Case for Reparations: Worth the Read

[nixkid]

But that's an economically ignorant argument.

Look, it's very simple. Technology drives economic productivity which in turn drives the increase in economic wealth. The U.S. didn't industrialize in the south using slave labor.

So you can pretend there is some secret economic sauce to slavery that allowed plantation owners to add value, but it's only a just-so story you're making up by using words like technology and slavery in the same sentence.

Technology lowers the cost of production. Thats the value add. I work in IT as an engineer (nope, I'm not a moocher by your definition, AND I'm black..did your head just explode?). Most (but not all) of the work I've done has been business process automation. Automating things that humans can do (and have done for decades) but that are simply more efficient to do them without humans. What does "more efficient" mean? That its more profitable because labor costs go down and it frees up humans to do other things (or just be unemployed). Thats because there is a market for labor (its limited and its expensive). If there were an abundance of humans that would do the work for free than technology would add no value at all. Which is why slavery added value, why they were property, and why they were considered valuable assets. If slavery never fell out of vogue, the purchase of a slave today would be considered an capital expenditure in much the same way that the purchase of a computer or the funding of a software project is.

You're confusing correlation with causation. When Bush tried to help out blacks and Hispanics with his minority homeownership program, he only helped to increase the dimensions of a housing bubble that eventually hurt everyone's prosperity when it popped. Because they were economically unprepared to own homes.

Wealth has nothing to do with homeownership, except as a correlation.

Did you read the article? Before 1933, a home mortgage required a big down payment and had to be repaid in 10 years. That put homeownership out of the reach of most Americans.

“In 1930, only 30 percent of Americans owned their own homes; by 1960, more than 60 percent were home owners. Home ownership became an emblem of American citizenship.”

The FHA backing private mortgages caused interest rates to fall and allowed banks to make 30 year loans. Thats what created the massive market for housing in America.

There were black people who could afford 30-year fixed mortgages but they were denied them because the banks wouldn't loan to blacks. The reason? The FHA wouldn't insure a mortgage for a house in an undesirable area. The presence of blacks was deemed undesirable by the FHA.

The FHA policy meant that whites that weren't racist HAD to avoid living around blacks in order to protect their property values. As a result, blacks were funneled into public housing and "contract buying" which created the ghettos which led to the bad schools.

Of course, Bush's housing policy wouldn't have fixed this issue. Mainly because the damage was already done. By that point, there had already been a number of generations who grew up in deficient schools that it didn't matter. But also because it was fueled by sub-prime mortgages where as the previous housing boom (that benefited white mostly) was fueled by safe FHA backed 30 year fixed mortgages. Thats why one housing policy created wealth and the other didn't.

 

[ben236]

We don't think you are lying. It's just that, over the course of many threads, you've proven to be a blow-hard idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.

Your reputation is such that, if I ever found myself on the same side of an argument as you, it would make me immediately question the soundness of my position.

Excellent rebuttal.

Though while a little insensitive, he does have a point. A lot of the reasons why the black community continues to struggle today, 50 years after the civil rights act is due to their own behavior. Now, the argument can certainly be made that what has happened in the past is a large contributor to the gangsta culture that's prevalent in the black community today and continues to hinder their progress as a whole. But if we can acknowledge that their behavior is one of the largest contributors to their lack of progress, then we should also be able to acknowledge that the solution is more complex than simply giving them more welfare while calling it something else.

Frankly, I think that the war on drugs has been the largest contributor to the lack of progress among blacks and ending it would do far more for them than increasing the size of their welfare checks ever could.

 

[Cold Front]

The total economy wasn't devastated because the capital in question, the slaves/former slaves, weren't lost. They just started working (somewhat) for themselves as opposed to being slaves. But the wealth of the former slave owners was devastated by the loss of their productive capital. Which is why they fought so hard to preserve it.

So what? We weren't talking about the plantation owners - whose wealth was minuscule compared both to the size of the national economy back then and especially compared to the wealth created after the end of slavery.

What did slaves contribute to this? Damn little. The south probably didn't contribute twenty percent to the U.S. GDP in 1860, and not al of that came from slavery.

 

[ncordless]

What about the horrifying treatment of Chinese people working to build the transcontinental railroad?

Definitely a horrible experience. I would also point to the racist immigration laws we had for a while which effectively banned Asians from immigrating as a reason why that minority is not larger. The west coast would be much more Asian if Asians had been allowed to participate in the great immigration periods like whites were. I'd also point to the internment of US citizens based on Japanese descent in WWII as a pretty horrible thing.

However, I'd be loathe to put this in the same level of past oppression as blacks and native americans, and thus, if we are giving reparations to certain historically disadvantaged groups but not others, less entitled to the reparations for past oppression.

 

[nixkid]

So what? We weren't talking about the plantation owners - whose wealth was minuscule compared both to the size of the national economy back then and especially compared to the wealth created after the end of slavery.

What did slaves contribute to this? Damn little. The south probably didn't contribute twenty percent to the U.S. GDP in 1860, and not al of that came from slavery.

I really wish you would just read the article.

In the seven cotton states, one-third of all white income was derived from slavery. By 1840, cotton produced by slave labor constituted 59 percent of the country

 

[Cold Front]

If someone beat my grandpa, I wouldn't feel it today. But if someone split my grandpa from my grandma and sold him to someone else, and because of that my father's family life was screwed up, and because of that my family life was screwed up, then I would likely feel it.

Well, most black families in America were intact as recently as the 1950s, so you're going to have to come up with something different.

How about the Native Americans? They seem like they haven't been harmed at all, right?

Yeah, by diseases. Something like 90 percent of them died. Reparations won't do them any good, and I doubt the pathogens will pay anyway.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're confusing correlation with causation. When Bush tried to help out blacks and Hispanics with his minority homeownership program, he only helped to increase the dimensions of a housing bubble that eventually hurt everyone's prosperity when it popped. Because they were economically unprepared to own homes.

Talk about an economically illiterate argument. Banks were systematically mispricing risk at all levels of the real estate market because ... Bush tried to help out non-whites? WTF?

 

[ncordless]

Well, most black families in America were intact as recently as the 1950s, so you're going to have to come up with something different.



Yeah, by diseases. Something like 90 percent of them died. Reparations won't do them any good, and I doubt the pathogens will pay anyway.

Storm Front's racial theories:
1. Blacks are inferior to whites and were lucky to be shipped from Africa.

2. Native Americans were not harmed by white expansion onto the North American continent. The Trail of Tears was really just a benefit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Storm Front's racial theories:
1. Blacks are inferior to whites and were lucky to be shipped from Africa.

2. Native Americans were not harmed by white expansion onto the North American continent. The Trail of Tears was really just a benefit.

Don't forget the newest one:

Bush's efforts to help minorities own homes contributed to the GFC because it led to home ownership among people who were "economically unprepared to own homes."

I guess there's a race-related explanation for everything, which explains why some people devote their lives to memorizing and repeating bad arguments for why their race is the raddest one.

 

[OldGoat]

Storm Front's racial theories:
1. Blacks are inferior to whites and were lucky to be shipped from Africa.

2. Native Americans were not harmed by white expansion onto the North American continent. The Trail of Tears was really just a benefit.

#2 is false. As soon as Native Americans and Europeans came into contact the lack of genetic diversity was going to be very dangerous for the Native Americans if they were susceptible to the wrong diseases. But since genes have no impact on outcome that can't be right either...

 

[Cold Front]

Technology lowers the cost of production. Thats the value add. I work in IT as an engineer (nope, I'm not a moocher by your definition, AND I'm black..did your head just explode?).

No, why would it? I've met many intelligent black people. There is just never going to be a preponderance of them in most black communities.

Most (but not all) of the work I've done has been business process automation. Automating things that humans can do (and have done for decades) but that are simply more efficient to do them without humans. What does "more efficient" mean? That its more profitable because labor costs go down and it frees up humans to do other things (or just be unemployed). Thats because there is a market for labor (its limited and its expensive). If there were an abundance of humans that would do the work for free than technology would add no value at all. Which is why slavery added value, why they were property, and why they were considered valuable assets. If slavery never fell out of vogue, the purchase of a slave today would be considered an capital expenditure in much the same way that the purchase of a computer or the funding of a software project is.

You were doing well here until you switched to slavery, and then it was more hocus-pocus.

Labor is an input to productivity, but it's not one which requires slavery to turn into an asset, and that's why the economy lurched along just fine after the abolition of slavery.

The end of slavery devastated some local interests, but most people adjusted and life - and the economy - went on like slavery hadn't mattered. Because it hadn't mattered much economically to the nation as a whole.

Of course, Bush's housing policy wouldn't have fixed this issue. Mainly because the damage was already done.

Again, you keep assuming that owning a house is some key to wealth - just like Bush assumed it was the gateway to middle class values.

A home is generally a poor investment. There's nothing wrong with owning your home (I do), and you probably won't lose money, but it's not a key to wealth creation. Many wealthy countries around the world - such as Germany and Switzerland - have low home ownership rates.

 

[Cold Front]

Talk about an economically illiterate argument. Banks were systematically mispricing risk at all levels of the real estate market because ... Bush tried to help out non-whites? WTF?

And you're just illiterate.

Did I not say the bubble already existed when Bush tried to blow it up even further.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And you're just illiterate.

Did I not say the bubble already existed when Bush tried to blow it up even further.

How do you think that happened, genius? What's your story on the bubble rise and fall and how it led to deeper problems in the economy?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

"The next day, I stationed myself by the side of the road, along which the slaves, amounting to three hundred and fifty, were to pass. The purchaser of my wife was a Methodist minister, who was about starting for North Carolina. Pretty soon five waggon-loads of little children passed, and looking at the foremost one, what should I see but a little child, pointing its tiny hand towards me, exclaiming,

 

[Cold Front]

Storm Front's racial theories:
1. Blacks are inferior to whites and were lucky to be shipped from Africa.

2. Native Americans were not harmed by white expansion onto the North American continent. The Trail of Tears was really just a benefit.

I don't know much anything this Storm Front, but it appears the people there must know more about history of the Americas than you do, if you think the Trail of Tears was more indicative of how Native Americans died than was disease.

William MacNeil, the author of Plagues and People, reports that Western adventurers would often come across villages that had died off before any white man even arrived. A series of plagues spread so efficiently across the Indian communities of the North America that they literally outraced whites across the continent.

 

[lfd0311]

That's ridiculous.

The effects of slavery have not disappeared.

Yes, they have. No person on the planet has ever met someone who was a slave in America.

Neither have the effects post-civil war segregation and racial discrimination.

Those are two seperate things.

The Constitution was ratified just over 200 years ago. Does that have no effect.

Totally different, and quite frankly ridiculous comparison.

 

[Cold Front]

How do you think that happened, genius? What's your story on the bubble rise and fall and how it led to deeper problems in the economy?

A variety of reasons, but mainly the invention of new financial instruments and a global glut of capital looking for new investment opportunities.

 

[lfd0311]

And here's the simple answer in the quote below. When do you feel racial discrimination and injustice ended? You can't seriously say the 1860's.

It's never going to end. it's human nature, like it or not.

 

[lfd0311]

As long as you are the victim, I would hope.

Sooo.. it died out at least 100 years ago?

 

[OldGoat]

That's heartbreaking. I couldn't even imagine how I would handle going through such a thing. What a horrible and shameful time in American history.

Shameful time of world history. And it's still occurring. Even today you can get slaves in Africa.