<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> Nothing you said addresses the growing gap between the top and the
> middle over the last thirty years in the US. That widening gap is just
> an objective fact, which is why I think folks always respond indirectly
> - as you did above - when I mention it.
Except you haven't explained why that single statistic taken in a
vaccum is important, interesting, or compelling; if or whether it
justifies any particular social policy; and if it does, why it does.
You just keep repeating it like a demented doomsday parrot. To me it's
as meaningless as saying "but you haven't addressed my point that
Boise is the capital of Idaho."
Here:
A recent study in the Ecomonist "casts doubt on the widespread view
that inequality causes (or is associated with) a host of social
problems."
Here:
"Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of
clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral
significance of rising income inequality. Income statistics paint a
misleading picture of real standards of living ... the dispersion of
incomes at any given time has .... a tenuous connection to human
welfare or social justice."
There. I've addressed your point and the answer is: you're confused
about the significance of rising income inequality.
Oh sure, I know, that's the Cato Institute, those radicals. It won't
be true until former Enron advisor Paul Krugman says it is. I know
this because Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.
"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote
You other objections were well addressed by the bristled jerk Your
Srmrat.
> Poor folks in America are definitely better off than poor people from the distant past, or even distinct Africa.
I'd argue that poor folks in every decade are better off than poor
folks in the previous decade. Why the rising inocme gap is more
important than this is what I do not get. When you think about it,
the rising income gap is sorta inherent in the system. But it does
not a priori condemn the system.
Ronald Reagan apparatchik Lee Atwater explains it all to you:
| | You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger."
| By 1968 you can't say "nigger"--that hurts you, backfires.
| So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights,
| and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now,
| you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things
| you're talking about are totally economic things and a
| byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites....
| "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the
| busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than
| "Nigger, nigger."
|
<http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamo...>
> On Nov 13, 8:31 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> Nothing you said addresses the growing gap between the top and the
>> middle over the last thirty years in the US. That widening gap is just
>> an objective fact, which is why I think folks always respond indirectly
>> - as you did above - when I mention it.
> Except you haven't explained why that single statistic taken in a
> vaccum is important, interesting, or compelling; if or whether it
> justifies any particular social policy; and if it does, why it does.
> You just keep repeating it like a demented doomsday parrot. To me it's
> as meaningless as saying "but you haven't addressed my point that
> Boise is the capital of Idaho."
Well, Boise is actually the most populous city in Idaho.
> A recent study in the Ecomonist "casts doubt on the widespread view
> that inequality causes (or is associated with) a host of social
> problems."
> Here:
> "Recent discussions of economic inequality, marked by a lack of
> clarity and care, have confused the public about the meaning and moral
> significance of rising income inequality. Income statistics paint a
> misleading picture of real standards of living ... the dispersion of
> incomes at any given time has .... a tenuous connection to human
> welfare or social justice."
> There. I've addressed your point and the answer is: you're confused
> about the significance of rising income inequality.
You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
"When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to the prices of goods that rich people consume."
How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class - consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the right thing to do.
Cheers.
> Oh sure, I know, that's the Cato Institute, those radicals. It won't
> be true until former Enron advisor Paul Krugman says it is. I know
> this because Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.
-- Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> > you're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
No, you're confused about the significance of rising income
inequality. Polly wanna cracker?
> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
scrolled through a tad slower.
> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
> consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
Your strawman lacks a brain.
> So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
nonsequitur.
> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
> transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
> right thing to do.
Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
> On Nov 14, 8:21 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>>> you're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
>> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality.
> No, you're confused about the significance of rising income
> inequality. Polly wanna cracker?
You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. You have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists on the planet.
>> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
> A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
> Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
> you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
> quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
> the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
> scrolled through a tad slower.
You want to make a big deal here with the hand-waving...
>> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
>> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
>> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
>> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
>> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
>> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
>> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
>> consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
> Your strawman lacks a brain.
because you cannot dispute that the Cato piece rests it's case on this proposition - that goods poor folks consume have gotten cheaper, so growing income inequality is a non-issue.
>> So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
>> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
>> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
> The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
> nonsequitur.
>> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
>> transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
>> right thing to do.
> Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
> that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
> explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
> facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
> most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
You seem extremely poorly informed, so didn't catch the reference I was making as a joke. Perhaps reading outside of Cato once in a great while?
Cheers.
-- Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. You
> have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit
> piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists
> on the planet.
And you're confused about logic. See, you keep mentioning a single
economic fact - rising income inequality - as if the mere mention of
it proves something. I disagree and provided sources that say it's a
meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a self
described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right. Since
you postulate that rising income inequality is by itself an important
economic indicator, the onus is on you to prove its significance. The
onus isn't on me to disprove every numskullery spouted by some dope on
the internets. And since your vague appeal to authority - "the
considered opinions of a large majority of the economists on the
planet," good grief - is unavailing, you can try again or you can
plonk off with your tail between your legs.
> >> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
> > A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
> > Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
> > you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
> > quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
> > the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
> > scrolled through a tad slower.
> You want to make a big deal here with the hand-waving...
I have no idea what that means. Why not try some of those acronyms and
winkies usenet spanktards such as yourself find so devastating. AYB.
ROFLMAO! :)))))
> >> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
> >> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
> >> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
> >> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
> >> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
> >> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
> >> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
> >> consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
> > Your strawman lacks a brain.
> because you cannot dispute that the Cato piece rests it's case on this
> proposition - that goods poor folks consume have gotten cheaper, so
> growing income inequality is a non-issue.
Good grief muttonhead, you pulled a quote from page 8 of a 30 page
article you didn't read, which quote is not even written by the
authors, claim that the entire article rests on that proposition,
pronounce the article "bonkers" (I assume thats an economic term of
art) and I'm supposed to disprove that bald assertion? Fine. You're
wrong and it doesn't. Thus is your hypothesis disproved. And you
cannot dispute that your hypothesis is disproved, because not only do
I gainsay it but the considered opinion of a majority of gainsayers on
the planet is in agreement with mine including those in China, North
Korea, and Equador.
> >> So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
> >> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
> >> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
> > The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
> > nonsequitur.
> >> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
> >> transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
> >> right thing to do.
> > Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
> > that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
> > explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
> > facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
> > most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
> You seem extremely poorly informed, so didn't catch the reference I was
> making as a joke. Perhaps reading outside of Cato once in a great while?
I got your reference. I thought it innane so ignored it and instead
related a brief monkeyshine about my sainted grandmother and the
Pentacost. Ironically her name was Goldwater. Sounded suspiciously
Jewish to me but she had no reason to lie. Anyway, I assume from the
fact that you did not catch my reference to the election of 1964 - in
his heart you know he's right - that you hate the Baby Jesus. I do
not, although I reject His claim to divinity, preferring to think of
Him as precocious.
> On Nov 15, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> You're confused about the significance of rising income inequality. You
>> have decided to accept the conclusions of a run of the mill Cato hit
>> piece over the considered opinions of a large majority of the economists
>> on the planet.
> And you're confused about logic. See, you keep mentioning a single
> economic fact - rising income inequality - as if the mere mention of
> it proves something. I disagree and provided sources that say it's a
> meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a self
> described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right.
The Cato piece doesn't claim that. I can't speak for the other source, because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article. I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.
> you postulate that rising income inequality is by itself an important
> economic indicator, the onus is on you to prove its significance. The
> onus isn't on me to disprove every numskullery spouted by some dope on
> the internets. And since your vague appeal to authority - "the
> considered opinions of a large majority of the economists on the
> planet," good grief - is unavailing, you can try again or you can
> plonk off with your tail between your legs.
>>>> Your Cato piece is bonkers and rests its case on this proposition:
>>> A, I don't for a second believe you read the entire 28 page Cato
>>> Institute paper, and I tend to doubt that you could understand it if
>>> you did. In any event you're B. talking out your ass, because the
>>> quote below isn't even by the authors, its from Freakonomics, which
>>> the authors quote in passing, which you might have noticed if you'd
>>> scrolled through a tad slower.
>> You want to make a big deal here with the hand-waving...
> I have no idea what that means. Why not try some of those acronyms and
> winkies usenet spanktards such as yourself find so devastating. AYB.
> ROFLMAO! :)))))
>>>> "When people talk about inequality,they tend to focus exclusively on the
>>>> income part of the equation. According to all our measures, the gap in
>>>> income between the rich and the poor has been growing. What Broda and
>>>> Romalis quite convincingly demonstrate, however, is that the prices of
>>>> goods that poor people tend to consume have fallen sharply relative to
>>>> the prices of goods that rich people consume."
>>>> How about stuff that normal people - you know, the middle class -
>>>> consumes? I'm betting the prices there haven't "fallen sharply".
>>> Your strawman lacks a brain.
>> because you cannot dispute that the Cato piece rests it's case on this
>> proposition - that goods poor folks consume have gotten cheaper, so
>> growing income inequality is a non-issue.
> Good grief muttonhead, you pulled a quote from page 8 of a 30 page
> article you didn't read, which quote is not even written by the
> authors, claim that the entire article rests on that proposition,
> pronounce the article "bonkers" (I assume thats an economic term of
> art) and I'm supposed to disprove that bald assertion? Fine. You're
> wrong and it doesn't. Thus is your hypothesis disproved. And you
> cannot dispute that your hypothesis is disproved, because not only do
> I gainsay it but the considered opinion of a majority of gainsayers on
> the planet is in agreement with mine including those in China, North
> Korea, and Equador.
>> Which seems about as smrat as you.
>>>> So, like, next. All I have on my side is the US, Canada, China, most of
>>>> Europe, Australia - all places that coupled a growing % of the pie for
>>>> the middle relative to the top with boomtimey economies.
>>> The best that can be said of this is that it's a confused
>>> nonsequitur.
>>>> Plus, I believe in meritocracy and fighting the transgenerational
>>>> transmission of wealth. Deep down, in my loins, I just know it's the
>>>> right thing to do.
>>> Yes exactly. You "believe" something and you just know that deep down
>>> that what you believe in is right. That's exactly how my grandmother
>>> explained the Holy Ghost to me. Like her you're impervious to logic,
>>> facts, and reasoning. Of course she didn't have China, Australia and
>>> most of Europe on her side, so you have a leg up.
>> You seem extremely poorly informed, so didn't catch the reference I was
>> making as a joke. Perhaps reading outside of Cato once in a great while?
> I got your reference. I thought it innane so ignored it and instead
> related a brief monkeyshine about my sainted grandmother and the
> Pentacost. Ironically her name was Goldwater. Sounded suspiciously
> Jewish to me but she had no reason to lie. Anyway, I assume from the
> fact that you did not catch my reference to the election of 1964 - in
> his heart you know he's right - that you hate the Baby Jesus. I do
> not, although I reject His claim to divinity, preferring to think of
> Him as precocious.
-- Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> The Cato piece doesn't claim that.
And now you're reduced merely to lying. Because that's exactly what it
says.
-- "If we’re interested in trends in overall material well-being,
income statistics can provide a surprisingly distorted picture."
-- "Income inequality, in isolation, tells us very little."
-- "Economic inequality is a reliable indicator of neither individual
well-being nor social justice."
-- "Income inequality ... convey[s] exceedingly little information
relevant to the ... evaluation of social and political institutions."
And so on. Thus are you shown to be completely FOS.
> I can't speak for the other source,
> because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article.
> I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.
I provided a quote from the Economist, describing its findings: "Our
special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality
causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems."
Not a hard quote to locate and anyway you don't need a link to deny
that that's what the Economist said, to lie about what's in the
article, or to repeat yourself over and over. And besides you're
already "pretty sure" of what it says anyway.
> On Nov 15, 6:04 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> The Cato piece doesn't claim that.
> And now you're reduced merely to lying. Because that's exactly what it
> says.
> -- "If we’re interested in trends in overall material well-being,
> income statistics can provide a surprisingly distorted picture."
> -- "Income inequality, in isolation, tells us very little."
> -- "Economic inequality is a reliable indicator of neither individual
> well-being nor social justice."
> -- "Income inequality ... convey[s] exceedingly little information
> relevant to the ... evaluation of social and political institutions."
> And so on. Thus are you shown to be completely FOS.
You still aren't there with the Cato piece.
>> I can't speak for the other source,
>> because you didn't provide a link or the name of the author or article.
>> I'm pretty sure, if that article exists, it also doesn't claim that.
> I provided a quote from the Economist, describing its findings: "Our
> special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality
> causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems."
> Not a hard quote to locate and anyway you don't need a link to deny
> that that's what the Economist said, to lie about what's in the
> article, or to repeat yourself over and over. And besides you're
> already "pretty sure" of what it says anyway.
I found it:
"Our special report casts doubt on the widespread view that inequality causes (or is associated with) a host of social problems. Economics focus finds little evidence that it stoked the financial crisis."
Here's the very next line:
"But recent research does suggest two other reasons why the rise in inequality is a problem. One is that rich economies seem to provide disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy. The other is that inequality may literally be making people miserable by increasing stress and the hormones it releases."
So clearly, when you claim "I disagree and provided sources that say it's a meaningless measure, two of them actually, one, the Economist, a self described "liberal" journal, and the other Cato from the right."
You are misunderstanding or deliberately distorting the conclusions of the pieces you are citing.
HTH.
Cheers.
> Fuck off now, I'm done with you.
-- Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
