Ms. Gray seems to lack understanding of Economics and Comparative Economic Systems. Case in point: Sweden was a 'socialist country' several decades ago, but over time they discovered that a generous economic system was discouraging work, effort and and innovation. Decades ago the country had to update its 'socialism' to achieve a more dynamic society. They do have a safety net BUT they also expect citizens to work and contribute their fair share of effort to the country. It's a lovely country but not all the utopian 'honey & cream' that American Leftist think it is. People, like Ms. Gary really should get out and travel a bit as she sounds provincial.
I appreciated that you engaged with Ms. Gray, and that she attempted to engage with you.
I had many points where I was shocked at the ignorance and arrogance of her stances at certain points.
Clifton has done a far greater review than I could engage in, but quickly, two points.
First, of course, she trotted out the "real socialism has never been tried" canard. If America was just nicer to the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela or Red China, then we would have seen the thousand flowers blossom, and the establishment of the socialist paradise on Earth. That is simply ivory tower blather. If a superior economic system is going to get out and compete, it has to win. It does not depend on other countries or systems being "nice" to it. Also, the proof is in the pudding. How many purges and atrocities came from the establishment of these would-be paradises? How many refugees have fled, and continue to flee to the United States and other places? She has no example of successful socialism (or communism), something she thinks should be established here, in our country, first by trying to move towards Nordic social welfare, but then go further, and that is a dangerously wrong-headed direction that has no real world support. It's the path that leads to Red Guards and Commisars, gulags, purges, starvation, stagnation and shortages.
But sure, it has never been tried.
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
It was only when Germany turned on the USSR in 1941 that Stalin joined the Allied effort. Even still, the USSR kept its neutrality pact with Imperial Japan until 1945 (https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9333).
Nikita Khrushchev stated "'If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war,' . . . in his memoirs. 'One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me.'"
"In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: 'People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.'" (both quotes from https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
The United States not only sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives, but also armed the UK and the USSR with vital products, weapons and raw materials. It was the Arsenal of Freedom. The USSR through its own actions, incompetence and failures, saw the tragic death of millions of its soldiers and civilians.
To simply look at the body bag total, and say that Americans should not be proud of the critical role played in World War Two, because the USSR suffered more casualties, is to reduce a complicated and difficult history to a comparison of two statistics that are lacking context and valence. It is a debating tactic beneath the dignity of a thinking and educated person.
The United States has a very complicated history, but I still put it against any other nation in the course of history, and it is exceptional and it is admirable, with many warts, failures and a good does of shame. Ms. Gray would discard a shining moment AND hold up the USSR in the alternative with a simplistic narrative, to try to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not all that.
Ignorance and arrogance on display. Argue real history, and real nuance, and come to honest disagreements, sure, that is fine. But get off the leftist academic talking points, the canards, the false narratives and echo chamber call and response.
After all, we are dealing with serious issues here, that call for a serious and collective response by our country. There are real lives at stake, as well as the future of our country, which has been, and can be and should be a force for good in this world. It is not perfect, but it is better than the leading alternatives.
Does anyone want to live under PRC hegemony? Glenn raised it as a concern, and Ms. Gray did not even engage.
Thank you for your thoughts Clifton and Glenn. I always learn from this community and the discussion. I hope I don't fall to my own echo chamber, my own ignorance or arrogance (though I know it is always a danger).
Great article Clifton. My feeling is that Briahna is an empty suit in spite of her Ivy degrees and privileged life. I'm glad you took the time to illustrate it.
I've just been spending some time going through The Woodson Center's 1776 Unites Curriculum: https://1776unites.com/our-work/curriculum/. It's really well done with a focus on black history and achievement in America. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Briahna does not even know it exists.
I think that Glenn is pretty non confrontational in his podcast discussions/debates, especially when his guest is a pretty young woman with a seductive smile. I doubt that Briahna would have gotten off as easily if she debated Bob Woodson or Larry Elder.
Sorry to change the topic a little. Be curious to get Glenn's and everyone else's take. 8th grade and lower grade standardized test scores are highly correlated with every socio-economic outcome variable we have data on in least means squared regressions.
Improvement between 12th and 8th grade test scores are highly correlated with improved outcomes for girls and boys less than 50 percentile 8th grade test scores. For boys with medium to high 8th grade test scores, the gains in socio-economic performance later in life are within standard error for improvements in 12th grade test scores versus 8th grade test scores.
Is anyone aware of more recent econometric data on how K-12 standardized test scores are related to socio-economic outcomes later in life?
What are the arguments that the strong correlations between 8th grade standardized test scores and socio-economic outcomes later in life are not due to caucasation, but due to endogeneity or something else?
Here is some SWAG speculation:
---the actual causation variables might be four:
------physical health
------mental health
------intelligence
------"relations before transactions"
---these could be driving both the 8th grade standardized test scores as well as socio-economic outcomes later in life
---are there any other possible explanations?
My view is that even if there is endogeneity and the above four are the actual causative variables . . . the effort to increase standardized test score results will automatically lead to a major effort to increase the physical health, mental health, intelligence and "relations before transactions" of children around the world.
Be curious to hear everyone else's perspectives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FYI If we hold 8th grade test scores constant most socio-economic outcome differentials between blacks and non blacks significantly shrink. Please see the below Roland Fryer slide deck from 2010:
An An; smarter kids do better in life. heritability of intelligence even by age 8 is accounting for more than environmental factors. The genes responsible for intelligence continue to increase toward their phenotypic limit well into adulthood. bottom line...."class rank" is a RESULT of intelligence not a CAUSE of differentiated success in life.....therefore "on average" a child of 8 in the top 25% of his class ....will stay in the top 25% of that same class as a senior (becasue they will all grow into their own personal and different intelligence phenotypic maximums as they age. But change schools or neighborhoods and all bets off (new population ...new class rank)
for additional research read "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
It's a nutty mindset that pretends culture has nothing to do with anything. William Darity says *people* can make different choices from one another but groups cannot. What does he think groups are made of?
A few years ago I was in a big car with a family full of parents, kids, cousins, etc., driving through Rocky Mountain National Park singing along with John Denver songs. You know how white people are. A few days later, in a small town, a van rolled into a parking lot blaring loud rap music, something about putting a cap in someone on a street somewhere. When the van disgorged, I saw that the occupants were white. Whatever. Which vehicle would I want rolling past me late at night if I were alone? One was about filling up senses and the other was about murder.
Gray's about education assertion was funny. I've heard it many times, and it's obviously untrue. The world is full of "known" things that are wrong. Type in a few words about diversity in business and you'll see a raft of articles telling us diversity is good for business. Profits are higher. Click the links (usually two levels deep) and we learn that someone did a survey asking employees if they *thought* diversity was good for business. Surprise! Many said yes—because their executives (who know better) told them so. Google prefers the popular lie over things that are true. Look up anything on women and investing and we learn that women are "better" investors. Yet (if we find real data) we learn they are much less likely to invest. How can they be better if they sit on their cash? Somebody did a study, and got the results they wanted. Google features the lie, multiplies it by ten, and it becomes our truth.
Gray's bashing of capitalism was fun also. Apparently the microphone she spoke into invented itself.
Great job, Glen. Both of you were cordial and respectful, a nice change from how these conversations can go (Kendi, Coates, etc.).
you can't compare apples and oranges and some to any conclusions.....
Tell me how blacks are doing AFTER normalizing for IQ, marriage and criminal behavior? In other words, how are:- non criminal , -married blacks, - with an IQ of 100 doing in America?
Because of affirmative action you may find that they are actually "out performing" married whites with average IQ of 100 and no criminal history.....compare "like things" if you are trying to ascertain level of "racism" in this country......there are many variables with partial explanatory power for disparities between races.....I highlighted three...but here is another one.....age. The most common age for whites is 58 but only 11 for Hispanics, 27 for blacks......who has more wealth accumulated and who is in their peak $ earning years? so if you compare at total populations...without "normalizing" for these and other factors you are not comparing like things and no sound conclusions can be reached.
Wow! I hope Clifton Roscoe continues to pipe up and provide data for refutation, or support, to the guests.
Clifton Roscoe vs. Briahna Joy Gray winner= Clifton Roscoe by "Technical" Knockout (TKO)
***Programming note for Glenn; This is exactly what I was writing about when I suggested allowing guests to make their case and then you doing a "follow up" episode analyzing their arguments against available empirical data. Much more interesting then sophistry alone
Thanks Clifton, for the great response. And Glenn, given all of what Clifton has added to this discussion, I might suggest having Briahna Joy Gray back on to the show for round 2...?
OMG!!! If this email was a speech, I'd give it a standing ovation. And I think most of the Glenn Show followers would follow my lead!!! Great email!!!!!
I always enjoy Glenn and learn from him and his guests. Clifton did a great job with his input. That said, I am not as optimistic as Clifton and some who posted here that seem to think capitalism is the best solution. I do think something more like Scandanavian Socialism will likely need to be the solution once the AI revolution takes hold in maybe 10 to 20 years given the projected job losses even projected for the middle and professional classes. Our reliance on individualism may have run its course and we need to become more collective oriented. I live in Orlando, Florida where the average cost for a one-bedroom apartment rental is $1541 a month. I read this in our paper for example: "The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are out. And once again, Central Florida ranks dead last among America’s largest metros when it comes to wages. We rank 50th out of 50 with median hourly wages of $17.59, meaning half the jobs pay less than $36,588 a year." All I can say is capitalism as we have it today is not cutting it for a lot of people. Many are angry. Many Millennial types are in a bad place in the capitalist game. I figure with AI job losses coming and then as climate change kicks in harder driving people to migrate out of survival needs things are liable to get much worse leading to violence that may be beyond what I saw in the 1960s. I certainly hope I am wrong about all that.
Thanks Thomas. I just call them as I see them. I take this newsletter https://www.readtangle.com/ among others as part of my efforts to learn every side of the story. I think if one does not know both sides of an argument then one has probably not done their research sufficiently. Also, I pay close attention to not be sucked into being tribal and make others wrong for coming to different conclusions than mine.
Which Scandinavian country is socialist? AFAIK, they all have pretty free markets and large social safety nets. Denmark has greater economic freedom than the US according to the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Idk if free markets would stop them from being "socialists", market socialism has existed for decades and it's more like what the Scandinavians have than free market capitalism. Honestly I'm not even sure antiquated 20th century cold war BS should be used anymore. We're all hybrid economies at this point.
Ironically I think most of the countries on that list ahead of the US would be derided as "socialism" by Conservatives and Libertarians here. Take for instance universal healthcare, a policy that conservatives have spent decades fear mongering over but many of those freer countries have some form of universal healthcare and a stronger regulatory state.
AFAICT, there's never been any economy based on any pure theory, so you're certainly right that they're all some kind of hybrid. What I take issue with is the idea that the US would be better if it worked more like a "socialist" Scandinavian country.
How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US? AFAICT, they all have stronger property rights than the US. Perhaps we should become more like them because they're less socialist.
"How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US"
So just to clarify, when I'm referring to these nations as socialist I'm definitely using the more watered down Democratic Socialist/Market socialist meaning.
The Scandinavian nations for instance, in most of them state owned enterprises account for a majority of the nation's GDP (It's something crazy like 86% in Norway).
They all have universal healthcare systems, paid for by taxes and run by local municipalities (The Netherlands run a hybrid model).
Each nation has considerably stronger regulatory apparatuses, Norway again, has higher taxes on high sugar products and strong regulations on advertisement, see the Big Gulp controversy, look at the literature on sugar as an accute toxin and tell me that was the hill for libertarians to die on. Although in defense of the Libs, I'm sure they'd agree we should stop subsidizing big corn.
Their work forces if I recall correctly, are much more unionized than we are, we're talking more than half of their labor forces being in trade unions.
I can go on to other nations like Japan, S.Korea, Germany, NZ and Australia etc. They are almost all more left economically, politically and socially (I think the Asian model is socially conservative).
This is why personally I subscribe to the SucDem model, ironically a restraint on negative freedom, especially for those with power, wealth and affluence can lead to an increase in positive liberty.
What is the SucDem model? Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work. If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back? Multiple that by all state-owned enterprises, wouldn't it be easier just pay less, don't tax except non-state workers & non-state made good & services and just give them what they need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc). Then their actual pay could be spent on keeping small businesses (non-essentials) going. This is not sarcasm, I really don't understand it.
Just short for Social Democratic, I could've used Dem Soc but there some small discrepancies between the two although they a much more alike than different. The model is implemented in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Portugal, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea etc. Just about every wealthy nation that implements it has considerably better ratings on a range of metrics from education to health to life expectancy to crime and so on.
"Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work"
We have some here in the states but it's a bit confusing to be honest. You can think of it on a spectrum ranging from an organization like NPR (I'm not sure if NPR counts as one though) to the Tennesse Valley Authority to the United States Postal Service. But historically the US has generally decided to run with the private business model and state owned enterprises often have to compete with for profit business ventures.
"If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back"
Haha this was something we used to complain about back in the Army. It never made sense that I was paying federal and NY State taxes even though I was station outside of NY. Yes I agree it's kind of dumb.
Ah, you got me on that one. I suppose at the time I wrote the above I was thinking like a person to the right of the spectrum would think of socialism. You know, all the socialism that exists here in the USA we hear about often in certain publications, TV stations and politicians. The socialism that will destroy the American way of life they want to preserve. Indeed, many capitalist countries in Europe and even in the USA today have at least some socialist aspects to their economic systems. I am just wanted to point out I think the movement to what many would consider the left seems likely to me given what is on our plate and is coming. I like the way this page parses the types of socialism and communism here. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democratic-socialist-countries Then you just might want to say "OK Boomer" and just move on 😉.
No they are not. The whole term "socialism" turns on one's definition of that term much like "racist" turns on one's definition of that term. The link to the article goes into how socialism depends on one's definition of the term very well I thought. The article says about Denmark in particular as follows: "Denmark is generally considered to be a Scandinavian country, and the Scandinavian countries – which also include Finland, Norway, and Sweden – are renowned for their socialist policies and overall high rates of happiness and well-being. That said, Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist."
So, the article you linked to is internally inconsistent. It starts with "Democratic Socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government." Collective ownership of production and wealth is fundamentally incompatible with a free market economy.
What if we ignore the first sentence of the article and just look at the section about Denmark? If Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist, isn't the same true of the United States? If Denmark encourages businesses to run solely on market principles rather than government policies, why is it categorized as a Democratic Socialist state while the US is not?
If you want me to acknowledge you are right and I am wrong I am fine with that since you may know a lot more about these things than I do. Additionally, I am not looking for an argument. The main thrust of my assertion in the beginning, which is only an opinion, is that the USA is liable to go more into socialist solutions than capitalist ones given the current situation and the future challenges. I certainly do not know why the authors of that article made the decisions/assertions they made in writing the article. If you want to argue their points then do contact them. I just liked how they parsed the terms socialism and communism.
I have so many questions. How many of these countries have diverse populations? How will they deal with the influx of refugees? Do those from unsuccessful socialist countries near their borders look to move there? What are their legal immigration requirements? How many require some type of work requirements for the safety net? How good is the healthcare and how restrictive? Here they talk of Medicare-for All, but unless you pay for Secondary or Supplemental insurance it is quite restrictive. CMMS basically "manages" most healthcare guidelines & most insurers follow them. Do these countries have a robust investment community & stock market? Does the wealthy investment class or wealthy hereditary class "pay their fair share" or shelter ass much as possible? Is crypto the new Swiss bank account? I ask these without sarcasm.
All good questions Nancy. I don't have the answers of course. As a retired person who is rich in time to spend as he pleases I looked up the diverse question and the answer ethnically is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/ but basically the USA is not very diverse ethnically. If you ask culturally it is here: https://www.londonschool.com/lsic/resources/blog/united-states-land-cultural-diversity/ and the answer culturally is the USA is very much diverse...a "melting pot" as we say. The migration question that I was thinking about is people moving from places where they could grow crops, raise animals, did not require air conditioning to live comfortably but now because they are so hot they can't live there any longer thus they will move just to survive. They will be desperate people. One of the reasons there was so much Syrian immigration was not just over the war. It was over the lack of water from drought and the heat. People had to move to survive. Of course, the war made things just worse. Immigrations requirements will not stop them if they are desperate. You likely know what happened in Europe so we can expect more of that scene as climate change becomes more compelling to survival in some parts of the world like Central America for example. As for work requirements to access (there will be no jobs to access by the way in the near future due to the AI and climate change) the safety net, well, if we in the USA want to live with many, many more people living in the streets than today we will have to give up the notion of work requirements. It probably won't be as bad as India with folks living in the streets but it will be much larger than I think many in the USA will feel good about having in the streets. We also will have to build a state-of-the-art "tech wall" of drones, listening devices, visual devices, robots, etc. on the southern border to hold back and/or capture those that are coming our way from the south. Then when we do capture them we will have to push them back to Mexico to squalor or take care of them in the USA. It all is just not going to be very pretty is my thinking. Enough. End the rant. I am sure you get the idea. I certainly hope I am very wrong in these matters and I am not an optimist in the matter.
Thanks for taking the time to do some research and respond so quickly. As noted much of the data in the first article is old. With the increased emphasis on identity and population increases over the last few decades, I wonder if the map would look different. Here in the US, I can't remember when the census started breaking down the race/ethnicity questions into more categories. I understand why people migrate, but my question was more from the other side. How are the people in these social democracies responding to the new immigrants & refugees? Are they impacting the "safety net" negatively/positively(getting jobs & paying taxes)/not at all? I have heard anecdotally that some of the European countries require some work and will find people jobs, but not sure how that works or if really does. Can't imagine would here. AI will impact some jobs, esp. non-skilled & semi-skilled, but I assume will create others. To some extent so will climate change along with different livable areas. (Still have Shellenberger's book to read.) My other question for those proponents of the "Scandinavian" model is if it's so great why don't you try living there? (can read with sarcasm)
Your welcome. Easy if one is retired. I have not read up on how people are responding to the migrations in Europe in depth. Just off the top of my head from my reading not too well in most countries to awful in a couple like Poland and especially Hungary. Germany has been the best at accepting them since they realize they need them. That said Germany has had an alarming increase in hard-right parties being supported by the voters. Here is a good article on the issue https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/countries-less-accepting-of-migrants-study-finds I do think that the nature of human beings who are so tribal that the knee-jerk reaction is to reject people not "like me" and these migrants won't be "like me". The whole AI impact is well fleshed out with numbers here: https://techjury.net/blog/jobs-lost-to-automation-statistics/#gref From my reading I think they are a bit optimistic that it won't impact professionals much. AI already reads X-rays and MRIs better than a human radiologist MD. Attorneys are being replaced by AI as well and have been for 5 or 10 years by AI. My B.A. degreed computer scientist nephew who made well into the six figures in a job says he is already retraining in more specialized areas since he can see AI will be writing the code that he is writing these days very soon. Additionally, per the article, while there will be new jobs created from AI they will be for educated people who can re-train into them. As for the piece read with sarcasm on why don't you try living there. In my reading, the younger crowd are very much predisposed to like socialism see here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx I doubt these numbers have gone anywhere but up since the pandemic. Thus in the long run as the older generations exit the scene the long-term trend favors socialist approaches over capitalistic ones it seems. I of course don't have a dog in the hunt as I won't be here for the situation unless reincarnation is what is next. I just figure it is not going to be pretty. You might want to look at this article: Social physics: Are we at a tipping point in world history?
Thank you Glenn for these discussions. I was born in Bay Area and not Eastern Europe in later 1960’s only because of family migration decisions decades prior. Yes, USA is exceptional.
On benefit of 2-parent households: I am a gay man and I strongly support the 2-parent model. Not an expert, not my field of study, but off the top of my head - I imagine numerous dimensions within the behavioral category that would be compelling. The lack of curiosity and complete silence of entire institutions on the benefit of 2-parent model is interesting. Perhaps my colleagues are traumatized by the specter of abuse within the home, and generalizing across broader society.
While appreciative of the Glenn-Brianha discussion, it should be in addition to, not in place of the professional and methodical, structured hierarchical discussions that institutions refuse to engage in. Any courtroom judge can attest to methodical process of discussion to determine if John Doe robbed a bank. I have watched with my own eyes as numerous institutions and organizations have intentionally refused a professional and methodical discourse that would guarantee the due process of information at each step - since 2017. We must reinstate due process at the institutions.
I write this because many of Briahna’s speculative statements are equally echoed within institutions without the necessary exploration.
Prof. Loury should present Mr. Roscoe's letter to Ms. Gray and ask her to respond to each of his points in their next video encounter. It deserves her direct, straight no chaser response.
i know exactly what you're saying +asking but thats not her job description. she's an activist +i'd say thats not what she does. i dont agree w gray or even her tone +she probably doesnt like mine but do you think she's on a mission for the truth? i dont. she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?
I hope you’re not under the impression that most people in this particular subculture are out for the truth. Even GL at times can be seen doubling down on ideological presups.
Also the idea that she’s not happy to “educate or enlighten her audience”. Dude this was a discussion on HER podcast. It was shared to the Glenn Show but it was her podcast and I’ll be honest, she’s spent a lot more time on the ground interacting with heterodox thinkers than you want to give her credit for.
i'd like to say i understand what you're saying but dont see how it follows what i said. but i'm not sure i understand your point +i really dont see how it follows anything i said.
where the podcast occurred is irrelevant.
where she's spent her time on the ground interacting is irrelevant. its a logical fallacy to think bcoz she interacts w heterdox thinkers she is interested in truth. see evanf above but here's a taste:
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
i'm sorry but i was pointing out that activists are neither philosophers using logic nor economists using calculus to teach: rather they are using any means to sway our opinion whether reasoned or not. but ok young lady xo
"she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?"
Besides the massive amount of psychologizing here, I'd say Glenn falls under a similar category as BJG. If you think he's not also an activist Idk what to tell you. He definitely has strong ideological blinders (like we all do). He may be an economist, but so is Richard Wolff, Paul Krugmann and Joseph Stiglitz. All three economists (two of whom are award winning) are to the left to varying degrees. Are you going to give their views the same legitimacy you give Loury's? I could be wrong but I don't think so, so basically in the context of this conversation none of that matters.
So falling back on her position as an activist doesn't discredit her as a truth seeker. Her being pushing historical revisionism (I personally don't think the Soviets were exceptional in WWII) doesn't negate the wide set of beliefs and policies she subscribes to either.
here's what you've convinced me from you arguments from opinion +lack of evidence: you are much much younger than glenn plus are very enamored w gray.
i am much closer in age to glenn +altho i dont usually agree w him i listen to his casts +he provides much better evidence for his arguments than either your or gray.
thnx but i don't see any point in the yo-yo back n forth. i know that we have both made our positions very clear +neither of us needs to explain our positions any further. got it? i hope so.
due to prog degenerative neuro disorder i make mistakes+deleted to edit. i made make another delete while my cat barks to get inside. my god i don't have enough frustration here
This has almost nothing to do with my comment but ok, but I guess everyone who you disagree with is either "dishonest", unwilling to be educated or fact free. Lol what shitty way to handle other people.
People are always going to disagree over priorities and policy decisions. People are always going to spin and cherry-pick statistics which bolster their objectives. They always have and always will, and that's as it should be.
Today, however, we are regularly asked to make electoral and policy decisions based on agreed-upon falsehoods. That seems new, and ominous.
Thanks to Clifton Roscoe for pointing out that the claim about the educational attainment of Black women is inconsistent with the Census data. I wondered how such a mistake could be made and therefore went back and looked at the "source" for the claim. Here's what is says: "For example, although Black women only make up 12.7% of the female population in the country, they consistently make up over 50% of the number of Black people who receive postsecondary degrees. Percentage-wise, Black women outpace white women, Latinas, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans in this arena as well." (Footnote omitted.) It seems that the author (who claims to be a "college professor") made the fundamental logical error of mistaking "the percentage that Black women make up of all Blacks who receive postsecondary degrees" for "the percentage of Black women who receive postsecondary degrees." It is amazing to me that a "college professor" could make such a mistake and then that the mistake widely propagated, creating an entirely false narrative.
you inspired me to check the sources. on the hbcu article (from which i think the prof took her stats bcoz the comments are from 2016, prof is from 2020) 4 comments point out the inaccuracy +ask that the title be changed from : educated to enrolled. the education standards have dropped but on this article the readers saw the flaw. wow.
i just find this sad that a publication that speaks for +calls itself hbcu buzz would put out these stats +after calls for correction from readers -right there on the page- there has been no addendum but others are using this as source material. jesus
Ms. Gray seems to lack understanding of Economics and Comparative Economic Systems. Case in point: Sweden was a 'socialist country' several decades ago, but over time they discovered that a generous economic system was discouraging work, effort and and innovation. Decades ago the country had to update its 'socialism' to achieve a more dynamic society. They do have a safety net BUT they also expect citizens to work and contribute their fair share of effort to the country. It's a lovely country but not all the utopian 'honey & cream' that American Leftist think it is. People, like Ms. Gary really should get out and travel a bit as she sounds provincial.
Thank you Clifton and Glenn.
I appreciated that you engaged with Ms. Gray, and that she attempted to engage with you.
I had many points where I was shocked at the ignorance and arrogance of her stances at certain points.
Clifton has done a far greater review than I could engage in, but quickly, two points.
First, of course, she trotted out the "real socialism has never been tried" canard. If America was just nicer to the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela or Red China, then we would have seen the thousand flowers blossom, and the establishment of the socialist paradise on Earth. That is simply ivory tower blather. If a superior economic system is going to get out and compete, it has to win. It does not depend on other countries or systems being "nice" to it. Also, the proof is in the pudding. How many purges and atrocities came from the establishment of these would-be paradises? How many refugees have fled, and continue to flee to the United States and other places? She has no example of successful socialism (or communism), something she thinks should be established here, in our country, first by trying to move towards Nordic social welfare, but then go further, and that is a dangerously wrong-headed direction that has no real world support. It's the path that leads to Red Guards and Commisars, gulags, purges, starvation, stagnation and shortages.
But sure, it has never been tried.
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
What this simplistic analysis elides is the fact that the Soviets were deeply complicit in the rearming of Germany (https://www.newswise.com/articles/historian-offers-first-deep-dive-into-secret-german-soviet-alliance-that-laid-groundwork-for-wwii; https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/sowing-the-wind-the-first-soviet-german-military-pact-and-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/). After the ascension of the Nazi regime, the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact, and trade and technical support continued to flow at an increased rate between the aggressive and murderous Nazi government and the aggressive and murderous Soviet government (https://www.persee.fr/doc/cmr_1252-6576_1995_num_36_1_2425).
The USSR helped build the Nazi war machine. The USSR divided Poland up with Nazi Germany, invading from the east as Hitler invaded from the west in 1939 (https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/06/world-war-ii-the-invasion-of-poland-and-the-winter-war/100094/) (Stalin then went on to invade Finland; he was not worried about being betrayed by Hitler).
It was only when Germany turned on the USSR in 1941 that Stalin joined the Allied effort. Even still, the USSR kept its neutrality pact with Imperial Japan until 1945 (https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9333).
Throughout the war, the United States provided materiel to the Soviets to keep them in the fight (https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling%20%2411.3%20billion%2C%20or%20%24180,common%20enemy%20%E2%80%94%20bloodthirsty%20Hitlerism.%E2%80%9D; https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
Nikita Khrushchev stated "'If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war,' . . . in his memoirs. 'One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me.'"
"In 1963, KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov saying: 'People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own.'" (both quotes from https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html).
The United States not only sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives, but also armed the UK and the USSR with vital products, weapons and raw materials. It was the Arsenal of Freedom. The USSR through its own actions, incompetence and failures, saw the tragic death of millions of its soldiers and civilians.
To simply look at the body bag total, and say that Americans should not be proud of the critical role played in World War Two, because the USSR suffered more casualties, is to reduce a complicated and difficult history to a comparison of two statistics that are lacking context and valence. It is a debating tactic beneath the dignity of a thinking and educated person.
The United States has a very complicated history, but I still put it against any other nation in the course of history, and it is exceptional and it is admirable, with many warts, failures and a good does of shame. Ms. Gray would discard a shining moment AND hold up the USSR in the alternative with a simplistic narrative, to try to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not all that.
Ignorance and arrogance on display. Argue real history, and real nuance, and come to honest disagreements, sure, that is fine. But get off the leftist academic talking points, the canards, the false narratives and echo chamber call and response.
After all, we are dealing with serious issues here, that call for a serious and collective response by our country. There are real lives at stake, as well as the future of our country, which has been, and can be and should be a force for good in this world. It is not perfect, but it is better than the leading alternatives.
Does anyone want to live under PRC hegemony? Glenn raised it as a concern, and Ms. Gray did not even engage.
Thank you for your thoughts Clifton and Glenn. I always learn from this community and the discussion. I hope I don't fall to my own echo chamber, my own ignorance or arrogance (though I know it is always a danger).
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for a much needed history lesson. Condense it to 140 characters &/or emojis for the young 'uns.
Sorry I wrote I long comment. I didn't have time to write a short one ;-)
Great article Clifton. My feeling is that Briahna is an empty suit in spite of her Ivy degrees and privileged life. I'm glad you took the time to illustrate it.
I've just been spending some time going through The Woodson Center's 1776 Unites Curriculum: https://1776unites.com/our-work/curriculum/. It's really well done with a focus on black history and achievement in America. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Briahna does not even know it exists.
I think that Glenn is pretty non confrontational in his podcast discussions/debates, especially when his guest is a pretty young woman with a seductive smile. I doubt that Briahna would have gotten off as easily if she debated Bob Woodson or Larry Elder.
Sorry to change the topic a little. Be curious to get Glenn's and everyone else's take. 8th grade and lower grade standardized test scores are highly correlated with every socio-economic outcome variable we have data on in least means squared regressions.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp11808.pdf
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.508.567&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Improvement between 12th and 8th grade test scores are highly correlated with improved outcomes for girls and boys less than 50 percentile 8th grade test scores. For boys with medium to high 8th grade test scores, the gains in socio-economic performance later in life are within standard error for improvements in 12th grade test scores versus 8th grade test scores.
Is anyone aware of more recent econometric data on how K-12 standardized test scores are related to socio-economic outcomes later in life?
What are the arguments that the strong correlations between 8th grade standardized test scores and socio-economic outcomes later in life are not due to caucasation, but due to endogeneity or something else?
Here is some SWAG speculation:
---the actual causation variables might be four:
------physical health
------mental health
------intelligence
------"relations before transactions"
---these could be driving both the 8th grade standardized test scores as well as socio-economic outcomes later in life
---are there any other possible explanations?
My view is that even if there is endogeneity and the above four are the actual causative variables . . . the effort to increase standardized test score results will automatically lead to a major effort to increase the physical health, mental health, intelligence and "relations before transactions" of children around the world.
Be curious to hear everyone else's perspectives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FYI If we hold 8th grade test scores constant most socio-economic outcome differentials between blacks and non blacks significantly shrink. Please see the below Roland Fryer slide deck from 2010:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnOi0w8rgYs&t=765s
https://www.slideshare.net/barcelonagse/roland-fryerbarcelonagsecalvoprize
An An; smarter kids do better in life. heritability of intelligence even by age 8 is accounting for more than environmental factors. The genes responsible for intelligence continue to increase toward their phenotypic limit well into adulthood. bottom line...."class rank" is a RESULT of intelligence not a CAUSE of differentiated success in life.....therefore "on average" a child of 8 in the top 25% of his class ....will stay in the top 25% of that same class as a senior (becasue they will all grow into their own personal and different intelligence phenotypic maximums as they age. But change schools or neighborhoods and all bets off (new population ...new class rank)
for additional research read "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
It's a nutty mindset that pretends culture has nothing to do with anything. William Darity says *people* can make different choices from one another but groups cannot. What does he think groups are made of?
A few years ago I was in a big car with a family full of parents, kids, cousins, etc., driving through Rocky Mountain National Park singing along with John Denver songs. You know how white people are. A few days later, in a small town, a van rolled into a parking lot blaring loud rap music, something about putting a cap in someone on a street somewhere. When the van disgorged, I saw that the occupants were white. Whatever. Which vehicle would I want rolling past me late at night if I were alone? One was about filling up senses and the other was about murder.
Gray's about education assertion was funny. I've heard it many times, and it's obviously untrue. The world is full of "known" things that are wrong. Type in a few words about diversity in business and you'll see a raft of articles telling us diversity is good for business. Profits are higher. Click the links (usually two levels deep) and we learn that someone did a survey asking employees if they *thought* diversity was good for business. Surprise! Many said yes—because their executives (who know better) told them so. Google prefers the popular lie over things that are true. Look up anything on women and investing and we learn that women are "better" investors. Yet (if we find real data) we learn they are much less likely to invest. How can they be better if they sit on their cash? Somebody did a study, and got the results they wanted. Google features the lie, multiplies it by ten, and it becomes our truth.
Gray's bashing of capitalism was fun also. Apparently the microphone she spoke into invented itself.
Great job, Glen. Both of you were cordial and respectful, a nice change from how these conversations can go (Kendi, Coates, etc.).
you can't compare apples and oranges and some to any conclusions.....
Tell me how blacks are doing AFTER normalizing for IQ, marriage and criminal behavior? In other words, how are:- non criminal , -married blacks, - with an IQ of 100 doing in America?
Because of affirmative action you may find that they are actually "out performing" married whites with average IQ of 100 and no criminal history.....compare "like things" if you are trying to ascertain level of "racism" in this country......there are many variables with partial explanatory power for disparities between races.....I highlighted three...but here is another one.....age. The most common age for whites is 58 but only 11 for Hispanics, 27 for blacks......who has more wealth accumulated and who is in their peak $ earning years? so if you compare at total populations...without "normalizing" for these and other factors you are not comparing like things and no sound conclusions can be reached.
***Clifton Roscoe..... do your stuff!
Wow! I hope Clifton Roscoe continues to pipe up and provide data for refutation, or support, to the guests.
Clifton Roscoe vs. Briahna Joy Gray winner= Clifton Roscoe by "Technical" Knockout (TKO)
***Programming note for Glenn; This is exactly what I was writing about when I suggested allowing guests to make their case and then you doing a "follow up" episode analyzing their arguments against available empirical data. Much more interesting then sophistry alone
Thanks Clifton, for the great response. And Glenn, given all of what Clifton has added to this discussion, I might suggest having Briahna Joy Gray back on to the show for round 2...?
Thank you Clifton from a grateful Homer! I appreciate the time and talent that went into your post!
I too was unconvinced by Ms. Gray who is less well informed than she realizes. Clifton Roscoe response is right on!
OMG!!! If this email was a speech, I'd give it a standing ovation. And I think most of the Glenn Show followers would follow my lead!!! Great email!!!!!
I almost got out of my chair to do just that! Mr. Roscoe was amazing.
I always enjoy Glenn and learn from him and his guests. Clifton did a great job with his input. That said, I am not as optimistic as Clifton and some who posted here that seem to think capitalism is the best solution. I do think something more like Scandanavian Socialism will likely need to be the solution once the AI revolution takes hold in maybe 10 to 20 years given the projected job losses even projected for the middle and professional classes. Our reliance on individualism may have run its course and we need to become more collective oriented. I live in Orlando, Florida where the average cost for a one-bedroom apartment rental is $1541 a month. I read this in our paper for example: "The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are out. And once again, Central Florida ranks dead last among America’s largest metros when it comes to wages. We rank 50th out of 50 with median hourly wages of $17.59, meaning half the jobs pay less than $36,588 a year." All I can say is capitalism as we have it today is not cutting it for a lot of people. Many are angry. Many Millennial types are in a bad place in the capitalist game. I figure with AI job losses coming and then as climate change kicks in harder driving people to migrate out of survival needs things are liable to get much worse leading to violence that may be beyond what I saw in the 1960s. I certainly hope I am wrong about all that.
Happy to see your takes on here. It's good to get some push back.
Thanks Thomas. I just call them as I see them. I take this newsletter https://www.readtangle.com/ among others as part of my efforts to learn every side of the story. I think if one does not know both sides of an argument then one has probably not done their research sufficiently. Also, I pay close attention to not be sucked into being tribal and make others wrong for coming to different conclusions than mine.
Which Scandinavian country is socialist? AFAIK, they all have pretty free markets and large social safety nets. Denmark has greater economic freedom than the US according to the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Idk if free markets would stop them from being "socialists", market socialism has existed for decades and it's more like what the Scandinavians have than free market capitalism. Honestly I'm not even sure antiquated 20th century cold war BS should be used anymore. We're all hybrid economies at this point.
Ironically I think most of the countries on that list ahead of the US would be derided as "socialism" by Conservatives and Libertarians here. Take for instance universal healthcare, a policy that conservatives have spent decades fear mongering over but many of those freer countries have some form of universal healthcare and a stronger regulatory state.
AFAICT, there's never been any economy based on any pure theory, so you're certainly right that they're all some kind of hybrid. What I take issue with is the idea that the US would be better if it worked more like a "socialist" Scandinavian country.
How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US? AFAICT, they all have stronger property rights than the US. Perhaps we should become more like them because they're less socialist.
"How are Denmark, Norway and Sweden more socialist than the US"
So just to clarify, when I'm referring to these nations as socialist I'm definitely using the more watered down Democratic Socialist/Market socialist meaning.
The Scandinavian nations for instance, in most of them state owned enterprises account for a majority of the nation's GDP (It's something crazy like 86% in Norway).
They all have universal healthcare systems, paid for by taxes and run by local municipalities (The Netherlands run a hybrid model).
Each nation has considerably stronger regulatory apparatuses, Norway again, has higher taxes on high sugar products and strong regulations on advertisement, see the Big Gulp controversy, look at the literature on sugar as an accute toxin and tell me that was the hill for libertarians to die on. Although in defense of the Libs, I'm sure they'd agree we should stop subsidizing big corn.
Their work forces if I recall correctly, are much more unionized than we are, we're talking more than half of their labor forces being in trade unions.
I can go on to other nations like Japan, S.Korea, Germany, NZ and Australia etc. They are almost all more left economically, politically and socially (I think the Asian model is socially conservative).
This is why personally I subscribe to the SucDem model, ironically a restraint on negative freedom, especially for those with power, wealth and affluence can lead to an increase in positive liberty.
What is the SucDem model? Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work. If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back? Multiple that by all state-owned enterprises, wouldn't it be easier just pay less, don't tax except non-state workers & non-state made good & services and just give them what they need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc). Then their actual pay could be spent on keeping small businesses (non-essentials) going. This is not sarcasm, I really don't understand it.
"What is the SucDem model"
Just short for Social Democratic, I could've used Dem Soc but there some small discrepancies between the two although they a much more alike than different. The model is implemented in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Portugal, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea etc. Just about every wealthy nation that implements it has considerably better ratings on a range of metrics from education to health to life expectancy to crime and so on.
"Am not sure how state-owned enterprises work"
We have some here in the states but it's a bit confusing to be honest. You can think of it on a spectrum ranging from an organization like NPR (I'm not sure if NPR counts as one though) to the Tennesse Valley Authority to the United States Postal Service. But historically the US has generally decided to run with the private business model and state owned enterprises often have to compete with for profit business ventures.
"If the State owns a factory, for instance, and pays it's worker, then the State taxes those workers aren't they just paying the State back"
Haha this was something we used to complain about back in the Army. It never made sense that I was paying federal and NY State taxes even though I was station outside of NY. Yes I agree it's kind of dumb.
Ah, you got me on that one. I suppose at the time I wrote the above I was thinking like a person to the right of the spectrum would think of socialism. You know, all the socialism that exists here in the USA we hear about often in certain publications, TV stations and politicians. The socialism that will destroy the American way of life they want to preserve. Indeed, many capitalist countries in Europe and even in the USA today have at least some socialist aspects to their economic systems. I am just wanted to point out I think the movement to what many would consider the left seems likely to me given what is on our plate and is coming. I like the way this page parses the types of socialism and communism here. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democratic-socialist-countries Then you just might want to say "OK Boomer" and just move on 😉.
Are production and wealth collectively owned in Denmark?
No they are not. The whole term "socialism" turns on one's definition of that term much like "racist" turns on one's definition of that term. The link to the article goes into how socialism depends on one's definition of the term very well I thought. The article says about Denmark in particular as follows: "Denmark is generally considered to be a Scandinavian country, and the Scandinavian countries – which also include Finland, Norway, and Sweden – are renowned for their socialist policies and overall high rates of happiness and well-being. That said, Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist."
So, the article you linked to is internally inconsistent. It starts with "Democratic Socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government." Collective ownership of production and wealth is fundamentally incompatible with a free market economy.
What if we ignore the first sentence of the article and just look at the section about Denmark? If Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist, isn't the same true of the United States? If Denmark encourages businesses to run solely on market principles rather than government policies, why is it categorized as a Democratic Socialist state while the US is not?
If you want me to acknowledge you are right and I am wrong I am fine with that since you may know a lot more about these things than I do. Additionally, I am not looking for an argument. The main thrust of my assertion in the beginning, which is only an opinion, is that the USA is liable to go more into socialist solutions than capitalist ones given the current situation and the future challenges. I certainly do not know why the authors of that article made the decisions/assertions they made in writing the article. If you want to argue their points then do contact them. I just liked how they parsed the terms socialism and communism.
I have so many questions. How many of these countries have diverse populations? How will they deal with the influx of refugees? Do those from unsuccessful socialist countries near their borders look to move there? What are their legal immigration requirements? How many require some type of work requirements for the safety net? How good is the healthcare and how restrictive? Here they talk of Medicare-for All, but unless you pay for Secondary or Supplemental insurance it is quite restrictive. CMMS basically "manages" most healthcare guidelines & most insurers follow them. Do these countries have a robust investment community & stock market? Does the wealthy investment class or wealthy hereditary class "pay their fair share" or shelter ass much as possible? Is crypto the new Swiss bank account? I ask these without sarcasm.
All good questions Nancy. I don't have the answers of course. As a retired person who is rich in time to spend as he pleases I looked up the diverse question and the answer ethnically is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/ but basically the USA is not very diverse ethnically. If you ask culturally it is here: https://www.londonschool.com/lsic/resources/blog/united-states-land-cultural-diversity/ and the answer culturally is the USA is very much diverse...a "melting pot" as we say. The migration question that I was thinking about is people moving from places where they could grow crops, raise animals, did not require air conditioning to live comfortably but now because they are so hot they can't live there any longer thus they will move just to survive. They will be desperate people. One of the reasons there was so much Syrian immigration was not just over the war. It was over the lack of water from drought and the heat. People had to move to survive. Of course, the war made things just worse. Immigrations requirements will not stop them if they are desperate. You likely know what happened in Europe so we can expect more of that scene as climate change becomes more compelling to survival in some parts of the world like Central America for example. As for work requirements to access (there will be no jobs to access by the way in the near future due to the AI and climate change) the safety net, well, if we in the USA want to live with many, many more people living in the streets than today we will have to give up the notion of work requirements. It probably won't be as bad as India with folks living in the streets but it will be much larger than I think many in the USA will feel good about having in the streets. We also will have to build a state-of-the-art "tech wall" of drones, listening devices, visual devices, robots, etc. on the southern border to hold back and/or capture those that are coming our way from the south. Then when we do capture them we will have to push them back to Mexico to squalor or take care of them in the USA. It all is just not going to be very pretty is my thinking. Enough. End the rant. I am sure you get the idea. I certainly hope I am very wrong in these matters and I am not an optimist in the matter.
Thanks for taking the time to do some research and respond so quickly. As noted much of the data in the first article is old. With the increased emphasis on identity and population increases over the last few decades, I wonder if the map would look different. Here in the US, I can't remember when the census started breaking down the race/ethnicity questions into more categories. I understand why people migrate, but my question was more from the other side. How are the people in these social democracies responding to the new immigrants & refugees? Are they impacting the "safety net" negatively/positively(getting jobs & paying taxes)/not at all? I have heard anecdotally that some of the European countries require some work and will find people jobs, but not sure how that works or if really does. Can't imagine would here. AI will impact some jobs, esp. non-skilled & semi-skilled, but I assume will create others. To some extent so will climate change along with different livable areas. (Still have Shellenberger's book to read.) My other question for those proponents of the "Scandinavian" model is if it's so great why don't you try living there? (can read with sarcasm)
Your welcome. Easy if one is retired. I have not read up on how people are responding to the migrations in Europe in depth. Just off the top of my head from my reading not too well in most countries to awful in a couple like Poland and especially Hungary. Germany has been the best at accepting them since they realize they need them. That said Germany has had an alarming increase in hard-right parties being supported by the voters. Here is a good article on the issue https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/countries-less-accepting-of-migrants-study-finds I do think that the nature of human beings who are so tribal that the knee-jerk reaction is to reject people not "like me" and these migrants won't be "like me". The whole AI impact is well fleshed out with numbers here: https://techjury.net/blog/jobs-lost-to-automation-statistics/#gref From my reading I think they are a bit optimistic that it won't impact professionals much. AI already reads X-rays and MRIs better than a human radiologist MD. Attorneys are being replaced by AI as well and have been for 5 or 10 years by AI. My B.A. degreed computer scientist nephew who made well into the six figures in a job says he is already retraining in more specialized areas since he can see AI will be writing the code that he is writing these days very soon. Additionally, per the article, while there will be new jobs created from AI they will be for educated people who can re-train into them. As for the piece read with sarcasm on why don't you try living there. In my reading, the younger crowd are very much predisposed to like socialism see here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx I doubt these numbers have gone anywhere but up since the pandemic. Thus in the long run as the older generations exit the scene the long-term trend favors socialist approaches over capitalistic ones it seems. I of course don't have a dog in the hunt as I won't be here for the situation unless reincarnation is what is next. I just figure it is not going to be pretty. You might want to look at this article: Social physics: Are we at a tipping point in world history?
https://bigthink.com/13-8/tipping-point-history-social-physics?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklynewsletter Alright, I will give it a rest. Likely you need to work or something and I do not.
Thank you Glenn for these discussions. I was born in Bay Area and not Eastern Europe in later 1960’s only because of family migration decisions decades prior. Yes, USA is exceptional.
On benefit of 2-parent households: I am a gay man and I strongly support the 2-parent model. Not an expert, not my field of study, but off the top of my head - I imagine numerous dimensions within the behavioral category that would be compelling. The lack of curiosity and complete silence of entire institutions on the benefit of 2-parent model is interesting. Perhaps my colleagues are traumatized by the specter of abuse within the home, and generalizing across broader society.
While appreciative of the Glenn-Brianha discussion, it should be in addition to, not in place of the professional and methodical, structured hierarchical discussions that institutions refuse to engage in. Any courtroom judge can attest to methodical process of discussion to determine if John Doe robbed a bank. I have watched with my own eyes as numerous institutions and organizations have intentionally refused a professional and methodical discourse that would guarantee the due process of information at each step - since 2017. We must reinstate due process at the institutions.
I write this because many of Briahna’s speculative statements are equally echoed within institutions without the necessary exploration.
Prof. Loury should present Mr. Roscoe's letter to Ms. Gray and ask her to respond to each of his points in their next video encounter. It deserves her direct, straight no chaser response.
i know exactly what you're saying +asking but thats not her job description. she's an activist +i'd say thats not what she does. i dont agree w gray or even her tone +she probably doesnt like mine but do you think she's on a mission for the truth? i dont. she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?
“Do you think she’s on a mission for the truth”
I hope you’re not under the impression that most people in this particular subculture are out for the truth. Even GL at times can be seen doubling down on ideological presups.
Also the idea that she’s not happy to “educate or enlighten her audience”. Dude this was a discussion on HER podcast. It was shared to the Glenn Show but it was her podcast and I’ll be honest, she’s spent a lot more time on the ground interacting with heterodox thinkers than you want to give her credit for.
i'd like to say i understand what you're saying but dont see how it follows what i said. but i'm not sure i understand your point +i really dont see how it follows anything i said.
where the podcast occurred is irrelevant.
where she's spent her time on the ground interacting is irrelevant. its a logical fallacy to think bcoz she interacts w heterdox thinkers she is interested in truth. see evanf above but here's a taste:
Also, her push back against the importance of the United States in World War Two came from a place of exceptional (and, might I suggest possibly willful) ignorance. She compared the sacrifice of the United States to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, while not wanting to devalue the human lives lost, clearly thought that the Soviet losses (which she put at 27M (a number available on Wikipedia) and others have put at "over 20M" but disputed, and other researches have stated as 25M (https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/soviet-role-world-war-ii-realities-and-myths)) were much greater.
i'm sorry but i was pointing out that activists are neither philosophers using logic nor economists using calculus to teach: rather they are using any means to sway our opinion whether reasoned or not. but ok young lady xo
Here's your claim
"she's an activist +not interested in being honest. she is happy to provide incorrect info to further a cause but not to educate, enlighten her audience. theres a big difference. no?"
Besides the massive amount of psychologizing here, I'd say Glenn falls under a similar category as BJG. If you think he's not also an activist Idk what to tell you. He definitely has strong ideological blinders (like we all do). He may be an economist, but so is Richard Wolff, Paul Krugmann and Joseph Stiglitz. All three economists (two of whom are award winning) are to the left to varying degrees. Are you going to give their views the same legitimacy you give Loury's? I could be wrong but I don't think so, so basically in the context of this conversation none of that matters.
So falling back on her position as an activist doesn't discredit her as a truth seeker. Her being pushing historical revisionism (I personally don't think the Soviets were exceptional in WWII) doesn't negate the wide set of beliefs and policies she subscribes to either.
here's what you've convinced me from you arguments from opinion +lack of evidence: you are much much younger than glenn plus are very enamored w gray.
i am much closer in age to glenn +altho i dont usually agree w him i listen to his casts +he provides much better evidence for his arguments than either your or gray.
thnx but i don't see any point in the yo-yo back n forth. i know that we have both made our positions very clear +neither of us needs to explain our positions any further. got it? i hope so.
due to prog degenerative neuro disorder i make mistakes+deleted to edit. i made make another delete while my cat barks to get inside. my god i don't have enough frustration here
This has almost nothing to do with my comment but ok, but I guess everyone who you disagree with is either "dishonest", unwilling to be educated or fact free. Lol what shitty way to handle other people.
Agree
People are always going to disagree over priorities and policy decisions. People are always going to spin and cherry-pick statistics which bolster their objectives. They always have and always will, and that's as it should be.
Today, however, we are regularly asked to make electoral and policy decisions based on agreed-upon falsehoods. That seems new, and ominous.
Thanks to Clifton Roscoe for pointing out that the claim about the educational attainment of Black women is inconsistent with the Census data. I wondered how such a mistake could be made and therefore went back and looked at the "source" for the claim. Here's what is says: "For example, although Black women only make up 12.7% of the female population in the country, they consistently make up over 50% of the number of Black people who receive postsecondary degrees. Percentage-wise, Black women outpace white women, Latinas, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans in this arena as well." (Footnote omitted.) It seems that the author (who claims to be a "college professor") made the fundamental logical error of mistaking "the percentage that Black women make up of all Blacks who receive postsecondary degrees" for "the percentage of Black women who receive postsecondary degrees." It is amazing to me that a "college professor" could make such a mistake and then that the mistake widely propagated, creating an entirely false narrative.
you inspired me to check the sources. on the hbcu article (from which i think the prof took her stats bcoz the comments are from 2016, prof is from 2020) 4 comments point out the inaccuracy +ask that the title be changed from : educated to enrolled. the education standards have dropped but on this article the readers saw the flaw. wow.
i just find this sad that a publication that speaks for +calls itself hbcu buzz would put out these stats +after calls for correction from readers -right there on the page- there has been no addendum but others are using this as source material. jesus