Zoning laws, the fact that the ghetto is not an appealing place to open a new businesses, rent control, minimum wage, child labor laws, criminalization of drugs, protectionism, affirmative action, ect.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Things I would blame the formation of ghettos on:
1. Welfare that creates incentives for young, single women to have illegitimate children and for capable workers to not work and instead become criminals.
2. Drug laws that prevent successful inner city entrepreneurs from doing their work and hiring others.
3. Shitty public schools that entrap inner city kids into a "culture of poverty."
4. Shitty public courts and police forces that do not protect inner city residents from crime.
5. Public housing, which is usually in disrepair and creates a pro-crime psychological arena. The bureaucrats in charge of public housing are usually not able to prevent crime on their premises, either.
6. Minimum wage laws that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
7. Unions that artificially raise wage rates that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
8. High taxes and regulations which prevent businesses from hiring inner city residents and new small businesses from springing up in inner cities.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
OK, never mind, there's too many examples of a 'not free' society. The culling proposal also brings up other moral questions.The free society experiment would be nice, but of course, we can't implement it. We should maybe look at some recent history and extract conclusions based on these hypotheses. Here is a relevent article: PETER BRIMELOW Another case of collusion? MarketWatch.comThe elite were probably not thinking along the lines of this discussion when making these decisions but we could look at it as our own experiment. Let's say what was done was to give the lower class the same opportunity to pursue pretense that the middle class has. If most slum people would have chosen to reject their apparent depravity then the slums may have all but vanished. But they did not. And if they had, the scale of the current debacle would have been many times greater.So there must be different values involved. I am not saying the values are as I have described them, but that there must BE a range of values that yeilded the results. Slums intact, economy only %55 destroyed.
Inflation is the root cause of poverty. Individuals in the slums do not have sufficient information to make the correct decision. New monies created are stronger when first used. Therefore the new monies created by the government and given to the owners of sect. 8 houses is better money. By the time it works its way through the economy it is weakened. The people on welfare do not receive the money, they receive the services provided by the government and the government contractors. It is a lack of information on the inhabitants of the slum, and it is gross moral negligence on the part of government. They steal value from anyone who saves money through inflation, and use force to tax and steal money to be distributed as they see fit. There is little money, little to poor education, and very little opportunity for individuals in slums. If you look at more successful communities, their is generally good family support for education, financing opportunity, and more money. Many of these individuals in the slums have no family support system because of violence or unfair drug laws. There is no one particular answer for exactly why certain ethnic groups are more likely to be living in slums, but instead many reasons. There are as many reasons as their are individuals. However if we are to look at fractional reserve banking and the creation of monies as it is ,namely fraud, we can begin to appreciate the final outcome of such a system. Money is or was or is supposed to be a ticket of title. The buying and selling of goods and services determines the market value of real property's. When the system is defrauded, essentially they are creating property title to properties that do not exist. Therefore the conclusion must be that people will be left with tickets that cannot be exchanged for real property. The people of the slums do not receive real properties, and instead live off of the state, as it was them who defrauded them in the first place. And the state gives out its good money to its friends as contracts. The contractors own the real property, the state pays for the real property through creation of new money, and the people that this is supposed to be serving has nothing. And if the state can no longer make available these expanding living conditions, they have found that prison is a much cheaper way to store people that lost out in this defraudment. Which is why you can see so many non-violent criminals in prison. This takes away guidance for the next generation. It is growing and growing. More people will find themself in the slums because they must always print and steal more monies to keep the system going.
according to wikipedia, historically, immigrants from ireland, Italy, Poland, china, puerto rico, mexico, germany, and etc... all formed ghettos. Most assimilated and found a way out of poverty. The reason many blacks and many native americans cannot seem to find a way out, is, in my opinion, that they are trapped in near-compulsive socialist communities, such as slums and reservations, where government intervention is particularily widespread, in the form of welfare, public housing, etc...
Also, before the 1960s, blacks were forced to live in certain neighborhoods, by law, so blacks didn't create these ghettos, naturally, as some cool hang-out for thieves and social parasites. They were put there by guys in suits.
Discrimination disallowed blacks from legally entering into white neighborhoods, despite having the economic means to afford it.
Many racial zoning laws existed throughout american history.
The FHA underwriting Manual of 1938 prevented blacks from getting mortgage loans in certain areas, which segregated them further.
Many other specifically racist laws and restrictions have contributed to the original creation of ghettos and slums.
So racist laws, without a doubt segregated America, and trade restrictions are preventing assimilation from happening as rapidly as it may happen in an economically free society. Even so, blacks are gaining a slow, but increasingly economically equal status, in relation to whites. So, most ghettos were historically created by either racist programming by the government or by the assembly of low-skilled immigrants. It is modern trade restrictions and welfare policies that allow ghettos to be maintained and dissolve more slowly.
mmartillo: OK, never mind, there's too many examples of a 'not free' society. The culling proposal also brings up other moral questions.The free society experiment would be nice, but of course, we can't implement it. We should maybe look at some recent history and extract conclusions based on these hypotheses. Here is a relevent article: PETER BRIMELOW Another case of collusion? MarketWatch.comThe elite were probably not thinking along the lines of this discussion when making these decisions but we could look at it as our own experiment. Let's say what was done was to give the lower class the same opportunity to pursue pretense that the middle class has. If most slum people would have chosen to reject their apparent depravity then the slums may have all but vanished. But they did not. And if they had, the scale of the current debacle would have been many times greater.So there must be different values involved. I am not saying the values are as I have described them, but that there must BE a range of values that yeilded the results. Slums intact, economy only %55 destroyed.
Yes, this could explain why slums are more ethnically centered, but it does not explain why their are slums. It is true that the separation (economically speaking) between whites and blacks is shrinking. There are many examples of well funded entrepreneurship and education programs helping to bring poor black class into middle class black. But also their is a growing loss of white middle class into poor white class. It is systematic in a fraudulent system. The slums must grow or the system falls apart.
It relates to this part of your thesis:
But, if slums are the results of races of people, for some reason, wanting to live hard, dangerous, violent, and poor lives, than "the hood" will still be up and running.
If you read the Brimelow article, which is what I am refering to, you see policies described that were superficially attempting to reverse the trends you have attributed the resiliance of the slums to. I am just saying that if those in the slums had the mind too, they could have jumped on the opportunity. There are many reasons why they don't, part of which could be conditioning, and part of which could be preference. The current underclass are not the same individuals that lived in the pre 60's political climate.
I have also pointed out that my personal preference is to reject the pretensious values that enslave most of the middle class. They look like complete idiots to me. I like to live the wild life that I live, and I have the choice not to.
You're doing great work though. All this research is bringing answers to a tough question. I hope for greater freedom for everyone. Most especially freedom of thought because my eyes see a hopelessly brainwashed society of ignorant morons. I hope for better education and motivation to learn. The internet has opened up the world of intellectualism to all. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for ignorance now. Knowledge is power and it is truly in the hands of all people.
If you want to do something really great, look for ways to put unlimited access to education in the hands of the oppressed. That will make the change. Check out: IMS Global. The leaders in educational revolution.
theoriginalanomaly: Yes, this could explain why slums are more ethnically centered, but it does not explain why their are slums.
Yes, this could explain why slums are more ethnically centered, but it does not explain why their are slums.
Well, if you put a bunch of unskilled, unemployed, homeless, and uneducated individuals together in an area with no economic activity, the ghetto naturally creates itself, because that basically defines the ghetto. But, quite quickly a free market of trade would help the individuals to build, obtain, and maintain wealth. Trade restrictions slow this process.
I guess I agree that in a free society temporary ghettos could exist (especially in times of mass immigration), but could not be maintained large scale as they are in the current landscape. They would dissolve over time because of the lack of trade restrictions and welfare programs.
I answered why I thought their were slums in a previous post. I wrote that in response to your previous post. Economic activity has left the slums for many reasons, not just having to do with putting a group in an area. A lot of it had to do with white flight and other factors. Free market trade would not get rid of slums. The fractional reserve banking system requires that there be slums. They are creating fraud money, which means they are stealing. The slums would be the places where individuals live that are being stolen from. Fractional Reserve banking requires the theft of real properties. That is precisely why people, in the slums, have nothing. But for the system to continue the slums must also grow. This is a giant theft. The Federal, National, Fed, central intelligence agency otherwise known as the federal government, is stealing from its citizens.
theoriginalanomaly: I answered why I thought their were slums in a previous post. I wrote that in response to your previous post. Economic activity has left the slums for many reasons, not just having to do with putting a group in an area. A lot of it had to do with white flight and other factors. Free market trade would not get rid of slums. The fractional reserve banking system requires that there be slums. They are creating fraud money, which means they are stealing. The slums would be the places where individuals live that are being stolen from. Fractional Reserve banking requires the theft of real properties. That is precisely why people, in the slums, have nothing. But for the system to continue the slums must also grow. This is a giant theft. The Federal, National, Fed, central intelligence agency otherwise known as the federal government, is stealing from its citizens.
Where's your evidence for such a claim? I believe that fractional reserve banking produces poverty overall by reducing the value of the dollar, and discouraging savings. But, I don't really see any evidence for it to directly produce poverty in the slums.
Also, historically when economic activity leaves a certain area it produces a ghost town, because usually the actors within that economy leave as well. If they don't leave they set up a new economy using trade. So in the case of ghettos, something is preventing the people from leaving or is preventing them from developing a new and healthy economy in that region.
I'm sure welfare programmes, which create dependency and poverty traps, combined with the government's numerous ways of crippling and damaging the economy all do wonders to exacerbate the existence of slums. I'm not so sure they'd disappear in the absence of government - there will always be layabouts, criminals &c. But welfare plus regulation probably intensify the issue.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Well, I've changed my stance a little. We all should know that in the absence of government we will not experience utopia. Poverty will absolutely exist. Criminals and beggars will exist, why not?, there is a market for them, after-all. Slums too will exist, usually after mass immigration, abandonment of economic activity (such as railroads being abandoned for highway systems as the more popular mode of travel), and after natural disaster. But if those factors don't cause the people to relocate and create a ghost town, then a slum is created. But without trade restrictions, they will build wealth to sustain themselves, and the slum will only be temporary.
Natural market forces make sure that these people do not remain in poverty for too long. Poor, homeless, uneducated, and unskilled workers will compete for the same jobs, this produces low wages. Other businesses will want to start businesses there because of the low wages and large supply of workers, new jobs produce more wealth which the actors in this economy can use to save, consume, and invest. As the workers gain skills and specialize, the economy grows and stabilizes and the slum dissolves.
It still has nothing to do with race.
Lol @ blaming all shit on fractional reserve banking.
10Brandonr:new jobs produce more wealth which the actors in this economy can use to save, consume, and invest. As the workers gain skills and specialize, the economy grows and stabilizes
The element you're overlooking is that not everybody saves and invests, or even consumes wisely. Nor does everybody "gain skills and specialize." Even if you automate everything, the guy who flips the switch on the trash hauling machine is not going to become a mechanical engineer, and mechanical engineers are going to pay extra money to live around other engineers rather than around trash haulers. So no matter what, you're going to have neighborhoods of trash haulers and neighborhoods of mechanical engineers. Now, if it came down to a bet, would you put your money on the two neighborhoods being ethnically indistinguishable?
Brandon, has your stance changed as a result of a changed focus, from 'inner city ghettos' and the restrictions imposed upon the dwellers 'particularly black americans', to business cycle generated slums and the plight of peoples of all colors?
In terms of economics I think the latter is a better focus since it avoids other issues that come up with the former. Issues that bend the rules of economics. Consider that economics is not a precise science, like physics. This is because the performance of commerce is greatly affected by human behavior, and economics is an element of commerce. Economic theory then is based on the analysis of the rules and methods of commerce. This point is what my joking about circular reasoning was about, but I admit, my sense of humor is warped.
If you tackle questions of culture with the tools of economics then you run into the many anomalies described in this thread. And if you try to 'esplane' human nature with economic theories then you get into a real head splitting feedback loop. So clarity is greatly improved now. Congratulations!
Byzantine, I put my money on mechanical engineers being indistinguishable. Those types make me feel out of place right away.Good mornin' darlin' , let me see ya STICK OUT THOSE CANS.
mmartillo: Byzantine, I put my money on mechanical engineers being indistinguishable. Those types make me feel out of place right away.Good mornin' darlin' , let me see ya STICK OUT THOSE CANS.
Ha! Imagine a neighborhood of jazz musicians: all that cigarette smoke, ragtop Cadillacs driving lazily up and down the street, the endless pressure to be cool, but not too cool ...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap