French elections: a choice, not an echo
The first round of the elections in France have produced the two candidates for the runoff: Sarkozy and Royal. It turns out after all that most people were not lying to the polls because they were ashamed to say they were voting for Le Pen: in fact, they weren’t voting for Le Pen, who came in a distant fourth.
So now France faces a real choice, between a candidate somewhat to the right (for France, at least) and one to the left, a man and a woman, an idea-focused candidate with a track record of action and another who specializes in vague generalizations and has never held a senior ministry post, a pro-American who actually (sacre bleu!) visited President Bush, and one who is following the recent French tradition of America-bashing and going it one better, thanking Hezbollah legislator Ali Ammar for:
“being so frank” when he described U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East as “unlimited American insanity.”
Royal is banking on an “anyone but Sarkozy” syndrome to help her in her fight for the Presidency. And Sarkozy is banking on the fact that she will continue to put her foot firmly in her mouth as she already has done on almost every foreign policy issue she’s mentioned so far.
I wrote earlier that Sarkozy reminds me a bit of Rudy Giuliani. Royal reminds me a little bit of a French, female, and much more abrasive Barak Obama: relatively inexperienced; and counting on her personality, platitudes, and the voters’ dislike/fear of the other candidate to attract voters.
Elle a quand méªme fait l´ENA.
Quant é Sarkozy pro-américain, é§a ne va pas jusqu´é supporter cette abomination que représente la guerre imposée au peuple irakien.
Now, go away! Or I shall taunt you a second time!
Sorry. That’s all the French I know.
It’s looking promising for Sarkozy. Let’s hope.
That’s okay, Jean, we’ve been doing well enough without Chirac’s permission already. All he has to do is not speak out against OIF, and we’ll be getting along just fine. If your new president is really nice to us, we might just come to your rescue when the cité¨s finally launch their attack on Paris.
Somebody want to translate the French? Neo?
I think one of the reasons why English is so popular amongst the internet is because there are no umlouts or accents that you need to somehow include in your spellings. English, the ultimate mongrel language, with almost no unpragmatic requirements.
Jean Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Elle a quand méªme fait l´ENA.
Quant é Sarkozy pro-américain, é§a ne va pas jusqu´é supporter cette abomination que représente la guerre imposée au peuple irakien.
Trans of what Jean wrote:
“She however has graduated from ENA, in any case.
As for Sarko being pro-American: he however won’t go so far as support the abomination represented by the Iraq War.”
Okay, thanks.
This ENA represent in France what Supreme Party School was in Soviet Union: the only institution from which all high-rank bureaucrats are recruited. It also known for ideological indoctrination of its students. This made French ruling elite autocratic, unmovable and ultimately detached from reality. The same forces that destroyed communism are now undermine the Fifth Republic: unsustainable social security, ever growing national debt, passivity of population, demise of family, etc. This is a fatal disease; some remission is possible, as Thatcher years in Britain, but no example of full recovery is known.
Nicolas Sarkozy – 31.1%
Segolene Royal – 25.8%
Francois Bayrou – 18.6%
Jean-Marie Le Pen – 10.5%
Source: French Interior Ministry
It’s looking promising for Sarkozy. Let’s hope.
Not so fast. Most of Bayrou’s votes will go to Segolene in the second round. Also, most of Le Pen’s supporters will rather not vote than vote for Sarkozy.
In addition the approximately 7% vote that went to the far-left in the first round (LCR, LO, Greens, PCF, etc) is going to go to Royal in the second round.
I’d say the odds are 50-50 for a Royal victory.
To Lee about shopping:
” [In the USA] Spending patterns vary from rich to poor. The government’s latest Consumer Expenditure Survey shows spending by the top fifth of households (pretax income of $85,147-plus) rose 8.1% in 2005 vs. 2004. That’s a bigger percentage boost than for any other income group.
“The top fifth collected 50.4% of pretax income and accounted for a record 39% of consumer spending in 2005, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those affluent households outspent the bottom three quintiles combined. Spending disparities have grown: The bottom fifth (pretax income below $17,579) did just 8.2% of 2005’s consumer spending, a record low. (Advertising Age, January 15, 2007, p. 29)”
See: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/dawson220407.html
The first thing that could be done to put France on the road to recovery is to dynamite the walls of ENA.
By the way, “Jean” is posting from Mexico.
Which doesn’t mean he/she isn’t French, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Formal powers of French president are huge, but to reign in bureaucracy he needs to perform a revolution of some sort. I doubt this is possible; he lacks overwhelming popular support. The only force he can use in looming conflict with establishment is gendarmerie and dissatisfied students. But a competent demagogue can overcome these hurdles if crisis is severe enough, or create one. The best route – massive campaign against corruption, with top heads lopping, amounting to hysteria.
LePen took a licking, but his ideas didn’t, not the founding ones. He defined the big issue of the election: What is France? Sarko borrowed liberally from the the NF program. Sego picked up its decor: At her rallies the flag and la Marsailles were always prominent.
It’s interesting that in this election his daughter and advisor tried to broaden the NF base by wooing the “youths”. So while Sarkozy and Royal went rightwards, LePen went leftwards. And lost.
If you remember how the students and unions took to the streets when poor Villepin introduced modest reforms that would make it easier for companies to hire and fire people, you must ask yourself whether it matters who wins this election.
It is always easier to grant benefits than to curtail them – that is why national debt in France is so looming. But this economic madness can’t last forever, somobody has to put end to it. One needs very strong will and devotion to accomplish the task, and success is never granted.
If you remember how the students and unions took to the streets when poor Villepin introduced modest reforms that would make it easier for companies to hire and fire people, you must ask yourself whether it matters who wins this election.
I think it matters to French people who likes the strength of America, but also don’t want to move out of France, their homeland.
This is a similar phenomenon to when people in glass houses throw rocks. What happens when someone like France, is too so busy trying to sabotage the attempts at building up from the rubble of a foreign nation, by the United States, is that France itself eventually takes the backlash. Fate is inevitable. When you indulge in the destructive forces, you cannot expect yourself to be immune to the same destructive forces. When people feel joy at America’s and Iraq’s problems in Iraq, they are ignoring their own sadistic elements and anti-social groups.
This was sustained, curiously enough, by the United States military and power, economic power as well. But the US now a days is no longer focused on Europe. It is focused on the Middle East. and Europeans are justifiably annoyed, that they are no longer the favored child.
Sob, you mean to say the less you earn, the less you spend? Wow! What a revelation!
So, this whole “rejection of materialism” thing is nothing more than “class envy’. Hard to believe when the “poor” wear $200 sneakers, have i-pods plugged in their ears, cell phones, wear “designer” clothes, and “pimp their rides”(black, hispanic, asian and white). So, where is this “lack of materialism” show itself in real life?
“If you remember how the students and unions took to the streets when poor Villepin introduced modest reforms that would make it easier for companies to hire and fire people, you must ask yourself whether it matters who wins this election.”
My point exactly. It is the media that wields power over the government in France, and the Islamists who wield power over the media. When France is ready to swallow its pride and beg for our help we will give it; until then, the more France divests itself of the hated Yanqués, the worse things will get.
I just heard a CNN reporter stating that Royal likes Americans; she just doesn’t like Bush and the government’s current policies. What a crock! When are the MSM going to stop buying this garbage? Of course, this type of reporting supports HRC’s promise to repair America’s image abroad.
Royal said once that she was not going to kneel before Bush. I don’t recall anyone telling her that she was confused about which president liked women in this position.
Lee wrotre: Sob, you mean to say the less you earn, the less you spend? Wow! What a revelation!
Lee, as usual you miss the point. Let’s lok more closely at what Sobriquet quoted:
“Spending disparities have grown: The bottom fifth (pretax income below $17,579) did just 8.2% of 2005’s consumer spending, a record low .”
I’ve italicized the key words above.
Of course there have always been spending disparities between the rich and poor, because the more affluent have more money to splurge than the less affluent.
But the interesting point about the data here is that the disparities in spending has grown, and that the disparity has reached record levels. In other words, the disparity in consumer spending between the top quintile and the bottom quintile is greater now than it has ever been since economists started keeping track of these things.
You can draw your own conclusions from this.
I just heard a CNN reporter stating that Royal likes Americans; she just doesn’t like Bush and the government’s current policies.
Actually, very few countries like the Bush government’s current policies. Have you noticed the uproar over Wolfowitz’s (Bush appointee to the World Bank) shennanigans at the World Bank? Even Angela Merkel in Germany, who hasdn’t criticized Bush very much, is calling for Wolfie’s resignation. Even the Blair government is calling for Wolfie’s ouster.
Except for a few heads of state who owe their power directly to the Bush administration (such as Musharraf in Pakistan, the head of state in Uzbekistan, etc), and a few arch-conservatives here and there (like the current Polish government), almost all the other governments in the world are unanimous in their horror at Bush.
The Bush government has done more to damage the US’s standing abroad than any US president before him (and hopefully any who comes after him).
Also, please know that one of the reasons why Nicolas Sarkozy will lose in the second round of the French elections is that he is perceived as too admiring of Bush for anyone’s comfort.
Of course, Charl forgets to mention that there are less “poor” spending “less”, and more “rich” spending “more”.
In 1995, U.S. household incomes in the “lowest fifth income quintile” was 3.7 percent. In 2000, it was 3.6 percent. In 1995, household incomes in the “highest fifth income quintile” was 48.7 percent. in 2000, it was 49.6 percent.
Source: faculty.ucc.edu/eah-damerow
In other words, there are less “poor” and more “rich” people.
You can draw your own conclusions from this.
It is also interesting to point out that all those countries “horrified” by Bush are, with very few exceptions, those countries that did business with Saddam.
It is also interesting to point out that all those countries “horrified” by Bush are, with very few exceptions, those countries that did business with Saddam.
Argument un peu ridicule : notre commerce avec les USA était au moins 15 fois plus important qu´avec l´Irak.
Bush a une tré¨s mauvaise image. Et pas seulement en France. C´est un fait. Méªme les voisins canadiens et mexicains semblent ne pas l´apprécier.
No, no… not “pew”; “Le pew”. Pepe Le Pew.
Jean’s a riot. Right, Neo?
I mean, remember that incident with Chirac refusing to stay at a meeting or some such when he heard English being spoken, Neo? Ja. Inferiority complex we got here.
“Spending disparities have grown: The bottom fifth (pretax income below $17,579) did just 8.2% of 2005’s consumer spending, a record low .”
I think there’s a greater point to be made. A lot of people are on the side of good, meaning they resist entropy. And entropy is mediocrity, it is the equalization of energy or differences between hot and cold regions. Disparity if you will. Therefore servants of entropy, wish to maximize entropy, they wish to minimize the disparity, by making things more equal, or equal faster in relation to the other.
But the point is, maximizing entropy is not a good thing people.
If Bush is so “bad”, why are so many Mexicans coming here to live under his “regime”?
“Argument un peu ridicule”
That it may be, but one with a point: you are more horrified by what Bush does than by anything Saddam did. You accuse the leader who won a close election of cheating, but willingly do businesd with one who declared himself victor by an impossible margin. You condemn the leader who built a prison for military enemies, and canonize the one who built prisons for the infant children of his political enemies. You demonize those who humiliated prisoners at Abu Gharib, and deify those who fed them into grinders feet first.
These are signs of the terminal sickness infecting France: the belief that words and beliefs are more important than actions and facts. You have already laid all your freedoms at the feet of the silver-tongued wizards of language, and it won’t be long before your people turn to the barbaric religion of Islam to escape the horrors they will unleash.
Jean, how do you say “dhimmi” in french?
Lee:
You wrote: “Jean, how do you say “dhimmi” in french?”
“Les citoyens”? Pardon the French spelling, but you get the idea…
Of course, Charlie, it doesn’t matter. The infidel language will be one of the first things to go under sharia in favor of Arabic, or “god’s” language.
Les arabo-muslmans ne représentent aucune menace pour la France.
L´islam est juste une religion jeune et dynamique.
Riiiiigggghhhhtttt….Jean. How many shops and cars were torched by the practitioners of “the religion of peace”?
I’m sure Jean believes the Muslims only represent a danger to cars and shops.
I wonder if he’ll feel any different when the Louvre goes up in smoke, or when the Arc de Triomphe meets the same fate as the Bamiyan Bhuddas. Probably not; he’s more likely some Castro-worshipping revolutionary who’s trying to affect an air of superiority by posting everything in French, not realizing how useless all those classes will be when the French end up speaking Arabic.
If Bush is so “bad”, why are so many Mexicans coming here to live under his “regime”?
Your question makes no sense. The reason why Mexicans move here has to do with the relative strength of the Mexican economy and the US economy. The Mexicans are coming here neither because of Bush, nor in spite of Bush. Do you belive that a Mexican thinks about Bush before crossing the border? That is not part of the equation at all.
In fact, the reason Mexicans are forced to come to the US has a lot to do with US policy. Remember that, because of farm subsidies, US agricultural products are very cheap (as they are subsidised). After NAFTA, cheap US agriproducts (especially corn) can be sold in Mexico without any tariff barriers. The deluge of cheap corn (and other agriproducts) coming from ther US means that Mexicans who used to make their living by farmng can’t do so any more, as they are priced out of the market. Pushed off the land and from agriculture, they have no choice but to cross the border into the USA.
Of course, Charl forgets to mention that there are less “poor” spending “less”, and more “rich” spending “more”.
In 1995, U.S. household incomes in the “lowest fifth income quintile” was 3.7 percent. In 2000, it was 3.6 percent. In 1995, household incomes in the “highest fifth income quintile” was 48.7 percent. in 2000, it was 49.6 percent.
Lee, if you re-read what you posted above, you will see that this data does not lead to your conclusion.
“In 1995, U.S. household incomes in the “lowest fifth income quintile” was 3.7 percent. In 2000, it was 3.6 percent.”
In other words, people in the bottom fifth quintile (the poorest fifth of the population) have become slightly poorer from 1995 to 2000. (Their collective share of the national household income has fallen from 3.7% to 3.6%.
Meanwhile…. “In 1995, household incomes in the “highest fifth income quintile” was 48.7 percent. in 2000, it was 49.6 percent.” In other words the richest fifth of the population has increased their share of the national income (from 48.7% to 49.6%).
In other words, based on your own data, between 1995 and 2000, the rich have grown richer and the poor have grown poorer.
Wrong, again, Charl. Check the source. The numbers represent the percentage of households in America that fall into “income categories”, the “lowest quintile” being those households whose income is at or below $11,000(check the source for the exact figure) compared to the “highest quintile”, those whose household income is at or above $87,000. It is not a reflection of the “distribution of wealth”.
And yeah, the country may be run by “Hitler”, but, hey, I really need the job.
Took you five hours to come up with that “spin”, huh, Charl?
Lee, the link you posted,
Source: faculty.ucc.edu/eah-damerow
does not work. Please provide the correct link.
A quintile is one fifth or 20% of the total po. It has nothing to do with “fixed” income brackets. Look up the word “quintile” in the dictionary.
The top quintile by income in a given year is the top 20% (income-wise) of the population. The bottom quintile is the bottom 20% (income-wise) of the population.
The number of people in each quintile is the same (20% of the total population). It makes no sense to say that the number of people in a quintile is 3.8%, and that’s not what you quoted is saying. The number of people in a quintile is always 20%.
The percentages in the data you quoted refer to the percentage of the share of the national income.
Please re-read what you posted and look up “quintile”. You are only embarrassing yourself in public.
Charle: In other words, people in the bottom fifth quintile (the poorest fifth of the population) have become slightly poorer from 1995 to 2000.
Oh, for gods’ sakes — I don’t know if Charlie here counts himself as “the poor” or “the rich”, but we can certainly count him as innumerate. In 1995, the US GDP was approximately $8.0 trillion — 3.7% of that is $296 billion. In 2000, the GDP was approx. $9.8 trillion (in constant dollars), and 3.6% of that is $353 billion. Thus, “the poor” have collectively gained about $57 billion in 5 years, an absolute increase of almost 20%. Of course, the population also grew in the same period, by about 7.6%, offsetting the per capita growth in income — meaning that “the poor’s” actual per capita increase in wealth is about 11.5%, or about 2.3% a year in real or constant dollars.
As has happened since the beginnings of capitalism, in other words — and with a speed that defies any historical comparison — the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown richer too. The left, of course, would rather make everyone grow poorer than have some grow richer faster than others. But that just epitomizes their moral poverty.
Well, Charl, I guess you’ll just have to look up Dr. Harold Damerow at Union County College, Cranford, N.J. It’s his study.
Sally,
You are using the red herring of GDP, whereas the data that Lee furnished (from which the %-age figures you are using came from) was about income. Quite different things.
Lee wrote: Well, Charl, I guess you’ll just have to look up Dr. Harold Damerow at Union County College, Cranford, N.J. It’s his study.
Lee,
You had provided an URL,
Source: faculty.ucc.edu/eah-damerow
which does not work.
Why don’t you provide an URL that does work?
Charl, that’s how it’s listed.
Try this: Google “U.S. income demographics” and look for the link that looks like that one.
I consider myself lucky I can even “type”, let alone “operate a computer”.
nytimes.comSally writes:
As has happened since the beginnings of capitalism, in other words – and with a speed that defies any historical comparison – the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown richer too.
The data shows otherwise:
“The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation.” [Source: New York Times, August 28, 2006]
URL:
nytimes.comSally writes:
As has happened since the beginnings of capitalism, in other words – and with a speed that defies any historical comparison – the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown richer too.
The data shows otherwise:
“The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation.” [Source: New York Times, August 28, 2006]
URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ei=5090&en=ea4fce3d527e44a0&ex=1314417600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1157213084-Vf6r5wBMH61FKmtIQjR9qQ
nytimes.comThanks for the link, Charlemagne.
The NY Times article you linked to also goes on to state:
“Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947”
The URL is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ei=5090&en=ea4fce3d527e44a0&ex=1314417600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1157213084-Vf6r5wBMH61FKmtIQjR9qQ
So much for Sally’s (attempted) sleight of hand in using GDP and income interchangeably.
Well, when he’s right, he’s right.
You are correct, Charl, I did read it wrong.
However, It does say in 1990, the population of the U.S was 248,644,000. Those below the poverty level was 33,585,000, or 13.5% of the population.
In 2000, the total population was 275,917,000. Those below the poverty level was 31,139,000, or 11.3% of the population.
usatoday.comLee wrote:
in 1990, the population of the U.S was 248,644,000. Those below the poverty level was 33,585,000, or 13.5% of the population.
In 2000, the total population was 275,917,000. Those below the poverty level was 31,139,000, or 11.3% of the population.
But notice what happened after 2000:
“The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000.”
URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Also:
1.1 million Americans joined ranks of the poor in 2004
By Richard Wolf,
USA TODAY
8/30/2005
WASHINGTON – The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.1 million to 37 million last year, despite a robust economy that created 2.2 million new jobs. It was the fourth consecutive year poverty has risen.
URL:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-30-census-poverty_x.htm
usatoday.comLee wrote:
in 1990, the population of the U.S was 248,644,000. Those below the poverty level was 33,585,000, or 13.5% of the population.
In 2000, the total population was 275,917,000. Those below the poverty level was 31,139,000, or 11.3% of the population.
But notice what happened after 2000:
“The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000.”
URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Also:
1.1 million Americans joined ranks of the poor in 2004
By Richard Wolf,
USA TODAY
8/30/2005
WASHINGTON – The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.1 million to 37 million last year, despite a robust economy that created 2.2 million new jobs. It was the fourth consecutive year poverty has risen.
URL:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-30-census-poverty_x.htm
American “poor” are still much richer than French “middle class” – more housing area per capita, bigger cars, more food can be bought and so on. What is more important, they can much easier improve their status – find better job, start their own buisness and so on, which is near to impossible in France. Social mobility in US is one of the highest in the world, and in France it almost absent. So american poor are simply to lasy or too stupid to get richer. They deserve their fate.
USA Today is infamous for fabricating news and treacherous uncovering of vital intelligence programs. It certainly has an ax to grind against Bush and Republican administration. Knowing how easily statistical data can be manipulated to create wrong impression, I prefer more reliable sources on economics than yellow press.
lse.ac.ukSocial mobility in US is one of the highest in the world
Actually, a study by the London School of Economics (LSE) finds exactly the opposite:
“In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility.
“Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.
“A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland.”
Source: London School of Economics, Press and Information Office,
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm
census.govpovertyUSA Today is infamous for fabricating news and treacherous uncovering of vital intelligence programs. It certainly has an ax to grind against Bush and Republican administration. Knowing how easily statistical data can be manipulated to create wrong impression, I prefer more reliable sources on economics than yellow press.
Well, you can look it up straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e. from the US Government’s Census Bureau (which is what the USA Today news report cited as a source).
Take a look at the US Census Bureau’s page called “Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2005” at the following URL:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05fig04.pdf
When you go to this page (it’s a PDF file, actually, which you can download), you’ll see a graph which confirms precisely what USA today reported, namely that poverty increased rather sharply between 2000 and 2004 (the last year for which data is available).
What in hell has this to do with the French election? Whenever somebody starts talking about disparity, watch out. You’re about to be, democratically, progressively, with equality and justice, mugged.
Paradoxically, relatively low results of the lowest income quintile reflects fairness of society: it places the scum where scum should be. The lest initiative, lazy and stupid in really fair society would inevitably waste their chances to improvement, so expect them making any progress is unrealistic. More meaningfull measure of mobility is the fate of middle class – how many of them made it to upper middle, how many of upper middle made it to real wealthy, and how many new millionaries emerge every year.
ippr.org.ukParadoxically, relatively low results of the lowest income quintile reflects fairness of society: it places the scum where scum should be. The lest initiative, lazy and stupid in really fair society would inevitably waste their chances to improvement, so expect them making any progress is unrealistic. More meaningfull measure of mobility is the fate of middle class – how many of them made it to upper middle, how many of upper middle made it to real wealthy, and how many new millionaries emerge every year.
But the LSE study referred to earlier didn’t just focus on mobility up from the lowest quintile of income groups, but focused on moving from one income group to a different income group, whatever the starting point might be.
I quote:
“A recent LSE study, for example, showed that the chances of an individual moving to a different income group from the one they were born into are significantly lower in Britain and the USA than in more equal societies such as Canada and especially the Nordic countries.”
Source: Institute for public policy research, UK,
http://www.ippr.org.uk/articles/?id=1992
Er, anyone, do you think that record immigration rates and the fact that the U.S. Census tracks illegal immigrants might have something to do with “increasing poverty rates”?
usatoday.comEr, anyone, do you think that record immigration rates and the fact that the U.S. Census tracks illegal immigrants might have something to do with “increasing poverty rates”?
The following data (from USA Today) indicates that your hypothesis is probably not correct, since Hispanic income is growing at a faster rate than non-Hispanic white income:
“Hispanic income grew 1.6% to $35,967. Non-Hispanic whites had a 0.5% increase to $50,784.
“Black households fared worse: Income dropped 0.8% to $30,858.”
The Census Bureau also reported on:
– Poverty. The portion of Americans living in poverty was 12.6% in 2005, essentially unchanged from 2004. The poverty rate had been rising since 2000.”
Source: USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-08-29-poverty-rate_x.htm
After all the bombings and riots, the suggestion that the “arabo-muslmans” present no problem in France is absurd.
Anyone else notice that France’s arrogance rises in direct proportion to its irrelevance? Too bad the French haven’t realized they can drop the facade–the rest of the world gave up on them, oh, somewhere around WWII.
census.govUsing GDP was just a quick and easy substitute for total income — in actual fact “household income” is a very difficult statistic to gather, and can be easily used in many vague and misleading ways, including for purposes of partisan politics. You rarely hear, for example, that there are as many as 15 different definitions of income, that the most commonly used definition excludes the value of things like food stamps, medicare, subsidized housing, or rising equity in homes. Few of those who like to talk about “THE poor” and “THE rich” as though they were static and separate fixtures of society ever mention that about 60% of the lowest quintile is made up of people in their retirement or starting-out years.
But that’s just par for those who look upon statistics as just an exercise in cherry-picking. Charlie above, for example, thinks the Census Bureau’s graph confirms the USA Today’s anti-Bush slant, when in fact it just displays how much better Bush has done post-recession than Clinton did — not only have the absolute numbers of those “in poverty” (meaning?) increased less after a longer recession, but the “poverty rate” (?) has climbed very little.
The overall point, for anyone wanting a real, as opposed to partisan, view of things, is that percentages of a changing quantity tell you nothing about the actual increase or decrease in amounts received, whether the quantity is GDP or total income (however that’s defined). So even if you like to think of “the poor” as a fixed segment of the population, if you’re really interested in their welfare you’d be more concerned about their actual income than about their position relative to “the rich”.
From that, I think we can fairly conclude that the left isn’t really concerned about “the poor” except as a convenient tool of partisan politics.
(See, e.g., http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-213.pdf )
It’s not so much arrogance as it is a combination of stupidity and Islamic doublespeak.
One perfect example comes from an impromptu interview with Imam Fouad ElBayly, posted recently on LGF.
At this point, any liberal reporter would have said, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry. I must have been mislead by Islamophobes,” and not even bothered to pursue the point further. Our caller, fortunately, knew better than that.
So he did declare a death sentence on Ali, but twisted the wording of the question around to initially claim he did not.
Despite ElBayly’s claims, this was not an innocent mistranslation of our English colloquialisms into Arabic ones. It is a willfull and intentional obfuscation, frequently used by so-called “moderate” Muslims, to keep the west at war with itself until we are too weak to fight off its true enemies.
freerepublic.comI propose to Charlemagne that the huge influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. boosts poverty rates and he/she replies with statistics to show that Hispanic income grows faster than average – a classic Lefty non sequitur!
Problem is, different parts of the world define poverty in different ways. A 2004 economic study by the Swedish think tank TIMBRO compared poverty rates in Sweden to the U.S. and determined that many of the “poor” in the U.S. would be classified as middle class in Sweden.
So, CharlesM, how many of the “poor” in France own their own homes, multiple cars, multiple color TVs, microwaves, etc?
Here’s a good summary of the TIMBRO report, together with a link to the actual report: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1296803/posts
Bush said that his War in Iraq would keep Al Qaeda bottled up in the Middle East. Wrong again.
Well, don’t worry, after the next attack I’m sure Bush will find some other Third Party to go after.
In fact, he’ll probably go after Iran, thereby destabilizing another major Middle East power.
Think this could be part of Al Qaeda’s plan?
They’ve always been two steps ahead of the Moron from Crawford, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
The following data (from USA Today) indicates that your hypothesis is probably not correct, since Hispanic income is growing at a faster rate than non-Hispanic white income:
Since they were already at rock bottom, lower than minimum wages, to start with. Obviously it would be easier to go from 3 dollars an hour to 6, a 100% increase, than 100,000 to 200k a year.
When people’s wages increase, it doesn’t mean they’ve suddenly gotten rich.
“There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in freedom.”
Alexis de Tocqueville “Democracy in America”
Well, at least he was French, which is sort of on topic.
There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in freedom.
Tocqueville is right, of course.
But the discussion that ensued had nothing to do with “equality”. In fact I never even mentioned the word “equality”. As usual, the usual suspects are furnishing a red herring / non sequitur.
I was responding to Sally’s statement that “as has happened since the beginnings of capitalism, in other words – and with a speed that defies any historical comparison – the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown richer too.”. I pointed out that according to the empirical data from the US Census bureau, this is empirically wrong — since about 2000, to the present, this has not been the case.
By the way, Sally asked the meaning of “in poverty” and “poverty rate”.
“The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes–for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year.”
The poverty line is measured by the bureau according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines which are illustrated in the table below.
Persons in Family Unit Income below
1 $9,800
2 $13,200
3 $16,600
4 $20,000
5 $23,400
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849.
The following data (from USA Today) indicates that your hypothesis is probably not correct, since Hispanic income is growing at a faster rate than non-Hispanic white income:
Since they were already at rock bottom, lower than minimum wages, to start with. Obviously it would be easier to go from 3 dollars an hour to 6, a 100% increase, than 100,000 to 200k a year.
But Hispanic income is not at rock-bottom. I quote (once again):
Hispanic income grew 1.6% to $35,967. Non-Hispanic whites had a 0.5% increase to $50,784. Black households fared worse: Income dropped 0.8% to $30,858.”
So in fact, median Hispanic income, at $35, 967, is actually higher than the median black income, which is $30,858. How does this qualify as “rock bottom”?
Since most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, if it was the arrival of the illegals which was causing the rise in percentage of poor people in the overall population, then that would have also been reflected in the Hispanic median income being dragged down. But that is not happening — Hispanic median income is going up, not down. Instead, it is black median income (which was lower than the Hispanic median income to begin with) which is going down and not up.
So, the main contribution to the increase in poverty overall seems rather to be the increasing poverty of blacks. Since most illegal immigrants are not black but Hispanic, it does not seem that illegal immigration is contributing all that much to the overall rise in the percentage of poor people. Rather, it is the increasing impoverishment of (native-born) African-Americans which is contributing the most to this phenomenon.
Amazing, Charl. All you’ve been typing about is the growing inequality between “rich” and “poor”, but because you “never used the word equality”, it’s really not what you’ve been talking about. Classic doublespeak.
Then you say it is increasing impoverishment of Blacks, rather than illegal immigration contributing to the phenomenon.
Ted Hayes of Fairness for American Immigration Reform says: “Mass illegal immigration has been the single greatest impediment to black advancement in this country over the past 25 years. Blacks, in particular, have lost economic opportunities, seen their kids’ schools flooded with non-English speaking students, and felt the socio-economic damage of illegal immigration mare acutely than any other group.”
When blacks in this country can’t get jobs because their labor is being underbidded by illegals, It shouldn’t be that difficult to see why they are doing worse.
“mare”?
When blacks in this country can’t get jobs because their labor is being underbidded by illegals, It shouldn’t be that difficult to see why they are doing worse.
Supposedly hordes of newly arrived hispanics (who don’t even speak English) are “underbidding” blacks, and yet median hispanic income is increasing while median black income is decreasing, while median hispanic income is already $5000 more than that of blacks. I’d like to know how you can explain that one.
No, Lee. Black impoverishment is happening mainly due to wilful (intentional) neglect and (implicit) racism, leading to denial of opportunities for blacks. (The two are related, of course).
Simple, DeShawn(and really not that difficult to figure out): If MORE hispanics have MORE jobs, and MORE blacks are unemployed because MORE hispanics have those jobs, the median income of hispanics goes up, while the median income of blacks go down.
Ted Hayes is black. He is a civil rights advocate. He sees the effects illegal immigration has on the black community every day.
You might want to check out Terry Anderson, also. He is a talk-show host at KRLA 870AM Los Angeles. Another outspoken black advocate for immigration reform.
Char: I was responding to Sally’s statement that “as has happened since the beginnings of capitalism, in other words – and with a speed that defies any historical comparison – the rich have grown richer, and the poor have grown richer too.”. I pointed out that according to the empirical data from the US Census bureau, this is empirically wrong – since about 2000, to the present, this has not been the case.
The idea that a statement referring to “the beginnings of capitalism” is refuted by a temporary fall in earnings in the wake of a recession is silly enough in itself. Combined with the fact that the report he’s referring to only goes up to 2005, not “the present”, and that it’s dealing with miniscule variations clouded by changing demographics, it becomes laughable.
Nevermind — no doubt Charlie feels he’s on a mission, and doesn’t want to be confused by facts or reason.
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
There was a song by Ten Years After back in the ’60’s, I think the title was “I’d Love to Change the World”.
One line said: “Tax the rich, feed the poor, ’til there are no rich no more.”
So, when everybody is poor, who’s going to feed us when there are no more rich to tax?
Pingback:Ekkehard von Aura