As noted, the more relevant goal is growth, i.e. getting out of poverty or, more generally, doing better than your parents.What else would one mean by “economic success”?
The “stay in school” advice is merely to finish high school. That’s quite a low bar for most folks but for those in poverty, it is a predictor of getting out of poverty.The difference between the poor and the rich is that the rich have money, and the poor do not. Money allows you to do things like go to college, get married, and buy a house. These things are not given away for free - if you have no money, you will not go to college, you will not get married (have you seen the price of wedding dresses lately?), and you will not purchase a house.
Ad hominem.Uh, if you are relying on Karl Marx as your expert on poverty and morality then I think we’re already too far apart to have any sort of useful discussion.
So? There are many one-off situations in economy. When you sell a used car, for example, that’s a one-off. Are you suggesting that cheating while selling a used car is less immoral than cheating on a member of your family?If you are familiar with game theory then you know that when the game is played in repeatedly and not in a one-off then behavrior changes radically towards cooperation.
This dismal history of Marxism. it’s not a matter of measuring thought, Marx was certainly prolific, but of evaluating outcomes. Marx never validated his theories, like Hitler, he simply appealed to the vices of his audience.Again: what arguments do you have that Marx’s description of capitalism was incorrect and it’s Murray who gets it right? Also, what does Murray say about Marx? Because from where I sit, there is much more thought behind Marxism than Murrayism.
I’m suggesting it is foolish to reduce game theory to a single game particularly when that game gives a different outcome when it more closely approximates the real world. It is called the prisoner’s delimna because it was designed to model the sitution of two prisoners under seperate interrogation and isolated from one another.So? There are many one-off situations in economy. When you sell a used car, for example, that’s a one-off. Are you suggesting that cheating while selling a used car is less immoral than cheating on a member of your family?
Actually, poor people having been entering into common-law partnerships for millennia. My point was that wedding ceremonies cost money. The definition of being poor is that you lack money. If you have lots of money but you don’t get married, you aren’t “poor”; something else is the matter with you.As for marriage, that does not require a college degree; poor people were getting married for mellinia without that.
A “common-law partnership” partnership would be a step up from what is the current arrangement. But while people do spend a lot on weding ceremonies, it is not a requirement that they do. Show me a Catholic priest who will not marry a poor couple for lack of funds.Actually, poor people having been entering into common-law partnerships for millennia. My point was that wedding ceremonies cost money. The definition of being poor is that you lack money. If you have lots of money but you don’t get married, you aren’t “poor”; something else is the matter with you.
Again: what does Murray say about Marx’s analysis of capitalism and relationship between economic and moral condition?This dismal history of Marxism. it’s not a matter of measuring thought, Marx was certainly prolific, but of evaluating outcomes. Marx never validated his theories, like Hitler, he simply appealed to the vices of his audience.
It’s foolish to hold to the example without addressing the argument. Again:I’m suggesting it is foolish to reduce game theory to a single game
I seriously doubt that Murray has studied Marx in any detail. I doubt he spent much time on Hitler or the Marquis de Sade either.Again: what does Murray say about Marx’s analysis of capitalism and relationship between economic and moral condition? It’s a straightforward question, please stop evading it and answer.
Again, you are confusing a specific game (the Prisoner’s delimna) with game theory in general. There are, in fact, many games in which moral behavior is rewarded and not punished.It’s foolish to hold to the example without addressing the argument. Again:
Under Nash’s view, economic activity can be described in terms of game theory. In game theory, there is no intrinsic payof for moral behavior (if anything, there is punishment). How does Murray address that?
This is one of the most unChristian and unCatholic notions I have read lately. Congratulations. It’s also goes against common sense, most people’s experience and obvious facts.weeklystandard.com/articles/mind-gap_633403.html
Although Charles Murray has studied American, not Catholic virtues, I think it is still worth asking: What if it really is the case that the poor are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the last century to relieve their suffering have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?
Could you elaborate? What precisely do you think “goes against common sense, most people’s experience and obvious facts”?This is one of the most unChristian and unCatholic notions I have read lately. Congratulations. It’s also goes against common sense, most people’s experience and obvious facts.
So, you’re saying he’s simply unqualified to write about the subject.I seriously doubt that Murray has studied Marx in any detail.
To see whether dishonesty varies with social class, psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues devised a series of tests, working with groups of 100 to 200 Berkeley undergraduates or adults recruited online. Subjects completed a standard gauge of their social status, placing an X on one of 10 rungs of a ladder representing their income, education, and how much respect their jobs might command compared with other Americans.
So, Murrayism has been experimentally falsified. But wait, it gets better!The team’s findings suggest that privilege promotes dishonesty. For example, upper-class subjects were more likely to cheat. After five apparently random rolls of a computerized die for a chance to win an online gift certificate, three times as many upper-class players reported totals higher than 12—even though, unbeknownst to them, the game was rigged so that 12 was the highest possible score.
When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically. In one test, subjects were asked to compare themselves with people at the top or the bottom of the social scale (Donald Trump or a homeless person, for example.) They were then permitted to take candies from a jar ostensibly meant for a group of children in a nearby lab. Subjects whose role-playing raised their status in their own eyes took twice as many candies as those who compared themselves to “The Donald,” the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In another test, participants were asked to list several benefits of greed; they were given the example that greed can help further one’s professional goals, then asked to come up with three additional benefits. Again, lower-class subjects whose attitudes toward greed had been nudged in this way became just as likely as their wealthier counterparts to sympathize with dishonest behavior (taking home office supplies, laying off employees while increasing their own bonuses, overcharging customers to drive up profits).
Well, I’m sure he would not be “qualified” in the Soviet Union or Cuba. But it’s less clear why you would expect social science research elsewhere to relate their results to the theories of Karl Marx.So, you’re saying he’s simply unqualified to write about the subject.
Yes, seen that. Very cute. But I think all you’ve realy done is demonstrate that you have not bothered to understand Murray’s research.Meanwhile, in Science magazine…
So, Murrayism has been experimentally falsified. But wait, it gets better!
Sure, thanks for asking.Could you elaborate? What precisely do you think “goes against common sense, most people’s experience and obvious facts”?
What if it really is the case that the poor are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the last century to relieve their suffering have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?
While it would cerrainly be worthwhile to read the article, I can give you a simple summary of the issue. As noted in the OP and elsewhere, we are primarily talking about what Murray calls “American” virtues and what I have called “worldly” virtues. Someone, it may have been Murray, or someone else doing similar research, noted that, at least in the United States, escaping povery was as simple as:Sure, thanks for asking.
I am not replying to the Weekly Standard article because I don’t waste my time with that place. I am just referring to this:
Whether or not it is good to help the poor, this cannot be true otherwise we would all still be living in poverty.There is no easy, simple, pat way to climb out of extreme poverty without a lot of outside help and assistance.
The point of Murray’s research is to investigate why it is that poverty continues in spite of all the help that is given to the poor.Many times, this help and assistance is never forthcoming from those who could afford to help. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, for whatever reason.
No, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Anyone who has lived what you’re conjecturing about will tell you the same, who has seen “all that help” do absolutely jack-squat for family members suffering from debilitating diseases that our mangled health-care system simply don’t care about, who has felt gnawing hunger when things like food stamps are denied because “all that help” refuses to sign a piece of paper saying that the family should still qualify for food stamps.Whether or not it is good to help the poor, this cannot be true otherwise we would all still be living in poverty.
The point of Murray’s research is to investigate why it is that poverty continues in spite of all the help that is given to the poor.
All right, this was silly enough to draw me back in. Just because Marxism, Marx’s theory of government and solution to the problems he saw, is not taken seriously (and rightly so) does not mean that his analysis of the problems he saw are not taken seriously.I seriously doubt that Murray has studied Marx in any detail. I doubt he spent much time on Hitler or the Marquis de Sade either.
Good heavens, social scientists and economists should have studied Marx in detail! He’s important to their field! That doesn’t mean treating his work as dogma-that would be moronic. However, the issues and questions Marx raises are important parts of social science and economics; survey econ 101 courses spend a significant time on Marx, and anyone who wants to claim to be an expert in the field should be well read in him.Well, I’m sure he would not be “qualified” in the Soviet Union or Cuba. But it’s less clear why you would expect social science research elsewhere to relate their results to the theories of Karl Marx.
Well, let’s look at the two points in greater detail, then.No, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Anyone who has lived what you’re conjecturing about will tell you the same, who has seen “all that help” do absolutely jack-squat for family members suffering from debilitating diseases that our mangled health-care system simply don’t care about, who has felt gnawing hunger when things like food stamps are denied because “all that help” refuses to sign a piece of paper saying that the family should still qualify for food stamps. You are wrong on multiple levels. You are wrong times infinity. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and only honest ignorance or deliberate obtuseness can excuse you.