HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Krugman: the notion that ...

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:11 AM

Krugman: the notion that traditional families and religion are essential to social order is a theory

not a fact ó and itís a theory that is overwhelmingly refuted by recent experience.

I look at America in the 2013 of the Common Era ó notice my war on Christianity ó and see the healthiest society, in some key dimensions, of my adult life. Consider a couple of objective indicators. Hereís teenage pregnancy:



And hereís violent crime:



But back to Eberstadt: his whole argument is based on the presumption that society is doomed if the traditional ó and, I think itís fair to say, patriarchal ó structure isnít maintained without change. Let people cohabit, maybe even marry others of the same sex, choose their faith or choose not to have any faith, and we will degenerate in a Hobbesian nightmare. We used to point to Scandinavia as a counter-example, but the reply would be that their homogeneous societies (not really, but that was the legend) were nothing like ours. But now weíre a cohabiting, free-love, free-religion dystopia too ó and itís OK.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/the-kids-are-alright/

There goes Krugman again using charts and facts to refute a conservative talking point. Thanks again, Mr. Krugman.

23 replies, 1849 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Krugman: the notion that traditional families and religion are essential to social order is a theory (Original post)
pampango Feb 2013 OP
Sherman A1 Feb 2013 #1
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #2
Bigmack Feb 2013 #3
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #4
FarCenter Feb 2013 #6
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #11
redqueen Feb 2013 #5
PasadenaTrudy Feb 2013 #7
Blanks Feb 2013 #8
Gore1FL Feb 2013 #9
Yavin4 Feb 2013 #10
adieu Feb 2013 #12
midwest irish Feb 2013 #13
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #21
AlbertCat Feb 2013 #14
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #15
dkf Feb 2013 #16
leftstreet Feb 2013 #17
midwest irish Feb 2013 #19
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #22
LongTomH Feb 2013 #18
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #20
bemildred Feb 2013 #23

Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:21 AM

1. K&R

Interesting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:23 AM

2. Paul is definitely a threat to the ruling elite. You go Paul. nm


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:49 AM

3. Not even a theory.... it's an hypothesis. Totally unproved. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:51 AM

4. I agree with your sentiment.

Where turbulence is encountered is usually only result of the shift as traditional forms of societal cohesion go through their growing pains. When you pulll out seperate generations you can see where the anxiety coincides with these growing pains. We are everchanging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigmack (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:06 AM

6. As a hypothesis, it is easily shown to be untrue

There have been many societies that did not have our "traditional family structure and religion".

Sparta, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:30 AM

11. I had read some opinions

that what we call violent, or extremist islam is a result of the medevil, for that particular civilization being in it's death throes as it comes up against the modern and undergoes inevtiable change. I don't contend that explains everything but only as a possible example of how we are constantly changing and that change is often resisted but ultimately gives in to change. This is where conservatives find themselves, unwilling to accept change. Convinced that things have always been this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:52 AM

5. K&R!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:10 AM

7. K&R and tweeted n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:15 AM

8. It's interesting.

The very same folks who are hating on the government because they hate to see their freedoms disappearing; are the ones pushing the 'traditional families'.

Seems like having a non-traditional family is one of the freedoms they are threatening. Doesn't really make much sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:24 AM

9. It's not a theory if it disagrees with observation/experience/experiment

He is describing a hypothesis and calling it a theory.

It's a pet peeve of mine. It amazes me that someone with his knowledge would make that mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:25 AM

10. Look at Islamic Socieities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan That Cling Hard to Traditions

Compare their advancement to Northern European societes that have shunned tradition and allow their people maximum individual liberty and are fierce advocates of gender equality.

Tell me which one would you raise a family in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:34 AM

12. It's not a theory

It's not even a hypothesis. It's just a wish. Barely a belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:54 AM

13. I think the focus solely on religious organizations

 

is missing the point. What are churches? They are institutions. They are a part of civil society. The bigger issue is whether or not there is a breakdown in civil society as people participate less (or differently) with their community. This is why Putnam's Bowling Alone was such an influential and interesting work. We see people are no longer engaging in groups/organizations (4-H, church, VFW, whatever) like they used to after WWII. The result is a reduction in social capital. Although the church has been one of the more prominent of these institutions historically in the US, the focus on church membership is faulty because the it is just one of many, many ways in which people can build social capital...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midwest irish (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:10 AM

21. ding ding we have a winner!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:07 PM

14. the notion that traditional families and religion are essential to social order is a theory

No

I'd say it's a hypothesis... just a guess. Theories have some proof behind their predictions. Hypotheses do not. They usually just have casual observations behind them to get one started on proofs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:09 PM

15. K&R. Krugman's always on my "must read" list. Thanks for posting nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:13 PM

16. On the other hand look at child poverty in single parent households.

 

Having an intact family structure is an advantage in life.

Religion however...meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:23 PM

17. Bullshit. That just proves wages are too low

I bet you're the type that moans over the days when 1 income could support a family. It's always fine with your kind as long as that income is produced by a male

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:01 PM

19. "always fine with your kind as long as that income is produced by a male"

 

Come on, I believe that is being really unfair and creating an unproductive and hostile argument where none existed. No one said anything about supporting or returning to male hegemony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:14 AM

22. Agree, our stats indicated this much

as well as my experience in casework. In fact the overriding deprivation that can determine eligibility for the programs I am trained on is "birth out of wedlock" which is most commonly the indicator that we are dealing with a single parent household. This term BoW is actually what is in our system in Kentucky and in policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:26 PM

18. Krugman's blog is worth scrolling through for his comments on 'Marcoeconomics'

Scroll down in the blog for the "More Marcoeconomics" and "Marco Rubio Has Learned Nothing" posts. I can already foresee 4 years of Rubio spitting out Reaganesque bullshit like his 'Republican response to the SOTU' Tuesday night.

Of course, every bit of retrograde peristalsis dribbling from Rubio's lips will be seized upon as brilliance by the main$tream media! Fortunately, we do have some commentators like Prof. Krugman who can refute his garbage, and give references.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:55 AM

20. It's not even a theory, it's nonsense.

It doesn't deserve theory status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:18 AM

23. Let me repeat that, it is nonsense, counter to fact.

Throughout most of our history, it has not been the case that we lived in nuclear families, or had organized authoritarian religions, or anything of the sort.

I mean you can do it if you want to, but it's not mandatiory or even normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread