Asymmetrical Information

"It is interesting that Cosby expects poor parents, and youth, to be more fiscally responsible than those with far greater resources prove to be," Dyson writes.

Of course, it's a good idea for wealthy people to be fiscally responsible, too. They just have a lot more wiggle room. As Jane says, "Duh." That doesn't mean the prescription is wrong. Jeez, I thought Dyson was better than this. Maybe he was having an off-day.

I am sick and tired of people saying that Bush told everyone to go shopping. That's such a canard, it hurts. If you look at Bush's speech to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, here's what he tells Americans to do:

1. Live your lives, hug your children. Be not afraid.
2. Don't discriminate against Muslims.
3. Give to the victims.
4. Cooperate with the FBI.
5. Sorry about the increased security.
6. "I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy..." The rest is boilerplate.
7. Pray for the victims.

-----

Did anyone see shopping in that list? Yes, item #6 did suggest that we not hide at home and stuff the mattress full of money, but I'm irritated that Bush suggested that people bankrupt themselves for the sake of the country. As I recall, people were really worried about a recession; that's what he was trying to prevent.

I guess it's too much to ask poor people not to buy their children $200 pair of sneakers.

Some years ago while working a job that required riding across state in the work truck we noticed a homeless man under a bridge listening to his Walkman. The person riding with me started complaining about Walkman, and I pointed out that it appeared to be this mans only substantial posession. My friend agreed it was bad of him to complain about somehting as trivial as the Walkman.

I would wager that the Walkman was not the latest model, and that it was found in a dumpster, most likely missing the piece to hold the batteries, and that the earphones and tape were found seperately. The battery, held in place by some kluge, was the only expense, and cost no more than a half-dog of Cisco. Heck, I've found new Walkmen in Raydee O'Shaq dumpsters, with the packaging but minus the battery thingy.

The path out of poverty is the same now as it has been for other impoverished groups in our society over time: education; hard work; and, personal responsibility.

Today, many black children who achieve in school are accused of being "too white". Peer pressure used to encourage remaining undereducated and dependent.

Hard work is also frequently discouraged as "serving the man". Those who work hard and accomplish are "oreos". Those who have succeeded are "Uncle Toms".

Perhaps the most destructive of the "personal responsibility" issues is "children having children". While this issue is not exclusive to the black community, it is far mare prevalent among teenage black females, frequently making it very difficult for them to succeed later in life.

Then there are the "black leaders", who encourage the continuation of the victim mentality by suggesting that undereducated, sloppily dressed, poor performing blacks are "being held back by whitey".

Particularly shameful is the disdain of the "black leaders" and much of the black community for blacks who have taken advantage of education, worked hard, been responsible and succeeded. The most recent example is the disgraceful treatment of Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele by the black community, as well as by their enablers on the left.

The first step in solving the problem is acknowledging it, as Bill Cosby has done very publicly. Even
Cosby has been made to pay the price for his apostacy.

As for varying standards of thrift, if I were to continue to only shop at the resale outlets on half-price day, and never at department stores after my next, bigger ship comes in, I will be looked down upon by some as a miser.

An individual responsibility ethic is the key. Society depends on individuals accepting responsibility and then sharing. Without individual responsibility, there is no "society". There is only a "gang" - a few leaders and lots of followers waiting to be told what to do.

Discussions of social responsibility, social justice, etc., always revolve around searching for methods to avoid individual responsibility.

It is easily understandable that a history of slavery and racism are very much to blame for the idea that individual responsibility is not the answer. What is harder is the truth that individual responsibility is the only answer. Cosby's criticisms are on target. Hard to swallow I'm sure - but on target.

We have a small community of West Africans and Somalis in our town. These guys are far blacker than the blackest African-American and this is a very white community so they really stand out. They came here with nothing, didn't speak the language and many had suffered unspeakable horrors in their home countries.

Yet I already see them improving themselves. Most started out collecting shopping carts and sweeping floors at the local supermarket, but within a year a couple of them have already improved their english enough to work the checkouts.

These guys are not sitting around feeling sorry for themselves, telling the world how victimised they are or expecting someone else to fix their lives for them. Instead they are working hard, improving themselves, being frugal with what they have (so much so that on minimum wages they are probably still managing to send money home).

The irony is that the only thing that poor people need to give their kids in order to prosper doesn't cost anything. Trouble is that to teach these values (thrift, hard work, personal responsibility) you generally need to have them yourself, and if you do, you don't tend to stay poor...

While I tend to agree with Mr. Cosby in these areas, in many ways he is a bad spokesman for the viewpoint. Yes, he grew up in urban poverty, but he got out of it via a path that will be available to only a tiny minority of those in the same position. Similarly, black athletes are also poor spokesmen.

They seem to be saying, implicitly, that the road out of poverty is for the millions of poor children to pursue careers in which the number of jobs are in the thousands. Engineers, accountants, businessmen... these would make far better spokesmen and role models, but alas, our media-heavy society places so much emphasis on celebrities that we never ask these more common success stories for their opinions.

"There is a cruelty to such an observation," according to Dyson. "Not only is the poor parent, or child, at a great disadvantage economically, but they are expected to be more judicious and responsible than their well-to-do counterparts, with far fewer resources."

---

I don't understand what the columnist is getting at. Is he suggesting that you have to have more in order to be able to spend less? The argument simply doesn't hold up to simple logical analysis.

Is he suggesting that you have to have more in order to be able to spend less? The argument simply doesn't hold up to simple logical analysis.

I'm afraid it does. For example, often you can buy more cheaply in bulk, but you have to have bulk cash to buy the bulk goods. Food is generally more expensive at small urban grocery stores than at large suburban ones. This is true even including the price of the gas required to get there. But you have to have been able to afford a car in the first place. And so forth.

Having said that, I don't think that's what he was saying. It sounds to me as if he's saying that poor people are too stupid to know that you shouldn't drink the rent money.

It sounds to me as if he's saying that poor people are too stupid to know that you shouldn't drink the rent money.

Which, of course, is just silly. You don't have to have a high school diploma to know that pouring molten copper and zinc down your throat is a bad idea.

It seems all of the wisdom in the world can be found in the Bible, Shakespeare, or Dickens...

In particular, this puts me in mind of Mr. Micawber's most true (and least followed) advice:

'My other piece of advice, Copperfield,' said Mr. Micawber, 'you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and - and in short you are for ever floored. As I am!'

I think he's saying: "Poor people suffer enough. It's not fair to ask them to budget!" I suppose he could also say it's not fair that they have to change diapers and wash dishes, but they actually take your kids away if you stop doing that.

From reading Janes post along with all the commentary it is clear that no one here bothered to read Tabarrak original post or looked at the data from which he drew his conclusion that blacks spend too much money on high priced shoes.

Just a simple cursory look at the data shows that the family units of measure differ between races significantly. Black families are larger, younger and have far fewer cars than the white family counterpart.

If that is not enough to explain the difference in spending on shoes just take a look at the gender breakdown. Whites families in the survey consist of 52% male and 48% female. Black families in the survey consist of 36% male and 64% female. Hasn't anyone here ever compared the prices between womens shoes and mens shoes?

Just because it's as typical for libertarians to misrepresent economic data as it is for conservatives to misrepresent intellegence data you don't have to play right into that stereotype.

I always read Singeltary's columns each Sunday, and applaud the forceful brevity of her financial arguments. She conveys prudent wisdom without resorting to highfalutin money-speak. I call it “pointing out the ‘duh’ factor.” What seems so obvious is often missed through complicated rhetoric.

Still, I was dismayed in reading Sunday’s column about Bill Cosby’s comments. ME Dyson refutes much of Cosby’s claims about irresponsibility (both financial and cultural) in black America, in particular stipulating that there are significant problems inherent in expecting the poor to be more judicious with their money, when the rich can afford to be spendthrifts.

If only Dyson hadn’t already stated that he found, in his research, that black youths are more often than not savvy consumers. For Dyson to point out evidence of financial acumen – only to adopt a “but it’s hard so we shouldn’t expect much of them” argument – is both demeaning to the poor, and a thorough weakening of his reasoning. For Singletary to applaud his flawed analysis is disappointing. I mean, DUH.

Dan-

Cosby is the PERFECT rolemodel for poor urban kids, especialy black. Did you know he flunked the tenth grade three times? Did he drop out? No, he went back, worked hard, and went to Temple University in downtown Philly (eventually got a Doctorate in Child Psychology). He was a success by virtue of his accomplishments, despite his background, long before he became famous.
It seems to me that Cosby is the embodiment of the successful black paradox: a man who builds success based upon his own hard work, steps forward to be a leader in his community, and is castigated by many in the Black community because he says things like "it's your responsibility to become successful" and "nobody is holding you down". Larry Elder and Michael Steele seem to fit this paradox as well.
My theory is that such folks are attacked by those who should praise them becasue they are proof that much of the Black leadership is wrong: Blacks can become successful, they are not dependent upon the government (or the Democratic party) for their survival, and they are NOT victims of the system. I can't think of any other reason to demonize a member of the Black community for talking about things that are taken for granted and proven facts by so many other ethnic groups in American history (Irish, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc...) Yeah, all where victims of poverty, racism, and other evils in our society. Didn't seem to stop them.

It may be unfair that gravity kills a lot more high-steel workers than it does insurance adjusters, but that isn't a good reason for the former to fail to learn the importance of clipping on their safety harness.

Ken--
The difference in price between mens' and womens' shoes? Please tell me you're joking.... Expensive shoes aren't a requirement. Most unskilled jobs, you can wear running shoes. ($20 at payless shoes)

If you're poor, you cut on the fancy stuff-- my family did, and we did quite well inspite of not taking government assistance.

You don't have to have a high school diploma to know that pouring molten copper and zinc down your throat is a bad idea.

Molten?? You have to melt it? D'oh!

Sailorette, it looks like you did not read the data either and are generalizing from stereotypes, as is so typical of libertarians.

Given the gender ratio I would say that the majority of workers surveyed probably worked in low paying office job. But that is not covered so I really don't know. But with a 6 to 4 female/male ratio I would be pretty certain the jobs were not unskilled labor jobs like ditch digging etc.

But nevertheless, even inexpensive womens shoes are still more expensive than inexpensive mens shoes. Have you never shopped for shoes for a family before?

But why do I bother trying to explain facts to you? Your mind is already made up.

Re: price of men's and women's shoes -- low-end office shoes are very similarly priced for men and women. Middle-range office shoes are more expensive for men. Only high-end shoes are more expensive for women. Ken, save your righteous anger and visit Payless Shoes for a change.

Ditto re: Payless! It's not just All Man-Made Material anymore... And how many pairs of shoes do you need? In an office job, male or female, I'm going to say two - black and brown. (Or only one if you choose your wardrobe accordingly.) Other colors are optional and subject to budget. Shoe polish, cheaper than shoes, keeps the shoes looking good longer, though it's neglected by many. You will not be a fashion plate, but you will be appropriately dressed. For years I worked in an office with two pairs of shoes in my work wardrobe: low and conservative black pumps and brown boots, both of which could be worn with either skirts or slacks. I simply didn't buy clothes that required other shoe choices. (OK, I actually did have steel-toed boots, but they were for fieldwork only and don't count as a fashion statement. And my work could have been made to pay for them because they were required by the job and I was offered the job without a stipulation that I'd provide my own equipment.) The Manolo, he despairs of me, but my wardrobe budget was tiny.

I'd like to bring up the narrow music/visual-media representation of the black aesthetic. Hip-hop artists (for the inner-city demographic) are the modern-day griots of the post-crack generation, but many have ridden a very narrow definition of the hip-hop aesthetic on the road to celebrity. Much of the criteria for becoming a best-selling lyricist relies upon a very narrow and easily-mastered vocabulary of rhymes (a vocab which, for lack of more creative sources, i've easily incorporated into my freestyles within the past 2 months), which, when spoken with an unmistakably masculine voice and a well-mixed drum kit, will sell to ANY audience with a very low-standard for creative expression. Black footwear has been a staple of Black expression, i would argue, ever since we began to walk the urban streets of the North during the Great Migration. The problem is that footwear is now used socially as a tool to sustain a heteronormatively degenerate Black cultural aesthetic. For example, if you don't wear basketball shoes, you are probably a bookworm with homosexual tendencies. If females aren't wearing stilettos, they are probably bookworms with homosexual tendencies. That club mentality, rife with unimaginatively traditional HOMOPHOBIC cultural expressions of fashion and masculine ideals of group-recklessness have taken over the Black radio-waves. WHY? A major problem is that many poor black adolescents, because of the silencing of their own cultural past, blindly accept non-creative hip-hop lyricism and thus non-creative hip-hop culture into their homes. When was the last time you met a socially outgoing, POOR, Black child from a Black middle-american community who listened to artists not associated with the "up in the club" aesthetic. Honestly, North of the historic Bible belt, I never have. Popular club songs of the past five years include "Slob on My Knob [like corn on the cob / check in wit' me and do ya' job]"(by Three 6 Mafia), "Stiletto [Pumps-in-the-club!]" (by Crime Mob), "[So I can get to stompin' in my] Air Force Ones" (by Nelly), and "[I slang in my White Tee / I bang in my] White Tee" (by Franchise). What Cosby says is (in fact) true, but he is probably ignorant of the cultural factors behind the data, seeing as how the disconnect between the creative culture of Black elders and Black youth is so substantial. Sure, personal responsibility is at the heart of minority success, and for many that probably entails the silencing of the hip-hop aesthetic, but it doesn't have to. I would only argue for less business-institionalized and more organicized venues for Black creative expression than the clubs of the North or the materialistic churches of the South. Put black culture into the streets, where it all started, and accompany it with a stable urban social infrastructure so it can grow and diversify among the people, instead of reserving its "best" reflections to the corporatized networkings of BET, black radio, athlete-mannequins, and the club circuit. Fuck BET, fuck the club, fuck the silencing of the patchwork that is Black culture for highly heteronormative agenda of hegemonic black masculinity. Who wields the power to make the change? Hip-hop PRODUCERS and who they choose to produce for, lyricists themselves, record companies and how they sell their image, urban architects and planners, and YOU. Take and interest. WHY WAIT?

Everyone's reading *way too much* into the CEX shoe expenditure data. It is really unfortunately that an economist like Tabarrok is the one mis-using this data. For the most part, the same data cited suggests that blacks *are* cutting the fancy stuff. Look at the following discretionary categories: Entertainment, Food Away from Home, Home Furnishings, Alcohol, Tobacco...in each of these cases, blacks spend far less than whites (in some cases

hmm...I agree, you DO have to look at the whole economic picture. Perhaps it was wrong of Cosby to narrow our expenditures down to just shoes. But still, social infrastructure, urban infrastructre, and simple economic knowledge...all lacking, espesh in black communities. No?

Unfortunately Dyson is a professor at my school and your alma matter Jane.

I am sick and tired of people saying that Bush told everyone to go shopping. That's such a canard, it hurts.

Completely correct, but even without that -- September 20, 2001 was what any reasonable person would consider an extraordinary moment. The concern was that a bunker mentality was going to cause the economy to crater. From Dyson's comment, you'd think Bush was going on television every week proclaiming "Be mindless consumer sheep!" Is there a single person who "...did and are still shopping till they are now dropping from financial exhaustion"?

This is another irony. Bill Cosby would be ignored like the hundreds of black pastors and minister who preach a similiar message every Sunday from the pulpit, if he wasn't a "beloved" entertainer/comedian/celebrity.
To me, it still amounts to talk, only made slightly more significant because of the television cameras, and the zeal of white conservatives to use his words as some type of societal "Berlin Wall"--sealing them off from any responsibility to their fellow American.

Typical.

--Cobra

Sageclip, you are so right it hurts. My white homeschooled children know more about historical and global black culture than the black kids they play with, because I make a point of teaching it, and the schools teach Martin Luther King Jr. and Kwanzaa and host hip-hop assemblies. It's a damn shame. The black children we know are so cut off from roots they don't even know what roots are. There is an absolute connection between being denied your culture and hyper-consumerism. Black teenagers are trying to buy their way home.

Cobra,

Re; "...the zeal of white conservatives to use his words as some type of societal "Berlin Wall"--sealing them off from any responsibility to their fellow American."

Good point. But you can't stop with making the point - you've got to ask what it means. It means that white conservatives are done feeling guilty. It means that individual responsiblility is the only remaining solution. It means that Cosby is on target.

penis enlargement patch

proenhance patch

Ken-
Basic office work *is* unskilled labor, because most offices offer typing classes.

You quite obviously have *your* mind made up.

And I am not libritarian.

Randy writes:

>>>"Good point. But you can't stop with making the point - you've got to ask what it means. It means that white conservatives are done feeling guilty. It means that individual responsiblility is the only remaining solution. It means that Cosby is on target."

COBRA on Cosby

I will give you credit, Randy. Most people of your ideology will hide behind euphemisms or false beautitudes, but you on the other hand, proudly display your indifference.

It's actually refreshing.

--Cobra

"Black teenagers are trying to buy their way home."

No doubt, Common Reader. No doubt.

Indifference is not a bad thing Cobra. The problems in the world aren't caused by people who mind their own business, but by people who insist on interfering.

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

Many Muslims are being used like the Germans and Japanese of WWII::being used to hurt others and envoke condemnation upon their people.

They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.

Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
god is evil because of money.

I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.

But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, market domination being one clue, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with a lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

I believe the coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they "decided" who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
It was set up this way. Perhaps dyanstic thrones had a say, but maybe not.
Budda was the Asian's Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. "They came up at the same time for a reason."

Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their bondage in Egypt proves their disfavor. The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of their pathology.

I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack "god's" most favored people will pay for it dearly one day.

Grandpa! Stay out of my stash!

Randy writes:

>>>"Indifference is not a bad thing Cobra. The problems in the world aren't caused by people who mind their own business, but by people who insist on interfering."

Hmmm...does that cast you as an isolationist, a libertarian, or both?

I respect your opinion. IMHO, the concept of "nation" doesn't allow me to ignore the plight of my fellow countryfolk.

--Cobra

Cobra,

I prefer the term heretic :)

I take whatever side of the debate I find the most interesting.

But I do lean towards pragmatism. I favor doing what works. And on the topic we are currently on, I think that what works is an individual responsibility ethic. A Social Responsibility ethic is all well and good to a point - and that point is the point at which forced compliance with politically motivated social directives results in a backlash.

grandpa:
"Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil."

Mohammed considered Christ to be a prophet of God/Allah, just as he/Mohammed was a prophet of God/Allah. the difference between Islam and most Christian sects is that Muslims believe that Christ was not the 'Son of God' and that the doctrine of Trinity is blasphemy based on extensive falsification of the New Testament record.

your grotesque ignorance of your own affirmed 'faith' does little to bolster the other 'points' you think you've brought up ... and which i will not even bother to address.

Comments are Closed.