Researcher finds that poverty's 'cognitive cost' translates to as many as ten IQ points

Aug 29, 2013

For people struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck, daily life can sometimes seem like a gauntlet of impossible-to-answer questions – Can I afford to put food on the table? Will I make rent this month? What will happen if I lose my job? What if my kids get sick, or my car breaks down?

For many, those questions become so persistent it's hard to concentrate on anything else. And that's exactly the problem, says Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan.

The accumulation of those money woes and day-to-day leaves many low-income individuals not only struggling financially, but cognitively, Mullainathan said. In a study published August 29 in Science, he showed that the "cognitive deficit" caused by poverty translates into as many as 10 IQ points.

"Our results suggest that when you're poor, money is not the only thing in short supply. Cognitive capacity is also stretched thin," Mullainathan said. "That's not to say that poor people are less intelligent than others. What we show is that the same person experiencing poverty suffers a as opposed to when they're not experiencing poverty. It's also wrong to suggest that someone's has gotten smaller because they're poor. In fact, what happens is that your effective capacity gets smaller, because you have all these other things on your mind, you have less mind to give to everything else.

"Imagine you're sitting in front of a computer, and it's just incredibly slow," he continued. "But then you realize that it's working in the background to play a huge video that's downloading. It's not that the computer is slow, it's that it's doing something else, so it seems slow to you. I think that's the heart of what we're trying to say."

To understand the cognitive load that comes with financial constraints, Mullainathan and colleagues conducted studies of two dramatically different groups – shoppers at a mall in New Jersey and sugar cane farmers in rural India.

In the mall study, researchers gathered dozens of low- and middle-income shoppers and subjected them to a battery of tests to measure IQ and impulse control. Half of those who took part in the study, however, were first prompted with a "teaser" question – what would they do if their car broke down, and the repair cost $1,500 – designed to get participants thinking about their own financial worries.

"For the poor, because these monetary concerns are just below the surface, the question brings them to the top," Mullainathan said. "The result was, for that group, the gap between the rich and the poor goes up, in both IQ and impulse control. There was no gap in the other group, but ask them anything that makes them think about money and you see this result."

For an even starker example of how financial concerns can weigh on people's minds, Mullainathan and colleagues traveled to rural India, where sugar cane farmers typically are paid only once per year.

"The month after the harvest, they're pretty rich, but the month before – when the money has run out – they're pretty poor," he said. "What we did is look at the same people the month before and the month after the harvest, and what we see is that IQ goes up, cognitive control, or errors, goes way down, and response times go way down.

"The effect here is about two-thirds of the size of the effect found in the mall study – it's at least nine or 10 IQ points, just between these months," Mullainathan added. "Between these two studies, you both see the mechanism at work, and you see that, in the real world, these effects are enormous.

While such a "cognitive tax" can translate into a lower IQ, its impact can reach much further.

"For many behaviors that we might consider 'good,' there is a pattern where we tend to find that the poor do less," Mullainathan said. "When we look at an issue like drug adherence – whether or not people stick to drug regimens for conditions like diabetes or HIV – studies consistently find that the poor adhere less.

"That's a major public health issue," he added. "But what's interesting is that income does not appear to be a factor – for low-income individuals, medications are covered by Medicare, while middle-income people have to pay – but adherence is still lower among the poor."

In some ways, Mullainathan said, the study's results turn much of social science on its head – rather than explaining disparities between low- and high-income people as a result of environment, or behavior, "we're saying it's none of that – it's that the poor get their bandwidth taxed," Mullainathan said. "The implication here is that we have to realize that everyone, from a public health official working on drug adherence to someone working to provide child care to low-income families, they're all stumbling on a very similar problem without realizing it."

Those findings, Mullainathan said, could have wide implications for policy-makers, and suggests that the solutions to the problems associated with poverty isn't merely more money, but targeting the specific concerns that increase the cognitive load people are forced to carry.

"This is very clearly saying that the moments of acute poverty, those are the moments when people's bandwidth is taxed," he said. "If you isolate those periods and address the issues that are causing that cognitive load, you can really get a big bang for your buck."

As an example, Mullainathan cited an issue that's widely recognized as one of the largest obstacles facing working parents – the cost and availability of child care.

"One of the major challenges for low-income individuals in the U.S. is having to juggle and find child care," he said. "That's a big cognitive load. Seamlessly solving the child-care problem would not just allow people to go to work, it would actually increase their IQ. Rather than simply looking at these challenges as a lack of money very broadly, if we could break it up and simply target the biggest concerns and deal with them, we might begin to solve other problems as well.

"This says things that no one would ever think of measuring," he added. "If we have the right heating assistance program in place, drug adherence will go up, or people will become more involved parents. Rather than thinking of child care as something that frees up people's time to go to work, it suggests that we should think about it in a totally different way."

Explore further: Some of Britain's traditional Christmas favourites are losing their appeal, a new study of spoken English has revealed

More information: "Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function," by A. Mani et al Science, 2013.

Related Stories

Does migraine affect income or income affect migraine?

Aug 28, 2013

Studies show that migraine is more common among people with lower incomes. This relationship is examined in a study published in the August 28, 2013, online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neu ...

Genetic risk for schizophrenia is connected to reduced IQ

May 16, 2013

The relationship between the heritable risk for schizophrenia and low intelligence (IQ) has not been clear. Schizophrenia is commonly associated with cognitive impairments that may cause functional disability. There are clues ...

Recommended for you

Consumer loyalty driven by aesthetics over functionality

14 hours ago

When designing a new car, manufacturers might try to attract consumers with more horsepower, increased fuel efficiency or a lower price point. But new research from San Francisco State University shows consumers' loyalty ...

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PeterParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013
Perhaps this explains why Republican country Hicks are soo stupidl

gollygosh
1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013
I wrote a free ebook covering a lot of this - it can be read for free online at
heaven-or-hell-its-your-choice.com/
I decided not to have kids simply because I am poor, the world has to change. Capitalism is an economic system that can not be trusted to support everyone equally. It is a mind game from the cradle to the grave that is destroying the higher reasoning skills of most human beings.There are no rich and there are no poor, there is just people - resources - ideology and the never ending mind games.
RFguy
2 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Funny they never mention here how lower IQ may be the cause of the poverty in the first place.
The more intelligent people will not reproduce willy nilly and then figure out the resource solution, the smart people wait to have kids until they are prepared financially, or at least have a plan in place, or not have kids at all. I believe that low IQ is an inherent cause poverty, NOT the other way around. This is yet another paper attempting to normalize and push the acceptance of mediocrity in our ever dumbing-down population.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
"Funny they never mention here how lower IQ may be the cause of the poverty" - Low IQ RF Guy

"What we show is that the same person experiencing poverty suffers a cognitive deficit as opposed to when they're not experiencing poverty" - From the article.
Gmr
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
"Funny they never mention here how lower IQ may be the cause of the poverty" - Low IQ RF Guy

"What we show is that the same person experiencing poverty suffers a cognitive deficit as opposed to when they're not experiencing poverty" - From the article.


Good catch. I'm wondering how many people don't understand the random aspect of circumstance of birth, but this is a great riposte to the cause-effect argument.
Gmr
2 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013
There is a model for this nearby - one of the schools my children attend has government subsidized after school care, mostly because there are a high number of military families in the school district. They provide it to all the kids, rather than just singling out the military families children. I'd be curious to see some testing done here - but we'd have to either normalize with another neighborhood, or actually do a test where it was taken away...

Stress - I wonder if ongoing stress is a factor. That could be isolated and systematically tested on individuals who were willing participants.
searchengineuk
not rated yet Aug 30, 2013
keep it up.nice job.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2013
I believe . . .

You use that word here, it should set an alarm off in your mind. A warning that what you are writing has little to no value.
. . . that low IQ is an inherent cause poverty

Doug_Huffman
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 30, 2013
'The Bell Curve' yet again. Note that 10% does not equal a standard IQ deviation.
Ferky
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 31, 2013
Gmr:

Stress - I wonder if ongoing stress is a factor. That could be isolated and systematically tested on individuals who were willing participants.


From the abstract: "Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance."

*****

But why should we assume these results are unique to poverty? Unless shown otherwise, I'd assume that the same goes for many other concerns: familial problems, personal relationship problems, etc. So the issue is not poverty per se but rather concerns in general.

But "concerns in general" don't provide a nice headline like a politically- and socially-loaded topic such as poverty. "Researcher finds that painful break-ups' 'cognitive cost' translates to as many as ten IQ points" would not have made it into Science, for sure.

Now go on, all you who can't respond with words, and give this comment one star.
Anonym
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 31, 2013
IMHO, IQ is a parlor-game number. Might as well judge people by their height, weight, or skin color.

That said, @RFGuy: Wealth appears to have the same lowering effect on IQ as poverty, and perhaps to a greater degree. Congress, for example, is composed almost entirely of multimillionaires; yet you could not find a more dumbed-down, clueless group of randomly inducted college graduates anywhere in the country.

People with money are prone to the delusion that they are more intelligent, more moral or just plain more deserving than the poor. In fact, in most cases, they are just luckier in the circumstances of their birth.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
The 'liberals' 50 year War of Poverty has not succeeded in eliminating poverty because 'liberals' do not WANT to end poverty.
The study was from Harvard, in Cambridge, MA. A state that has reached a point where the 'poor' drive expensive cars, buy prime cut meat and ship food to families in their home countries. All aided and abetted by a corrupt, 'liberal' (I know, that's redundant) politicians and bureaucracy that provide welfare to just about anyone who asks. Even those who planted bombs at the Boston marathon.
How many of these MA 'poor' are cognitively deficient? I submit it is the 'liberal' 'intellectuals' and politicians who are deficient, or at least lying about their real intentions.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
If you make more money working than your money makes working for you, you either probably have a 10 point dent in your IQ or you're under 21

So the issue is not poverty per se but rather concerns in general.
Agreed America suffers far more from cultural poverty than financial poverty. In Russia the economy collapsed there was no money we still lived because there was more to our lives and country than feral capitalism
Gmr
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2013
From the abstract: "Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance."


I'm curious about that - one type is a manageable stressor - the harvest is a time of higher activity, but not the stress of unknowns and not ongoing - there is an "end" to the harvest. And I'd agree that the "end" of a relationship might provide similar grounds for loss of cognition. The common I'd say would be unknowns.

With the farmer, the harvest isn't an unknown: the stress there is in managing time.

With the situation of poverty, or the end of a relationship, there are a lot of unknowns that end up processing endlessly, with no "end" in sight.

I'd be curious if one looked at a "stable" poverty situation versus an "unstable" poverty situation, if there would be a difference. Does all poverty entail ongoing, chronic stress? Is the concern (endless, without a cap) of what to do enough?
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
(cot'd)
If you looked at a poverty situation where extended family helped with child rearing, for instance, or housing. Is it still poverty, by common metrics, measured by household income?

I'm wondering what advertisement has to do with this. Chronically telling people they are unhappy unless they have "x" might have some effect. One thing I consider is children - a child doesn't necessarily understand they are have-nots as long as they have stable parents and friends.
Gmr
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 31, 2013
The 'liberals' 50 year War of Poverty has not succeeded in eliminating poverty because 'liberals' do not WANT to end poverty.
The study was from Harvard, in Cambridge, MA. A state that has reached a point where the 'poor' drive expensive cars, buy prime cut meat and ship food to families in their home countries. All aided and abetted by a corrupt, 'liberal' (I know, that's redundant) politicians and bureaucracy that provide welfare to just about anyone who asks. Even those who planted bombs at the Boston marathon.
How many of these MA 'poor' are cognitively deficient? I submit it is the 'liberal' 'intellectuals' and politicians who are deficient, or at least lying about their real intentions.


Yammer screed.

Care to make your points without the agenda?
Ferky
1 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
One thing I consider is children - a child doesn't necessarily understand they are have-nots as long as they have stable parents and friends.


Excellent point. Although children may feel extreme poverty if they are hungry or cold, in most instances the burden of worrying about poverty falls on parents' shoulders. If the child has lunch to take to school, he probably won't know what the parent had to go through to get the money for that lunch. Again, this reinforces my point that the issue is worrying and concerns and not poverty, which is just an instance of a cause of worrying and concern. I'd conjecture that those fighting cancer will also experience a drop in IQ due to the constant mental occupation with their disease. Maybe that should have been a control for that study.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
The 'liberals' 50 year War of Poverty has not succeeded in eliminating poverty because 'liberals' do not WANT to end poverty.
The study was from Harvard, in Cambridge, MA. A state that has reached a point where the 'poor' drive expensive cars, buy prime cut meat and ship food to families in their home countries. All aided and abetted by a corrupt, 'liberal' (I know, that's redundant) politicians and bureaucracy that provide welfare to just about anyone who asks. Even those who planted bombs at the Boston marathon.
How many of these MA 'poor' are cognitively deficient? I submit it is the 'liberal' 'intellectuals' and politicians who are deficient, or at least lying about their real intentions.


Yammer screed.

Care to make your points without the agenda?

Science, Harvard, the authors, this site and you have no agenda?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 31, 2013
As an example, Mullainathan cited an issue that's widely recognized as one of the largest obstacles facing working parents – the cost and availability of child care.


Here is the agenda of the authors, more govt spending.

Yet data shows more govt spending increased poverty.

"What's increasingly clear is that it wasn't the free market, but rather Washington's socialized housing policies and crony capitalism, that failed and brought on the worst recession since the Great Depression."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...dZrN26SO
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

"After its crisis, Sweden reduced public expenditures by 20 percent of its gross domestic product, slashing social transfers such as unemployment benefits and sick-leave compensation. It cut its public debt in half"
http://www.washin...pinions/
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 31, 2013
"The country's guiding principle is that a successful social welfare society must be fiscally conservative and administratively efficient. This is the central Swedish lesson for the crisis countries of the euro zone and elsewhere."
"Sweden now combines a social welfare society with a free-market economy and a high degree of government efficiency. The other Scandinavian countries pursue similar policies and have enjoyed similar success"
http://www.washin...ory.html
The only agenda from the 'liberals' is MORE govt spending.
Of course Sweden is the size, population and culture of MN or WI. Another motivation for real federalism.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2013
"Science, Harvard, the authors, this site and you have no agenda?" - RyggTard

Nope. Science has no political agenda no matter how much you whine about it's Liberal Bias.

Science does not support your sick and contradictory Conservative Ideology, because your sick and contradictory Conservative Ideology has no basis in reality.

Your claimed reality is fabricated from your imagination for the express purpose of supporting your sick Conservative Ideology.

Science is testable and well tested. Your sick Conservative Ideology fails every test it has been subject to. That is why you are so frequently caught lying in support of it.

The more Conservative America has become, the greater it's failures.

Gmr
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013

"What's increasingly clear is that it wasn't the free market, but rather Washington's socialized housing policies and crony capitalism, that failed and brought on the worst recession since the Great Depression."


Wow. That is some severely inebriated fact-forking.

People liked securities that represented distributed risk. The market for these was tight, because they went up in popularity.

People free of regulation ran out of "good" loans to put into these securities. But demand still existed. So, they started making "not so good" loans, then worse loans, all hidden under the covers of a collected security.

Where was crony capitalism? Where was socialized housing? Socialized housing allows people to get hold of starter homes, qualify for section 8 housing. These weren't starter homes: they were "investment" homes, grossly overpriced, due to inflation from both the investment side and the speculator side.
Gmr
2 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
And oddly enough, Germany's banks didn't get hit much at all in the financial crisis because they took a look at these collected securities, followed them back to an overpriced housing bubble, and said no. Many banks and others who said no to this did fine through the major hit of the crisis. Not Iceland, whose banks specialized in this and not much else - they tanked hard.

So, the lesson would be: be conservative - in assuming risk. That means regulation for those that can't be conservative.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2013
"The only agenda from the 'liberals' is MORE govt spending." - RyggTard

In fact, the exact opposite is the case of course.

Liberals have always reversed the massive deficits created by Borrow and Spend Republicans.

Obama is one of the few exceptions to that character an exception that was is forced by rational choice. Either reduce the deficit and push the U.S. economy into a decades long grand depression, or provide temporary financial support those who are unemployed so that the economy begins to expand.

Republicans demand the U.S. experience a 30 year long Grand Economic Depression.

Creating an economic Depression in America has been their goal for the last 40 years.

Their plan has an official name "Starve the beast". Look it up.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2013
"Here is the agenda of the authors, more govt spending." - RyggTard

But Tardieboy.. You say that about all scientists.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2013
"The 'liberals' 50 year War of Poverty has not succeeded in eliminating poverty" - RyggTard

Make up your mind TardieBoy. In earlier posts you claimed that there is no real poverty in America. I believe your examples of how the poor aren't poor was that they had color TV's and telephones and were fat.

For RyggTard, if it is expedient to claim the opposite of what he claimed yesterday in order to provide himself with an excuse to lie about his political opponents, he changes his tune.

Randite/Libertarian/Republican filth is like that.

I prefer reality.
Gmr
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2013
I think if we assessed and took care of major chronic stress, we wouldn't have to worry about the poor as much. With chronic stress addressed, such as child care, food, and medical care, we might see a lot less of attempts at escapism such as chronic alcohol and drug use, or theft and criminal behavior driven by attempts to attain escapism.

In other words, the potential addressing of chronic life stress might end up paying for itself in the ability to reduce costs in other areas. Publicly available education was funded this way - through enlightened self interest.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 01, 2013
Where was crony capitalism? Where was socialized housing

Wachovia bragged in 1997 they had secularized mortgages with the implicit guarantee of the US govt (Freddie and Fannie) and this would help them meet their govt mandated Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements.
Maybe you should read the book.
So, the lesson would be: be conservative - in assuming risk.

What risk? Banks and mortgages were guaranteed the the US govt and the US govt had a vested political interest in forcing banks to make bad loans.
A Boston bank was given a poor FDIC rating for NOT having enough bad CRA loans. Banks played ball with the govt or they would be punished. And, of course, the federal govt controls the money supply and the housing bubble was needed to cover for the stock market bubble that had just burst.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 01, 2013
"
The Bush Administration were the ones raising red flags about Fannie and Freddie in Congressional Hearings YEARS before the meltdown. While Franklin Raines and Jaime Gorelick were busy cooking the books over at Fannie, Democrats were accusing the Bush Admin of racism for wanting to rein in the GSEs and get some financial accountability. Raines started his "pilot program" - buying subprime paper from the banks in 1999 and doubled down on it in 2000 - all under the Clinton Administration. Before then there were strict limits on how much subprime the banks could keep on the books - once Fannie and Freddie started buying up the paper, everybody else jumped in."
http://news.inves....htm?p=2
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
"The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued."
http://www.boston..._fiasco/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
"The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie's and Freddie's financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, "even if there were problems, the federal government doesn't bail them out.''

Now, it's clear he was wrong on both points — and that his words have become a political liability as he fights a determined challenger to win a 16th term representing the Fourth Congressional District. Fannie and Freddie collapsed in 2008, forcing the federal government to buy $150 billion worth of stock in the enterprises and $1.36 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities."
http://www.boston.../?page=1
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
You've got a lot of opinion pieces. That much is true.

But it doesn't do to attempt to lay this at the doorstep of others.

Banks, Investment Banks in particular, who incidentally in the large all but died out in the crisis (were allowed to fail...) drove much of the rampant speculation driving the uptick in housing prices which led to so many people being, in the end, underwater when housing prices collapsed. Bad loan or no - if your house is worth near what the loan is, you can sell and walk away with a minor loss. The catastrophe of the market collapse doomed many of these people that otherwise thought they could make back their loan as long as they could sell the house.

Banks that didn't need bailouts were ones who didn't invest in these securities, seeing them as bad investments. Saying the government pressed loan origination doesn't make it responsible for speculation, the repackaging that drove the market higher, or ultimate the collapse when things finally fell apart
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
Saying the government pressed loan origination doesn't make it responsible for speculation,

The govt created a demand for mortgages by buying just about any mortgage.
The govt changed the rules to allow more risky mortgages to be written.
I purchased a house in 2000 with a VA loan at ~8%. I refinanced that VA loan 2 or 3 times in two years under govt sponsored refinance program that lowered interest rates.
The house price in 2000 was ~$145. I sold for $360k in 2005. That inflation was all due to so much 'free' money being pumped into the market driving up prices similar to what happens in a gold mining camp.
When the govt controls markets: bond, mortgage, etc. it is a game of chicken until the market collapses.
And as long as FDIC continues to insure bank deposits, and rewards banks for socializing risk, nothing will change. After all, the govt has to find ways to hide inflation.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 01, 2013
"At the beginning of 2000, Fannie Mae unveiled the American Dream Commitment, which was a $2 trillion commitment to lend to underserved areas and to expand credit to non-traditional profiles. Since Fannie couldn't securitize these loans, it had to place them on its balance sheet. It partnered with major lenders like Countrywide, Doral, and Bank of America and had an agreement: you originate subprime and Alt-A paper and we will commit to buy it. Basically, Fannie Mae was doing an end-around its charter. Instead of using its balance sheet as a tool to stabilize the real estate market, it was using it as a profit center. The American Dream Commitment ended up turning Fannie Mae into the biggest mortgage arbitrage hedge fund on the Street."
http://marketreal...-bubble/
Just on the news, 6 million houses in foreclosure, 12 million under water.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 01, 2013
"Trillions Have Been Wasted On Poverty Programs That Don't Work"

"
The federal government wants more Americans using food stamps. To what end? Washington has been fighting a war on poverty since 1964 and has gotten nowhere with it.

Unless of course establishing a culture of dependency is the goal. If that's the federal government's real objective, then it's doing a fine job."
"The poverty rate is at 15.1% and climbing, says the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner, while in 1964, when the war started, it was "around 19% and falling rapidly."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...ddoJhSmh
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Where does the Science paper discuss the failure of govt poverty programs?
Guy_Underbridge
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2013
rygg:
...the 'poor' drive expensive cars, buy prime cut meat and ship food to families in their home countries...


I guess 'poor' means 'immigrants', which means anything following is meaningless diatribe.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"After he'd gone 90 days without payment, my law firm informed Shihad that we could do no more on his case until he made a payment. He pulled a wad of food stamps our of his wallet and said, "Give me some time to sell these."
"The commonness of food stamp fraud among America's new immigrants is staggering. Many recent immigrants do not even understand that selling food stamps is a crime, representing, as they do, a form of individualized assistance. Most look at food stamps as just one more thing to barter, so for between 10 and 80 cents on the dollar, they are converted to cash. Never mind that the food stamp was invented to prevent public assistance, formerly given in cash, from being frittered away on non-food items."

Read more: http://www.foxnew...deRv9lh6
Note the date, 2002.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"Food-stamp fraud in New York has turned into foreign aid — to black-market profiteers in the Dominican Republic.

Last week, The Post revealed how New Yorkers on welfare are buying food with their benefit cards and shipping it in blue barrels to poor relatives in the Caribbean."
http://www.nypost...o2oS505L

"It's unclear if the practice is rampant here, but some Boston supermarkets sell the same large blue plastic barrels the New York Post reported are used to ship food bought with welfare benefits, mainly to Caribbean countries. - See more at: http://bostonhera...0eG.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"A Cadillac-driving OUI suspect — charged with running a Boston Globe delivery truck off Interstate 93 and onto the Leverett Connector — was carrying three EBT cards, mocked a cop "for paying for food when she gets it for free" and threatened to put a voodoo curse on him, according to a police report.

"I questioned her as to why she had other peoples (sic) EBT cards and she 
began screaming that I was a 'dumb (expletive)' for paying for food when she gets it for free,"
- See more at: http://bostonhera...72m.dpuf

"Perhaps it's because, while poor people are not lazy, they are not stupid either. If you pay people more not to work than they can earn at a job, many won't work."
http://www.cato.o...-welfare
Why would a politician want to end dependency?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"A Dedham cop named Bob Walsh participated in the bust of an illegal alien Dominican drug dealer. This undocumented Democrat had been deported once and returned. In his apartment the cops found $65,000 in cash, 50 grams of heroin, 45 grams of cocaine … and an EBT card for his illegal-alien galpal."
"Now it turns out the Tsarnaev brothers went on a cash spree with their EBT cards before the bombings.

Considering that Tamerlan's occupation is listed on his death certificate as "Never Worked," where do you suppose he got the money to build his pressure-cooker bombs? Most likely from the very people he killed and maimed — American taxpayers."
http://www.alipac...-278322/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"Jackie Whiton, age 65, had worked as a cashier at the Big Apple convenience store in Peterborough, N.H., for years. But then a couple of weeks ago she committed a firing offense.

She refused to allow a welfare recipient to use his EBT card to buy a pack of smokes.
- See more at: http://bostonhera...tJa.dpuf
mathari
1 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
We gave away exponentially more to exxon last year than was lost because of welfare fraud. Stop with the sociopathic and psychotic tendencies. Poverty is caused by lead. People are brain damaged and cannot pull themselves out of poverty. It is not genetic. How is it that 100 years ago, we had almost no instances of ADHD and now 20 to 40% of us have ADHD? Genetics can cause the exact same manifestation as injury to the brain? Really?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2013
We gave away exponentially more to exxon last year

Who is 'we' and what was 'given'?
JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2013
"Jackie Whiton, age 65, had worked as a cashier at the Big Apple convenience store in Peterborough, N.H., for years. But then a couple of weeks ago she committed a firing offense.

She refused to allow a welfare recipient to use his EBT card to buy a pack of smokes.
- See more at: http://bostonhera...tJa.dpuf


You should post more happy news like this.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2013
"Nearly a half billion people were lifted out of poverty between 2005 and 2010, according to a recent Brookings Institution report. "Most of the credit," says the Economist (6/1/13), "must go to capitalism and free trade. " "
http://www.forbes...ernment/
Brookings and the Economist are not known to support conservatives.
Sweden and even Cuba understand capitalism and free trade reduce poverty.
mathari
1 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Capitalism and free trade is fantastic for us. A smart phone is made in china for 4 dollars. We sell it for 400. 396 to us. A shirt is made for mega-mart for 20 cents. We sell it here for 10 bucks. This is capitalism and also helps the world. Capitalism, however, internally works best where there is movement of money. You want Mr. millionaire to have enough incentive to produce so he can get personal pleasures, yet not so much so he hoards and sits on it lazily in the market. You encourage entrepreneurship and don't punish failure (bankruptcy). You infuse the money at the bottom (public works) and let it work its way to the top, and at each turn of hand, you tax it again. You let the really rich (1%) keep enough so they continue to work hard to keep up with inflation, start new ventures, and hire people, and after they die, you take it back. You keep wealth well distributed. This is how we became the greatest country in the world (keynesian economics; cf. atlas shrugged).
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2013
he hoards and sits on it lazily in the market. You encourage entrepreneurship and don't punish failure (bankruptcy).


Don't punish failure?
Who sits on money? The only reason money is NOT being INVESTED into businesses and innovation is because no one know how much govts will plunder or when the regulatory state will put you out of business for selling energy, like coal. Or raise your taxes to pay for more welfare and national health care.
Failure is the only way anyone will know what works and what does not.

The fundamental principle of capitalism is PRIVATE property. Individuals have the liberty to own and control their property, not the state.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2013
"Funny they never mention here how lower IQ may be the cause of the poverty" - Low IQ RF Guy

"What we show is that the same person experiencing poverty suffers a cognitive deficit as opposed to when they're not experiencing poverty" - From the article.
-Vendietardietardtard

Actually, I disagree with such a blanket statement. It's BS. A cognitive deficit is not dependent on the level of financial health to either increase or decrease such a deficit. There have been many great men who came from the poorest of circumstances who managed to lift themselves out of their poverty and become successful and well educated.
Is the article saying that a person in poverty and who is cognitively challenged suddenly become highly or moderately intelligent if he comes into money from a rich uncle who died?

Come on, VD...have some common sense for once.
BAKOON
1 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
Well, that seems to be one of the main problems within the Black community. The culture is damaging to kids who just want to get a good education and make something of themselves when they graduate. Their lack of discipline shows up every time from both school and home. Discipline is key to success in America...and it is the Black community who will pay with the lives and futures of their children.
-Obama_socks, Insane Racist Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
"Well, that seems to be one of the main problems within the Black community. The culture is damaging to kids who just want to get a good education and make something of themselves when they graduate. Their lack of discipline shows up every time from both school and home. Discipline is key to success in America...and it is the Black community who will pay with the lives and futures of their children."

Yes...what I said is true. Every day there is proof that Black children who want to learn are held back by their peers because it's not considered "cool" by many Black young people who have a different agenda, and who regard those who understand the value of a good education as sell-outs, Uncle Toms, and traitors to their race.

BAKOON/Theghostofotto1923 obviously is a genuine and true racist who seems to believe that Black hooligans are only that way because they're too poor to pay attention to their teacher in class and learn the lessons while behaving in class and outside of school.
dtxx
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2013
"Sorry to all my dummazz peoplez out theah, but y'all fixin to be po' and dumm fo realz. Fo eveah tho." So says new study.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
So presumably, the researchers could reverse the cognitive ability gap by offering the test subjects a (hypothetical) check for $1,000,000?
Gmr
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
So presumably, the researchers could reverse the cognitive ability gap by offering the test subjects a (hypothetical) check for $1,000,000?


Ass. Read the study, for real, paying attention to the facts and what was addressed. Food and child care and medical security would probably be enough to reverse the trend by reducing the cognitive load on somebody trying to constantly manage a crisis that is their life in poverty. They then can concentrate on being successful rather than staying afloat.
Gmr
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
"Sorry to all my dummazz peoplez out theah, but y'all fixin to be po' and dumm fo realz. Fo eveah tho." So says new study.


Ahahah, what a witty, stereotypical bon mot! Do tell me, do you write for the online version of "Cracked," perhaps? I'm sure you're a stitch at parties with the non-47-percenters!

Again, my sides split and ache at your trivialization of human suffering! Priceless!
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
Ass. Read the study, for real, paying attention to the facts and what was addressed. Food and child care and medical security would probably be enough to reverse the trend by reducing the cognitive load on somebody trying to constantly manage a crisis that is their life in poverty. They then can concentrate on being successful rather than staying afloat.


Hey guy, did you even read the study? They started off with NO difference in cognitive ability on whatever test they were given. Either the test subjects were not "experiencing poverty" when they were first given the test (in which case, it is unclear what was proved), or there is some other factor confounding the data set. It was only AFTER the researchers primed the subjects to worry over a hypothetical financial expense that the performance gap emerged. I see no reason, based on this study, that they shouldn't be able to reverse that correlation when they can prime the subjects to "experience non-poverty" (as it were)..
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
Ass. Read the study, for real, paying attention to the facts and what was addressed. Food and child care and medical security would probably be enough to reverse the trend by reducing the cognitive load on somebody trying to constantly manage a crisis that is their life in poverty. They then can concentrate on being successful rather than staying afloat.


Moreover, the study said nothing about how much time the poor subjects actually spent distressing over their finances. So you could just as easily hypothesize, based on these results, that what's going on here is people with naturally lower IQs just don't fully appreciate the bind they're actually in and don't worry themselves over it in the first place. Or the hypothesis that poor children (who consistently underperform their wealthier peers) aren't even in a position to worry about car payments, rent payments, etc. in the first place. The study does precious little to refute those kinds of alternative hypotheses.
Gmr
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
So for you, Gianni, it seems to come back to trying desperately to support the fiction that the poor somehow deserve their fate, so the rich can feel better about not helping them (it would do no good, and they don't deserve it), and superior for their obviously above standard implied intellect?

Because the concept that it is circumstance based would both imply a need for action, and at the same time put forward the idea that rich doesn't equal better, just lucky.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
So for you, Gianni, it seems to come back to trying desperately to support the fiction that the poor somehow deserve their fate, so the rich can feel better about not helping them (it would do no good, and they don't deserve it), and superior for their obviously above standard implied intellect?

Because the concept that it is circumstance based would both imply a need for action, and at the same time put forward the idea that rich doesn't equal better, just lucky.


That does not follow AT ALL - not even by a single half-step - from anything I said...you ought to be embarrassed if that is how your thought process works.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
They then can concentrate on being successful rather than staying afloat.

Not unless the govt strictly enforces rules and keeps corruption and fraud out of the system. Otherwise you will get what MA has, welfare recipients buying prime cuts of meat, driving nice cars and making a business of sending products back to their home countries.
Gmr
1 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2013
They then can concentrate on being successful rather than staying afloat.

Not unless the govt strictly enforces rules and keeps corruption and fraud out of the system. Otherwise you will get what MA has, welfare recipients buying prime cuts of meat, driving nice cars and making a business of sending products back to their home countries.

Yes, of course. Because that's always what happens.

You make a system, idiots try and break it. Look at banking and other regulation - it's so Byzantine precisely because people find loopholes, hide money overseas, bilk governments out of billions in revenue - and you're incensed about the cut of meat somebody buys. Because they didn't earn it, in your mind - they should be stuck with crap cuts of meat until they earn it! We didn't give them credits to use for tasty nutrition, we want them to overeat on nutrient-poor mass produced crap!
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
and you're incensed about the cut of meat somebody buys. Because they didn't earn it, in your mind - they should be stuck with crap cuts of meat until they earn it!


The 'poor' living off the hard work of others should be able to use welfare to buy USDA Prime steaks while the hard working people must be limited to chicken?
Govt welfare is lose-lose for society as it creates an entitlement class that demand the right to plunder from those who earn and it creates a bureaucracy to increase the size of the dependent, entitlement class. Eventually, those who earn will 'shrug', switch sides leaving less wealth to plunder. Eventually socialists run out of other people's wealth.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
Yes, of course. Because that's always what happens.

You make a system, idiots try and break it. Look at banking and other regulation - it's so Byzantine precisely because people find loopholes, hide money overseas, bilk governments out of billions in revenue - and you're incensed about the cut of meat somebody buys. Because they didn't earn it, in your mind - they should be stuck with crap cuts of meat until they earn it! We didn't give them credits to use for tasty nutrition, we want them to overeat on nutrient-poor mass produced crap!

The difference is there's not an easy fix to banking/tax regulations because the wealthy can afford to pay smart people to figure out where the loopholes are. On the other hand, there ARE relatively easy fixes to welfare fraud, there's just a lack of political will to implement them.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
there's not an easy fix to banking/tax regulations

Yes, there is.
It is called the FAIR tax, or an end to ALL taxes based upon income.
It's not easy for socialists to give up that power.
'Liberals', like heroin dealers, want to keep people dependent upon them whether its for tax loopholes or welfare.
Gmr
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2013

The 'poor' living off the hard work of others should be able to use welfare to buy USDA Prime steaks while the hard working people must be limited to chicken?

And the rich don't live off the hard work of others? How does that work?

Govt welfare is lose-lose for society as it creates an entitlement class that demand the right to plunder from those who earn and it creates a bureaucracy to increase the size of the dependent, entitlement class. Eventually, those who earn will 'shrug', switch sides leaving less wealth to plunder. Eventually socialists run out of other people's wealth.


Entitlement class would be the wealthy who think they are beyond most laws and regulations. I've seen it. A speeding ticket can be "fixed" by friends rather than somebody learning that driving 85 in a 50 zone is damn dangerous, or if not that, costly. And it wasn't like he couldn't afford the ticket. He just thought he was above regulation.
Gmr
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2013
there's not an easy fix to banking/tax regulations

Yes, there is.
It is called the FAIR tax, or an end to ALL taxes based upon income.
It's not easy for socialists to give up that power.
'Liberals', like heroin dealers, want to keep people dependent upon them whether its for tax loopholes or welfare.


Fair tax my ass. It's not fair to take one of my five dollars and ten thousand of your fifty thousand precisely because of the parable of the widow's offering.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
there's not an easy fix to banking/tax regulations

Yes, there is.
It is called the FAIR tax, or an end to ALL taxes based upon income.
It's not easy for socialists to give up that power.
'Liberals', like heroin dealers, want to keep people dependent upon them whether its for tax loopholes or welfare.


Fair tax my ass. It's not fair to take one of my five dollars and ten thousand of your fifty thousand precisely because of the parable of the widow's offering.

Why not?
http://www.fairta...geServer
JohnGee
1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2013
Why not?
You don't genuinely care and you aren't open to persuasion.

That said, if you benefit from society disproportionately, you should contribute to society disproportionately.

So Milton Friedman's original proposal for a flat tax also contained a minimum income. Would you accept a flat tax AND a minimum income?
Gmr
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2013
It's not fair precisely because rich person (A) does use more of services than poor person (B) - Rich person (A) has more property and vested interest to be protected from others regarding electronic espionage and theft, property and stock value, pure land mass owned and occupied, and I could go on. The rich do rely more on government services than they would like to believe, and have more to protect both from overt military action by others and covert theft by way of electronics and market manipulation as well as trade. Poor person (B) has nothing invested in the stock market, might not even own their own property, and certainly has nothing of interest to others of a military or plundering bent.

Yet $20, which means nothing to (A), means very much to (B). And (B) doesn't have the resources to pay an accountant to keep them from paying their actual fair share.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
You don't genuinely care and you aren't open to persuasion.

That said, if you benefit from society disproportionately, you should contribute to society disproportionately.?


What exactly do you mean by "benefit from society disproportionately"?
JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2013
Say you own a shipping company. You use the public roads more often, profit from them more, and cause more damage to them. Your business would be impossible without those roads. That is benefiting from society disproportionately.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
Say you own a shipping company. You use the public roads more often, profit from them more, and cause more damage to them. Your business would be impossible without those roads. That is benefiting from society disproportionately.


Disproportionately to what? If you own a shipping company, you pay federal and state taxes that go to the maintenance of those roads and you're providing a valuable service to businesses and consumers by moving goods to where they are going to be put to use. The damage caused by using the roads is almost perfectly proportional to the value rendered by shipping the goods to where they are needed. It's not as if they just drive trucks up and down the roads causing damage and wear-and-tear for fun...You're not "profiting" from the roads in any meaningful sense of the word. You're using them how they were intended to be used.
Gmr
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2013
Trucking companies benefit from roads disproportionately to the wear and tear they cause. Roads that are meant for commuter traffic are progressively destroyed by truck traffic. Roadbeds that can support commuter axles eventually deteriorate from the higher mass, vibration, and so-on produced by trucks. And it's not just the roads. Without a massive police presence, commerce wouldn't exist. Bribery would be rampant, with everyone along the way exacting a toll - this is why commerce has a harder time in economies that are corrupt, that lack these protections.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
I think you've lost sight of what we're actually talking about. 1. It's simply not true that roads are meant for commuter traffic but NOT for businesses. 2. You seem to be comparing an entire shipping company to an individual person, which is an absurd juxtaposition for obvious reasons. 3. You're not even making the proper comparison within this juxtaposition of the wear-and-tear caused by the shipping company relative to the social benefit it provides to the public by shipping goods to where they can be put to good use. 4. If you're suggesting that corporations benefit from police protection disproportionately to poor communities, I don't really know where to begin...it would be difficult to even quantify the benefit that a poor person receives when the police apprehend a criminal who's otherwise apt to commit some violent crime against that person versus the (comparatively more passive) enforcement of laws against fraud/white collar crime.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
Trucks pay taxes based upon weight. That's why every state has weigh stations at the borders.
If roads are not maintained properly is usually the fault of corrupt govts diverting taxes paid for roads: fuel taxes, tire taxes, weight taxes....for other uses.
And then consumers eventually must pay the shipping costs.
Without a massive police presence, commerce wouldn't exist.

That is pure BS. Black market commerce exists in spite of massive police presences trying to stop it. Black marketeers don't need police to regulate their commerce.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
The issue, as it was raised by ryggesogn2, is the extent that entitlements and welfare fraud incentivize counterproductive and antisocial behavior among the poor. Whatever "disproportionate benefit" you believe that companies - whether small businesses or large corporations - receive from public expenditures, I don't think you can honestly compare that to the scenario where you have a person who is receiving a welfare check, Medicaid, and EBT credits and literally does nothing in return for those benefits apart from living and breathing. People like that do exist, and they're not as scarce as the mythical "welfare queens" of the 1980s supposedly were.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
That said, if you benefit from society disproportionately, you should contribute to society disproportionately.


What's wrong with proportionality?
The FAIR tax, and all other similar sales taxes have a built in subsidy that is paid out to everyone, just like the current personal deduction system.
Taxing anything is a punishment. Taxing income discourages making more income.
The wealthy spend much more than the not so wealthy and would therefore pay MORE sales taxes and create more jobs.
JohnGee
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
The FAIR tax, and all other similar sales taxes have a built in subsidy that is paid out to everyone, just like the current personal deduction system.


Milton Friedman's original proposal for a flat tax also contained a minimum income. Would you accept a flat tax AND a minimum income?

Taxing anything is a punishment.
Ridiculous.
Taxing income discourages making more income.
Ridiculous.
The wealthy spend much more than the not so wealthy and would therefore pay MORE sales taxes
No one gives a shit about being fair to rich people. Sorry.
and create more jobs.
The consumers, and no one else, creates jobs.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
No one gives a shit about being fair to rich people. Sorry.


Well you have absolutely no credibility in this discussion anymore...

The consumers, and no one else, creates jobs.


Ridiculous.
JohnGee
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2013
Well you have absolutely no credibility in this discussion anymore...
You don't understand sarcasm? The entire status quo is designed to garner care for downtrodden rich folks. There is more welfare for the rich than the poor, etc.

Ridiculous.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's an objective fact. Economic policy should not be centered around bribing the rich to "create jobs" as I'm assuming you believe, but should be centered around elevating all people to a level of creative consumption. That is how you grow an economy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
Any economy is grown by promoting and protecting private property rights.
Govt plunder of private property destroys economies. The data is quite clear.
JohnGee
1 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2013
Govt plunder of private property destroys economies.
Would you consider Milton Friedman's ideas on minimum income to fall under that category?

The data is quite clear.
No, not really.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
"Prosperity and property rights are inextricably linked. The importance of having well-defined and strongly protected property rights is now widely recognized among economists and policymakers. A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit. That dominion over what is theirs leads property users to take full account of all the benefits and costs of employing those resources in a particular manner. The process of weighing costs and benefits produces what economists call efficient outcomes. That translates into higher standards of living for all."
http://www.cato.o...2es.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
""You can't have a free society without private property."
- Milton Friedman - "
"Property rights provide the structure that encourages development, innovation, conservation, and discovery of new resources. Growth and increasing wealth through these mechanisms lead to environmental quality by raising the demand for it and by providing the wherewithal to meet these demands. In this context, economic growth is not the antithesis of sustainable development; it is the essence of it."
- See more at: http://perc.org/a...wC5.dpuf
JohnGee
1 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2013
Right, but your ideas on private property rights are not mainstream, so we can't really use the same terminology. You consider taxes to be a violation of private property rights, for example.

It's funny you keep ignoring how Friedman supported a minimum income (in order for a flat tax to work), something you would obviously view as a violation of property rights.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2013
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's an objective fact. Economic policy should not be centered around bribing the rich to "create jobs" as I'm assuming you believe, but should be centered around elevating all people to a level of creative consumption. That is how you grow an economy.

You're just spitting out speculation about what I believe and half-assed ideas that have no basis in fact. "Elevating all people to a level of creative consumption" indeed. And it's an "objective fact" that the only ones who create jobs are the "consumers" (whatever that even means)?? These are outrageous claims, one after another. Keep on driving home your trivial point about Friedman and the minimum income tax, and enjoy your day, mate.
JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
The FAIR Tax is highly regressive on income because consumption as a percentage of income falls as income increases. Basically it screws poor people more than they get screwed all ready. No big surprise ryggesogn2 is chomping at the bit for it.

Gianni, I'm sorry you don't like your beliefs talked about in those terms, but it is true. The consumers are the job creators. It's not terribly hard to get, so maybe you are dumb?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
our ideas on private property rights are not mainstream,

So?
Truth is truth.
'Mainstream' socialism is creating more poverty and misery around the world.
Carl Popper was motivated by the failure of Marxism to propose the falsification principle. It is interesting how socialists can demand falsification for some aspects of reality but not economics.
consumers are the job creators.

Who creates the products for the consumer? Without capital (investment) and risk on the part of the supplier, there are no products to consume. No products to consume, no jobs.
Man in nature must expend effort (capital) before he can consume. He must create weapons to kill, tools to dig and harvest and prepare his food before he can consume it.
Socialists like to leave out the bit about the capital and work required to create the products.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
[qconsumers are the job creators.
Haiti, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Detroit are full of consumers, but no jobs. Why?
JohnGee
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Who creates products without consumers? Your examples fail because those consumers are barely living at a level of sustenance. Say for example... hmm... their governments wrote all of them a check for $10,000 for being such great people. I bet their economies would improve.

For you, economics is more of an exercise in punishing people than it is a method for progressing society.

Consumers are the real job creators.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
governments wrote all of them a check for $10,000 for being such great people. I bet their economies would improve.


I bet they would NOT. What are they going to buy?
The US govt has been doing this for the past several years. Poverty has not changed and the recent federal stimulus has driven unemployment HIGHER. So high the govt won't count those who have given up looking for work and PROMOTES food stamps and welfare.
With all the govt welfare benefits there should be all sorts of jobs. Where are they?

Economics is the allocation of scarce resources.
Consumers are the real job creators.

Believe what you want, your religion is your choice, but the facts don't bear this out.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
"Greater economic freedom, the key policy trend of the 1980s and 1990s, did not spread to large parts of the education system. That remains true today, although increased accountability and freedom to choose schools in some states such as Florida and Texas shows what can and should be done.

The policies favored by those with a middle-out view—higher tax rates, more intrusive regulations, more targeted fiscal policies—will not revive the economy. More likely they will perpetuate the weak economy we have and cause real incomes—including for those in the middle—to continue to stagnate. "
Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He blogs at EconomicsOne.com.
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop
JohnGee
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
It's interesting how religious persons view calling someone religious as a grand insult. I wonder how they then think about themselves.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
Say for example... hmm... their governments wrote all of them a check for $10,000 for being such great people. I bet their economies would improve.

Not to mention their IQs, right?

Consumers are the real job creators.

Just for future references, when you make an empirical claim like this, it is generally helpful to support it with relevant empirical evidence. Care to elaborate?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
governments wrote all of them a check for $10,000 for being such great people. I bet their economies would improve.


I was in Leningrad for a few days in 1983. The people had plenty of money, but nothing to buy but propaganda posters.
Those with western currency could shop in special stores to buy cigs, booze, ...
JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
No sorry, it's really so basic it doesn't need to be elaborated on. Since you seem hopelessly lost, I'll throw you a bone.

No consumers -> no products/services -> no jobs

When you take right-wing extremism to it's logical conclusion, that's where you end up. Well actually, people start to eat the rich before it gets that bad, but you know assuming that doesn't happen (it will).

I was in Leningrad for a few days in 1983. The people had plenty of money, but nothing to buy but propaganda posters.
Those with western currency could shop in special stores to buy cigs, booze, ...
Yeah, that's not real money then.

There is something to be said for the USSR though. They always had vodka to drink. Now the poor have to drink "cologne" which is really unregulated alcohol disguised as cologne. It turns their tongues black.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
It's interesting how religious persons view calling someone religious as a grand insult. I wonder how they then think about themselves.

You take being called religious about socialism an insult?
I don't take being called a Christian as an insult.
Why do you think it is an insult to be called religious?
JohnGee
1 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2013
Why do you think being a baldfaced liar is so cute?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
No consumers -> no products/services -> no jobs


Yes, Gee's religion is socialism.
He can't support his faith with data because it does not exist.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
"Lawrence Lindsey, president and chief executive officer of The Lindsey Group, estimates that if the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was before the recession began, the unemployment rate would be 11.2 percent, rather than 7.3 percent.

One reason for this continuing trend is the panoply of government benefits, including unemployment insurance, now available up to 73 weeks, depending on the state. On average, unemployed Americans can receive 53 weeks of unemployment insurance, up from 26 weeks before the recession.

Over 8.9 million adults received disability insurance from the Social Security Administration in July 2013, the latest data available. The number of people receiving benefits is 23 percent higher compared to five years earlier and 55 percent higher than 2003. Benefits are higher, too. Recipients get an average of $1,129 monthly, 12 percent more than in 2008 and 35 percent more than in 2003."
http://www.econom...ays-not-
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
With all these millions consuming using plundered wealth, there should be NO unemployment, according to Gee's religion.
JohnGee
1.1 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2013
I don't have any religion so I don't see how anything can be "according to" it.

I never said there would be full employment. There you go with rewards and punishments again. I don't care if some people make an easier existence for themselves than others. What I care about is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Lifting people out of poverty who are unable and even to an extent unwilling to work is better for the economy than letting them wallow in poverty.

It's very basic economics. The less money you have, the more you are forced to spend as a percentage of income. Another way of viewing this is 1 million dollars split among 1,000 people will stimulate the economy much more than 1 million dollars in the hands of one person. Sure the rich fellow will spend more than any of the poorer persons individually, but the poorer people will end up spending more of it together. This is how economies work.
Gianni_Paolinzetti
1 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
No businesses -> No products/services -> No jobs

See how convincing that is? You're a joke, John; I'm convinced you're actually a fiscal libertarian beset on mounting the worst case imaginable for mixed-socialist economics simply for your own amusement. There's really no other good explanation for how scatterbrained you are.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
I never said there would be full employment.

As welfare INCREASES, the number of jobs DECREASE.
Opposite of what you assert.
1 million dollars in the hands of one person.

If it is the right person, it would be invested in some innovative product creating wealth for him AND for thousands of others. Sound money represents real wealth. Fiat money does not.
That's how economies really work.
mathari
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2013
Money is a tool to facilitate progress. People make progress and get rewarded by money and then use the money to buy pleasure. The rich, just like the poor, have a responsibility to ensure that they meet their obligations to our nation. They pay taxes that keep them in check so they don't hoard money and become too powerful in a system, capitalism, that caters to money. Inflation is caused by speculation. It is beneficial to government to allow money to devalue over time. It levels debt and keeps the carrot in front of the mule (us). All of this hate is silly. We have a tested system that works very well until you stack it towards one side. Capitalism needs socialism and vice versa. Stop with the limbaugh-isms.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
"Just recently drawing upon his Christian faith (and possibly the economics influence of Professor Ayittey?), in a speech at Georgetown University, Bono altered his economic and political views and declared that only capitalism can end poverty."
http://blog.indep...han-aid/

Inflation is caused by speculation.

No, it is cause by devaluing the currency either by shaving off the edges as Rome did or printing more paper fiat currency.
government to allow money to devalue over time.

Govt intentionally devalues the currency so they pay back their debt with devalued currency.

"Poverty has no cause. It is the natural state of man. If you do nothing, you are poor. Therefore, we should not ask ourselves what causes poverty, we should examine what causes wealth." Thomas Palmer, Atlas Network

JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
More verses from the Book of Rand. You should cite the chapter and verse when you quote scripture like that, ryggesogn.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.