Reparations

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

L O fucking L

sign me the fuck up as onboard for reparations.

Reparations day PLUS 1 there is no further need for affirmative action or any other race based allocation of public resources or any other preference.  Deal?

Nope.

[safe sex 11684]

lmao fuck off you troll. I'm too lazy right now to even neg you

[Incredulity 11555]

Just now, safe sex said:

lmao fuck off you troll. I'm too lazy right now to even neg you

interdasting... so the answer is more.

 

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, Incredulity said:

interdasting... so the answer is more.

I mean, it works for white people.

[safe sex 11684]

I found a second wind

[Incredulity 11555]

Just now, safe sex said:

I found a second wind

[TwiceHorn 31283]

58 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You answered your own question with the scope creep.  Was it slavery that caused the issue, or was it racism and racist policies?  If racist policies, it opens the doors to all groups affected by historical racism to collect reparations...including me...and I'd still be against it.

Well, slavery is kind of the ultimate racist policy, short of ethic cleansing.  But instead of making a clean break with that policy, we permitted lesser forms of racism, not limited to virtually unavoidable personal racism, for the next century or so.

The problem here is the difficulty in compensating for racism that originated institutionally and has lingered to various degrees the whole time..  Everything is both too little and not enough.

[safe sex 11684]

Something is better than nothing. Perfection is the enemy of the good. All those tropes.

[Neonmoon 38127]

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

That's called quantitative easing...and was mentioned in the post you are replying to.   It has as bad, if not worse of a track record than trickle down.

Fuck it

No, it doesn’t have an as bad or worse track record than trickle down economics. 

QE was used successfully to combat the GFC in 2008 and during Covid as it addressed the problem of the zero lower bound. We can argue about the degree of success or the timing of success, but to say QE didn’t work is incorrect. 

Trickle Down Economics has been proven repeatedly to be unsound. Tax Cuts for Corporations do not stimulate the economy and there is tons of data out there to prove it. 
 

[RomaVicta 29794]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The point is, I don't believe it's possible to change human nature.

So, abandon criminal law? Abandon civil law? 

Peel away the thin veneer of civilization and see what natural law looks like. That thin veneer contains the worst in human nature and, indeed, changes it to something other than rapacious power-seeking.

I compliment you on the even tone of your posts and the same for the many in opposition to your point.

 

I was firmly in the no reparations contingent for a long time. Its enormous expense and difficulty in distribution and my doubts about the justice in it pretty much founded my position.

Since the BLM summer, I've swung around to the other side. I was made aware of how off my perception was regarding the Black experience and situation. I think Atlantic published a piece that included information from polls taken of white people in the 60s and now. We whites were profoundly off in our estimates of how many Blacks were in the middle class then the upper class. They're largely stuck.

It's not just racism in hiring stopping progress. I think the poingnant moment was a clip on the John Oliver show. A Black woman from a ward in Houston stood on the usual bleak avenue that transects such places. She was concise in her description of how stuck people were. She concluded with "we don't own anything!"

It clicked with Eric Burdon and the Animals:

It's a hard world world to get a break in. All the good things have been taken.

I read in the excellent book, 1493, that claims that enslaved African people created the original infrastructure on roads and other clearing were factual. They died in droves from diseases like yellow fever and malaria, but their survival rates were better than the non-African settles. They did all the work before the USA was even a concept.

They saw no advantage from that or anything that followed.

After the Civil War, there were frontiers still open, but freed people of color were still too oppressed to take much advantage. A hundred years later when the Civil Rights movement creates something that was supposed to accompany Reconstruction, all the good things had been taken not that Black citizens had much shot at whatever there was.

I like the plans about home and business ownership for the descendants of the cruely enslaved people. White men like myself have had full access to the benefits of American citizenship as part of  heritage and geneology. It's not right. I'm also okay with monetary support beyond mere subsistence. Some will cheat the system, but such actions know no racial boundary.

Of course, this would have been dismissed after the first paragraph as woke-ism by the persons we need to persuade. I don't mean to lump @DixonHur with them. I disagree with his/her position, but I once held them myself. DH seems open to persuasion.

Edited February 9 by RomaVicta

[hobbes2702 12847]

40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, that would literally include any wrong. Car wreck? Past wrong. Assault? Past wrong. I don't think you really know what you believe or have a principled belief here. 

Nailed it. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

I was writing a quick summary about redlining for work, and reading the history of it, and am still blown away. The US government made it systemically harder for minorities to get loans, and research has show these redlined families have achieved something like 42% less wealth through property because of it. When you realize most people achieve wealth through homeownership, it’s a big deal. (Same could be said for women that needed a man to get a loan for a loan time)

I once was a ‘it’s not a race issue, it’s a class issue’ person for a long time, but the more you learn, the more you realize there’s a pretty big fucking reason a certain race is in a certain class. 

[safe sex 11684]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I was writing a quick summary about redlining for work, and reading the history of it, and am still blown away. The US government made it systemically harder for minorities to get loans, and research has show these redlined families have achieved something like 42% less wealth through property because of it. When you realize most people achieve wealth through homeownership, it’s a big deal. (Same could be said for women that needed a man to get a loan for a loan time)

I once was a ‘it’s not a race issue, it’s a class issue’ person for a long time, but the more you learn, the more you realize there’s a pretty big fucking reason a certain race is in a certain class. 

It's like you...woke up or something. 😮

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

You oppose reparations in the form of monetary compensation because you worry that it will cause resentment among white folks and I'm the one fixated on race?

OK.

I mean, you're the guy who repeatedly is throwing around white people's feelings. Him pointing out you're fixated on race is fair. And "poor white people" isn't a defense of anything. It's just an inflammatory statement that solves nothing long term, no matter how justifiable it is to dismiss it. 

The idea of healing and fixing race relations in this country isn't going to get there what a cavalier "Well, I got fucked over, so it's his turn to get fucked over." That creates an endless cycle of grievance and bullshit. Historically that's never fucking worked out anywhere, from Ireland to Israel. You want to fix it long term, you don't create a new class of people who feel like victims, whether their victimhood is justified in their eyes or anyone else's, because all that will matter is how they feel. I'd say most incels are resposnible for their shitty fucking situation in life, from their own choices and behaviors, and I have no fucking sympathy for them. Unfortunately, my lack of sympathy doesn't stop them from shooting up fucking schools. 

I prefer to simply think of it as a group of people, and not a race of (white) people. Sure, most of them will be white. But inevitably, some black people will be against monetary reparations as well. I can hear Candace Owens shrieking about it right now. So will some Mexicans. Some Asians. And some people who are for it, regardless of race, won't think whatever it is is enough. Because it can never be enough. What's the dollar amount for "My Great Grandfather was whipped until he bled out and my great grandma raised raised her kids alone while working 20 hours a day?" Is it a dollar? Is it 100,000 dollars?  

 

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

holy shit, where did I say that?

I mean, you've said multiple times that you're against monetary compensation for reparations. I've said it too. 

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

I guess I don’t really follow how that’s different or why that distinction even matters.

It corrected the many historical problems with rights. Reparations correct historical problems with slavery. 

You think a check "corrects" the historical problems with slavery? Do you think you can punch a woman in the face if you throw a few hundreds at her after you're done? I don't think anything can "correct" slavery, or make it ok. 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I was writing a quick summary about redlining for work, and reading the history of it, and am still blown away. The US government made it systemically harder for minorities to get loans, and research has show these redlined families have achieved something like 42% less wealth through property because of it. When you realize most people achieve wealth through homeownership, it’s a big deal. (Same could be said for women that needed a man to get a loan for a loan time)

I once was a ‘it’s not a race issue, it’s a class issue’ person for a long time, but the more you learn, the more you realize there’s a pretty big fucking reason a certain race is in a certain class. 

Another great post. And of course it's worse. Sometimes, even when you got property, it was taken from you anyway. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/

It's a truly horrible article to read. This one wasn't far behind either.
https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/

Edited February 9 by SydneyCarton

[hobbes2702 12847]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You think a check "corrects" the historical problems with slavery? Do you think you can punch a woman in the face if you throw a few hundreds at her after you're done? I don't think anything can "correct" slavery, or make it ok. 

Yes that’s obviously what my point was. 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yes that’s obviously what my point was. 

Probably not, but it's exactly the words you chose. So why don't you take this opportunity to really flesh out your point, exactly, as opposed to responding solely with gifs and "lol" to people who actually try to engage in a conversation on a topic?

[David Dennison 18661]

41 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, you're the guy who repeatedly is throwing around white people's feelings. Him pointing out you're fixated on race is fair. And "poor white people" isn't a defense of anything. It's just an inflammatory statement that solves nothing long term, no matter how justifiable it is to dismiss it. 

You can't understand America if you don't understand race, and understanding race in America means understanding that this country was founded on and grew under the auspices of white supremacy.

If that means I'm fixated on race, so be it. 

[Pam Cummings 9582]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

"Hurr durr cloak room is trash"

 

-You, after littering an otherwise intriguing thread with useless nonsense.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

45 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Another great post. And of course it's worse. Sometimes, even when you got property, it was taken from you anyway. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/

It's a truly horrible article to read. This one wasn't far behind either.
https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/

Yeah and sometimes when you get too prosperous, you get firebombed and massacred by white supremacist terrorists with full-throated government support, and then you spend 100 years trying and failing to receive meaningful restitution.

But hey, it's not about race. Stop being fixated on race.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't understand America if you don't understand race, and understanding race in America means understanding that this country was founded on and grew under the auspices of white supremacy.

If that means I'm fixated on race, so be it. 

Yeah, I categorically don't agree with your statement that America was founded under the auspices of White Supremacy. Or even slavery. Becuase those things existed in the UK at the time of America's founding and for several decades after. It's not like they came here for freemom to be White Supremacists and own slaves, they could have gotten them in the UK. Saying America grew prosperous, in large part due to slavery, is a true statement. Saying America was founded on the notion of White Supremacy, I disagree with and dismiss out of hand.

America was founded and grew becuase of human greed and not giving a fuck if people were hurt to acquire wealth personal wealth and power. But maybe we're quibbling. But we can agree that you're fixated on the race aspect of it. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

51 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Another great post. And of course it's worse. Sometimes, even when you got property, it was taken from you anyway. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our-land/594742/

It's a truly horrible article to read. This one wasn't far behind either.
https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/

Correct 

And it’s still going on today. 

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I categorically don't agree with your statement that America was founded under the auspices of White Supremacy. Or even slavery. Becuase those things existed in the UK at the time of America's founding and for several decades after. It's not like they came here for freemom to be White Supremacists and own slaves, they could have gotten them in the UK. Saying America grew prosperous, in large part due to slavery, is a true statement. Saying America was founded on the notion of White Supremacy, I disagree with and dismiss out of hand.

America was founded and grew becuase of human greed and not giving a fuck if people were hurt to acquire wealth personal wealth and power. But maybe we're quibbling. But we can agree that you're fixated on the race aspect of it. 

It's literally in the Constitution.

[safe sex 11684]

Whether or not racism/slavery/white supremacy was going on in the UK is irrelevant to America's founding being tainted by that poison.

Edited February 9 by safe sex

[DixonHur 11228]

31 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, you've said multiple times that you're against monetary compensation for reparations. I've said it too. 

Yes, but as you noted, his point was that I opposed monetary reparations because I was worried about hurting white people's feelings.  That's patently false.  I could give a shit about white people's collective feelings, or that of any other group, frankly.

 

47 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I was writing a quick summary about redlining for work, and reading the history of it, and am still blown away. The US government made it systemically harder for minorities to get loans, and research has show these redlined families have achieved something like 42% less wealth through property because of it. When you realize most people achieve wealth through homeownership, it’s a big deal. (Same could be said for women that needed a man to get a loan for a loan time)

I once was a ‘it’s not a race issue, it’s a class issue’ person for a long time, but the more you learn, the more you realize there’s a pretty big fucking reason a certain race is in a certain class. 

That has nothing to do with slavery, per se.  That is the type of systematic racism I'm talking about fixing.  But not retrospectively.  Proactively...IE, for the future.  The past already happened.  Does it affect today?  Absolutely, but that's not a reason for monetary reparations for slavery in my opinion.

I think the disconnect I'm having with some of you is that I don't conflate the idea of slavery, that has been practiced across societies since the dawn of time, with racism.  What you're describing in your post is racist policy, not slavery.

They should be dealt with as separate issues.  Did one lead to the other, that argument could be, and has been, made, but it could also be argued that had Lincoln not been assassinated things would be much different today.  

In my opinion, we are where we are because Andrew Jackson became president after the Civil War and took a kid glove approach with the Confederates.  I submit that had Lincoln remained President we'd look a lot more like modern Germany in terms of how African-Americans (Jewish people in the case of Germany) were treated.  

So I separate the institution of slavery from racist policies implemented and continued by the US government after the Civil War.

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Fuck it

No, it doesn’t have an as bad or worse track record than trickle down economics. 

QE was used successfully to combat the GFC in 2008 and during Covid as it addressed the problem of the zero lower bound. We can argue about the degree of success or the timing of success, but to say QE didn’t work is incorrect. 

Trickle Down Economics has been proven repeatedly to be unsound. Tax Cuts for Corporations do not stimulate the economy and there is tons of data out there to prove it. 
 

I suggest you read Fifty Shades of QE.  

@RomaVicta I'm not ignoring your post.  I agree with most of it, but I refer you to my thoughts above about the treating slavery and systematic racism as separate issues.  As an admittedly terrible analogy, it's like having cancer but dying of pneumonia.  Sure, your immune system being lowered by cancer probably lead to your pneumonia, but the pneumonia is what killed you.  I see slavery as the cancer and systematic racism as the pneumonia.  Slavery ended, so now we need to focus on treating the pneumonia.  Again, terrible analogy, I know, but it's the best I could do off the top of my head.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah and sometimes when you get too prosperous, you get firebombed and massacred by white supremacist terrorists with full-throated government support, and then you spend 100 years trying and failing to receive meaningful restitution.

But hey, it's not about race. Stop being fixated on race.

Yeah, I posted two articles about the myraid of injusticies that have been perpetrated on black people, by the government and/or white people, with no mention of race in my post, but I'm a clown? Simply becuase I don't think "Time to get ours, fuck those guys" will meaningully heal wounds in this country, but exacerbate them? Ok buddy. 

I'm literally on this post in multiple places in support of some form of reparations. 

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's literally in the Constitution.

Please point to me the part of the constitution that says "We found this nation to be a nation of whites only and to own and subjugate black people at our whims, as they were born lesser than us and to be our property." Or did you simply mean that slavery is referenced in our constitution? 

I suppose our difference here is you saying it was the reason for the founding of America, and I think it was a byproduct of greed and human cruelty. 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

5 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Whether or not racism/slavery/white supremacy was going on in the UK is irrelevant to America's founding being tainted by that poison.

No doubt. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm simply contesting the idea that America was founded solely to be some kind of white supremacist haven. 

America was founded because of human greed, and not wanting to pay their fucking taxes. And part of that greed was a comfort level of enslaving other human beings for profit. Is there any possible way that CAN'T be tainted? Because I don't see one. Did having dark skin make it easier for the founding fathers to inflict immeasurable cruelty on another human being becuase they could convince themselves they weren't real people? Probably. I believe so with full certainty. Becuae you still see that fucking shit today. 

But something tells me if Africans had happened to not be daker skinned, America's founders would have come up with some other way to alleviate their guilt for doing it to other white people. 

[safe sex 11684]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

No doubt. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm simply contesting the idea that America was founded solely to be some kind of white supremacist haven.

"under the auspices" doesn't mean "solely"

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I suggest you read Fifty Shades of QE.  

I suggest you also read it, as it doesn't support your claim that QE wasn’t successful 

It literally states “while all of the central bank papers report a statistically significant QE effect on output, only half of the academic papers do.”  Of course that there are only 54 studies, but 75% of studies found a statistically significant QE effect on output. The paper sole conclusion was that central banker papers were more favorable than academic papers. That does not equal “QE has a worse track record than Trickle down economics”

[DixonHur 11228]

1 minute ago, safe sex said:

"under the auspices" doesn't mean "solely"

The problem with this line of thought is what is "white"?  I'm "white" now, but certainly wouldn't have been in 18th century America.  Not a lot of folks with vowels at the end of their names in the continental congress.

America was formed to benefit the male landed gentry.  Specifically British.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 minute ago, safe sex said:

"under the auspices" doesn't mean "solely"

I'm aware. But Dennison sure talks about white supremacy Solely in conjunction with the founding of America. Look at my last few posts, do you really get the impression I'm trying to say America in no way flourished becuase of slavery? Becuase I've flat out stated that in at least one post. It's fucking obvious, only a racist piece of shit or an idiot or both would attempt otherwise. 

You know what, nevermind. This thread has become pointless, it's just shitposting on people who generally all want to do good things for the people this country has systemically fucked over and to improve everyone's station, but hey, I don't want to do it the way someone else wants to do it. 

 

[DixonHur 11228]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

 

I suggest you also read it, as it doesn't support your claim that QE wasn’t successful 

It literally states “while all of the central bank papers report a statistically significant QE effect on output, only half of the academic papers do.”  Of course that there are only 54 studies, but 75% of studies found a statistically significant QE effect on output. The paper sole conclusion was that central banker papers were more favorable than academic papers. That does not equal “QE has a worse track record than Trickle down economics”

You didn't read very far did you?  Its main thesis is that while Central Banks claim success, academic studies were unable to find any.  

[safe sex 11684]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

.

America was formed to benefit the male landed gentry.  Specifically British.

Who were white. The fact that your ethnicity may not have been included as white during the founding also doesn't seem that relevant to me

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

You didn't read very far did you?  Its main thesis is that while Central Banks claim success, academic studies were unable to find any.  

It literally doesn’t say that 

[Dahobbs 17449]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You didn't read very far did you?  Its main thesis is that while Central Banks claim success, academic studies were unable to find any.  

Incorrect. Academic studies were mixed overall, many still showing a positive effect but a lesser level than claimed by Central Banks. That doesn't mean academic studies couldn't find any success. It means the exact opposite. 

[David Dennison 18661]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Please point to me the part of the constitution that says "We found this nation to be a nation of whites only and to own and subjugate black people at our whims, as they were born lesser than us and to be our property." Or did you simply mean that slavery is referenced in our constitution? 

I suppose our difference here is you saying it was the reason for the founding of America, and I think it was a byproduct of greed and human cruelty. 

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Did you even read this paper?

[DixonHur 11228]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It literally doesn’t say that 

That's the conclusion of the authors, not the studies.  Even the academic studies that found that QE helped, found that it either barely helped, or was way under what the banks said it did.  I trust the academics more than the banks, who have a vested interest in showing improvement.  I aways write glowing self reviews too.

What these studies don't take into effect are the long-term downsides.  It's a ponzi scheme.  The Fed pays interest on the reserves it holds for banks and it uses those reserves to finance its purchases of long-term bonds. Now that the interest rate has increased to fight inflation, the Fed must pay more for reserves than it's getting from the bonds in its portfolio, and its losing money.

Cheap money distorts risk, so people take on more debt thinking the gravy train will last forever, but it's a shell game.  Eventually the piper must get paid.  Look at what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 you mentioned earlier.  Housing prices exploded as debt became cheap, but now that interest rates are going up, how will the next generation afford housing?  How will those with bloated valuations on their homes make a profit?  Look at Wall Street.  Looks great, but I submit its a mirage and we are all in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.

[Don Johnson 4745]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think there is necessarily an appropriate amount. I don't think there is a way to calculate that in a traditional compensatory way. I think it is a policy decision we make based upon the effect of various levels of payment. As a random number, I might start with a refundable tax credit of $10,000 per year for 10 years and then do an analysis of how that plays out. 

IMO, a goal of reparations would be to help right a wrong, so that all parties could move on.

I think its tricky.  You want to do something where the majority is OK with it.  But IMO, the hardest part would be doing something where BOTH sides AREN'T pissed.  And I'm not talking about the folks that would be pissed no matter what.

There would be negotiations on this that would get ugly.  Putting a price tag on your ancestors enslavement seems like a pretty difficult thing.  And how does the non-black community say "we will give you this much...but not that much" and come across as anything other than a dickhead who you don't feel like moving forward with?

San Fran set the bar high by proposing $5 million per person, guaranteed annual incomes, no tax burdens and $1 homes.  Call that a starting offer.  Obviously that is impossible, but anyone who publicly pushed back on it would not be seen in a favorable light.  

So you you have people expecting millions and get $100,000 total in tax credits?

Even if it was a lump sum $100,000 payment, who walks away satisfied?  You have one side bitter about $5 trillion (back of napkin, so maybe wrong) in debt and the other thinking they got short changed.  And if you're going to piss off more people than you appease, what good did you do?

[DixonHur 11228]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Did you even read this paper?

I feel like you're reading it with confirmation bias without understand the terms.   That's economic output.  Meaning more things are produced, and likely sold.  IE the economy is growing.  But that's a short-term effect.  How will the debts be repaid?  QE is like going to the $10 all-you-can-eat buffet everyday and then wondering why you have $100,000 in medical bills a few years later.  It's a ponzi scheme and when the bill comes due we're in for a hell of a ride.

Nothing is free...least of which, money.

Why do you think Americans have record debt?  

[David Dennison 18661]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I feel like you're reading it with confirmation bias without understand the terms.   That's economic output.  Meaning more things are produced, and likely sold.  IE the economy is growing.  But that's a short-term effect.  How will the debts be repaid?  QE is like going to the $10 all-you-can-eat buffet everyday and then wondering why you have $100,000 in medical bills a few years later.  It's a ponzi scheme and when the bill comes due we're in for a hell of a ride.

Nothing is free...least of which, money.

Why do you think Americans have record debt?  

Because debt favors capital, which I guess is what you're saying.

Edited February 9 by David Dennison

[hobbes2702 12847]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Probably not, but it's exactly the words you chose. So why don't you take this opportunity to really flesh out your point, exactly, as opposed to responding solely with gifs and "lol" to people who actually try to engage in a conversation on a topic?

It’s been fleshed out pretty clearly for anyone who chooses not to be pedantic.

[DixonHur 11228]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Incorrect. Academic studies were mixed overall, many still showing a positive effect but a lesser level than claimed by Central Banks. That doesn't mean academic studies couldn't find any success. It means the exact opposite. 

Predicably you guys are cherry picking data points that support your idea.  I challenge you to read the entire report, as well as others on the topic and let me know if you still think QE is a good long-term solution.  

[Dahobbs 17449]

10 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

IMO, a goal of reparations would be to help right a wrong, so that all parties could move on.

I think its tricky.  You want to do something where the majority is OK with it.  But IMO, the hardest part would be doing something where BOTH sides AREN'T pissed.  And I'm not talking about the folks that would be pissed no matter what.

There would be negotiations on this that would get ugly.  Putting a price tag on your ancestors enslavement seems like a pretty difficult thing.  And how does the non-black community say "we will give you this much...but not that much" and come across as anything other than a dickhead who you don't feel like moving forward with?

San Fran set the bar high by proposing $5 million per person, guaranteed annual incomes, no tax burdens and $1 homes.  Call that a starting offer.  Obviously that is impossible, but anyone who publicly pushed back on it would not be seen in a favorable light.  

So you you have people expecting millions and get $100,000 total in tax credits?

Even if it was a lump sum $100,000 payment, who walks away satisfied?  You have one side bitter about $5 trillion (back of napkin, so maybe wrong) in debt and the other thinking they got short changed.  And if you're going to piss off more people than you appease, what good did you do?

I'd tie the goal to a particular objective economic outcome rather than compensation. I think it is the only way to do it. 

As to your last question, that's easy, the good you did was raising the economic level of tens of millions of people.  

[DixonHur 11228]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because debt favors capital, which I guess is what you're saying.

Perhaps.  I'm not really sure what you mean by debt favors capital.  Lower interest rates spur economic activity, that is certain, but when it's artificially manipulated, hold on because it's gonna be a bumpy landing.  

Of course, the rich will make out like bandits, they always do, but the rest of us will be left holding the tab.

[Dahobbs 17449]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Predicably you guys are cherry picking data points that support your idea.  I challenge you to read the entire report, as well as others on the topic and let me know if you still think QE is a good long-term solution.  

You made a blanket statement that academic studies couldn't find any benefit to quantitative easing. That's objectively incorrect based on the findings of those papers. I'm not cherry picking, I'm correcting your misstatement. Whether I think QE is overall the best way to go about things is an entirely different question that I really don't know the answer to. 

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Perhaps.  I'm not really sure what you mean by debt favors capital.  Lower interest rates spur economic activity, that is certain, but when it's artificially manipulated, hold on because it's gonna be a bumpy landing.  

Of course, the rich will make out like bandits, they always do, but the rest of us will be left holding the tab.

Debt favors capital because it allows capital to grow in the form of interest.

 

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You made a blanket statement that academic studies couldn't find any benefit to quantitative easing. That's objectively incorrect based on the findings of those papers. I'm not cherry picking, I'm correcting your misstatement. Whether I think QE is overall the best way to go about things is an entirely different question that I really don't know the answer to. 

Well, if you'd been following the discussion my point was that QE is as bad if not worse than trickledown.  I suggested he read this paper because it wasn't clear he truly understood what QE was.  Of course, when I read it a couple of years ago, I saw warning lights, but apparently that wasn't the case with you guys.

So the idea of printing money to pay reparations was a bad idea.

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Well, if you'd been following the discussion my point was that QE is as bad if not worse than trickledown.  I suggested he read this paper because it wasn't clear he truly understood what QE was.  Of course, when I read it a couple of years ago, I saw warning lights, but apparently that wasn't the case with you guys.

So the idea of printing money to pay reparations was a bad idea.

Fine. Take it from the Pentagon.

Done and done.

[DixonHur 11228]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Debt favors capital because it allows capital to grow in the form of interest.

 

Assuming the interest received is greater than the interest paid on the debt, yes.

Unfortunately that's not the case with QE because to curb inflation the Fed needs to raise rates, thus increasing the amount they owe on their debt.

Edited February 9 by DixonHur
By "they" I mean "we" the taxpayers