Tag Archives: america

Income inequality in the United States – Wikipedia

Posted: January 10, 2017 at 2:58 am

Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation’s income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 19501980.[1][2]

Measured for all households, U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but is among the highest after taxes and transfers, meaning the U.S. shifts relatively less income from higher income households to lower income households. Measured for working-age households, market income inequality is comparatively high (rather than moderate) and the level of redistribution is moderate (not low). These comparisons indicate Americans shift from reliance on market income to reliance on income transfers later in life and less than households in other developed countries do.[2][3]

The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.[4] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers.[5] Tax and transfer policies together reduced income inequality slightly more in 2011 than in 1979.[1]

While there is strong evidence that it has increased since the 1970s, there is active debate in the United States regarding the appropriate measurement, causes, effects and solutions to income inequality.[5] The two major political parties have different approaches to the issue, with Democrats historically emphasizing that economic growth should result in shared prosperity (i.e., a pro-labor argument advocating income redistribution), while Republicans tend to downplay the validity or feasibility of positively influencing the issue (i.e., a pro-capital argument against redistribution).[6]

U.S. income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[8][9][10][11][12][13] after several decades of stability,[14][15][16] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. The U.S. consistently exhibits higher rates of income inequality than most developed nations due to the nation’s enhanced support of free market capitalism and less progressive spending on social services.[17][18][19][20][21]

The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[7] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][22][23] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 34% between 19511981.[7][24] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of approximately $430,000 was required to be in the top 1% in 2013.[25]

Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] The bottom 50% earned 20% of the nation’s pre-tax income in 1979; this fell steadily to 14% by 2007 and 13% by 2014. Income for the middle 40% group, a proxy for the middle class, fell from 45% in 1979 to 41% in both 2007 and 2014.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]

The trend of rising income inequality is also apparent after taxes and transfers. A 2011 study by the CBO[30] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America’s income distribution.[30] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore substantially reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers. They became moderately less progressive between 1979 and 2007[5] but slightly more progressive measured between 1979 and 2011. Income transfers had a greater impact on reducing inequality than taxes from 1979 to 2011.[1]

Americans are not generally aware of the extent of inequality or recent trends.[31] There is a direct relationship between actual income inequality and the public’s views about the need to address the issue in most developed countries, but not in the U.S., where income inequality is worse but the concern is lower.[32] The U.S. was ranked the 6th worst among 173 countries (4th percentile) on income equality measured by the Gini index.[33]

There is significant and ongoing debate as to the causes, economic effects, and solutions regarding income inequality. While before-tax income inequality is subject to market factors (e.g., globalization, trade policy, labor policy, and international competition), after-tax income inequality can be directly affected by tax and transfer policy. U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed nations before taxes and transfers, but is among the worst after taxes and transfers.[2][34] Income inequality may contribute to slower economic growth, reduced income mobility, higher levels of household debt, and greater risk of financial crises and deflation.[35][36]

Labor (workers) and capital (owners) have always battled over the share of the economic pie each obtains. The influence of the labor movement has waned in the U.S. since the 1960s along with union participation and more pro-capital laws.[22] The share of total worker compensation has declined from 58% of national income (GDP) in 1970 to nearly 53% in 2013, contributing to income inequality.[37] This has led to concerns that the economy has shifted too far in favor of capital, via a form of corporatism, corpocracy or neoliberalism.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

Although some have spoken out in favor of moderate inequality as a form of incentive,[45][46] others have warned against the current high levels of inequality, including Yale Nobel prize for economics winner Robert J. Shiller, (who called rising economic inequality “the most important problem that we are facing now today”),[47] former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, (“This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing”),[48] and President Barack Obama (who referred to the widening income gap as the “defining challenge of our time”).[49]

The level of concentration of income in the United States has fluctuated throughout its history. Going back to the early 20th Century, when income statistics started to become available, there has been a “great economic arc” from high inequality “to relative equality and back again,” in the words of Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman.[50] In 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. By 2007, the top 1 percent account for 24% of all income.[51] In between, their share fell below 10% for three decades.

The first era of inequality lasted roughly from the post-civil war era (“the Gilded Age”) to sometime around 1937. But from about 1937 to 1947 a period that has been dubbed the “Great Compression”[52] income inequality in the United States fell dramatically. Highly progressive New Deal taxation, the strengthening of unions, and regulation of the National War Labor Board during World War II raised the income of the poor and working class and lowered that of top earners.[53] This “middle class society” of relatively low level of inequality remained fairly steady for about three decades ending in early 1970s,[14][52][54] the product of relatively high wages for the US working class and political support for income leveling government policies.

Wages remained relatively high because of lack of foreign competition for American manufacturing, and strong trade unions. By 1947 more than a third of non-farm workers were union members,[55] and unions both raised average wages for their membership, and indirectly, and to a lesser extent, raised wages for workers in similar occupations not represented by unions.[56] Scholars believe political support for equalizing government policies was provided by high voter turnout from union voting drives, the support of the otherwise conservative South for the New Deal, and prestige that the massive mobilization and victory of World War II had given the government.[57]

The return to high inequality or to what Krugman and journalist Timothy Noah have referred as the “Great Divergence”,[51] began in the 1970s. Studies have found income grew more unequal almost continuously except during the economic recessions in 199091, 2001 (Dot-com bubble), and 2007 sub-prime bust.[58][59]

The Great Divergence differs in some ways from the pre-Depression era inequality. Before 1937, a larger share of top earners income came from capital (interest, dividends, income from rent, capital gains). After 1970, income of high-income taxpayers comes predominantly from labor: employment compensation.[60]

Until 2011, the Great Divergence had not been a major political issue in America, but stagnation of middle-class income was. In 2009 the Barack Obama administration White House Middle Class Working Families Task Force convened to focus on economic issues specifically affecting middle-income Americans. In 2011, the Occupy movement drew considerable attention to income inequality in the country.

CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. “As a result of that uneven income growth,” the report noted, “the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined…. The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.”[5][61]

According to the CBO,[62] the major reason for observed rise in unequal distribution of after-tax income was an increase in market income, that is household income before taxes and transfers. Market income for a household is a combination of labor income (such as cash wages, employer-paid benefits, and employer-paid payroll taxes), business income (such as income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners), capital gains (profits realized from the sale of assets and stock options), capital income (such as interest from deposits, dividends, and rental income), and other income. Of them, capital gains accounted for 80% of the increase in market income for the households in top 20%, in the 20002007 period. Even over the 19912000 period, according to the CBO, capital gains accounted for 45% of the market income for the top 20% households.

In a July 2015 op-ed article, Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, stated that the CBO found that from 1980 to 2010 real median household income rose by 15%. However, when the definition of income was expanded to include benefits and subtracted taxes, the CBO found that the median household’s real income rose by 45%. Adjusting for household size, the gain increased to 53%.[63]

Just as higher-income groups are more likely to enjoy financial gains when economic times are good, they are also likely to suffer more significant income losses during economic downturns and recessions when they are compared to lower income groups. Higher-income groups tend to derive relatively more of their income from more volatile sources related to capital income (business income, capital gains, and dividends), as opposed to labor income (wages and salaries). For example, in 2011 the top 1% of income earners derived 37% of their income from labor income, versus 62% for the middle quintile. On the other hand, the top 1% derived 58% of their income from capital as opposed to 4% for the middle quintile. Government transfers represented only 1% of the income of the top 1% but 25% for the middle quintile; the dollar amounts of these transfers tend to rise in recessions.[1]

This effect occurred during the Great Recession of 20072009, when total income going to the bottom 99 percent of Americans declined by 11.6%, but fell by 36.3% for the top 1%. Declines were especially steep for capital gains, which fell by 75% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms between 2007 and 2009. Other sources of capital income also fell: interest income by 40% and dividend income by 33%. Wages, the largest source of income, fell by a more modest 6%.

The share of pretax income received by the top 1% fell from 18.7% in 2007 to 16.0% in 2008 and 13.4% in 2009, while the bottom four quintiles all had their share of pretax income increase from 2007 to 2009.[64][65] The share of aftertax income received by the top 1% income group fell from 16.7%, in 2007, to 11.5%, in 2009.[1]

The distribution of household incomes has become more unequal during the post-2008 economic recovery as the effects of the recession reversed.[66][67][68] CBO reported in November 2014 that the share of pre-tax income received by the top 1% had risen from 13.3% in 2009 to 14.6% in 2011.[1] During 2012 alone, incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20%, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1% in comparison.[22]

If the United States had the same income distribution it had in 1979, the bottom 80 percent of the population would have $1 trillion or $11,000 per family more. The top 1 percent would have $1 trillion or $750,000 less. Larry Summers[69]

According to an article in The New Yorker, by 2012, the share of pre-tax income received by the top 1% had returned to its pre-crisis peak, at around 23% of the pre-tax income.[2] This is based on widely cited data from economist Emmanuel Saez, which uses “market income” and relies primarily on IRS data.[67] The CBO uses both IRS data and Census data in its computations and reports a lower pre-tax figure for the top 1%.[1] The two series were approximately 5 percentage points apart in 2011 (Saez at about 19.7% versus CBO at 14.6%), which would imply a CBO figure of about 18% in 2012 if that relationship holds, a significant increase versus the 14.6% CBO reported for 2011. The share of after-tax income received by the top 1% rose from 11.5% in 2009 to 12.6% in 2011.[1]

Inflation-adjusted pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of American families fell between 2010 and 2013, with the middle income groups dropping the most, about 6% for the 40th-60th percentiles and 7% for the 20th-40th percentiles. Incomes in the top decile rose 2%.[34]

The top 1% captured 91% of the real income growth per family during the 2009-2012 recovery period, with their pre-tax incomes growing 34.7% adjusted for inflation while the pre-tax incomes of the bottom 99% grew 0.8%. Measured from 20092015, the top 1% captured 52% of the total real income growth per family, indicating the recovery was becoming less “lopsided” in favor of higher income families. By 2015, the top 10% (top decile) had a 50.5% share of the pre-tax income, close its highest all-time level.[70]

Tax increases on higher income earners were implemented in 2013 due to the Affordable Care Act and American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. CBO estimated that “average federal tax rates under 2013 law would be higher relative to tax rates in 2011 across the income spectrum. The estimated rates under 2013 law would still be well below the average rates from 1979 through 2011 for the bottom four income quintiles, slightly below the average rate over that period for households in the 81st through 99th percentiles, and well above the average rate over that period for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.”[1] In 2016, the economists Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson contended that inequality is the highest it has been since the nation’s founding.[71] French economist Thomas Piketty attributed the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, which he characterizes as an “electoral upset,” to “the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.”[72]

U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries measured before taxes and transfers, but is among the worst after taxes and transfers.[2]

According to the CBO and others, “the precise reasons for the

rapid growth in income at the top are not well understood”,[60][75] but “in all likelihood,” an “interaction of multiple factors” was involved.[76] “Researchers have offered several potential rationales.”[60][77] Some of these rationales conflict, some overlap.[78] They include:

Paul Krugman put several of these factors into context in January 2015: “Competition from emerging-economy exports has surely been a factor depressing wages in wealthier nations, although probably not the dominant force. More important, soaring incomes at the top were achieved, in large part, by squeezing those below: by cutting wages, slashing benefits, crushing unions, and diverting a rising share of national resources to financial wheeling and dealing…Perhaps more important still, the wealthy exert a vastly disproportionate effect on policy. And elite priorities obsessive concern with budget deficits, with the supposed need to slash social programs have done a lot to deepen [wage stagnation and income inequality].”[92]

There is an ongoing debate as to the economic effects of income inequality. For example, Alan B. Krueger, President Obama’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summarized the conclusions of several research studies in a 2012 speech. In general, as income inequality worsens:

Among economists and related experts, many believe that America’s growing income inequality is “deeply worrying”,[48] unjust,[84] a danger to democracy/social stability,[96][97][98] or a sign of national decline.[99] Yale professor Robert Shiller, who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2013, said after receiving the award, “The most important problem that we are facing now today, I think, is rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world.”[100] Economist Thomas Piketty, who has spent nearly 20 years studying inequality primarily in the US, warns that “The egalitarian pioneer ideal has faded into oblivion, and the New World may be on the verge of becoming the Old Europe of the twenty-first century’s globalized economy.”[101]

On the other side of the issue are those who have claimed that the increase is not significant,[102] that it doesn’t matter[98] because America’s economic growth and/or equality of opportunity are what’s important,[103] that it is a global phenomenon which would be foolish to try to change through US domestic policy,[104] that it “has many economic benefits and is the result of … a well-functioning economy”,[105][106] and has or may become an excuse for “class-warfare rhetoric”,[102] and may lead to policies that “reduce the well-being of wealthier individuals”.[105][107]

Economist Alan B. Krueger wrote in 2012: “The rise in inequality in the United States over the last three decades has reached the point that inequality in incomes is causing an unhealthy division in opportunities, and is a threat to our economic growth. Restoring a greater degree of fairness to the U.S. job market would be good for businesses, good for the economy, and good for the country.” Krueger wrote that the significant shift in the share of income accruing to the top 1% over the 1979 to 2007 period represented nearly $1.1 trillion in annual income. Since the wealthy tend to save nearly 50% of their marginal income while the remainder of the population saves roughly 10%, other things equal this would reduce annual consumption (the largest component of GDP) by as much as 5%. Krueger wrote that borrowing likely helped many households make up for this shift, which became more difficult in the wake of the 20072009 recession.[95]

Inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth. A strong demand for redistribution will occur in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy. Rational voters must internalize such issues.[108] High unemployment rates have a significant negative effect when interacting with increases in inequality. Increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization. High and persistent unemployment also has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth. Unemployment may seriously harm growth because it is a waste of resources, because it generates redistributive pressures and distortions, because it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation, because it drives people to poverty, because it results in liquidity constraints that limit labor mobility, and because it erodes individual self-esteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Policies to control unemployment and reduce its inequality-associated effects can strengthen long-run growth.[109]

Concern extends even to such supporters (or former supporters) of laissez-faire economics and private sector financiers. Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, has stated reference to growing inequality: “This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing.”[48] Some economists (David Moss, Paul Krugman, Raghuram Rajan) believe the “Great Divergence” may be connected to the financial crisis of 2008.[105][110] Money manager William H. Gross, former managing director of PIMCO, criticized the shift in distribution of income from labor to capital that underlies some of the growth in inequality as unsustainable, saying:

Even conservatives must acknowledge that return on capital investment, and the liquid stocks and bonds that mimic it, are ultimately dependent on returns to labor in the form of jobs and real wage gains. If Main Street is unemployed and undercompensated, capital can only travel so far down Prosperity Road.

He concluded: “Investors/policymakers of the world wake up you’re killing the proletariat goose that lays your golden eggs.”[111][112]

Among economists and reports that find inequality harming economic growth are a December 2013 Associated Press survey of three dozen economists’,[114] a 2014 report by Standard and Poor’s,[115] economists Gar Alperovitz, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, and Branko Milanovic.

A December 2013 Associated Press survey of three dozen economists found that the majority believe that widening income disparity is harming the US economy. They argue that wealthy Americans are receiving higher pay, but they spend less per dollar earned than middle class consumers, the majority of the population, whose incomes have largely stagnated.[114]

A 2014 report by Standard and Poor’s concluded that diverging income inequality has slowed the economic recovery and could contribute to boom-and-bust cycles in the future as more and more Americans take on debt in order to consume. Higher levels of income inequality increase political pressures, discouraging trade, investment, hiring, and social mobility according to the report.[115]

Economists Gar Alperovitz and Robert Reich argue that too much concentration of wealth prevents there being sufficient purchasing power to make the rest of the economy function effectively.[116][117]

Joseph Stiglitz argues that concentration of wealth and income leads the politically powerful economic elite seek to protect themselves from redistributive policies by weakening the state, and this leads to less public investments by the state roads, technology, education, etc. that are essential for economic growth.[118][119]

According to economist Branko Milanovic, while traditionally economists thought inequality was good for growth, “The view that income inequality harms growth or that improved equality can help sustain growth has become more widely held in recent years. The main reason for this shift is the increasing importance of human capital in development. When physical capital mattered most, savings and investments were key. Then it was important to have a large contingent of rich people who could save a greater proportion of their income than the poor and invest it in physical capital. But now that human capital is scarcer than machines, widespread education has become the secret to growth.” He continued that “Broadly accessible education” is both difficult to achieve when income distribution is uneven and tends to reduce “income gaps between skilled and unskilled labor.”[120]

Robert Gordon wrote that such issues as ‘rising inequality; factor price equalization stemming from the interplay between globalization and the Internet; the twin educational problems of cost inflation in higher education and poor secondary student performance; the consequences of environmental regulations and taxes…” make economic growth harder to achieve than in the past.[121]

In response to the Occupy movement Richard A. Epstein defended inequality in a free market society, maintaining that “taxing the top one percent even more means less wealth and fewer jobs for the rest of us.” According to Epstein, “the inequalities in wealth … pay for themselves by the vast increases in wealth”, while “forced transfers of wealth through taxation … will destroy the pools of wealth that are needed to generate new ventures.[122] Some researchers have found a connection between lowering high marginal tax rates on high income earners (high marginal tax rates on high income being a common measure to fight inequality), and higher rates of employment growth.[123][124] Government significant free market strategy affects too. the reason is there is a failure in the US political system to counterbalance the rise in unequal distribution of income amongst the citizens.[125]

Economic sociologist Lane Kenworthy has found no correlation between levels of inequality and economic growth among developed countries, among states of the US, or in the US over the years from 1947 to 2005.[126]Jared Bernstein found a nuanced relation he summed up as follows: “In sum, I’d consider the question of the extent to which higher inequality lowers growth to be an open one, worthy of much deeper research”.[127]Tim Worstall commented that capitalism would not seem to contribute to an inherited-wealth stagnation and consolidation, but instead appears to promote the opposite, a vigorous, ongoing turnover and creation of new wealth.[128][129]

Income inequality was cited as one of the causes of the Great Depression by Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in 1933. In his dissent in the Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (288 U.S. 517) case, he wrote: “Other writers have shown that, coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.”[130]

Central Banking economist Raghuram Rajan argues that “systematic economic inequalities, within the United States and around the world, have created deep financial ‘fault lines’ that have made [financial] crises more likely to happen than in the past” the Financial crisis of 200708 being the most recent example.[131] To compensate for stagnating and declining purchasing power, political pressure has developed to extend easier credit to the lower and middle income earners particularly to buy homes and easier credit in general to keep unemployment rates low. This has given the American economy a tendency to go “from bubble to bubble” fueled by unsustainable monetary stimulation.[132]

Greater income inequality can lead to monopolization of the labor force, resulting in fewer employers requiring fewer workers.[133][134] Remaining employers can consolidate and take advantage of the relative lack of competition, leading to less consumer choice, market abuses, and relatively higher prices.[109][134]

Income inequality lowers aggregate demand, leading to increasingly large segments of formerly middle class consumers unable to afford as many luxury and essential goods and services.[133] This pushes production and overall employment down.[109]

Deep debt may lead to bankruptcy and researchers Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi found a fivefold increase in the number of families filing for bankruptcy between 1980 and 2005.[135] The bankruptcies came not from increased spending “on luxuries”, but from an “increased spending on housing, largely driven by competition to get into good school districts.” Intensifying inequality may mean a dwindling number of ever more expensive school districts that compel middle class or would-be middle class to “buy houses they can’t really afford, taking on more mortgage debt than they can safely handle”.[136]

The ability to move from one income group into another (income mobility) is a means of measuring economic opportunity. A higher probability of upward income mobility theoretically would help mitigate higher income inequality, as each generation has a better chance of achieving higher income groups. Conservatives and libertarians such as economist Thomas Sowell, and Congressman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.)[137] argue that more important than the level of equality of results is America’s equality of opportunity, especially relative to other developed countries such as western Europe.

Nonetheless, results from various studies reflect the fact that endogenous regulations and other different rules yield distinct effects on income inequality. A study examines the effects of institutional change on age-based labor market inequalities in Europe. There is a focus on wage-setting institutions on the adult male population and the rate of their unequal income distribution. According to the study, there is evidence that unemployment protection and temporary work regulation affect the dynamics of age-based inequality with positive employment effects of all individuals by the strength of unions. Even though the European Union is within a favorable economic context with perspectives of growth and development, it is also very fragile. [138]

However, several studies have indicated that higher income inequality corresponds with lower income mobility. In other words, income brackets tend to be increasingly “sticky” as income inequality increases. This is described by a concept called the Great Gatsby curve.[95][139] In the words of journalist Timothy Noah, “you can’t really experience ever-growing income inequality without experiencing a decline in Horatio Alger-style upward mobility because (to use a frequently-employed metaphor) it’s harder to climb a ladder when the rungs are farther apart.”[48]

The centrist Brookings Institution said in March 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, sharply reducing social mobility in the US.[140] A 2007 study (by Kopczuk, Saez and Song in 2007) found the top population in the United States “very stable” and that income mobility had “not mitigated the dramatic increase in annual earnings concentration since the 1970s.”[139]

Economist Paul Krugman, attacks conservatives for resorting to “extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion”. He argues that while in any given year, some of the people with low incomes will be “workers on temporary layoff, small businessmen taking writeoffs, farmers hit by bad weather” the rise in their income in succeeding years is not the same ‘mobility’ as poor people rising to middle class or middle income rising to wealth. It’s the mobility of “the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early thirties.”

Studies by the Urban Institute and the US Treasury have both found that about half of the families who start in either the top or the bottom quintile of the income distribution are still there after a decade, and that only 3 to 6% rise from bottom to top or fall from top to bottom.[141]

On the issue of whether most Americans do not stay put in any one income bracket, Krugman quotes from 2011 CBO distribution of income study

Household income measured over a multi-year period is more equally distributed than income measured over one year, although only modestly so. Given the fairly substantial movement of households across income groups over time, it might seem that income measured over a number of years should be significantly more equally distributed than income measured over one year. However, much of the movement of households involves changes in income that are large enough to push households into different income groups but not large enough to greatly affect the overall distribution of income. Multi-year income measures also show the same pattern of increasing inequality over time as is observed in annual measures.[30]

In other words, “many people who have incomes greater than $1 million one year fall out of the category the next year but that’s typically because their income fell from, say, $1.05 million to 0.95 million, not because they went back to being middle class.”[30][142]

Several studies have found the ability of children from poor or middle-class families to rise to upper income known as “upward relative intergenerational mobility” is lower in the US than in other developed countries[143] and at least two economists have found lower mobility linked to income inequality.[48][144]

In their Great Gatsby curve,[144]White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan B. Krueger and labor economist Miles Corak show a negative correlation between inequality and social mobility. The curve plotted “intergenerational income elasticity” i.e. the likelihood that someone will inherit their parents’ relative position of income level and inequality for a number of countries.[48][145]

Aside from the proverbial distant rungs, the connection between income inequality and low mobility can be explained by the lack of access for un-affluent children to better (more expensive) schools and preparation for schools crucial to finding high-paying jobs; the lack of health care that may lead to obesity and diabetes and limit education and employment.[143]

Krueger estimates that “the persistence in the advantages and disadvantages of income passed from parents to the children” will “rise by about a quarter for the next generation as a result of the rise in inequality that the U.S. has seen in the last 25 years.”[48]

Greater income inequality can increase the poverty rate, as more income shifts away from lower income brackets to upper income brackets. Jared Bernstein wrote: “If less of the economy’s market-generated growth i.e., before taxes and transfers kick in ends up in the lower reaches of the income scale, either there will be more poverty for any given level of GDP growth, or there will have to be a lot more transfers to offset inequality’s poverty-inducing impact.” The Economic Policy Institute estimated that greater income inequality would have added 5.5% to the poverty rate between 1979 and 2007, other factors equal. Income inequality was the largest driver of the change in the poverty rate, with economic growth, family structure, education and race other important factors.[146][147] An estimated 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2012, versus 26% in 1967.[148]

A rise in income disparities weakens skills development among people with a poor educational background in term of the quantity and quality of education attained. Those with a low level of expertise will always consider themselves unworthy of any high position and pay[149]

Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management noted that, “for the last two decades and especially in the current period, … productivity soared … [but] U.S. real average hourly earnings are essentially flat to down, with today’s inflation-adjusted wage equating to about the same level as that attained by workers in 1970. … So where have the benefits of technology-driven productivity cycle gone? Almost exclusively to corporations and their very top executives.”[150][150] In addition to the technological side of it, the affected functionality emanates from the perceived unfairness and the reduced trust of people towards the state. The study by Kristal and Cohen showed that rising wage inequality has brought about an unhealthy competition between institutions and technology. The technological changes, with computerization of the workplace, seem to give an upper hand to the high-skilled workers as the primary cause of inequality in America. The qualified will always be considered to be in a better position as compared to those dealing with hand work leading to replacements and unequal distribution of resources.[151]

Economist Timothy Smeeding summed up the current trend:[152]

Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 2030 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be … the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution.

According to Janet L. Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve,

…from 1973 to 2005, real hourly wages of those in the 90th percentile where most people have college or advanced degrees rose by 30% or more… among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent. This includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S. economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below where many people have at most a high school diploma real wages rose by only 5 to 10% [77]

Economists Jared Bernstein and Paul Krugman have attacked the concentration of income as variously “unsustainable”[97] and “incompatible”[98] with real democracy. American political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson quote a warning by Greek-Roman historian Plutarch: “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”[96] Some academic researchers have written that the US political system risks drifting towards a form of oligarchy, through the influence of corporations, the wealthy, and other special interest groups.[153][154]

Rising income inequality has been linked to the political polarization in Washington DC.[155] According to a 2013 study published in the Political Research Quarterly, elected officials tend to be more responsive to the upper income bracket and ignore lower income groups.[156]

Paul Krugman wrote in November 2014 that: “The basic story of political polarization over the past few decades is that, as a wealthy minority has pulled away economically from the rest of the country, it has pulled one major party along with it…Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes will face bitter Republican opposition.” He used environmental protection as another example, which was not a partisan issue in the 1990s but has since become one.[157]

As income inequality has increased, the degree of House of Representatives polarization measured by voting record has also increased. The voting is mostly by the rich and for the rich making it hard to achieve equal income and resource distribution for the average population (Bonica et al., 2013). There is a little number of people who turn to government insurance with the rising wealth and real income since they consider inequality within the different government sectors. Additionally, there has been an increased influence by the rich on the regulatory, legislative and electoral processes within the country that has led to improved employment standards for the bureaucrats and politicians.[158] Professors McCarty, Pool and Rosenthal wrote in 2007 that polarization and income inequality fell in tandem from 1913 to 1957 and rose together dramatically from 1977 on. They show that Republicans have moved politically to the right, away from redistributive policies that would reduce income inequality. Polarization thus creates a feedback loop, worsening inequality.[159]

Several economists and political scientists have argued that economic inequality translates into political inequality, particularly in situations where politicians have financial incentives to respond to special interest groups and lobbyists. Researchers such as Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University have shown that politicians are significantly more responsive to the political opinions of the wealthy, even when controlling for a range of variables including educational attainment and political knowledge.[161][162]

Historically, discussions of income inequality and capital vs. labor debates have sometimes included the language of class warfare, from President Theodore Roosevelt (referring to the leaders of big corporations as “malefactors of great wealth”), to President Franklin Roosevelt (“economic royalists…are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred”), to more the recent “1% versus the 99%” issue and the question of which political party better represents the interests of the middle class.[163]

Investor Warren Buffett said in 2006 that: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” He advocated much higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who pay lower effective tax rates than many middle-class persons.[164]

Two journalists concerned about social separation in the US are economist Robert Frank, who notes that: “Today’s rich had formed their own virtual country .. [T]hey had built a self-contained world unto themselves, complete with their own health-care system (concierge doctors), travel network (Net jets, destination clubs), separate economy…The rich weren’t just getting richer; they were becoming financial foreigners, creating their own country within a country, their own society within a society, and their economy within an economy.[165]

George Packer wrote that “Inequality hardens society into a class system … Inequality divides us from one another in schools, in neighborhoods, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, in what we eat, in the condition of our bodies, in what we think, in our children’s futures, in how we die. Inequality makes it harder to imagine the lives of others.[99]

Even these class levels can affect the politics in certain ways. There has been an increased influence by the rich on the regulatory, legislative and electoral processes within the country that has led to improved employment standards for the bureaucrats and politicians. They have a greater influence through their lobbying and contributions that give them an opportunity to immerse wealth for themselves.[166]

Loss of income by the middle class relative to the top-earning 1% and 0.1% is both a cause and effect of political change, according to journalist Hedrick Smith. In the decade starting around 2000, business groups employed 30 times as many Washington lobbyists as trade unions and 16 times as many lobbyists as labor, consumer, and public interest lobbyists combined.[167]

From 1998 through 2010 business interests and trade groups spent $28.6 billion on lobbying compared with $492 million for labor, nearly a 60-to-1 business advantage.[168]

The result, according to Smith, is a political landscape dominated in the 1990s and 2000s by business groups, specifically “political insiders” former members of Congress and government officials with an inside track working for “Wall Street banks, the oil, defense, and pharmaceutical industries; and business trade associations.” In the decade or so prior to the Great Divergence, middle-class-dominated reformist grassroots efforts such as civil rights movement, environmental movement, consumer movement, labor movement had considerable political impact.[167]

“We haven’t achieved the minimalist state that libertarians advocate. What we’ve achieved is a state too constrained to provide the public goods investments in infrastructure, technology, and education that would make for a vibrant economy and too weak to engage in the redistribution that is needed to create a fair society. But we have a state that is still large enough and distorted enough that it can provide a bounty of gifts to the wealthy.”

Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that hyper-inequality may explain political questions such as why America’s infrastructure (and other public investments) are deteriorating,[170] or the country’s recent relative lack of reluctance to engage in military conflicts such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Top-earning families, wealthy enough to buy their own education, medical care, personal security, and parks, have little interest in helping pay for such things for the rest of society, and the political influence to make sure they don’t have to. So too, the lack of personal or family sacrifice involved for top earners in the military intervention of their country their children being few and far between in the relatively low-paying all-volunteer military may mean more willingness by influential wealthy to see its government wage war.[171]

Economist Branko Milanovic argued that globalization and the related competition with cheaper labor from Asia and immigrants have caused U.S. middle-class wages to stagnate, fueling the rise of populist political candidates such as Donald Trump.[172]

The relatively high rates of health and social problems, (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use) and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy, educational performance, trust among strangers, women’s status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued per capita), in the US compared to other developed countries may be related to its high income inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found such a correlation which remains after accounting for ethnicity,[173] national culture,[174] and occupational classes or education levels.[175] Their findings, based on UN Human Development Reports and other sources, locate the United States at the top of the list in regards to inequality and various social and health problems among developed countries.[176] The authors argue inequality creates psychosocial stress and status anxiety that lead to social ills.[177] A 2009 study conducted by researchers at Harvard University and published in the British Medical Journal attribute one in three deaths in the United States to high levels of inequality.[178] According to The Earth Institute, life satisfaction in the US has been declining over the last several decades, which has been attributed to soaring inequality, lack of social trust and loss of faith in government.[179]

It is claimed in a 2015 study by Princeton University researchers Angus Deaton and Anne Case that income inequality could be a driving factor in a marked increase in deaths among white males between the ages of 45 to 54 in the period 1999 to 2013.[180][181]

Paul Krugman argues that the much lamented long-term funding problems of Social Security and Medicare can be blamed in part on the growth in inequality as well as the usual culprits like longer life expectancies. The traditional source of funding for these social welfare programs payroll taxes is inadequate because it does not capture income from capital, and income above the payroll tax cap, which make up a larger and larger share of national income as inequality increases.[182]

Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.[183]

Disagreeing with this focus on the top-earning 1%, and urging attention to the economic and social pathologies of lower-income/lower education Americans, is conservative[184] journalist David Brooks. Whereas in the 1970s, high school and college graduates had “very similar family structures”, today, high school grads are much less likely to get married and be active in their communities, and much more likely to smoke, be obese, get divorced, or have “a child out of wedlock.”[185]

The zooming wealth of the top one percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.[185][186]

Contradicting most of these arguments, classical liberals such as Friedrich Hayek have maintained that because individuals are diverse and different, state intervention to redistribute income is inevitably arbitrary and incompatible with the concept of general rules of law, and that “what is called ‘social’ or distributive’ justice is indeed meaningless within a spontaneous order”. Those who would use the state to redistribute, “take freedom for granted and ignore the preconditions necessary for its survival.”[187][188][188]

The growth of inequality has provoked a political protest movement the Occupy movement starting in Wall Street and spreading to 600 communities across the United States in 2011. Its main political slogan “We are the 99%” references its dissatisfaction with the concentration of income in the top 1%.

More:

Income inequality in the United States – Wikipedia

Posted in Basic Income Guarantee | Comments Off on Income inequality in the United States – Wikipedia

Quotes About Liberal (122 quotes)

Posted: December 29, 2016 at 4:05 am

These are lines from my asteroid-impact novel, Regolith: Just because there are no laws against stupidity doesnt mean it shouldnt be punished. I havent faced rejection this brutal since I was single. He smelled trouble like a fart in the shower. If this was a kiss of gratitude, then she must have been very grateful. Not since Bush and Cheney have so few spent so much so fast for so long for so little. As a nympho for mind-fucks, Lisa took to politics like a pig to mud. She began paying men compliments as if she expected a receipt. Like the Aerosmith song, his get-up-and-go just got-up-and-went. You couldnt beat the crap out of a dirty diaper! He embraced his only daughter as if she was deploying to Iraq. She was hotter than a Class 4 solar flare! If sex was a weapon, then Monique possessed WMD I havent felt this alive since I lost my virginity. He once read that 95% of women fake organism, and the rest are gay. Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, but ugly is universal. Why do wives fart, but not girlfriends? Adultery is sex that is wrong, but not necessarily bad. The dinosaurs stayed drugged out, drooling like Jonas Brothers fans. Silence filled the room like tear gas. The told him a fraction of the truth and hoped it would take just a fraction of the time. Happiness is the best cosmetic, He was a whale of a catch, and there were a lot of fish in the sea eager to nibble on his bait. Cheap hookers are less buck for the bang, Men cannot fall in love with women they dont find attractive, and women cannot fall in love with men they do not respect. During sex, men want feedback while women expect mind-reading. Cooper looked like a cow about to be tipped over. His father warned him to never do anything he couldnt justify on Oprah. The poor are not free — theyre just not enslaved. Only those with money are free. Sperm wasnt something he would choose on a menu, but it still tasted better than asparagus. The crater looked alive, like Godzilla was about to leap out and mess up Tokyo. Bush follows the Bible until it gets to Jesus. When Bush talks to God, its prayer; when God talks to Bush, its policy. Cheney called the new Miss America a traitor apparently she wished for world peace. Cheney was so unpopular that Bush almost replaced him when running for re-election, changing his campaign slogan to, Aint Got Dick. Bush fought a war on poverty and the poor lost. Bush thinks we should strengthen the dollar by making it two-ply. Hurricane Katrina got rid of so many Democratic voters that Republicans have started calling her Kathleen Harris. America and Iraq fought a war and Iran won. Bush hasnt choked this much since his last pretzel. Some wars are unpopular; the rest are victorious. So many conservatives hate the GOP that they are thinking of changing their name to the Dixie Chicks. If Saddam had any WMD, he would have used them when we invaded. If Bush had any brains, he would have used them when we invaded. Its hard for Bush to win hearts and minds since he has neither. In Iraq, you are a coward if you leave and a fool if you stay. Bush believes its not a sin to kill Muslims since they are going to Hell anyway. And, with Bushs help, soon. In Iraq, those who make their constitution subservient to their religion are called Muslims. In America theyre called Republicans. With great power comes great responsibility unless youre Republican. Brent Reilly

View original post here:

Quotes About Liberal (122 quotes)

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Quotes About Liberal (122 quotes)

First Amendment works and will if we still have it

Posted: December 26, 2016 at 2:54 pm

Gene Policinski, Inside the First Amendment 9:30 a.m. MST December 25, 2016

Gene Policinski writes the First Amendment column distributed by Gannett News Service. (Gannett News Service, Sam Kittner/First Amendment Center/File)(Photo: GNS)

Our First Amendment freedoms will work if we still have them around to use.

Those five freedoms religion, speech, press, assembly and petition have been challenged at various times in our nations history, as many would say they are today.

But the very freedoms themselves provide the means and mechanisms for our society to self-correct those challenges, perhaps a main reason why the First Amendment has endured, unchanged, since Dec. 15, 1791.

Case in point: The tragic mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, on June 12 was followed by a burst of anti-Islamic rhetoric across the country after the killer declared allegiance to ISIS. The speech, however hateful, generally was protected by the First Amendment.

But in turn, those attacks were followed by pushback in the other direction. Muslim leaders decried the use of their faith to justify hatred of the United States or homophobic terrorism. Opposition was ramped up to the idea of increased surveillance of Muslims in America and now-President-elect Donald Trumps suggestion for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

In two rounds of national polling in the Newseum Institutes annual State of the First Amendment survey, support for First Amendment protection for fringe or extreme faiths actually increased after the Orlando attack, compared with sampling done in May.

The number of people who said First Amendment protection does not extend to such faiths dropped from 29 to 22 percent. In both surveys, just over 1,000 adults were sampled by telephone, and the margin of error in the surveys was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

The First Amendment is predicated on the notion that citizens who are able to freely debate without government censorship or direction will exchange views, sometimes strongly and on controversial subjects, but eventually find common ground.

Of course, that kind of vigorous and robust exchange in the marketplace only can happen if there is a marketplace freedom for all to speak and a willingness to join with others in serious discussion, debate and discourse that has a goal of improving life for us all.

Heres where the survey results turn ominous: Nearly four in 10 of those questioned in the 2016 State of the First Amendment survey, which was released July 4, could not name unaided a single freedom in the First Amendment.

Perhaps not identifying by name even one of the five freedoms is not the same as not knowing you have those core freedoms. But neither does the result build confidence that, as a nation, we have a deep understanding of what distinguishes our nation among all others and is so fundamental to the unique American experience of self-governance.

We have thrived as a nation with a social order and a government structure in which the exchange of views is a key to solving problems. The nations architects had a confidence and optimism that such exchanges in the so-called marketplace of ideas would ultimately work for the public good.

What would those founders think of a society in which so many seem to favor the electronic versions of divided marketplaces that permit only that speech of which you already approve or that confirms your existing views?

Or worse yet, a society in which the five freedoms are used as weapons from cyberbullying to mass Twitter attacks to deliberate distribution of fake news to figuratively set ablaze or tear down an opponents stand?

As a nation, we cannot abandon the values of our First Amendment freedoms that protect religious liberty, that defend free expression at its widest definition and that provide a right to unpopular dissent, without fundamentally changing the character of our nation.

As a people, we must stand in defense of the values set out in the First Amendment and Bill of Rights some 225 years ago, even as we face one of the deepest public divides on a range of issues in our history.

And we must revisit and renew our faith in a concept expressed in 1664 by English poet and scholar John Milton and later woven deep into the institutional fabric of America: that in a battle between truth and falsehood, who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institutes First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org. Follow him on Twitter: @genefac.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2016/12/25/first-amendment-works-and-if-we-still-have/95705830/

The rest is here:
First Amendment works and will if we still have it

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment works and will if we still have it

This may be the most politically incorrect Christmas show in …

Posted: December 24, 2016 at 1:45 pm

Well, folks. Ive gone off and done it.

Ive managed to create the most politically incorrect Christmas show in America. My two-hour Fox Radio extravaganza declares that Jesus is the reason for the season loud and proud.

Click here for a FREE subscription to Todds newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!

The Todd Starnes Christmas Show will air on hundreds of radio stations around the nation and FoxNews.com has a broadcast version which you can watch here.

The show includes a Living Nativity, flying angels, shepherds and the Christmas story delivered directly from the New Testament at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee.

We also have a stage full of line dancing Santa Clauses, celebrity singers like Jason Crabb, Meredith Andrews and the Mylon Hayes Family.

Oh, and theres a massive Christmas tree filled singing young people. You have to watch the video to truly appreciate the magnitude of 140,000 sparkling lights. It makes the Rockefeller Christmas Tree look like that scrawny Charlie Brown tree.

As you can tell, my show has high concentrations of cultural appropriation that could cause severe microaggressions among some millennials and free-thinkers. I posted a warning at the beginning of the program urging fragile snowflakes to seek shelter in a safe space until after the angels have harkened the herald.

It’s beyond reason that a season celebrating peace on earth is so despised by secular humanists. Before grandpa can swipe the last piece of pumpkin pie, the atheists and agnostics and free-thinkers are waging battles over Santa Claus and reindeer, candy canes and Christmas Choirs.

This year, schools took issue with A Christmas Carol and A Charlie Brown Christmas and one university published a screed urging people to host all-inclusive holiday parties.

Meanwhile, the atheists and agnostics doubled down on their efforts to eradicate town square Nativities from sea to shining sea. And dont even get me started with the Satanists.

The motley crew of godless Grinches have shown no mercy to either the sacred or the secular.

But when it comes to protesting the holy days of other religions, the atheists and agnostics and Satanists are curiously quiet. I dont seem to recall the Satanists posting a Satanic pentagram outside a mosque.

Some call it a war on Christmas — but it goes much deeper than just hating a holiday. It’s a war on the very foundation of our nation — the essence of who we are as a people.

We are one nation under God.

A God who sent his son to be born in the city of David — a savior — who is Christ the Lord. That is what Christmas is all about — and that is why the secular humanists so despise this Yuletide season.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is “God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values.” Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Read this article:
This may be the most politically incorrect Christmas show in …

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on This may be the most politically incorrect Christmas show in …

Hetalia: The World Twinkle | Anime-Planet

Posted: December 16, 2016 at 12:17 pm

Catch up with the nations in this latest season where we have more silly shenanigans. Germany and Italy are going on and on aboutcanned food? Ugh, are you sure that’s safe to eat?! In between the fun, we have something super special! Watch little America in a totally adorable flashback that is going to make your heart swell. Sh-Shut up, I’m not crying, you’re crying!And don’t forget to check in on the Nordic nations and see what’s going on with all those blondes. Wait Estonia, what are you doing there? And there’s even more adventure to be had when we go on a hunt for more micronations. Yay! Who will join Sealand in his journey to bring attention to the micros?But make sure you don’t miss out on the four extra special OVAs, including a Halloween special. Oh my gosh, everyone looks so cute in their costumes! Look at America dressed as and oh, look at you, England! Squee!!Hetalia is back and bringing the full twinkle!

More:

Hetalia: The World Twinkle | Anime-Planet

Posted in Micronations | Comments Off on Hetalia: The World Twinkle | Anime-Planet

Social Origins of Eugenics

Posted: December 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

Scientific Origins of Eugenics

Elof Carlson, State University of New York at Stony Brook

The eugenics movement arose in the 20th century as two wings of a common philosophy of human worth. Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics in 1883, perceived it as a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children. The Galtonian ideal of eugenics is usually termed positive eugenics. Negative eugenics, on the other hand, advocated culling the least able from the breeding population to preserve humanity’s fitness. The eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach.

The notion of segregating people considered unfit to reproduce dates back to antiquity. For example, the Old Testament describes the Amalekites a supposedly depraved group that God condemned to death. Concerns about environmental influences that might damage heredity leading to ill health, early death, insanity, and defective offspring were formalized in the early 1700s as degeneracy theory. Degeneracy theory maintained a strong scientific following until late in the 19th century. Masturbation, then called onanism, was presented in medical schools as the first biological theory of the cause of degeneracy. Fear of degeneracy through masturbation led Harry Clay Sharp, a prison physician in Jeffersonville, Indiana, to carry out vasectomies on prisoners beginning in 1899. The advocacy of Sharp and his medical colleagues, culminated in an Indiana law mandating compulsory sterilization of “degenerates.” Enacted in 1907, this was the first eugenic sterilization law in the United States.

By the mid-19th century most scientists believed bad environments caused degenerate heredity. Benedict Morel’s work extended the causes of degeneracy to some legitimate agents including poisoning by mercury, ergot, and other toxic substances in the environment. The sociologist Richard Dugdale believed that good environments could transform degenerates into worthy citizens within three generations. This position was a backdrop to his very influential study on The Jukes (1877), a degenerate family of paupers and petty criminals in Ulster County, New York. The inheritance of acquired (environmental) characters was challenged in the 1880s by August Weismann, whose theory of the germ plasm convinced most scientists that changes in body tissue (the soma) had little or no effect on reproductive tissue (the germ plasm). At the beginning of the 20th century, Weismann’s views were absorbed by degeneracy theorists who embraced negative eugenics as their favored model.

Adherents of the new field of genetics were ambivalent about eugenics. Most basic scientists including William Bateson in Great Britain, and Thomas Hunt Morgan in the United States shunned eugenics as vulgar and an unproductive field for research. However, Bateson’s and Morgan’s contributions to basic genetics were quickly absorbed by eugenicists, who took interest in Mendelian analysis of pedigrees of humans, plants, and animals. Many eugenicists had some type of agricultural background. Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, who together ran the Eugenics Record Office, were introduced through their shared interest in chicken breeding. Both also were active in Eugenics Section of the American Breeder’s Association (ABA). Davenport’s book, Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement through Better Breeding, had a distinct agricultural flavor, and his affiliation with the ABA was included under his name on the title page. Agricultural genetics also provided the favored model for negative eugenics: human populations, like agricultural breeds and varieties, had to be culled of their least productive members, with only the healthiest specimens used for breeding.

Evolutionary models of natural selection and dysgenic (bad) hereditary practices in society also contributed to eugenic theory. For example, there was fear that highly intelligent people would have smaller families (about 2 children), while the allegedly degenerate elements of society were having larger families of four to eight children. Public welfare might also play a role in allowing less fit people to survive and reproduce, further upsetting the natural selection of fitter people.

Medicine also put its stamp on eugenics. Physicians like Anton Ochsner and Harry Sharp were convinced that social failure was a medical problem. Italian criminologist and physician Cesare Lombroso popularized the image of an innate criminal type that was thought to be a reversion or atavism of a bestial ancestor of humanity. When medical means failed to help the psychotic, the retarded, the pauper, and the vagrant, eugenicists shifted to preventive medicine. The German physician-legislator Rudolph Virchow, advocated programs to deal with disease prevention on a large scale. Virchow’s public health movement was fused with eugenics to form the racial hygiene movement in Germany and came to America through physicians he trained.

Eugenicists argued that “defectives” should be prevented from breeding, through custody in asylums or compulsory sterilization. Most doctors probably felt that sterilization was a more humane way of dealing with people who could not help themselves. Vasectomy and tubal ligation were favored methods, because they did not alter the physiological and psychological contribution of the reproductive organs. Sterilization allowed the convicted criminal or mental patient to participate in society, rather than being institutionalized at public expense. Sterilization was not viewed as a punishment because these doctors believed (erroneously) that the social failure of “unfit” people was due to an irreversibly degenerate germ plasm.

See the article here:

Social Origins of Eugenics

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Social Origins of Eugenics

Prison abolition movement – Wikipedia

Posted: at 12:27 pm

The prison abolition movement is a movement that seeks to reduce or eliminate prisons and the prison system, and replace them with more humane and effective systems.

It is distinct from prison reform, which is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons; however, relying on prisons less could improve their conditions by reducing overcrowding.[1]:3

Some organizations such as the Anarchist Black Cross seek total abolishment of the prison system, not intending to replace it with other government-controlled systems. Many anarchist organizations believe that the best form of justice arises naturally out of social contracts. However, many supporters for prison abolition intend to replace it with other systems, reducing prisons to a smaller role in society.

Prominent social activist Angela Davis, outspoken critic of the prison-industrial complex, openly supports prison abolition.[2] “Mass incarceration is not a solution to unemployment, nor is it a solution to the vast array of social problems that are hidden away in a rapidly growing network of prisons and jails. However, the great majority of people have been tricked into believing in the efficacy of imprisonment, even though the historical record clearly demonstrates that prisons do not work.”[3] Her relevancy in this movement is attested by her close involvement with groups moving to abolish the PIC.[4]

Critical Resistance, co-founded by Angela Davis and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, is an American organization working towards an “international movement to end the Prison Industrial Complex by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe.”[5] Other similarly motivated groups such as the Prison Activist Resource Center (PARC), a group “committed to exposing and challenging all forms of institutionalized racism, sexism, able-ism, heterosexism, and classism, specifically within the Prison Industrial Complex,” [6] and Black & Pink, an abolitionist organization that focuses around LGBTQ rights, all broadly advocate for prison abolition.[7] Furthermore, names such as the Human Rights Coalition, a 2001 group that aims to abolish prisons,[8][9] and the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, a grassroots organization dedicated to dismantling the PIC,[10] can all be added to the long list of organizations that desire a different justice system for our world.[11]

Every other year after Ruth Morris organized the first one in Toronto in 1983,[12] The International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) gathers activists, academics, journalists, and “others from across the world who are working towards the abolition of imprisonment, the penal system, carceral controls and and the prison industrial complex (PIC),”[13] to discuss three important questions surrounding the reality of prison abolition ICOPA was one of the first penal abolitionist conference movements, similar to Critical Resistance in America, but “with an explicitly international scope and agenda-setting ambition.”[14]

Anarchists wish to eliminate all forms of state control, of which imprisonment is seen as one of the more obvious examples. Anarchists also oppose prisons because the vast majority of inmates are non-violent offenders. Numbers show incarceration rates affect mainly poor people and ethnic minorities, and do not generally rehabilitate criminals, in many cases making them worse.[15] As a result, the prison abolition movement often is associated with humanistic socialism, anarchism and anti-authoritarianism.

In October 2015, members at a plenary session of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) released and adopted a resolution in favor of prison abolition.[16][17]

Proposals for prison reform and proposed alternatives to prisons differ significantly depending on the political beliefs behind them. Proposals and tactics often include:

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a series of handbooks on criminal justice. Among them is Alternatives to Imprisonment which identifies how the overuse of imprisonment impacts fundamental human rights, especially those convicted for lesser crimes.

Social justice and advocacy organizations such as Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI) at the University of California, San Diego often look to Scandinavian countries Sweden and Norway for guidance in regards to successful prison reform because both countries have an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment.[18] According to Sweden’s Prison and Probation Service Director-General, Nils berg, this emphasis is made popular among the Swedish because the act of imprisonment is considered punishment enough.[19] This focus on rehabilitation includes an emphasis on promoting normalcy for inmates, a charge lead by experienced criminologists and psychologists.[20] In Norway a focus on preparation for societal re-entry has yielded “one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%, [while] the US has one of the highest: 76.6% of [Americans] prisoners are re-arrested within five years”.[21] The Scandinavian method of incarceration seems to be successful: the Swedish incarceration rate decreased by 6% between 2011 and 2012.[22]

In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime.[23] They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people, and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc. This is proven with the creation of private prisons in America and corporations like Correction Corporation of America (CCA). Its shareholders benefit from the expansion of prisons and tougher laws on crime. More prisoners is seen as beneficial for business.[24]

Opponents of the abolition argue that none of the arguments above address the protection of non-criminal population from the effects of crime, and from particularly violent criminals.

Prison abolitionists such as Amanda Pustlinik take issue with the fact that prisons are used as a “default asylum” for many individuals with mental illness.[40] One question that is often asked by some prison abolitionists is:

“why do governmental units choose to spend billions of dollars a year to concentrate people with serious illnesses in a system designed to punish intentional lawbreaking, when doing so matches neither the putative purposes of that system nor most effectively addresses the issues posed by that population?” [40]

This question is often one of the major pieces of evidence that prison abolitionist claim highlights the depravity of the penal system. Many of these prison abolitionists often state that mentally ill offenders, violent and non-violent, should be treated in mental hospitals not prisons.[41] There are more people with mental illness in prisons that in psychiatric hospitals.[42] By keeping the mentally ill in prisons they claim that rehabilitation cannot occur because prisons are not the correct environment to deal with deep seated psychological problems and facilitate rehabilitative practices.[41] Individuals with mental illnesses that have led them to commit any crime have a much higher chance of committing suicide while in prison because of the lack of proper medical attention.[43] The increased risk of suicide is said to be because there is much stigma around mental illness and lack of adequate treatments within hospitals.[43] The whole point of the penal system is to rehabilitate and reform individuals who have willingly transgressed on the law. According to many prison abolitionists however, when mentally ill persons, often for reasons outside of their cognitive control, commit illegal acts prisons are not the best place for them to receive the help necessary for their rehabilitation.[41] For many prison abolitionists, if for no other reason than the fact that mentally ill individuals will not be receiving the same potential for rehabilitation as the non-mentally ill prison population, prisons are considered to be unjust and therefore violate their Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights, in the U.S., and their chance to rehabilitate and function outside of the prison.[40][40][41][44] In America, by violating an individual’s rights as a citizen, prison abolitionists see no reason for prisons to exist, and again, offer another reason people within the movement demand for the abolition of prisons.[40][41][44]

Read more:

Prison abolition movement – Wikipedia

Posted in Abolition Of Work | Comments Off on Prison abolition movement – Wikipedia

Ron Paul Lashes Out At WaPo’s Witch Hunt: "Expect Such …

Posted: at 12:20 pm

Washington Post Peddles Tarring of Ron Paul Institute as Russian Propaganda, via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

The Washington Post has a history of misrepresenting Ron Pauls views. Last year the supposed newspaper of record ran a feature article by David A. Fahrenthold in which Fahrenthold grossly mischaracterized Paul as an advocate for calamity, oppression, and poverty the opposite of the goals Paul routinely expresses and, indeed, expressed clearly in a speech at the event upon which Fahrentholds article purported to report. Such fraudulent attacks on the prominent advocate for liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy fall in line with the newspapers agenda. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob G. Hornberger put it in a February editorial, the Posts agenda is guided by the interventionist mindset that undergirds the mainstream media.

On Thursday, the Post published a new article by Craig Timberg complaining of a flood of so-called fake news supported by a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, To advance this conclusion, Timberg points to PropOrNot, an organization of anonymous individuals formed this year, as having identified more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season. Look on the PropOrNot list. There is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperitys (RPI) website RonPaulInstitute.org listed among websites termed Russian propaganda outlets.

What you will not find on the PropOrNot website is any particularized analysis of why the RPI website, or any website for that matter, is included on the list. Instead, you will see only sweeping generalizations from an anonymous organization. The very popular website drudgereport.com even makes the list. While listed websites span the gamut of political ideas, they tend to share in common an independence from the mainstream media.

Timbergs article can be seen as yet another big media attempt to shift the blame for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintons loss of the presidential election away from Clinton, her campaign, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that undermined Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary.

The article may also be seen as another step in the effort to deter people from looking to alternative sources of information by labeling those information sources as traitorous or near-traitorous.

At the same time, the article may be seen as playing a role in the ongoing push to increase tensions between the United States and Russia a result that benefits people, including those involved in the military-industrial complex, who profit from the growth of US national security activity in America and overseas.

This is not the first time Ron Paul and his institute has been attacked for sounding pro-Russian or anti-American. Such attacks have been advanced even by self-proclaimed libertarians.

Expect that such attacks will continue. They are an effort to tar Paul and his institute so people will close themselves off from information Paul and RPI provide each day in furtherance of the institutes mission to continue and expand Pauls lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home. While peace and liberty will benefit most people, powerful interests seek to prevent the realization of these objectives. Indeed, expect attacks against RPI to escalate as the institute continues to reach growing numbers of people with its educational effort

Read the original:
Ron Paul Lashes Out At WaPo’s Witch Hunt: "Expect Such …

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul Lashes Out At WaPo’s Witch Hunt: "Expect Such …

Paul Krugman – The Conscience of a Liberal

Posted: November 27, 2016 at 9:53 am

Infrastructure Build or Privatization Scam?

Trumpists are touting the idea of a big infrastructure build, and some Democrats are making conciliatory noises about working with the new regime on that front. But remember who youre dealing with: if you invest anything with this guy, be it money or reputation, you are at great risk of being scammed. So, what do we know about the Trump infrastructure plan, such as it is?

Crucially, its not a plan to borrow $1 trillion and spend it on much-needed projects which would be the straightforward, obvious thing to do. It is, instead, supposed to involve having private investors do the work both of raising money and building the projects with the aid of a huge tax credit that gives them back 82 percent of the equity they put in. To compensate for the small sliver of additional equity and the interest on their borrowing, the private investors then have to somehow make profits on the assets they end up owning.

You should immediately ask three questions about all of this.

First, why involve private investors at all? Its not as if the federal government is having any trouble raising money in fact, a large part of the justification for infrastructure investment is precisely that the government can borrow so cheaply. Why do we need private equity at all?

One answer might be that this way you avoid incurring additional public debt. But thats just accounting confusion. Imagine that youre building a toll road. If the government builds it, it ends up paying interest but gets the future revenue from the tolls. If it turns the project over to private investors, it avoids the interest cost but also loses the future toll revenue. The governments future cash flow is no better than it would have been if it borrowed directly, and worse if it strikes a bad deal, say because the investors have political connections.

Second, how is this kind of scheme supposed to finance investment that doesnt produce a revenue stream? Toll roads are not the main thing we need right now; what about sewage systems, making up for deferred maintenance, and so on? You could bring in private investors by guaranteeing them future government money say, paying rent in perpetuity for the use of a water system built by a private consortium. But this, even more than having someone else collect tolls, would simply be government borrowing through the back door with much less transparency, and hence greater opportunities for giveaways to favored interests.

A lot of people in politics and the media are scrambling to normalize what just happened to us, saying that it will all be OK and we can work with Trump. No, it wont, and no, we cant. The next occupant of the White House will be a pathological liar with a loose grip on reality; he is already surrounding himself with racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists; his administration will be the most corrupt in America history.

How did this happen? There were multiple causes, but you just cant ignore the reality that key institutions and their leaders utterly failed. Every news organization that decided, for the sake of ratings, to ignore policy and barely cover Trump scandals while obsessing over Clinton emails, every reporter who, for whatever reason often sheer pettiness played up Wikileaks nonsense and talked about how various Clinton stuff raised questions and cast shadows is complicit in this disaster. And then theres the FBI: its quite reasonable to argue that James Comey, whether it was careerism, cowardice, or something worse, tipped the scales and may have doomed the world.

No, Im not giving up hope. Maybe, just maybe, the sheer awfulness of whats happening will sink in. Maybe the backlash will be big enough to constrain Trump from destroying democracy in the next few months, and/or sweep his gang from power in the next few years. But if thats going to happen, enough people will have to be true patriots, which means taking a stand.

And anyone who doesnt who plays along and plays it safe is betraying America, and mankind.

As I said in todays column, nobody who thought Trump would be a disaster should change his or her mind because he won the election. He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation; the question is whether he drags the rest of the country, and the world, down with him.

But its important not to expect this to happen right away. Theres a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. Its at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Mondays column, I suspect.

On other fronts, too, dont expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.

The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time. Bad things will happen, and he will be clueless about how to respond; if you want a parallel, think about how Katrina revealed the hollowness of the Bush administration, and multiply by a hundred. And his promises to bring back the good old days will eventually be revealed as the lies they are.

But it probably wont happen in a year. So the effort to reclaim American decency is going to have to have staying power; we need to build the case, organize, create the framework. And, of course, never forget who is right.

Its going to be a long time in the wilderness, and its going to be awful. If I sound calm and philosophical, Im not like everyone who cares, Im frazzled, sleepless, depressed. But we need to be stalwart.

Anyone who claims to be philosophical and detached after yesterday is either lying or has something very wrong with him (or her, but I doubt many women are in that camp.) Its a disaster on multiple levels, and the damage will echo down the decades if not the generations. And like anyone on my side of this debate, I keep feeling waves of grief.

Its natural, only human, to engage in recriminations, some of which are surely deserved. But while a post-mortem is going to be necessary, lashing out doesnt seem helpful or good for the lashers-out themselves.

Eventually those of us on the center-left will have to talk about political strategy. For now, however, I want to share some thoughts on how we should deal with this personally.

First of all, its always important to remember that elections determine who has the power, not who has the truth. The stunning upset doesnt mean that the alt-right is correct to view nonwhites as inferior, that voodoo economics works, whatever. And you have to hold to the truth as best you see it, even if it suffers political defeat.

That said, does it make sense on a personal level to keep struggling after this kind of blow? Why not give up on trying to save the world, and just look out for yourself and those close to you? Quietism does have its appeal. Admission: I spent a lot of today listening to music, working out, reading a novel, basically taking a vacation in my head. You cant help feeling tired and frustrated after this kind of setback.

But eventually one has to go back to standing for what you believe in. Its going to be a much harder, longer road than I imagined, and maybe it ends in irreversible defeat, if nothing else from runaway climate change. But I couldnt live with myself if I just gave up. And I hope others will feel the same.

I tweeted this out earlier, but for blog readers here it is in this form.

Some morning-after thoughts: what hits me and other so hard isnt just the immense damage Trump will surely do, to climate above all. Theres also a vast disillusionment that as of now I think of as the end of the romantic vision of America (which I still love).

What I mean is the notion of US history as a sort of novel in which there may be great tragedy, but theres always a happy ending. That is, we tell a story in which at times of crisis we always find the leader Lincoln, FDR and the moral courage we need.

Its a particular kind of American exceptionalism; other countries dont tell that kind of story about themselves. But I, like others, believed it.

Now it doesnt look very good, does it? But giving up is not an option. The world needs a decent, democratic America, or were all lost. And theres still a lot of decency in the nation its just not as dominant as I imagined. Time to rethink, for sure. But not to surrender.

Binyamin Appelbaum has a nice piece about the stall in world trade growth, which I (and many others) have been tracking for a while. And I thought Id write a bit more about this, if only to serve as a much-needed distraction from the election.

If theres a problem with the Appelbaum piece, it is that on casual reading it might seem to suggest that slowing trade growth is (a) necessarily the result of protectionism and (b) necessarily a bad thing. Neither of these is right.

I found myself thinking about this some years ago, when teaching trade policy at the Woodrow Wilson School. I was very struck by a paper by Taylor et al on the interwar decline in trade, which argued that much of this decline reflected rising transport costs, not protectionism. But how could transport costs have gone up? Was there technological regress?

The answer, as the paper correctly pointed out, is that real transport costs will rise even if there is continuing technological progress, as long as that progress is slower than in the rest of the economy.

To clear that story up in my own mind, I wrote up a little toy model, contained in these class notes from sometime last decade (?). Pretty sure I wrote them before the global trade stagnation happened, but theyre a useful guide all the same.

As I see it, we had some big technological advances in transportation containerization, probably better communication making it easier to break up the value chain; plus the great move of developing countries away from import substitution toward export orientation. (Thats a decline in tau and t in my toy model.) But this was a one-time event. Now that its behind us, no presumption that trade will grow faster than GDP. This need not represent a problem; its just the end of one technological era.

It is kind of ironic that globalization seems to be plateauing just as the political backlash mounts. But were not going to talk about the election.

Both Ross Douthat and David Brooks have now weighed in on the state of conservative intellectuals; both deserve credit for taking a critical look at their team.

But of course theres a but Id argue that they and others on the right still have huge blind spots. In fact, these blind spots are so huge as to make the critiques all but useless as a basis for reform. For if you ignore the true, deep roots of the conservative intellectual implosion, youre never going to make a real start on reconstruction.

What are these blind spots? First, belief in a golden age that never existed. Second, a simply weird refusal to acknowledge the huge role played by money and monetary incentives promoting bad ideas.

On the first point: Were supposed to think back nostalgically to the era when serious conservative intellectuals like Irving Kristol tried to understand the world, rather than treating everything as a political exercise in which ideas were just there to help their team win.

But it was never like that. Dont take my word for it; take the word of Irving Kristol himself, in his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. Kristol explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities. This justified a cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or financial problems, because political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.

In short, never mind whether its right, as long as its politically useful. When David complains that conservative opinion-meisters began to value politics over everything else, hes describing something that happened well before Reagan.

But shouldnt there have been some reality checks along the way, with politically convenient ideas falling out of favor because they didnt work in practice? No because being wrong in the right way has always been a financially secure activity. I see this very clearly in economics, where there are three kinds of economists: liberal professional economists, conservative professional economists, and professional conservative economist the fourth box is more or less empty, because billionaires dont lavishly support hacks on the left.

There was a time, not long ago, when deficit scolds were actively dangerous when their huffing and puffing came quite close to stampeding Washington into really bad policies like raising the Medicare age (which wouldnt even have saved money) and short-term fiscal austerity. At this point their influence doesnt reach nearly that far. But they continue to play a malign role in our national discourse because they divert and distract attention from much more deserving problems, depriving crucial issues of political oxygen.

You saw that in the debates: four, count them, four questions about debt from the CRFB, not one about climate change. And you see it again in todays Times, with Pete Peterson (of course) and Paul Volcker (sigh) lecturing us about the usual stuff.

Whats so bad about this kind of deficit scolding? Its deeply misleading on two levels: the problem it purports to lay out is far less clearly a major issue than the scolds claim, and the insistence that we need immediate action is just incoherent.

So, about that supposed debt crisis: right now we have a more or less stable ratio of debt to GDP, and no hint of a financing problem. So claims that we are facing something terrible rest on the presumption that the budget situation will worsen dramatically over time. How sure are we about that? Less than you may imagine.

Yes, the population is getting older, which means more spending on Medicare and Social Security. But its already 2016, which means that quite a few baby boomers are already drawing on those programs; by 2020 well be about halfway through the demographic transition, and current estimates dont suggest a big budget problem.

Why, then, do you see projections of a large debt increase? The answer lies not in a known factor an aging population but in assumed growth in health care costs and rising interest rates. And the truth is that we dont know that these are going to happen. In fact, health costs have grown much more slowly since 2010 than previously projected, and interest rates have been much lower. As the chart above shows, taking these favorable surprises into account has already drastically reduced long-run debt projections. These days the long-run outlook looks vastly less scary than people used to imagine.

Like Claudia Sahm, I was struck by polling results indicating that around half of Trump supporters completely distrust official data although maybe a bit less surprised, since Ive been living in that world for years. In particular, the failure of high inflation to materialize led quite a few people on the right side of the political spectrum including the likes of Niall Ferguson to insist that the numbers were being cooked, so this is neither a new phenomenon nor one restricted to Trump types.

As it happened, there was a very easy answer to the inflation truthers: quite aside from the absurdity of claiming a conspiracy at the BLS, we had independent estimates such as the Billion Prices Index that closely matched official data. And theres similar independent evidence for a lot of the things where people now claim that official numbers are skewed. For example, the Gallup Healthways index provides independent confirmation of the huge gains in insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

But aside from validity, what explains this distrust of statistics? Is it because peoples own experience clashes with what theyre being told? I dont think so. In fact, when people are asked about personal outcomes, not about the economy, the story they tell is a lot like the official numbers. From that poll about Trumpian distrust of the data:

So people are feeling better, in line with what the data say, but claim that the economy is getting worse. Hard to believe that this isnt political, a case of going with the party line in the teeth of personal experience.

Ive posted other performances of this song by this band, but this is a good one and topical this week!

The much-hyped severe Brexit recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing which really shouldnt be that much of a surprise, because as I warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think about this?

Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that recession prediction: domestic investment demand would collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence capital flight. But the demand collapse doesnt seem to be happening. So what is the story?

For now, at least, Im coming at it from the trade side especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that one way to think about this is in terms of the home market effect, an old story in trade but one that only got formalized in 1980.

Heres an informal version: imagine a good or service subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient that if its consumed in two countries, you want to produce it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located? Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.

In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way this worked out was not that all production left the smaller economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make up for its smaller market.

In Britains case, Id suggest that we think of financial services as the industry in question. Such services are subject to both internal and external economies of scale, which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge financial centers around the world, one of which is, of course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to offset this adverse impact.

So, now were supposed to feel sorry for Paul Ryan?

For years, Ryan has cultivated a reputation on both sides of the aisle as a paragon of decency, earnestness, and principle; that rare creature of D.C. who seems genuinely guided by good faith. To many in Washington including no small number of reporters Ryans support for Trump is not merely a political miscalculation, but a craven betrayal.

Ugh. Ryan is not, repeat not, a serious, honest man of principle who has tainted his brand by supporting Donald Trump. He has been an obvious fraud all along, at least to anyone who can do budget arithmetic. His budget proposals invariably contain three elements:

1. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy. 2. Savage cuts in aid to the poor. 3. Mystery meat claims that he will raise trillions by closing unspecified tax loopholes and save trillions cutting unspecified discretionary spending.

Taking (1) and (2) together that is, looking at the policies he actually specifies his proposals have always increased the deficit, while transferring income from the have-nots to the haves. Only by invoking (3), which involves nothing but unsupported and implausible assertion, does he get to claim to reduce the deficit.

Yet he poses as an icon of fiscal probity. That is, he is, in his own way, every bit as much a fraud as The Donald.

So how has he been able to get away with this? The main answer is that he has been a huge beneficiary of false balance. The media narrative requires that there be serious, principled policy wonks on both sides of the aisle; Ryan has become the designated symbol of that supposed equivalence, even though actual budget experts have torn his proposals to shreds on repeated occasions.

And my guess is that the media will quickly forgive him for the Trump episode too. They need him for their bothsidesism. After all, its not as if there are any genuine honest policy wonks left in the party that nominated Donald Trump.

Simon Wren-Lewis has an excellent new paper trying to explain the widespread resort to austerity in the face of a liquidity trap, which is exactly the moment when such policies do the most harm. His bottom line is that

austerity was the result of right-wing opportunism, exploiting instinctive popular concern about rising government debt in order to reduce the size of the state.

I think this is right; but I would emphasize more than he does the extent to which both the general public and Very Serious People always assume that reducing deficits is the responsible thing to do. We have some polling from the 1930s, showing a strong balanced-budget bias even then:

I think Simon would say that this is consistent with his view that large deficits grease the rails for deficit phobia, since FDRs administration did run up deficits and debt that were unprecedented for peacetime. But has there ever been a time when the public favored bigger deficits?

Meanwhile, as someone who was in the trenches during the US austerity fights, I was struck by how readily mainstream figures who werent especially right-wing in general got sucked into the notion that debt reduction was THE central issue. Ezra Klein documented this phenomenon with respect to Bowles-Simpson:

For reasons Ive never quite understood, the rules of reportorial neutrality dont apply when it comes to the deficit. On this one issue, reporters are permitted to openly cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy solutions. At Tuesdays Playbook breakfast, for instance, Mike Allen, as a straightforward and fair a reporter as youll find, asked Simpson and Bowles whether they believed Obama would do the right thing on entitlements with the right thing clearly meaning cut entitlements.

Meanwhile, as Brad Setser points out, the IMF whose research department has done heroic work puncturing austerity theories and supporting a broadly Keynesian view of macroeconomics is, in practice, pushing for fiscal contraction almost everywhere.

Again, this doesnt exactly contradict Simons argument, but maybe suggests that there is a bit more to it.

Ive been writing about Donald Trumps claim that Mexicos value-added tax is an unfair trade policy, which is just really bad economics. Heres Joel Slemrod explaining that a VAT has the same effects as a sales tax. Now, nobody thinks that sales taxes are an unfair trade practice. New York has fairly high sales taxes; Delaware has no such tax. Does anyone think that this gives New York an unfair advantage in interstate competition?

But it turns out that Trump wasnt saying ignorant things off the top of his head: he was saying ignorant things fed to him by his incompetent economic advisers. Heres the campaign white paper on economics. The VAT discussion is on pages 12-13 and its utterly uninformed.

And its not the worst thing: theres lots of terrible stuff in the white paper, at every level.

Should we be reassured that Trump wasnt actually winging it here, just taking really bad advice? Not at all. This says that if he somehow becomes president, and decides to take the job seriously, it wont help because his judgment in advisers, his notion of who constitutes an expert, is as bad as his judgment on the fly.

Last nights debate was an incredible blowout yet both candidates were pretty much who we already knew they were. This was the Hillary Clinton of the Benghazi hearing confronting the Donald Trump weve seen at every stage of the campaign.

But this then raises a question: how did the race get so close? Why, on the eve of the debate, did polls show at best a narrow Clinton lead? What happened to the commanding lead Clinton held after the conventions?

You might say that Clinton ran a terrible campaign but what, exactly, did she do? Trump may have learned to read from a TelePrompter, but was that such a big deal?

Well, my guess is that it was the Goring of Hillary: beginning in late August, with the AP report on the Clinton Foundation, the mainstream media went all in on abnormalizing Mrs. Clinton, a process that culminated with Matt Lauer, who fixated on emails while letting grotesque, known, Trump lies slide. Heres a graphic, using the Upshots estimate of election probabilities (which is a useful summary of what the polls say):

The thing is, it was all scurrilous. The AP, if it had been honest, had found no evidence of wrongdoing or undue influence; if meeting a Nobel Peace Prize winner who happened to be a personal friend was their prime example But dinging the Clintons was what the cool kids were supposed to do, with normal rules not applying.

And this media onslaught pushed the race quite close on the eve of the first debate. It was feeling like 2000 all over again; and I think Jamelle Bouie got this exactly right:

But it all went off script last night, partly because HRC did so well and DJT so badly but also, I think, because pressure from progressives ensured that there was a lot of real-time fact-checking.

Whether it turns out to have been enough to turn the tide remains to be seen. But anyone in the media who participated in the razzing of Hillary Clinton should think about what we saw on that stage, and ask himself what the hell he thought he was doing.

Read this article:

Paul Krugman – The Conscience of a Liberal

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Paul Krugman – The Conscience of a Liberal

Free eugenics Essays and Papers – 123helpme

Posted: at 9:51 am

Title Length Color Rating Early 20th Century Eugenics as part of Modernism – As the sun was setting on the 19th century, a new theory, called eugenics was just beginning to rise. Eugenics is the idea that human mental, moral, temperamental and physiological traits are passed down through generations, and that society should attempt to foster the reproduction of those with favorable traits and discourage or eliminate those with less than favorable traits. In the early parts of the 20th century, eugenics was put into practice across the rich world. This increase, not only in popularity but in application is best viewed when part of the greater context of modernity…. [tags: Eugenics] :: 5 Works Cited 1047 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The History of Eugenics in America – Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally. After the major turn of the century, eugenics developed into a world- wide movement. (Vermont University, 2003) It was led by scientist and scholars in several diverse fields, and funded by wealthy philanthropists, also supported by statesmen. Eugenics played a very vital and central role in the political, social, and intellectual history of numerous diverse peoples and nations…. [tags: The Eugenics Movement] :: 5 Works Cited 2148 words (6.1 pages) Research Papers [preview] Eugenics: A Controversial Science – Eugenics has been a very controversial science that has existed in the world for centuries. Eugenics is defined as the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)(Dictionary.com, 2005). Its base came from the idea that the human race could be perfected by getting rid of its undesirable traits and the desirable ones could be multiplied…. [tags: Eugenics Essays] 1168 words (3.3 pages) Better Essays [preview] The Eugenics Movement – In the 1920s, a company in New York started a movement known as The Eugenics Movement. The idea of eugenics was eventually picked up by Germany, China, Peru, India and Bangladesh. The movement is still in effect till this day; however, it is not as prevalent as it once was. The beginning of the Eugenics Movement all started at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The United States coined the term Eugenics from Great Britain in the early 1900s. In the year 1910, a man by the name of Charles B. Davenport founded the Eugenics Records Office (ERO)…. [tags: Eugenics, ERO, sterilization] :: 3 Works Cited 1539 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics -Not the Way of the Future – Eugenics in the world today has become an issue because of its many positive uses furthermore its possible consequences. It is believed by many that eugenics does more harm than good, on the other hand there are exceptions; it is not the way of the future. There is no doubt that it could be extremely useful for preventing diseases such as cancer and others before we are even born. But, with this also comes the ability to give children genes before their born that will give them talent to run faster, jump higher, use more of their brain which will strictly discriminate them from the rest of society in a way where they will always stand out, the reason being is their extraordinary talents due… [tags: Eugenics, Genetic Engineering] 722 words (2.1 pages) Good Essays [preview] The Ethics and Morality of Eugenics in Society – My research revolves around the ethics and morality of eugenics (Science of heredity and good breeding), and whether society should be in favor of influencing genetics in order to create a more favorable genetic pool. This topic interests me because I find great interest in political and cultural issues, and I have always been fascinated by whether eugenics would actually work and if governments should be in support of it. The sources I found were all scientific journals from credible books. I did this to because I needed to gain information on studies that have taken place in the name of eugenics as well as establish that eugenics is high priority within the scientific community.Taking this… [tags: disabled, eugenics, influencing genetics] :: 7 Works Cited 1598 words (4.6 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] A Look at Eugenics – Introduction Eugenics is the conviction and practice of enhancing the hereditary nature of the human population. It is a social theory upholding the change of human hereditary qualities through the advancement of higher proliferation of individuals with coveted characteristics and decreased multiplication of individuals with less-wanted or undesired attributes. It alludes to the investigation of or faith in the likelihood of enhancing the characteristics of the human species or a human populace, especially by embracing varied hereditary qualities or pessimistic selective breeding…. [tags: Heredity Nature, Human Heredity Qualities] :: 4 Works Cited 1221 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The ethics of eugenics – The theory of eugenics has changed throughout time from its conception by Sir Francis Galton to its modern technological interpretation in the 21st century. The term has been embraced by Social Darwinists, Progressives, human genetic engineers, and Nazis, to just name a few. The theorys popularity has undergone cycles of approval and upheaval as it is a fairly conceptually fluid idea. Today its definition is still hazy, with both sides of its controversial spectrum debating what it really means…. [tags: Social Darwinists, Sir Francis Galton] :: 28 Works Cited 1675 words (4.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] The Misapplication of Eugenics – The concept of eugenics has to do with the belief or practice of improving the genetic quality of the human race (Eugenics 2010). The concept was first introduced by Francis Galton, a researcher who wished to apply Darwins theory of evolution to the human race. Much like many endeavors that start off with good intentions, the results of applying this concept in real life were gross crimes against humanity. The eugenics movement in the early 20th century perverted the original concept by employing morally objectionable techniques including forced sterilization, marriage restrictions, segregation, internment camps, and genocide (Black 2012)…. [tags: Humans, Genetic Quality, Francis Galton] :: 4 Works Cited 1023 words (2.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Three Stooges: Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger – Only the most imaginative mind could fathom the thought of human beings being selected or disregarded and even killed based on biological protocol. This scientific theory is responsible for the reproduction of superior genes through heredity by controversial means. This idea is based on the evolution of the human species or basically survival of the fittest. Charles Darwin who is the greatest known scientist to ever live popularized this theory and is responsible for the brutality and death of well over 100 million human beings…. [tags: Eugenics] :: 41 Works Cited 1299 words (3.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Downfall of Eugenics – In the twentieth-century politics has played a vital role in the way disease is perceived by the average person. Every aspect of disease became a political concern with eugenics publically taking on a major role in public policy. Giving credit to eugenics, many Americans began to worry more about their personal genetic traits as well as the traits that they may pass on to their children. Later society became interested with eugenics on a more community-oriented basis. The downfall of Eugenics came when reformers began to use it as a program of social control, promoting government intervention and coercion in human reproduction. Masturbation was once seen as degenerative disease that led… [tags: Medical Ethics] :: 4 Works Cited 1192 words (3.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race – Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race To the average American it seems unfathomable that US based research into the “scientific” practice of eugenics could have been the foundation and impetus for Hitler’s Nazi genocide and atrocities. In addition, notions of racial superiority and the scientific quest for the development of a pure Aryan nation, both by the United States and foreign countries, particularly Germany, were funded and fueled by monies from such prominent families as the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Harriman’s…. [tags: Edwin Black Eugenics Master Race Essays] 1983 words (5.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] What is Eugenics? – Introduction Eugenics is defined as a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed (1). The principles of eugenics have been used in many different countries for various reasons. In the United States, eugenics reached its peak in the pre-World War II period. It was believed that the most efficient way to deal with social problems, such as mental illness, poverty and crime, was to inhibit reproduction among people with such characteristics…. [tags: Science, Improving Hereditary Traits. Human] :: 20 Works Cited 1713 words (4.9 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] The Practice of Positive Eugenics – Since its inception in 1883, eugenics has long since been the subject of controversy and a forum for discussion on ethics and morality. Positive eugenics, defined as, “encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits,” is considered a benevolent form of eugenics, but can be used for sinister purposes. Negative eugenics, officially defined as, “discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits,” is perhaps the more well-known variety of eugenics, with notable examples such as the Holocaust and forced sterilization…. [tags: ethics and morality, reproduction] :: 13 Works Cited 1178 words (3.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Eugenics: Improving The Human Race? – The idea that one can improve the human race by careful selection of those who mate and produce offspring is called eugenics. It is better understood as the process of selective breeding can improve human society. The term eugenics is from the greek, meaning well-born. The idea of eugenics is to have a society be abundant with many wanted traits, during a movement called the melting pot where people tried to solve their problems with the use of technology. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, is the book in which Sir Francis Galton first mentioned the term eugenics…. [tags: Scientific Research ] :: 5 Works Cited 1135 words (3.2 pages) Better Essays [preview] Eugenics – Eugenics, the word that got its bad reputation years ago through an event that changed history: the Holocaust. First dubbed by Francis Galton in the 1880s, the word Eugenics stemmed from the words good and generation. (Eugenics-Meanings) Eugenics means the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population. This improvement is done through discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics); or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)…. [tags: Genetic Engineering] :: 6 Works Cited 1552 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics – Taken from the Greek word eugenes meaning good in stock the term eugenics was coined in 1883 By Francis Galton (1822-1911). Today it is defined by the OED as Pertaining or adapted to the production of fine offspring, esp. in the human race. We will attempt to explain what eugenics was within in the context of its time and how it was to be applied to humans. We will also attempt to identify who its supporters were and the many different reasons why the eugenic doctrine appealed to them. The problem of what to do about the urban poor had been a continuing worry for the middle classes since the mid nineteenth century…. [tags: Sociology] 2214 words (6.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics: Solving Social Problems? – The melting pot was a movement to solve social problems of the population with the use of technology. Eugenics is the use of science to solve social problems. It is defined as the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits…. [tags: Scientific Research ] :: 9 Works Cited 1201 words (3.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] IVF and the New Eugenics – The addition of a child into a familys home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents…. [tags: Infertility] :: 8 Works Cited 1509 words (4.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics and Planned Parenthood – When one contemplates the concept of eugenics, few think of modern contraception and abortion when in reality they are one in the same. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1923, proudly proclaimed that men with incurable conditions should be sterilized. However these conditions were often none that could be helped, such as, ones intelligence, race, and social class (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The purpose of the society was to create the perfect class of men; elite in all ways…. [tags: Birth Control Movement] :: 12 Works Cited 1395 words (4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Was Eugenics Ever Moral? – Eugenics is the study or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species. Sounds good, right. But the question here is, is it moral to sacrifice someones life or the ability for someone to create life in the name of science. Surely Francis Galton and Gregor Mendel thought so. In the nineteenth century, biology was at its peak. Charles Darwin, who just happens to be Galtons cousin, had just introduced his idea of survival of the fittest. Galton then took that thesis and dissected it…. [tags: human species, charles darwin] :: 7 Works Cited 1043 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] International Eugenics – Throughout the history of international relations, the study of human diversity has held a key role in establishing the political principles and recognized shared culture that defines nationhood. Nations have traditionally been associated with a specific geographic location and political ideology, but they also have ethnical identifiers associated with this shared culture. These ethnical identifiers were thrust onto the world stage during the end of the nineteenth century with the introduction of the study of eugenics…. [tags: Sociology ] :: 13 Works Cited 1825 words (5.2 pages) Term Papers [preview] How the US introduced Eugenics to the World – Eugenics is defined as human improvement by genetic means to improve the hereditary qualities of a race or breed and it was coined by Francis Galton in 1869. Throughout history, the World has borne witness to such atrocities as genocide, where the roots of these movements have been to eliminate the undesirables to allow the strongest and purest an opportunity to thrive and exist. Many would believe that the eugenics movement first started in Europe when the Nazis tried to eradicate Jews, Gays, Gypsys or anyone else they deemed not a part of the master race dreamed up by Hitler…. [tags: sterilization, genetics, Germany, race] :: 10 Works Cited 1022 words (2.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Eugenics: America’s Dark Past and Future – The idea of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed race is often credited to Adolf Hitler. The not as well-known part is that this idea was around before Hitler and actually was spread to Germany by eugenics scientists in the United States. In this paper we will look into the full history of eugenics and how the idea was spread across the world. Along the journey we will encounter many major donors that may be of surprise to some of us. Eugenics has been a dark presence in the history of America and will continue to be until real strides are made to end racism…. [tags: blonde-haired, blue-eyed race, hitler] :: 9 Works Cited 1460 words (4.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] The Rise and Fall of the Eugnics Movement – Introduction According to Merriam-Webster.com, eugenics is defined as the theory dealing with the production or treatment of a fine, healthy race. Despite this seemingly innocent representation, eugenics is an extremely controversial science. Some even debate whether or not it is worthy of the label of science, or if its just a form of intellectual racism. Nevertheless, eugenics was greatly embraced and was behind a scientific and social revolution during the late 19th century through the Second World War…. [tags: A Historical Analysis of Eugenics] :: 10 Works Cited 3924 words (11.2 pages) Term Papers [preview] Genetic Engineering: Cloning: Dolly and Eugenics – Cloning is vital in American society because it will help us further our knowledge in genetics. Also cloning will make us realize how much scientists can actually accomplish knowing how to clone. Scientists were able to clone an animal in 1997. That accomplishment made all the scientists theories about cloning possible. It gave the scientists hope that one day they will maybe be able to clone a human because they were able to clone a mammal. Eugenics is also vital to American society. Eugenics is the practice of improving humans genetic quality of the human population as a whole…. [tags: dna, science, god] :: 13 Works Cited 1691 words (4.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics in America – Eugenics in America Eugenics profoundly impacted the culture of the twentieth century. Coined in 1893 by Sir Francis Galton, it studied the heredity and selection of favorable traits. Born out of the social tumults of the late nineteenth century, it represented the Western elites attempt to protect itself from so called inferior cultures of the colonies and new wave immigration. The late eighteenth century was a turbulent time throughout America. An influx of immigrants packed into massive cities such as New York and Chicago…. [tags: Sociology Essays Research Papers] 710 words (2 pages) Better Essays [preview] Reprogenetics and Eugenics – Reprogenetics and Eugenics Advantages: Reprogenetics will enable parents to give their children genes that they themselves do not carry, thereby increasing their offspring’s chances for health, longevity, happiness, and success — this is an appalling prospect for many bio ethicists. Eugenics embodies the desire and attempts of a society’s leaders to control the breeding practices of its citizens, including the forcible sterilization or murder of those deemed as carrying undesirable genes…. [tags: Papers] 862 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] Eugenic Decision-Making – Eugenics is defined, in some way or the other, as the process of reshaping the human race by determining the kinds of people who will be born. As such, there is much debate in the field of eugenics, with authors, like Philip Kitcher, who support laissez-faire or a minimalist approach of eugenics in which eugenic decision-making should be limited only to avoid neurological illnesses and in which parental free choice is valued. Gregory Stocks essay, The Enhanced and Un-Enhanced, presents otherwise by supporting the position of maximalist eugenics, allowing individuals the full extent in the selection of genes…. [tags: Gattaca, Laissez-Faire, Maximalist Eugenics] 1482 words (4.2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Understanding of Eugenics, and the Move Forward from Past Failures. – The Understanding of Eugenics, and the Move Forward from Past Failures. Eugenics, from the Greek word Eu-genes, which means well-born or of good stock, In 1869 was the name given to the work produced by scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Sir Francis Galtons work was based primarily on the theories of biological evolution, first developed by Charles Darwin, and was published in his book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1859. Charles Darwin theorized that all species of life descended from common ancestors, and that natural selection had a profound effect by using selective breeding to enhance its worth…. [tags: Sir Francis Galton, Bilogical Evolution, Biology] :: 4 Works Cited 938 words (2.7 pages) Better Essays [preview] Atrocities Associated with the Eugenics Movement – Atrocities Associated with the Eugenics Movement Among the fears of many environmentalists is that of overpopulation. Acutely aware of the finite resources that the planet possesses and the limitations of renewable resources, there are concerns that the planet may soon reach its maximum caring capacity. Since the First Great Transition ten thousand years ago, the planet has experienced an astounding increase in population. Generations later, the planet is beginning to feel the effects of continual population expansion…. [tags: Exploratory Essays Research Papers] :: 4 Works Cited 1243 words (3.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Eugenics – The roots of eugenics can be traced back to Britain in the early 1880s when Sir Francis Galton generated the term from the Greek word for well-born. He defined eugenics as the science of improving stock, whether human or animal. According to the American Eugenics Movement, todays study of eugenics has many similarities to studies done in the early 20th century. Back then, Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings by encouraging the reproduction of people with “good” genes and discouraging those with “bad” genes. (www.eugenicsarchive.org) According to Merriam-Webster, the modern day definition of eugenics is, a science that deals with t… [tags: essays research papers] 1049 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Neo-Eugenics The Social and Biological Ethics of Designer Babies – … Also it is now understood that ooplasm, the cytoplasm within an egg, can be transferred to another egg in order to swap mitochondrial DNA. Scientists have also figured out that ooplasm is not the only part of the cell that can be transferred, but that whole nuclei can be replaced as well. This is a major breakthrough because whole sets of DNA can be placed into another cell. In a culture where parents seek advantages for their children in schooling, diet, exercise, extracurricular activities, and the like, it is hard to imagine that cultural pressures would not be great to pursue the same for their children with respect to enhanced traits. This quote from an academic journal from Berke… [tags: Healthier Reace, Future Generations] :: 2 Works Cited 1586 words (4.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Eugenics – Eugenics President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” The Civil War was fought to save the republic and free the enslaved. World War II was fought to save the world and stop a group which thought they were a superior race. What do these two wars have in common. They were fought, in part, for equality…. [tags: Papers] 1119 words (3.2 pages) Good Essays [preview] Eugenics Should be Abolished – Eugenics Should be Abolished Since the end of the 19th century, eugenics has had a significant role in the development of Western society. There have been laws established by its presence and a war fought to cease its progress. To analyze the philosophy of and the actions due to eugenics, one must look at the past and see what contributions eugenics has made to events in history. One must also look at the present applications of eugenics and how they affect the lives of people. With these two directions, one can see that because it is racist, encourages immoral actions and is biologically unsound, eugenics is iniquitous and should be abolished from modern medical and political thought…. [tags: Papers] 3259 words (9.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Ethics of Genocide and Eugenics – Gene Therapy: Genocide and Eugenics or Striving for a More Perfect Population Controversy and Ethics Just as there are different types of people who look at one glass of water and describe it as half full or half empty, the public has many different views on the future of our society. Gene therapy is also a glass that can be viewed in different angles different perspectives. Some say it has great potential to shape the ideals of our future, while others believe it signifies intolerance for disabilities, imperfections that supposedly deplete from a persons interests, opportunities and welfare (quoted by Peter Singer, xviii)…. [tags: Biology Medical Biomedical Genetics] :: 2 Works Cited 1413 words (4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Euthanasia Essay: Eugenics To Euthanasia – Eugenics To Euthanasia This essay presents the appeal which euthanasia has to modern society. What is this appeal based on. Is it a valid appeal. These and other questions are addressed in this paper. See if this story sounds familiar: A happily married couple – she is a pianist; he a rising scientist – have their love suddenly tested by a decline in the wife’s health. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she falls victim to a steady loss of muscle control and paralysis. The desperate husband uses all his professional skills to save her…. [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay] :: 1 Works Cited 1001 words (2.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Genetic Engineering and Eugenics – Genetic Engineering and Eugenics The idea of genetic engineering has been a very heated topic of discussion lately. The possibilities of this topic range from cloning to gene therapy and eugenics. The most recent type, eugenics through gene therapy has created a lot of controversy. Eugenics is the study of how to improve human genetic heritage. This basically is the engineering of babies. The thought of these new designer babies raises many new questions. What are the consequences of these advances…. [tags: Exploratory Essays Research Papers] 1108 words (3.2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The American Eugenics Movement – The idea of eugenics was first introduced by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that the breeding of two wealthy and successful members of society would produce a child superior to that of two members of the lower class. This assumption was based on the idea that genes for success or particular excellence were present in our DNA, which is passed from parent to child. Despite the blatant lack of research, two men, Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Jon Alfred Mjoen, played to the white supremacists desires and claimed that white genes were inherently superior to other races, and with this base formed the first eugenics society…. [tags: essays research papers fc] :: 3 Works Cited 1421 words (4.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] In Opposition of Eugenics and Human Embryo Research – In Opposition of Eugenics and Human Embryo Research There are a variety of views of eugenics and all that it entails. The definition of eugenics is “the science of improving the physical and mental qualities of human beings through control of the factors influencing heredity,” ( Funk and Wagnall’s, 1984). Others think eugenics is the social control of human genetic evolution, an ideology of racism and genocide, thought to improve society and halt disease while others think only of the Nazi Regime (Saetz, 1985 and McGee, 1997)…. [tags: Argumentative Persuasive Essays] 667 words (1.9 pages) Better Essays [preview] Ethical Complications of Genetic Engineering and Eugenics – Genetic engineering is currently the fastest growing and perhaps most controversial field of science. Genetic engineering is decoding and manipulating DNA to use for scientific and medical purposes. “The discovery that human cells can be grown in a petri dish has opened up breathtaking possibilities for curing disease – and a morass of ethical complications” (Allen 9). Genetic engineering has already started to be most helpful in the field of medicine. The map of the human genome offers many cures and potentially successful medical procedures…. [tags: Exploratory Essays Research Papers] :: 6 Works Cited 3149 words (9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] To What Extent are American Scientist and Institutions Responsible for Nazi Eugenics? – During Adolf Hitlers reign many American companies and scientist contributed towards advances in eugenic studies, are they to blame for the atrocities that occurred in the Second World War. It started in the late 1800s by Francis Galton who believed that to raise the present miserably low standard of the human race breeding the best with the best had to happen. Although the United States had a large amount of involvement, many European scientists and governments aided the research. In the late 1800s many rich businessmen and prior slave owners were most likely upset as slavery had been abolished, so through science they wanted to make Africans and Asians an inferior race…. [tags: adolf hitler, second world war, racism] :: 7 Works Cited 1043 words (3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Josef Mengele and The Inhumane Experiments in Auschwitz – He cut into me, without anesthetic, . . .The pain was indescribable. I felt every slice of the knife. Then I saw my kidney pulsating in his hand. I cried like a madman, I cried out the prayer; Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one . . . And I prayed to die, that I might not suffer this agony any more (Hall). This was said by a patient of Dr. Josef Mengele, Mr.Yitzhak Ganon. Mr. Ganon was of the survivors of the inhumane experiments that took place in Auschwitz by the hand of the abominable man that is Josef Mengele…. [tags: angel of death, evil, eugenics] :: 10 Works Cited 1323 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Stereotypes where the Mentally Handicapped People are Ignorant – In history, stereotypes in society have been negative towards people with disabilities and that often led to discrimination. Colonial Americans, in the 1700s, referred to people with handicaps as lunatics. Lunatic by todays definition is someone crazy or insane. However, the root word, lunar, means, moons. Back then, people thought that a full moon had something to do with the mental illness that the child was born with. Some thought that the baby could be affected by being conceived, being born under, or sleeping in the light of a full moon…. [tags: disabilities, lunatic, eugenics] 627 words (1.8 pages) Better Essays [preview] Eugenics: An Excuse To Be A Racist Or A Means To A Better Tomorrow? – Eugenics: An Excuse to be a Racist or a Means to a Better Tomorrow. The term eugenics was coined in the late 19th century. Its goal was to apply the breeding practices and techniques used in plants and animals to human reproduction. Francis Galton stated in his Essays in Eugenics that he wished to influence “the useful classes” in society to put more of their DNA in the gene pool. The goal was to collect records of families who were successful by virtue of having three or more adult male children who have gain superior positions to their peers…. [tags: essays research papers] 1102 words (3.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism – American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism Works Cited Missing Nancy Ordover argues that current attempts to regulate marginalized social groups are eugenicist movements couched in new language. While “today, the preoccupation with immigrant fertility is couched in concerns over expenditures rather than in classic eugenicist worries over the depletion of the national gene pool” (54), that supposed strain on the national economy presented by immigration is still located in immigrant’s reproduction, although it is less frequently explicitly the “whiteness” of the nation that is threatened…. [tags: Sociology Sociological Essays] 1123 words (3.2 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Methods of Experimentation and Research in the Natural Sciences that are Limited due to Ethical Considerations – The production of knowledge, the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject (New Oxford), has constantly been accomplished throughout the history of man as a result of the characteristics of creativity and curiosity. These attributes, besides ethics, have set humans apart from the other species allowing for constant and rapid development. According to (Rest), an ethical judgment is the process by which an individual determines that one alternative is morally right and another alternative is morally wrong…. [tags: eugenics, animal testing, ethical judgement] :: 8 Works Cited 1459 words (4.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Altering Human Genome – Altering Human Genome The gene pool could use a little chlorine. -Bumper Sticker Consider Gods handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked? -Ecclesiastes 7:13, from Gattaca I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature. I think Mother wants us to. -Willard Gaylin, from Gattaca With the scientific breakthroughs of the recent decades the humans have become more powerful than ever in their mastery of Nature. The genetic engineering that allows extracting and modifying the genetic makeup of the future person or animal is in a sense the power of Creation…. [tags: Eugenics Genetics Science Essays] :: 14 Works Cited 1425 words (4.1 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Genetic Engineering: Pros and Cons – Our world has finally begun its long-predicted descent into the depths of chaos. We may not yet realize it, but more and more problems plague the very state of our humanity with each passing day, such as cancer, famine, genetic disorders, and social elitism. It seems as though there is little hope, although a new solution has finally emerged, in the form of genetic engineering. It is apparent, however, that currently we cannot proceed, because while there are an abundant amount of advantages to genetic engineering, it is not a utopian process; criticism includes its practicality, theological implications, and changes in modern social structure…. [tags: Eugenics, Ethics] :: 5 Works Cited 1212 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] History and culture of Never Let Me Go – Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel Never Let me Go uses a dystopian fantasy world to illustrate the author’s view that our real world practice of eugenics is as equally immoral and degrading as the world he describes. The eugenic-soaked world of Never Let me Go is dystopian, and our real world, with its quiet adoption of ‘soft’ eugenics, is equally dystopian. Ishiguro’s point is that utopia can never be attained in either realm if it contains the contagion of eugenics. By depicting unfair struggles that eugenics rigged “pre-destination” imposes on his oh so human characters, Ishiguro portrays the Eugenist’s utopian wet dream as a nightmarish perversion of humanity’s social contract…. [tags: Literature] :: 1 Works Cited 1330 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Trying to Improve the Human Race by Controlling Reproduction – Trying to Improve the Human Race by Controlling Reproduction THE idea of “Natural Equality” is one of the most deluded ideas that have ever afflicted itself upon mankind. It is simply a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no equality. She thrives on the idea of the survival of the fittest. The exact definition of eugenics is “The study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction.” Therefor eugenics is a pseudo science. It is about the selective prevention or encouragement of births for social, racial, or political ends…. [tags: Papers] 390 words (1.1 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Review of a Website – If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday, quoted Pearl Buck. Most everyone has a time in their life where history becomes important to them. Whether that be tracing back family heritage, writing a research essay, or just out of curiosity. All and all, history is very influential to peoples lives and what better way to learn about history then to visit the website Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement. This credible website offers an opportunity for the public to learn more about our American history in an interactive and creative way…. [tags: Website Review, Reliable Sources] 973 words (2.8 pages) Better Essays [preview] Role of Doctors Under Nazis – Role of Doctors in Nazis Racial Hygiene Germany was out to establish a new utopian world order where everything worked in harmony. They wanted to become a healthy and vibrant organism of healthy Aryans. The German doctors were mobilized to create this new world. The German bureaucrats believed all their social burdens were brought on by the handicapped, incurables and homosexuals as well as the Jews and gypsies. The physicians were to use all their medical knowledge and scientific expertise in the treatment for their new world…. [tags: essays research papers fc] :: 2 Works Cited 2232 words (6.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Genetic Engineering in Humans – Author Chuck Klosterman said, The simple truth is that were all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement? Despite Klostermans accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement…. [tags: Genetic Engineering ] 859 words (2.5 pages) Better Essays [preview] The High Cost of Genetic Engineering – The High Cost of Genetic Engineering Genetic research on human embryos, in correlation with the human genome, is the key to gene therapy, genetic diagnosis, and even to genetically engineered human beings. Knowing which gene controls what trait and causes what genetic disease will arm doctors with a powerful tool to treat their patients at the molecular level. On the other hand, this allows people to possibly manipulate genes to enhance specific traits or create the perfect baby. Genetic research on human embryos has two implications. A practical one in therapeutic research (to detect, and hopefully correct gene flaws), and then the potentiality of allowing parents to decide how the… [tags: Persuasive Argumentative Essay Examples] :: 9 Works Cited 1197 words (3.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] An Enhanced Genotype: Ethical Issues Involved with Genetic Engineering and their Impact as Revealed by Brave New World – An Enhanced Genotype: Ethical Issues Involved with Genetic Engineering and their Impact as Revealed by Brave New World Human society always attempts to better itself through the use of technology. Thus far, as a species, we have already achieved much: mastery of electronics, flight, and space travel. However, the field in which the most progress is currently being made is Biology, specifically Genetic Engineering. In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World, humanity has taken control of reproduction and biology in the same way that we have mastered chemistry and physics…. [tags: Genetic Engineering ] :: 6 Works Cited 2288 words (6.5 pages) Term Papers [preview] History And Procedures of Gene Therapy – The History And Procedures of Gene Therapy Abstract: Over the course of history there has been the idea of gene therapy has inspired many great scientists. The history of eugenics is important to the history of gene therapy because it is how gene therapy originated. Eugenics has driven many people to take extreme measures to try and make a better human race, this includes the Nazi party and the movement in the 1930s inspired by Francis Galton. After that, research in eugenics continued and the human genome project sprung from the minds of scientists…. [tags: Biology Medical Biomedical Genetics] :: 2 Works Cited 1810 words (5.2 pages) Term Papers [preview] The indoctrination of the Concept of Racial Hygiene: The Begining of t – The Indoctrination of the Concept of Racial Hygiene: The Beginning of the End The idea of biological degeneration had been studied by doctors, psychiatrists, and scientists many decades before the 1930s and the Nazi regime were ever in power. The idea that the integrity of populations was being undermined by behaviors of alcoholism, criminality, or mental deficiency was a topic for researchers before anyone even knew who Adolf Hitler was. In this essay I will discuss the evolution of a concept that would become known as racial hygiene…. [tags: essays research papers fc] :: 2 Works Cited 2296 words (6.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Engineering the Perfect Human – For centuries, mankind has been fascinated by the idea of perfection. In recent decades, the issue has been raised regarding the perfect human and whether scientists are able to engineer and create this. Attempts have been made in the past to engineer this said perfect human, through eugenics and scientific racism, but until now, these attempts have been ineffective. Only now, with modern technology, are scientists able to make more significant progress in altering the human genome to the produce desired characteristics of perfection…. [tags: Genetic Engineering ] :: 21 Works Cited 1831 words (5.2 pages) Term Papers [preview] Whats Genetic Engineering? – … Tassistant professor of biology at Elon University in North Carolina had this to say about genetic engineering: Once you realize that DNA is not fixed, and is in fact constantly changing, the notion of genetic engineering seems quite innocent. Changing DNA within an organism and transferring DNA from one species to another is not unprecedented, or even unusual. Microbes in nature are carrying it out every second. The only thing truly new about genetic engineering is that it transfers control from microorganisms to humans, from randomness to consciousness…. [tags: biotechnology, scientific breakthroughs] :: 9 Works Cited 1281 words (3.7 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Truth Behind The Holocaust – The twentieth century was a time of change. With two world wars occurring within roughly three decades, it was no surprise that society became forever changed. These two world wars, however, resulted in perhaps one of the most significant and catastrophic events in history – the Holocaust. The Holocaust saw about six million Jews killed by command of German dictator Adolf Hitler. Despite resulting from World War II, however, Hitlers massive genocide of European Jews was planned before the Second World War, and therefore was intentionalism, because of the blame from post-World War I Germany, the twentieth century movement of eugenics as a racial hygiene, and the actions to exterminate Jews… [tags: adolf hitler, nazis, treaty of versailles,germany] :: 9 Works Cited 1675 words (4.8 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] A Comparison of Myself to Adolf Hitler – Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle. If you do not fight, life will never be won. (Hitler) For most of the world, Adolf Hitler’s name is synonymous with thoughts of hatred, criminality, and pure evil. Although he is responsible for the greatest genocide known to humanity, Hitler is now known to be one of the most influential World leaders weve ever known…. [tags: Essay About Myself] :: 5 Works Cited 1230 words (3.5 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Atwood’s Oryx and Crake: Chaos Then, Chaos Now, Chaos Later – One brilliant man alone tore down the world, in an attempt to create the perfect people. Instead of creating his ideal world, he created utter chaos, where the number of healthy and living humans fell rapidly. After the complete disorder came to an end, destruction and damage were not the only remnants left behind. A new world was begun with the end of the human race and the birth of the perfect race, which was made up of creatures of flawlessness and excellence. Margaret Atwood tells a story of an end, revolving in the time of a society of the future…. [tags: Literature] :: 6 Works Cited 1489 words (4.3 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Darwin and History – Following 1859, The Origin of Species had at last entered public consciousness. While the theories presented by Darwin were simultaneously being celebrated, condemned or challenged, it triggered a new form of self-awareness. Because Darwin initially avoided addressing the ultimate question of human evolution until The Descent of Man published in 1871, it would lead others to pursue the matter with diverse explanations. Known as the father of German Darwinism, Ernst Haeckels Natrliche Schpfungsgeschichte (The History of Creation) was first published in German in 1868 and translated into English in 1876…. [tags: Scientific Research ] :: 6 Works Cited 1149 words (3.3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Euthanasia: An End to Misery – Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain (Voluntary Euthanasia). Euthanasia is an act that would be used to relieve suffering patients. Before one can argue for or against the legalization of euthanasia, he must understand the difference between the different types of euthanasia: active versus passive, voluntary versus non-voluntary and involuntary, and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide…. [tags: Ethics ] :: 6 Works Cited 1369 words (3.9 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Genetic Discrimination – In the 1920s the United States became the world center of eugenic activity and social policy. From 1907-1960 more than 100,000 innocent Americans were sterilized in more than 30 states. The American eugenics movements of the 1920s and 1930s recognized human beings as being either cherished or substandard. They established degeneration programs to improve races of low grade causing racism to intend more rapidly. The main targets of degeneration were the usual victims of racism Jews, Indians, Blacks, and many more minorities…. [tags: Discrimination ] 584 words (1.7 pages) Good Essays [preview] The Nazi Euthanasia Programme Based on Racial Purity Theories – The Nazi Euthanasia Programme Based on Racial Purity Theories While the actual program of ‘euthanasia’ was initiated by Hitler in 1939 the whole idea of racial purity, Social Darwinism and eugenics had been on the rise In Europe and more importantly Germany for quite some years. The issue that called for the commencement of the program was in fact written at the end of October but was predated 1st of September to coincide with the start of the war, as it was interestingly enough seen as a paralleled war by the Nazis…. [tags: Papers] 2513 words (7.2 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] Main Points of an Essay by an Author Regarding Racism in the South – … The author explains how white southerners behave towards the citizenship of their ex-slaves over a span of fifty years. This book explains how white southerners re-establish their dominance through displays of violence and physical separation. The author analyzes the meaning of segregation for all of America. The creation of modern whiteness is examined through the culture of segregation. The author focuses on the understudied period following the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. He aims at the alleged scientific evidence from the International Society for Advancement of Ethnology and Euginics, who function was to investigate facial differences and announce their findings…. [tags: Civil Rights, Discrimination] 587 words (1.7 pages) Research Papers [preview] Genetic Engineering is Unethical – Genetic engineering is a technology that has been created to alter DNA of different species to try and make them more improved. This essay will discuss the eugenics, the religious point of view about genetic engineering, genetically modified food and the genetic screening of embryos. In this essay it will be said wether genetic engineering is ethical or unethical. During 1924 Hitler said that everyone needs to be blond hair, blue eyes and white. This is known as Eugenics, thanks to a new science known as biotechnology in a few decades…. [tags: Genetic Engineering Essays] 492 words (1.4 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Never Let Me Go by Mark Romanek – The film, Never Let Me Go, by Mark Romanek interrogates a possible alternate history for the world and is a commentary on the human condition. Wrapped within these ideas is the fact that it is also a commentary on the philosophy of science. What Romanek does is propose questions, and after enough pondering by the viewers they eventually realize that the world today could conceivably be like the one in the film. This is because our history is not too far off from that of the film. This fact that this is true reminds us that what we are watching is not fantasy or a what if question…. [tags: film, organ havesting, ethics] 1331 words (3.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Ethical Controversy of Gene Therapy – Gene therapy is a technique that uses genes to treat or prevent diseases. It is the process of taking DNA from one organism and inserting it to another. No development in the field of biotechnology has inspired both greater fear and hope in human society than gene therapy. Here is the big question among the people. While this new advancement in gene therapy promotes new hopes to cure life-threatening diseases or help the amputee or physically disabled persons to lead life like a normal human, it also raises questions about morality as well as the adverse effects it may cause in the future society…. [tags: Medical Ethics ] :: 8 Works Cited 1589 words (4.5 pages) Powerful Essays [preview] History, Race, and Violence in the Arena of Reproduction Enslavement. – History, Race, and Violence in the Arena of Reproduction Enslavement. In 1997, Dorothy Roberts wrote a salient book titled Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Roberts explicates the crusade to punish Black womenespecially the destitutefor having children. The exploitation of Black women in the U.S. began in the days of slavery and, appropriately enough, Roberts introduces her first chapter with an illustrative story: When Rose Williams was sixteen years old, her master sent her to live in a cabin with a male slave named Rufus…. [tags: Essays Papers] :: 16 Works Cited 1863 words (5.3 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Sterilization of Native American Women in the 1970’s – The Scythe and the Scalpel: Dissecting the Sterilizations of Native American Women in the 1970’s In the old days, genocide used to be so simple. Such things as biological warfare used to keep Indians warm with small pox infested blankets furnished by the United States government, and the only thing barren and infertile was the land set aside for reservations. In the 1970s, genocide became a little more complex. Biological warfare invaded the reproductive rights of Native American women, making their wombs as barren and infertile as reservation land…. [tags: Essays Papers] :: 5 Works Cited 2793 words (8 pages) Research Papers [preview] Darwins Theory of Natural Selection and Social Darwinism – Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwins ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwins book remains one of the most influential ever written. Its influence has even extended into realms other than biology and science…. [tags: Social Darwinism Essays] :: 8 Works Cited 2626 words (7.5 pages) Research Papers [preview] Drawing the Line for Genetic Therapy – Drawing the Line for Genetic Therapy Despite plans for this project to finish in the year 2005, it was actually published ahead of schedule in the summer of 2001. What is the Human Genome Project and should we be worried. The Human Genome Project is a project where many scientists from all over the world worked together with one simple aim: to map out the sequence of DNA that makes up all the human genes. From working out what the sequence is, doors of many possibilities are open but what are these possibilities…. [tags: Papers] 576 words (1.6 pages) Strong Essays [preview] Free Nature vs. Nurture Essay – Nature vs Nurture The exponential growth of scientific and biological knowledge over time has facilitated the genesis of radical fields of specialization, namely biological determinism, sociobiology and eugenics, just to mention a few. The common thread between these fields is this- their proponents collectively postulate that all human traits, including weight, strength, intelligence, aspects of personality such as temperament (aggression for example), criminality and morality, are ultimately determined by the information encoded in DNA…. [tags: Biology Genes Science Essays] 535 words (1.5 pages) Good Essays [preview] Should the Quest for Knowledge be Boundless? – Victor Frankenstein suffered from a lack of foresight. He only planned to reanimate a human being; he did not consider the consequences of such an action, and he did not build protections for unexpected, detrimental effects. Real-life scientists suffer from the same problem. Today we are reminded with every issue of “Time” that scientists in one modern field, nuclear technology, and emerging field genome mapping/genetic engineering wield considerable power. Shelley raises the question whether the quest for scientific knowledge should be bound…. [tags: Exploratory Essays Research Papers] :: 10 Works Cited 2372 words (6.8 pages) Strong Essays [preview] The Controversy Surrounding Oral Contraception – The combined oral contraceptive pill was invented in the 1950s. During the first ten years of its existence it remained a purchasable method of contraception. This was until the 1960s as the Ministry of Health then permitted doctors to prescribe the drug if they sought necessary courtesy of the National Health Service. From then, the popularity of the pill had risen tremendously and by the late 1960s over 15% of married British women were using the pill. Its rapid popularity was not restricted to the United Kingdom as at the same time 2% of the female population worldwide relied on the pill as birth control…. [tags: Women’s Health] :: 10 Works Cited 2268 words (6.5 pages) Term Papers [preview] Buck versus Bell – Buck versus Bell During the early twentieth century, the United States was enduring significant social and economic changes due to its transformation into a commercial and industrial world power. As the need for labor escalated within many urban areas, millions of Europeans emigrated from Southern and Eastern Europe with the hopes of capitalizing upon these employment opportunities and attaining a better life. Simultaneously, many African-Americans migrated from the rural South into major cities, bearing the same intentions as those of the European immigrants…. [tags: Supreme Court Sterilization Essays] :: 6 Works Cited 3622 words (10.3 pages) Term Papers [preview] The Origins of the Holocaust – The question of the origins of the Holocaust has been studied by scholars using several differing approaches. These interpretations are outlined by Donald Niewyk in The Holocaust as the long history of European anti-Semitism, the charismatic personality of Adolf Hitler and the influence of modern scientific racism or eugenics. These interpretations are illustrated in the works of John Weiss, Ian Kershaw, and Henry Friedlander. Niewyk uses Weiss to identify the interpretation of ancient anti-Semitism located throughout Europe as the origin of the Holocaust…. [tags: Holocaust ] :: 9 Works Cited 1538 words (4.4 pages) Powerful Essays [preview]

Read this article:

Free eugenics Essays and Papers – 123helpme

Posted in Neo-eugenics | Comments Off on Free eugenics Essays and Papers – 123helpme