It's (finally) time for reparations. It's time for the US to pay its debt.

[Anonymous]

Did Ben Carson grow up impoverished?

Seriously? Pretty sure he grew up in Detroit projects. I used to know. I remember that he says that his mother could not read very well and hid it from the kids--but, she made sure they did their work He gives her a lot of credit. Single mom, I think. It is possible.

Tim Scott credits his manager at the fast food joint where he worked. The manager sat him down and talked to him about how to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there may be a moral basis for reparations. But wouldn’t the economic benefits of race based affirmative action over the last decades have to be taken into account too, to arrive at an appropriate payment amount?

How would you measure that?

If you look at the income and wealth gaps, we haven't made any progress.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf
"The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How come Asians have higher median house hold incomes, have better test scores in school, and commit far less crimes than even white people even though they were also victims of historical injustices caused by the hands of white people? History doesn't seem to be keeping down Asian people who were barred from immigrating and owning land too. Why does an Asian immigrant who's arrived here within the last 40 years, and their kids, acquire more wealth than white people?

No one needs personal responsibility when you can get reparations.

Did you read the article? Have anything relevant to add? Or do you just want to push false equivalences...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there may be a moral basis for reparations. But wouldn’t the economic benefits of race based affirmative action over the last decades have to be taken into account too, to arrive at an appropriate payment amount?

How would you measure that?

If you look at the income and wealth gaps, we haven't made any progress.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf
"The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years"

What happens when you take Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg out?

We've significantly increased income inequality over the past several decades. But that's not the same issue as the wealth inequality between white and black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

The Alaska Permanent Fund isn't opt-in and no one buys shares. It goes to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the merits of your article (which personally I found sophomoric), this is not the time to revisit the issue of reparations. We have one chance to take back our country and we can’t afford to muddy the waters with extremely divisive issues like this. It may make you feel good to atone for your white privilege, but most voters don’t agree.

How so?

And you want to transform our society, but....not now?

Given the long history of oppression, black people are now disproportionately affected by covid-19. Sure seems like the right time...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

The Alaska Permanent Fund isn't opt-in and no one buys shares. It goes to everyone.

The point is that you can set it up however you want. Opt in or no opt in, or possibly even a hybrid where you can buy shares if you want to plus you still automatically get shares based on your HHI. Nothing is written in stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

[Anonymous]

^^ generational wealth accumulation, not wealth generation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for paying higher taxes to provide healthcare for all, better schools, and free college for lower-income kids.

I worked in development for 10 years and huge cash transfers aren't the way to go. Teach a man to fish and all that.

How about other forms of reparations?

Do you support the principle but not just handing out cash?

NP here. The principle is abhorrent. My parents and grandparents recieved Holocaust reparations from the German government. That was for their suffering. I would not accept reparations for me. I did not suffer anything close to what they went through.

On the other hand, I do believe society has an obligation to assist people who are poor today. Present conditions that keep them in poverty should be fixed. They are entitled to a decent life and opportunities. Cash is okay, but jobs at living wages is better.

Otherwise, we will be saying Oprah deserves "reparations," but a poor white who grew up in poverty deserves nothing.

What if your parents had never been paid? What if Israel wasn't formed? What if extensive systemic antisemitism was still happening today?

Did you know that the US government still pays (this year $5 million) to support Holocaust survivors living in America? And $3.8B in military aid to Israel in 2019.

Even, some slave owners were compensated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/opinion/when-slaveowners-got-reparations.html


How much has the US ever paid to survivors of slavery and other forms of black oppression?

My mother's family was compensated. Due to the vagaries of history, my father's family was not. That's how it goes. I would not accept money for him.

Military aid to Israel is not reparations. It's a military alliance. Formation of Israel was perhaps reparations, but that benefited actual refugees, and unfortunately created other refugees who are still suffering.

What about Indians? We took 100 per cent of their land. Do we give it back?

What about Chinese railroad builders? They weren't paid very well and faced years of discrimination. Do they get back compensation for what they should have been paid?

What about women for the last 5,000 years? So many were slaves to their husbands. Do today's men owe women payment for our grandfathers beating our grandmothers?


The point is, history is history. The winners and the losers all end up dead. Their joys and sufferings are over. We can't fix what happened to the dead, not even in theory.

We can however make the world better for those who suffer today. That's what we should be talking about.

Thoughts on how to bridge the wealth gap without reparations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.