Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1208984)

I'll see your Sowell and raise you one Pearlstein.

I don't see Pearlstein as any kind of "raise" compared to Sowell. Like comparing in size and scope an elephant to a field mouse--or a royal flush to a pair of deuces.

As public intellectuals go, few have been more prolific than Thomas Sowell. For more than 40 years, he’s been churning out books at the rate of one a year, in addition to writing a syndicated column and academic articles and teaching courses at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst, Brandeis and Stanford, where he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His wide-ranging interests include economics, history, race and ethnicity, poverty, higher education, justice, and children with delayed speech.

If it's important to point out credits, other than trying to look objective by slanting both ways, yeah, Sowell has plenty of creds. A lot more than Pearlstein has.

And, in spite of his seeming to praise Sowell, Pearlstein gives a hint of his true colors by his characterization of Sowell's prolific production of writings as a "churning out"--"To churn out--produce something in large quantities, often quickly or carelessly." Or "To produce something in an abundant and automatic manner." Thus subliminally planting the possible notion that Sowell's work was not rigorous and well conceived.

A Marxist radicalized into a free-market libertarian by a year working at the U.S. Labor Department, Sowell is now the go-to black academic for conservative media outlets. The son of a maid, he earned his way in the old-fashioned style to and through New York’s elite Stuyvesant High School, Harvard College, Columbia and the University of Chicago. He has waged a relentless crusade against those who would try to alleviate poverty or equalize opportunity through welfare, affirmative action or anything else that interferes with the operation of free markets.

Another cute little back-handed reference--"go-to black academic." Sort of a token black academic for conservatives--not a renowned, esteemed, writer/thinker in his own right. A "black" one. Whose blackness can be used as a "see, we're not racists" instead of his writing being worthy in its own right. Kind of a racist way of knocking him down a step or two from some perceived pinnacle of success due to the merits of his scholarship.

And, after all, according to Pearlstein, Sowell's stuff is basically just "a relentless crusade against those who would try to alleviate poverty or equalize opportunity . . ."

‘Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective’ by Thomas Sowell
Having written so much, it is perhaps not surprising that Sowell has very little new to say in his latest book, “Wealth, Poverty and Politics.” Although its subtitle proclaims an international perspective, it’s quickly apparent that these are largely pretexts for having another go at his usual American targets: liberals, academics, universities, the media and civil rights leaders, along with anything that smacks of multiculturalism or social justice.

It is not unusual for an author to repeat old themes in new books. Quite Common actually. But done in different ways and different contexts.

Indeed (contrary to Pearlstein's broad brush that tries to sweep away what is new in this book about the old themes) it is the "international perspective" which Pearlstein downplays and which is a new way to give substance to the old themes.

Sowell’s central message is that the reason some people are poor — in any country, at any period in history — is not discrimination or exploitation or malicious actions on the part of the rich. Rather, people are poor because they don’t or won’t produce. For him, the only mystery is why.

This is a total, probably intentional, misreading of the book. It's not a denial that discrimination or exploitation happens to "some people," it's that there are similar forces, in every society worldwide, that are the root causes of the existence of "poverty" in itself. Or, more to the point, there are conditions that make the creation of wealth more possible. Production being the driver of wealth, certain universal conditions have to exist--or, at least, do exist in those societies that do create wealth, more wealth, than societies, cultures, where those conditions are diminished or non-existent.

Geography may have something to do with it. Civilizations that shut themselves off from the rest of the world, Sowell writes, are those that lag behind. Sometimes that is because of physical barriers, like mountains or a lack of navigable waterways or the unavailability of pack animals. Other times, as with China and Japan in the 15th and 16th centuries, it is because political leaders seeking to protect their own power cut themselves off from the world. Either way, the isolation inhibits the development of the “knowledge, skills, experiences and habits” that lead to economic growth. It also prevents humans from developing antibodies, making them susceptible to devastating diseases when foreigners arrive, as happened with the Incas and the Native Americans.

A second determinant of economic success is culture, by which Sowell means customs, values, norms and attitudes. For him, the proof of culture’s importance is to be found in the experience of minority groups, in various countries, that have achieved extraordinary economic success: Germans in Eastern Europe, Lebanese in West Africa, Japanese in Peru, Chinese in other parts of Asia, Jews and Indians everywhere. These immigrant groups arrive with a taste for entrepreneurship, a focus on education, a commitment to family, a reputation for honest dealing and an instinct for hard work. They also have high levels of trust and cooperation among themselves. Successful countries have learned to incorporate these cultural traits into their own, in contrast to “lagging” ones that envy and resent these minorities and concoct grievances against them to explain their own lack of success.

So far, so good. But it’s when Sowell adopts these historical lessons as the only explanation you need to understand inequality of incomes and opportunities in 21st-century America that he reveals how little he’s learned in the past 20 years.

He doesn't say they are the "only" explanation needed. He presents global data that sustain his explanation.

Culture matters, of course, and Sowell has been courageous in calling attention to the growing acceptance of a black “ghetto culture” that has rejected traditional values. Dressing neatly, speaking proper English, achieving academic success, raising children in the context of stable marriages — by the 1970s, Sowell argues, these were demeaned as “acting white,” setting back the economic prospects of a generation of African Americans after decades of advances.

This kind of stuff is now being labeled as White Supremacist dog whistles.

“None of the usual explanations of racial disparities — genetics, racism, poverty or ‘legacy of slavery’ — can explain this retrogression over time,” he writes. “One of the few possibilities left is that the culture within black communities has in some respect changed for the worse over the years.” And what is Sowell’s proof of this “retrogression”? That elite high schools such as Stuyvesant no longer boast as many black students as they used to.

He said "One of the few" not the "only" possibilities.
And his evidence is the data, not merely the number of black students in elite high schools. C'mon man!!

In fact, while “ghetto culture” may help to explain the stubborn persistence of a black underclass, there is ample evidence of the progress of black Americans since the 1960s in statistics on poverty rates, educational achievement and household incomes. Gains relative to whites have slowed, but there are still absolute gains. Nor can “ghetto culture” explain the growth in poverty, the decline in marriage, the slowdown in educational achievement or the widening income gap in white America.

Sowell points out the "gains" in the lives of the poor in America. That would be expected in being geographically located in a place where production of wealth has grown. And, within the poor black and poor white cultures, there are inherent conditions which make it harder to become productive.

As Sowell sees it, this “retrogression” took root because of a virulent multiculturalism, imposed by academics and the media, that now makes it socially and politically unacceptable to criticize any group’s culture. And it is reinforced by an overly generous welfare state that has lulled poor blacks into a permanent state of dependency and sloth — “non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive behavior,” in his felicitous phrasing.

Sowell has explained the "retrogression" well in this and many other writings, and he has explained the role the "overly generous welfare state" has played in bringing it about--while at the same time creating the above "gains."

This may have been a somewhat valid story line when Sowell and others first raised it in the 1980s, but his rendition remains unchanged 20 years after the passage of welfare reform and sharp cuts in cash assistance targeted to the poor in favor of the earned-income tax credit. His suggestion that there are still legions of working-age Americans who live better on welfare than by working is nothing more than a right-wing canard.

This book, in fact, is filled with such instances of overreach.

Sowell does not say they simply live better on welfare than by working. There are factors encouraged by policies such as, among the several others he writes about, minimum wage (which still apply today as it did 20 years ago) which diminishes the number of jobs available for young poor people which would give them the work experience needed to advance from. And the above "gains" make it easier to exist in spite of the lack of opportunity to financially grow.

Sowell is certainly right in pointing out that when people talk about changes over time in the income of the top 1 percent or the bottom 20 percent, they are unaware that the households in each group are constantly changing. And the simple fact that earnings tend to increase with age means that most people’s incomes aren’t stagnant over their working lifetime, as many liberals often claim.

But to leap from those useful corrections to the sweeping conclusion that inequality is not rising — or, if it is, is not a problem — more than trifles with the truth. Even after accounting for the usual churn and life-cycle changes, the share of national income going to those at or near the top has grown dramatically, concentrating the benefits of economic growth in fewer and fewer hands. This is neither a statistical mirage nor a figment of our imagination.

Sowell points out that none of the statist policies, no matter how well intentioned, have made it better in terms of the "gap."

Sowell is also right to point out that, contrary to the constant liberal refrain, economic mobility in America is not dead and that unequal incomes are not, by themselves, proof of unequal opportunity. But surely that is no reason to cavalierly dismiss a growing body of evidence of large and growing gaps between rich and poor children in terms of their physical, emotional and intellectual development and their later success later in life. As Sowell sees it, life has always been unfair, and if poor children start out with life stacked against them, they have no one to blame but their parents and their culture.

“Some children today are raised in ways that make it easier for them to become doctors, scientists or engineers,” he blithely writes, while others “are raised in ways that make it more likely they will become welfare recipients or criminals.”

Moreover, by his reasoning, any attempts to equalize opportunity would be counterproductive because they would deny society the higher output of the well-bred. In making such a calculation, however, Sowell never stops to consider what the ill-bred might have contributed to society if they had had a similar chance to develop their natural talents and capabilities.

Actually, he does consider that. Which is one of the reasons he supports school choice. And why he is against a welfare state that makes it livable to remain "ill-bred."

As an intellectual combatant, Sowell thrives on jousting with straw men whose existence he posits with little or no proof. In the world according to Sowell, liberals (including rich ones, apparently) are so filled with envy and resentment that they will deny billionaires the chance to create new jobs and new products if it means adding even a dollar to their incomes. Black leaders want to keep their people in poverty because otherwise they would have no purpose. The media and government officials systematically ignore and cover up racially motivated black-on-white violence (he knows about these incidents, according to the footnotes, from major news outlets). These are more like the rants of a talk-radio host than the considered judgments of a respected academic.

Actually, this sounds like the rant of a leftist speaking on CNN.

Sowell does manage to score a clean hit on those who now complain that income inequality is too high by noting their refusal to say what level of inequality they would consider acceptable. What we also learn from “Wealth, Poverty and Politics” is that there is apparently no level of inequality of income or opportunity that Thomas Sowell would consider unacceptable.

Steven Pearlstein
Steven Pearlstein is a Post economics and business columnist. He is also Robinson Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University. His book, "Moral Capitalism, was published by St. Martin's Press.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1210296)

As usual, liberals did it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1210299)

Is this what you would call a laziest of the lazy argument? Anyway, no. Progressives did it, not liberals. A lot of stuff that is classically liberal is now referred to by the Progressive left as "white supremacy"--such as: self reliance, individual responsibility, work ethic, family values, etc.

Sowell and Woodson are liberal. They are anti-authoritarian. They value the individual as the bulwark of a free society.

Political Progressives are authoritarian. They value the expert under government authority as the designer and bedrock of a regulated society.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1211498)

Then explain which progressive did this?

It is not the only example.

The Tulsa Race Massacre: 300 killed, 800 wounded, over 8,000 left homeless.

There were NO arrests. None. NO ONE was arrested. No one.

Actually there were no WHITE PEOPLE arrested. Many blacks rounded up, imprisoned -- for DEFENDING themselves!

We've come a long way since 1921, a year which was still in the grip of the classic "Progressive Era." Racist Woodrow Wilson (an admirer of the KKK) had just left office, but the Progressive notion that blacks were inferior was still the predominant view. Jim Crow was still in force. Are you implying that this kind of stuff is still going on?

Explain how the black community went from owning 14 million acres of land to sharecropping.

Is the "black community" still without land and still sharecropping?

Explain why a disproportionate number of blacks are jailed for nonviolent crimes.

Are they jailed because they are black, or because they committed a crime? Notice that you picked "nonviolent crimes." I would guess there are various factors. Such as past criminal history.
Or even bias. Might depend on the Judge. Crime, in general, has been decreasing. Been picking up lately since Biden got elected.

Are you suggesting that some disparities in sentencing (disparities which have also been decreasing) are a prelude to the return of Jim Crow?

And when you tout Sowell remember that the typical black household headed by someone with an advanced degree has less wealth than a white household with only a high school diploma.

Are you saying that blacks get paid less than whites for doing the same job? That's against federal law, isn't it? Or does the kind of advanced degree of a typical black household headed by someone with a degree disproportionately in some form of social discipline rather than a STEM discipline? Do whites have proportionately far more engineering and science degrees than blacks?

How about Asians? They do better than whites in that respect.
Are Asians racist or white supremacists because they do way better economically than blacks, and more than whites? Are they victims of systemic racism?

And how many "households" of black families are single parent headed by unwed mothers as compared to whites or Asians or even Latino?
How many white households have both parents working compared to blacks? Why do blacks always fall to the bottom of economic and criminal stats compared to Asians, whites, and Latinos?

But that is all imaginary or the product of progressive policies.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1211513)

Explain how the black community went from owning 14 million acres of land to sharecropping.

Is the "black community" still without land and still sharecropping?

Between 1910 and the 70s, seven million blacks migrated out of the south where they were systematically deprived of opportunity to the northern and western cities.

So the "black community now does own land and is not restricted to sharecropping. That's a good thing, I presume.

And there was also a large migration of whites to northern cities because they were also "deprived" of opportunity. There was no opportunity for many in the south during those years. I suppose you can consider that to be "systemic" since the system simply didn't provide opportunities. That has now changed. The South has attracted various industries that provide opportunities. There has even recently been a large migration of blacks, along with others to the South.

A huge reason that the South was not rich in opportunity back then is because the persistent "red neck" culture still dominated both the white and black southern population. It was a culture brought to the southern colonies by the early settlers immigrating from the northern English borderlands ,and from the Scottish Highlands, and from Ulster County Ireland--the folks from what were then the backward part of what we refer to as the British Isles. It was a culture that was referred to as "a whole constellation of attitudes, values, and behavior patterns . . . which would prove to be counterproductive . . .the cultural values and social patterns prevalent among Southern whites included an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery."

The early colonists who came from cultures that were productive, greater England e.g., tended to settle in New England. So there was a great cultural divide between the Northern and Southern whites. The Northerners considered the Southerners as undesirable. They even discriminated more against them than Northern Blacks who had adapted to the more productive New England culture. Actually, there had been a great deal of racial progress between Northern whites and Northern blacks, to the extent that they eventually lived in harmony in the same neighborhoods--until the great migrations from the South. The "undesirables," both black and white, with their violent and dissolute "redneck" behavior, were detested by both the white and black Northerners. And thus the progress in race relations collapsed.

The Southern blacks had adopted the "cracker" culture that surrounded them in the Antebellum South, including even the peculiar language of the typical Southern whites. Actually, what is considered to a great degree to be black ghetto culture is actually an inherited version of what was then white cracker culture including even the "touchy pride" of white crackers which often ignited into violent, even deadly eruptions over a perceived sense of merely being insulted.

But it is not inherent to the black race, is not particularly black, and certainly not displayed by blacks who immigrated from the West Indies and whose ancestors there were also slaves. And those blacks from the West Indies do quite well in the demographic stats such as low crime rates and low incarceration and high employment and compensation and good education and intact families.

As well, blacks who abandoned the redneck culture or were never part of it were doing much better in demographic stats after emancipation and until the great Progressive solution, The Great Society government fix for the ills that befall the lower classes. Black crime and family stats have either progressively gotten worse since then, or have been made to look worse in order to gin up votes for the left.

The war on drugs rewarded police departments for arrests of drug offenders and little was done about drug abuse till it hit the white middle class with the advent of prescription opioids.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1211553)

Does he wear his pants backwards like Trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1211569)

Thomas Sowell blindly misses the irony in his attack on statistics. He cites Mark Twain’s famous remark about “ ...lies, dammed lies and statistics”. But at least Mark Twain equated statistics with lies. Sowell is using statistics (his own) to refute statistics. If statistics are not a reliable method to find what he calls the truth, why does he use them himself as a means to an end?

After he rattles off long-winded examples of data everyone knows, we discover his game. He cherry-picks only that which supports his thesis that not everyone makes truth their highest priority — implying, of course, that he does, as if that exempts him from being partisan or even illogical.


It’s axiomatic that you can prove anything with statistics. So he shouldn’t present his case as the equivalent of the quest for the Holy Grail. We are all partisan in our own way in an attempt to win an argument. It’s just an argument. His is no loftier than others. He is no Atlas holding up the sky. He is just one of us in the trenches trying to cross no man’s land. His cause is no more than grist for his assault on his proper enemies on the left: the media, academia and too much government. It's pretentious of him to think otherwise. Yet truth in this case is neither relative nor absolute; it’s merely relevant to the matter at hand.

Then he descends into farce when he offers his own book as a source to support his own argument.

"Steve McMurray"