Tuesday, June 15, 2021

KT's Theory Of Everything, Federal Reserve Edition

I don't recall how I found it, but someone recently turned me on to Janet Yellen's social justice blathering. It hits all of the usual notes about inequality, racism, global warming climate change and blah blah blah. It's so orthodox that no more than a single example is necessary. If you find yourself unable to sleep, click on this embedded tweet and scroll through her feed. It's Snore City, man.

Pull her string and she talks! She comes with ten pre-programmed messages, kiddies!

This is just another data point that proves social justice talk is simply a diversion. Yellen knows the exact demographic makeup of the bottom 30%. She's the current Secretary of the Treasury and served four years as the chair of the Federal Reserve, two organizations simply awash in data. She knows this is all rubbish and yet she keeps hammering at it. Why? 

Again, the only conclusion I can reach is that she doesn't want to discuss traditional, nuclear families.

Income inequality has nothing to do with racism and Yellen knows it.


tim eisele said...

So, KT, have you written to your congressional representative yet to tell them to change the laws so that they don't financially penalize low-income people for getting married? It might not be much, but it seems like it might be a more productive use of time than just ranting about it on your blog once a week or so.

K T Cat said...

Laws aren't going to do a thing. It's not about laws, it's about acceptance of self-destructive behavior. When Republicans talk about tax laws as if they have some kind of power over family decisions, it drives me crazy. They just want to seem relevant and they aren't.

As for what I'm doing, I'm supporting Take Charge Minnesota, who, for my money, are doing it right. https://takechargemn.com/

tim eisele said...

"It's not about laws, it's about acceptance of self-destructive behavior."

I think that is ignoring a big effect, which we talked about last time this came up. Public assistance programs tend to be "means tested" and since married couples tend to have a better financial situation than unmarried couples, they have better means and so are less likely to qualify for the assistance. If you have a couple with a combined income that is too high to qualify if they apply as a married couple, but they could get several thousand dollars in benefits if they file as single individuals, don't you think a lot of people will decide to go with the second choice? And doesn't that in turn habituate them to "acceptance of self-destructive behavior"?

And as long as the government is essentially paying people to not get married, "Take Charge Minnesota" is going to have a real uphill fight on their hands.

K T Cat said...

Hanging out at the condo pool on Maui, we listened to a pack of young ladies chatting. They were discussing whether or not they wanted to get married. The general consensus was that they wanted kids, but not husbands. After all, their moms and aunts had done it and it seemed to work. Tax policy didn't come up in the conversation.

tim eisele said...

OK, so why *did* they conclude that they didn't want husbands? What did they see as the downsides of having a husband around?

One Brow said...

If you want to know what really motivates a person, ask them what motivates other people. This more than explains "KT's Theory Of Everything".