every social metric, blacks were better off 50 years ago than they are now.

Well our communities weren't flooded with hard drugs either but times sure change. The disingenuous often view the idea of context as just an excuse, especially when folks can find or twist any stat to add validity to their point.

[popper]

Interesting discussion. The country will soon be $20 trillion in debt with annual deficits beginning to climb again in a few years. Entitlements are eating up ever increasing portions of our govt. revenues to the extent that it is difficult to find money for any project (today it's the highway bill, tomorrow something else). Assume we can increase taxes another couple points on those making $400,000 plus. Even with that, we remain on a path to financial ruin.

Obviously the right thing to do would have been for the govt. to have made a reparation payment to any former slave when they were emancipated. They and their kids are long gone so the US can't really make them whole at this point. As Nate mentioned, since the entitlement and welfare state revved up beginning in the 1940's and has grown exponentially since then, one can argue that that, coupled with the benefits from affirmative action, are evidence of serious attempts to right past wrongs.

I'd also be interested to compare the average lifetime earnings (or purchasing power) of AA slave decedents to citizens of those countries where most slaves came from (western Africa I think?). In other words, do slave decedents today benefit economically from living in the US compared to what they likely would have experienced had their ancestors not been forcefully removed from Africa.

Also, I don't think it's been mentioned, but the Arabs were also deeply involved in the African slave trade.

[dobrojim]

I must confess to a certain amount of disbelief when I read or hear "the sky is falling" re entitlements.

A very modest increase in the cap on earnings which are taxed would make the system solvent as far
as the eye can see. And this is the solution favored by a significant majority of voters/people, I recall
hearing/reading that that number is on the order of 80%.

Another thing is that the projections for the growth in revenues into the 'trust fund' has historically been
underestimated. In other words, the demographic bomb may turn out to be smaller than anticipated.
The obvious danger would be if we continue to suffer with poor growth or negative growth.
I would point out that austerity is more likely to lead to that than smart investment in things
that we need and can use. Govt spending isn't bad per se, it all depends on what you're
spending it on.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Interesting discussion. The country will soon be $20 trillion in debt with annual deficits beginning to climb again in a few years. Entitlements are eating up ever increasing portions of our govt. revenues to the extent that it is difficult to find money for any project (today it's the highway bill, tomorrow something else). Assume we can increase taxes another couple points on those making $400,000 plus. Even with that, we remain on a path to financial ruin.

Obviously the right thing to do would have been for the govt. to have made a reparation payment to any former slave when they were emancipated. They and their kids are long gone so the US can't really make them whole at this point. As Nate mentioned, since the entitlement and welfare state revved up beginning in the 1940's and has grown exponentially since then, one can argue that that, coupled with the benefits from affirmative action, are evidence of serious attempts to right past wrongs.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the "welfare state" didn't come about because of a desire to compensate blacks for the wealth that was effectively stolen from them. That is to say, African slaves were brought here against their will and forced to work without pay. It was virtually impossible for slaves to even begin accumulating wealth. They couldn't save their wages because, with few exceptions, they weren't getting any. They couldn't own property. They couldn't vote. They had no rights in the courts. One judge in North Carolina wrote that the slave owners rights MUST be absolute to ensure the "perfect submission" of the slave.

And, the condition of slavery was (with few exceptions) passed down from parent to child.

I'd also be interested to compare the average lifetime earnings (or purchasing power) of AA slave decedents to citizens of those countries where most slaves came from (western Africa I think?). In other words, do slave decedents today benefit economically from living in the US compared to what they likely would have experienced had their ancestors not been forcefully removed from Africa.

One problem here is that Africa was hurt badly by the abduction and export of a major chunk of its men. A corollary "alternative" timeline question might be to wonder what Africa would be like if its young men, its fathers, leaders, workers, etc. hadn't been outright stolen and shipped to the other side of the world.

Also, I don't think it's been mentioned, but the Arabs were also deeply involved in the African slave trade.

This is true, and the historical evidence indicates that Arab slave traders, like European slave traders, were brutal (castrating 8-12 year old boys, and specifically targeting African women for use as concubines and to fill harems). I read one source that suggested that Europeans got the idea for their slave system from the Arab system. New World slave owners preferred male slaves for field work and manual labor. And, Arab slave traders were fairly indiscriminate: they took slaves from anywhere they could get them, including Africa, the Mediterranean, and from all over Europe.

[dobrojim]

A great interview of my favorite liberal: Camille Paglia

What's your view on Bernie Sanders?

I have a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders because he's an honest man with integrity. Of course, I disagree with much of his socialist agenda but I do think some good would come out of a Sanders Presidency as long as he was checked by a Republican Congress. Sanders would fight the banks and he'd probably disentangle us from lots of bad foreign occupations. Those two things alone might be worth enduring the additional wealth transfer programs he'd propose.

pardone for my second reply to the same post

at the risk of making it sound like an endorsement, I would add to my previous comments about Bernie
that I believe he would be far less likely to uphold the status quo, moneyed interests on virtually any
issue you can name not just banking and foreign entanglements. This may well be irrational exuberance
but for those of you who are Hiaasen fans, a veritable Gov Clinton Tyree before he resigned to become Skink.

It's not completely clear that his campaign is as quixotic as has been described so far. Recent polls
currently show he would be competitive with many of the more likely GOP candidates.

[nate33]

One problem here is that Africa was hurt badly by the abduction and export of a major chunk of its men. A corollary "alternative" timeline question might be to wonder what Africa would be like if its young men, its fathers, leaders, workers, etc. hadn't been outright stolen and shipped to the other side of the world.

FWIW, there actually weren't THAT many slaves taken from Africa to the U.S. The African slave trade was actually outlawed by 1807. The best estimate is about 388,000 slaves were abducted directly from Africa to the United States between 1500 and 1807, with another 60,000 or so coming via the Caribbean. That totals about 1,500 abductions per year from a continent with an estimated population of 50-60 million at the time. That's 1 abduction per year for every 45,000 Africans or about the same rate at which people in the U.S. die today by alcohol poisoning.

To be fair, about 30 times as many were abducted and sent to the Caribbean and Latin America.

[dckingsfan]

I must confess to a certain amount of disbelief when I read or hear "the sky is falling" re entitlements.

A very modest increase in the cap on earnings which are taxed would make the system solvent as far
as the eye can see. And this is the solution favored by a significant majority of voters/people, I recall
hearing/reading that that number is on the order of 80%.

Another thing is that the projections for the growth in revenues into the 'trust fund' has historically been
underestimated. In other words, the demographic bomb may turn out to be smaller than anticipated.
The obvious danger would be if we continue to suffer with poor growth or negative growth.
I would point out that austerity is more likely to lead to that than smart investment in things
that we need and can use. Govt spending isn't bad per se, it all depends on what you're
spending it on.

Really to make the system solvent we need growth. But our spending isn't slanted that way. I would change your statement, "Govt spending isn't bad per se, it all depends on what you're spending it on..." to entitlement spending isn't bad but it depends on ratios. If your entitlement spending gets out of whack with the rest of your spending you have a problem.

And that is really our problem - there is no small increase in taxes that will fix that - it is systemic.

[fishercob]

One problem here is that Africa was hurt badly by the abduction and export of a major chunk of its men. A corollary "alternative" timeline question might be to wonder what Africa would be like if its young men, its fathers, leaders, workers, etc. hadn't been outright stolen and shipped to the other side of the world.

FWIW...

For the purposes of this discussion, nothing.

[nate33]

One problem here is that Africa was hurt badly by the abduction and export of a major chunk of its men. A corollary "alternative" timeline question might be to wonder what Africa would be like if its young men, its fathers, leaders, workers, etc. hadn't been outright stolen and shipped to the other side of the world.

FWIW...

For the purposes of this discussion, nothing.

Well, it argues against TSW's supposition that the drain of young men was a major cause of Africa's problems. Given that it was a time when death by natural causes was sky high, the additional loss of man power to the slave trade was relatively minor in comparison, and the drain caused specifically by the U.S. was almost infinitesimally small on a relative basis.

[TheSecretWeapon]

One problem here is that Africa was hurt badly by the abduction and export of a major chunk of its men. A corollary "alternative" timeline question might be to wonder what Africa would be like if its young men, its fathers, leaders, workers, etc. hadn't been outright stolen and shipped to the other side of the world.

FWIW, there actually weren't THAT many slaves taken from Africa to the U.S. The African slave trade was actually outlawed by 1807. The best estimate is about 388,000 slaves were abducted directly from Africa to the United States between 1500 and 1807, with another 60,000 or so coming via the Caribbean. That totals about 1,500 abductions per year from a continent with an estimated population of 50-60 million at the time. That's 1 abduction per year for every 45,000 Africans or about the same rate at which people in the U.S. die today by alcohol poisoning.

To be fair, about 30 times as many were abducted and sent to the Caribbean and Latin America.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Database estimates 305,000 Africans departed for the US to be enslaved. SOME slaves were still shipped to the US after 1807, but the numbers declined sharply after that date.

I'm glad you included that last sentence because approximately 12.5 million Africans were removed from the continent and enslaved by Europeans. This doesn't include a number for those killed in slave capture wars or the forced marches to get captives into position for "shipping."

[dobrojim]

I think there is another view of what is going on...

1) Overall taxes are regressive. SS is regressive. The gas tax is regressive. Parking tickets are regressive. Only income taxes aren't regressive. This continues to hurt those most in need. Continuing to raise taxes is one of the most regressive things we can do...

2) We need growth to create opportunity - currently our federal expenditures prioritize defensive and entitlement programs squeezing out investment in growth - reducing the opportunity - especially for AA youth

3) Our welfare programs haven't been efficient in the past, why would we think this would change going forward.

4) There is still a great deal of discrimination (root cause), this may be the biggest reason that AAs have not advanced as quickly as one would hope. President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on crime has been one of the biggest discriminators - especially in the jailing of drug users.

5) Government intervention into many of the issues (housing & education) have backfired badly, why do we think more of the same will work?

Solid agreement on 1-2.

3- IDK, because if people of goodwill get together and examine the problems, they can probably
develop ways that could improve things? Not always, but the conclusion that things can not possibly
change for the better is pretty pessimistic.

4 I would say the mass incarceration really accelerated with the crack epidemic
and the death of Len Bias in the mid-late 80s, so not so much under LBJ. So minor quibble on one detail.

5 I believe is an overstatement. Have these programs been a roaring success? No, definitely not.
But I believe the characterization that they have backfired badly is not really accurate or helpful
unless your purpose is to curtail those programs because you are philosophically opposed.

[TheSecretWeapon]

FWIW...

For the purposes of this discussion, nothing.

Well, it argues against TSW's supposition that the drain of young men was a major cause of Africa's problems. Given that it was a time when death by natural causes was sky high, the additional loss of man power to the slave trade was relatively minor in comparison, and the drain caused specifically by the U.S. was almost infinitesimally small on a relative basis.

So...the 12.5 million people taken from the continent (not counting however many got killed in the effort to procure slaves) doesn't really matter all that much because they might have died of disease anyway?

Is that really what you mean to say?

[nate33]

For the purposes of this discussion, nothing.

Well, it argues against TSW's supposition that the drain of young men was a major cause of Africa's problems. Given that it was a time when death by natural causes was sky high, the additional loss of man power to the slave trade was relatively minor in comparison, and the drain caused specifically by the U.S. was almost infinitesimally small on a relative basis.

So...the 12.5 million people taken from the continent (not counting however many got killed in the effort to procure slaves) doesn't really matter all that much because they might have died of disease anyway?

Is that really what you mean to say?

Yes. Basically, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't make slavery right or justified in any way. I'm just being realistic with the math. We're talking about an abduction rate of roughly 66 per 100,000. While that would certainly be noticed, it pales in comparison to other dangers. Estimates are that the malaria death rate at the time was around 500 per 100,000. Tuberculous was around 250 per 100,000. And who knows what the death rate was due to tribal conflict, which has always been very high. There's a reason why Nigeria has a fertility rate of 6 children per woman.

[fishercob]

Well, it argues against TSW's supposition that the drain of young men was a major cause of Africa's problems. Given that it was a time when death by natural causes was sky high, the additional loss of man power to the slave trade was relatively minor in comparison, and the drain caused specifically by the U.S. was almost infinitesimally small on a relative basis.

So...the 12.5 million people taken from the continent (not counting however many got killed in the effort to procure slaves) doesn't really matter all that much because they might have died of disease anyway?

Is that really what you mean to say?

Yes. Basically, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't make slavery right or justified in any way. I'm just being realistic with the math. We're talking about an abduction rate of roughly 66 per 100,000. While that would certainly be noticed, it pales in comparison to other dangers. Estimates are that the malaria death rate at the time was around 500 per 100,000. Tuberculous was around 250 per 100,000. And who knows what the death rate was due to tribal conflict, which has always been very high. There's a reason why Nigeria has a fertility rate of 6 children per woman.

And I think that's complete bullsh*t.

To your life expectancy argument: people died younger, but they didn't die young enough that it wasn't worthwhile to have them as slaves. Plus, the slaves procreated. So slave traders not only took the millions of relatively healthy people, but theyalso took their unborn offspring (and theirs, and theirs, and theirs). They also decimated their social structure, families, communities, etc. Not sure how one quantifies that, but I'm you can take my word for it that it matters.