J. Stiglitz: The American Dream has become a myth

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Anyhow I don't think the American dream was ever true to be frank. More a mythology that is effective in keeping the lower classes working, by convincing them if they work hard enough they can make it. Problem is almost all of them are very hard working (many I know personally often work 3 jobs or more 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week). We like to think that those people on the bottom deserve their fate, they are lazy freeloaders and don't try hard enough. Nothing could be further from the truth in most cases, they just don't have any chance and never did.

Concerning the 'American Dream': When I was a student, I've read "My American Journey" from Colin Powell.

Powell describes very well his raise and his constant fear of being not the best in his course etc. because that could have meant that he cannot escape his original social status and cannot have the live he wants to have.

Powell is an extraordinary person but 99% of the people do not have that power, this iron will and these capabilities.
So this 'dream' may be valid for 5% of the people, who had a bad start in life for various reasons.

U.S. and Germany could learn from Scandinavia (e.g. Sweden and Finland), which are no faultless countries but addresses some key problems, especially in the area of education. Both countries are constantly on the top 5 positions of the hit-list, which compares the economical competitiveness of all countries in the world. So, they are no 'socialist' countries by any means.

Frankly - related to that discussion - I have never understood the discussion in the US. about the health insurance for 'everybody' and why that would be a 'socialist idea'. I've thought that getting (standard) health care is a human right for everybody and has the same priority than getting basic food and be equal at the court.

And the society pays a high bill for having a heavily fragmented society: Be it the criminal activity or the loss of income, since a lot of human capital is not used.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Frankly - related to that discussion - I have never understood the discussion in the US. about the health insurance for 'everybody' and why that would be a 'socialist idea'. I've thought that getting (standard) health care is a human right for everybody and has the same priority than getting basic food and be equal at the court.

This is changing the subject somewhat, but you've brought it up, so it has to be answered.

The reason it's considered socialist is simply because it is not a 'right' at all. You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right of anyone else to do the same. You said that basic health care is a right. You have the right to obtain that care. You do not have the right to force someone else to provide it for you. You have the right to put food on your own table. You do not have the right to make someone else put it there for you. Being equal at court is different. If someone forces you to go to court you have the right to representation. There is no guarantee that said representation will be of the same calibre as the rich guy can pay for.

Yes, we should take care of our poor. The 'socialist' cry comes when you want to force someone else to do it. If you can't see that difference then you don't understand what 'right' actually means.

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes, we should take care of our poor. The 'socialist' cry comes when you want to force someone else to do it. If you can't see that difference then you don't understand what 'right' actually means.

I just refer to that :
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/h...f-human-rights

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, I've read that. Are you trying to say the UN isn't a socialist organization?

[Hawk66]

Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.

So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?

So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?

So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?

Or is all dependent on voluntary services so that we force nobody? But is the access to voluntary services not random, also?

No, I do not want to have this society. Call me socialist or whatever....

[Skybird]

the best, the very best part of the whole German constitution, is the very first sentence of the very first section if the very first article.

HUMAN DIGNITY SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

An outstanding and absolutely remarkable sentence.

People now may want to discuss whether it leaves people their dignity to lead them into dependence from the state or leaving them the freedom to move themselves voluntarily into dependence form the state. Or whether helping a weak in despair or leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand, that human dignity shall be inviolable.

Forget politics and ideology for a moment, and ask your own conscience.

Everything that the ideal of so-called human rights is about, is included in and covered by those five words. Human rights, whether it be the right to breathe or the right to live or the right to eat, is about the basic and inalienable right for having your dignity. Because this dignity means that you are left the freedom to be what by your form and essence as a human being you indeed are, and to accept the biological conditions of your very existence.

Now, there are more complex implications then at first glance there seem to be. For example how to treat terrorism, and people denying others this recognition of dignity. Whether or not torture and execution is allowed or not. War. And how far the care of social wellfare systems shall reach, and this being seen in contrast with the idea of "survival of the fittest".

But any discussion of these issues is hopelessly in vain if not even this very basic fundament is agreed on in principle: human dignity shall be inviolable.

[AVGWarhawk]

Or whether helping a weak in despair

The weak in despair are helped with social programs. Some to good effect. Others not. Some programs abused.

leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand

What perceived opportunity? Perhaps we can ask POTUS if his opportunity was perceived or a dream that came true?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.

So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?

I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.

So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?

Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.

So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?

Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.


Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.


Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.

Ok, I can follow your point a little now, although I have not the same opinion or the same understanding of 'Rights' and 'Responsibility' as I described above.

For me all people have simply the right to have same starting conditions as practical matters allows. Else individual life is a lottery, like it is in both countries (U.S. and Germany) to a considerable degree.

Same starting conditions does not mean that the outcome is equal (or in theory like in communism). If somebody is constantly lazy and fortifies his given chances, then it is perfectly fine that his living standards are at a minimum.
If somebody has brilliant ideas, works hard etc. it is perfectly fine that he get rich like J.Stiglitz outlines.

You and August have misunderstood, what I wanted to express with Powell's life. The chances that he got even a medium-ranked officer in the army was a couple of factors more worse compared to his 'competitors'. Just read his book.

[August]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Powell is an extraordinary person but 99% of the people do not have that power, this iron will and these capabilities.
So this 'dream' may be valid for 5% of the people, who had a bad start in life for various reasons.

Again Powell went from nothing to a 4 star Army General and US Secretary of State. That's not the American dream. That's the American wildest dream on steroids and Red Bull. It cannot be used as the measure of success.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Again Powell went from nothing to a 4 star Army General and US Secretary of State. That's not the American dream. That's the American wildest dream on steroids and Red Bull. It cannot be used as the measure of success.

Well put.