Quote :

"I didn't attack you in an ad hom manner at all. I simply contrasted the qualifications of Dr. Thomas Sowell with what is known of your qualifications--I find Sowell to be significantly more credible."

You should look up what ad hominem actually means.

7/11/2010 10:24:03 AM

^ Please stop trolling. I did not attack you personally.

7/11/2010 5:30:23 PM

It has nothing to do with attacking me personally, it's about making an argument against me rather than replying to the actual argument I posted.

7/11/2010 6:05:05 PM

^ Thanks. My point stands.

7/11/2010 6:06:12 PM

And so does mine, your non-response is completely irrelevant to what I said.

7/11/2010 8:50:08 PM

actually, I think hooksaw would at most be guilty of an argument from authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

and not a true ad hom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Of course, just because "arguments from authority" are considered logical fallacies doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.

The world is a complicated place. If you told me I shouldn't wash my hands after I take a shit, I would argue that you are wrong. But my argument would essentially be an appeal to authority. "Very smart people that have studied this issue more than either of us say that if you dont wash your hands after a deuce, you will spread germs, small creatures i've never seen that harm our bodies."

This may not stand up in a undergrad course on practical logic, but it will do in real life when you dont have time to investigate every single scientific claim you're confronted with on a given day.

[Edited on July 11, 2010 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ``]

7/11/2010 10:08:04 PM

They're both fallacies as they are arguments against the person. But what we're talking about something a bit less settled than the value of washing your hands. Also if you were presented with that argument, it would be very easy to find evidence against it.

7/11/2010 11:44:58 PM

Regardless, the point is that "trickle-down economics" does not mean what the OP implies or what many of you obviously think it does. No doubt your opinions were shaped in some far-left Internet echo chamber and/or the halls of academia.

7/12/2010 1:10:07 AM

Oh, those dangerous halls of academia. I'm glad people like you are here to teach us about the evils of learning.


It really is amusing, though, the way you're using extreme pretension to oppose elitism... like trying to fight fire with fire, which really just makes more fire, until the point where everything in the room suffocates.
That analogy extended better than I expected.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 1:18:43 AM

The theory is, "A high tide lifts all boats." But the graph shows that some boats are anchored to the bottom.

Of course, there are the typical anecdotal, "They're lazy, stupid, and Obama's subsidizing people so that they can stay dependent", rationalizations. People lose the fact that that these agregate graphs filter out the "ones and twos of", and leave nothing but a systematic problem.

7/12/2010 1:32:31 AM

^^ Learning is great, but it depends on what's being taught. Real education isn't the problem--indoctrination is.

^ Yes, because we know how good the entitlement system is at creating wealth and getting those receiving it out of the. . .um. . . entitlement system[/sarcasm]. And maybe you can give us all of those success stories about how people with no money create jobs for all the rest of us--when those who have money are allowed to keep more of it, this benefits us all.

And some of you act as if "the rich"--whoever they are--hoard their cash in a sock locked in a safety deposit box of Monopoly Man Banking & Trust. In reality, these folks put much of their money back into the economy in various ways.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 1:49 AM. Reason : And don't give me Hugh Hefner or Sam Walton success stories--they didn't get wealth from government.]

7/12/2010 1:45:38 AM

Yes in Swiss offshore accounts and Wall Street derivatives.

7/12/2010 9:15:16 AM

rich people want to get richer, which is why rich people drive our economy with their investments.

the rich do not simply manufacture their money. they have to put it at risk and do so by hiring, forming companies and investing.

how can you call rich people greedy in one breath, but then deny that they want to make money?

7/12/2010 9:28:19 AM

I'm not.

They want to make money.

Off your broken back.

7/12/2010 9:36:08 AM

you make no point.

either the rich try to get richer and create jobs or they do not.

you do have to earn a living in this country. if you call that "breaking your back" then I hope you inherit a fortune or marry rich.

7/12/2010 9:38:43 AM

Everyone's trying to get richer. It's not that the rich are trying harder these days, or that the poor are not trying as hard as they used to. Our economic system simply favors wealth concentration to an extent that feudalism will one day seem like a practical solution.

7/12/2010 10:02:44 AM

Quote :

"either the rich try to get richer and create jobs or they do not. "

you know they can get rich without creating jobs, right?

do you think betting on derivatives makes jobs?

7/12/2010 10:03:15 AM

Need creates jobs. Rich people buying yachts and investing their money into extravagant luxuries for themselves props up certain industries but not necessarily ones we want to dump our resources into (as they're sometimes energy-intensive and downright silly).

I love how, given the way our system is structured, a rich person basically has to kick around some of his money in order to open up labor. For some reason this is viewed by people as some grand sacrifice, as if moving the capital from point A to point B is what accomplished anything as opposed to labor itself. The fact that some capitalist has to bankroll our projects for a profit is a sign of inefficiency.

If I have 5 billion dollars and took 1 to create a computer science institute, then I'd be "responsible" in some causal sense but certainly not praiseworthy. Praiseworthy, perhaps, for spending it on something other than myself. But it wouldn't make me some amazing man, just like when I toss a bum a buck in change it doesn't make me an amazing man either.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that most workers are vastly underpaid for their services. Just because a worker can get by fine doesn't mean he's not exploited. Cue Socks with a bunch of bullshit and a lot of pretending that economics is anything more than hackneyed pseudoscience and alchemy.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 10:25:19 AM

^^ It creates liquidity, allocating risk and therefore capital to its most productive uses, which other rich people use to create jobs.

The evidence given in this thread is skewed. Household size has fallen, benefits have grown as a share of compensation, and dual incomes are now the norm skewing the statistics in favor of married households. While today's inequality is partly due to poor government policies, most of today's shift is due to technological and demographic shifts.

But let us assume the untrue, the poor are getting absolutely poorer and the rich are earning everything. What would you have us do? Raising taxes on the rich won't make the poor earn any more. It will only further distort the economic system, diverting resources away from production in favor of tax avoidance. As society is made poorer, the poor would become even poorer. All you would do is make the poor appear to have a higher percentage of income by encouraging the rich to declare lower incomes to the IRS.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM. Reason : ^]

7/12/2010 10:26:53 AM

Quote :

"^^ It creates liquidity, allocating risk and therefore capital to its most productive uses, which other rich people use to create jobs."

So let's just keep letting these people set our national agenda for the purposes of their own profits

That's worked out great

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 10:28:13 AM

Quote :

"But let us assume the untrue, the poor are getting absolutely poorer and the rich are earning everything. What would you have us do? Raising taxes on the rich won't make the poor earn any more. It will only further distort the economic system, diverting resources away from production in favor of tax avoidance. As society is made poorer, the poor would become even poorer. All you would do is make the poor appear to have a higher percentage of income by encouraging the rich to declare lower incomes to the IRS. "

Oh boy they got us! If we don't give them all of the money, we'll be poor!

7/12/2010 10:30:18 AM

Quote :

"do you think betting on derivatives makes jobs?"

-God

Yes? Because some people were willing to bet on mortgage derivatives, for example, banks were able to more freely lend to potential home buyers (because banks had shifted the risk of default to wall street). That means more homes were being created, bought, and sold. That means all kinds of jobs were being "created"--electricians, construction workers, real estate agents, etc.

Now you could argue that maybe investors bet too much on mortgage derivatives (they did, but over time the use of mortgage derivative themselves will be a net benefit to investors, bankers, and home owners as the risk associated with them is becoming better understoof), but it is simply wrong to imply that they don't create any jobs. You just have to remember that there is a reason derivatives to begin with (to shift risk to those who can bear it better than others, typically).

Think about it this way. If you, or anyone else, wants to blame the current level of unemployment in any part on the collapse of mortgage derivative bubble, then you kinda have to accept that these derivatives were (in one way or another) creating employment to begin with.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 10:31:59 AM

Jobs overproducing for the sake of some greedy capitalist = MORE JOBS YAYYY

7/12/2010 10:34:26 AM

^ haha "overproducing jobs" i have no idea what that really means (i doubt you do either).

But the point still stands. God has no clue what he is talking about.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 10:39:27 AM

Socks defending the lending practices that led to the financial collapse of the US ITT

7/12/2010 10:44:07 AM

Quote :

"Oh boy they got us! If we don't give them all of the money, we'll be poor!"

No. If we don't refrain from deploying men with guns to wreck the productive economy, we'll be poor.

We don't have to give the rich anything. They are already rich. Just minding your own business is all we need.

7/12/2010 10:44:38 AM

Building more houses than are needed isn't overproducing all of a sudden? Correct my terminology if you need to

7/12/2010 10:44:55 AM

Quote :

"Of course, there are the typical anecdotal, "They're lazy, stupid, and Obama's subsidizing people so that they can stay dependent", rationalizations. "

... Enter hooksaw

Yes ... we should all be thankful that the top 1% can create low paying jobs, in other countries ...

I don't think there is any question that globalization has pitted U.S. workers against the lowest paid workers in the world, benefitting mostly the shareholders and owners. That's what the graph shows anyway ...

Now, there is a valid argument that those jobs are bringing standards of living in developing countries. But, it has certainly be a decline for the American worker ...

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

7/12/2010 10:47:00 AM

McDanger

How many homes were "needed"? Do you have a number in mind?

But, I also want to address your second point, which was that this "overproduction" was the fault of in investors that bought mortgage backed securities. This line of argument simply doesn't make sense. Banks could have made fewer loans if they (or the federal reserve which regulates them) thought they were making too many. That's not to mention that homeowners themselves could have sought fewer loans.

Essentially what you are saying this this "Hey, uh, those greedy wallstreet investors are to blame because they bought some securities and were not directly involved in extending ANY of the actual loans that fueled the growth in housing in the mid 2000s!!!"

Its kind of ridiculous guy. But your and God's patrician brand of left-wing radicalism is kinda funny to watch. "They made their money on the broken backs of workers like us...who have advanced degrees and office jobs!!!" hehehe

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 10:59:23 AM

Lots of confusion in this thread. If you want to create jobs, you're better off giving money to the consumer rather than the investor. Growth in consumer spending will create oppurtunities for investors, which they will inevitably take advantage of, you don't have to push them, if there's a profit incentive, they'll come.

Quote :

"Building more houses than are needed isn't overproducing all of a sudden?"

"More than needed" is dependent on price, of course as we all know, our pricing system failed. So at the time no one had any way of knowing "how many houses were needed".

7/12/2010 11:00:19 AM

Bobo, I disagree. I was swayed by a recent economics study which showed that statistical inflation has been overstated for those with lower incomes. The poor consume a disproportionate share of their income on trade goods such as food, clothing, electronics, appliances, cars, etc. While the rich spend a disproportionate share of their income on domestic services, such as entertainment, travel, education, etc. Well, international competition has dramatically reduced prices for trade goods and had no impact on services. Well, the inflation rate is calculated based on both goods and services. As such, over the past two decades, the poor have done better than the statistics show, since the prices of what they spend most of their income on have fallen, while the rich have done worse than the statistics show, since the prices of what they spend most of their income on have risen sharply.

7/12/2010 11:06:24 AM

Quote :

"But, I also want to address your second point, which was that this "overproduction" was the fault of in investors that bought mortgage backed securities. This line of argument simply doesn't make sense. Banks could have made fewer loans if they (or the federal reserve which regulates them) thought they were making too many. That's not to mention that homeowners themselves could have sought fewer loans. "

Argue against one person at a time I made no such argument. You're arguing with God.

Quote :

"But your and God's patrician brand of left-wing radicalism is kinda funny to watch. "They made their money on the broken backs of workers like us...who have advanced degrees and office jobs!!!" hehehe"

Can't find enough eyerolls in the world for this. Luckily for me though I don't work for the benefit of some fat cat, but for the benefit of everybody! Kinda cool how that works.

Quote :

"How many homes were "needed"? Do you have a number in mind? "

Yeah 3,359,192. Confident within +/- 5%.

Nobody knew we didn't need suburb after suburb of mcmansion. Mortgage brokers sure as fuck knew what was up, especially as they artificially inflated their price opinions for kickbacks.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 11:07:45 AM

Quote :

"Argue against one person at a time I made no such argument. "

okay...

Quote :

"Jobs overproducing for the sake of some greedy capitalist = MORE JOBS YAYYY"

You said this in response to my post on investors purchasing mortgage derivatives fueling the housing "bubble". If those wall street investors are not the greedy capitalists in your statement, i wonder who they are.

You really need to work on your communication skills son.

But maybe only after you take an econ course.

PS*

Quote :

"Mortgage brokers sure as fuck knew what was up, especially as they artificially inflated their price opinions for kickbacks."

Unsubstantiated hyperbole from a populist patrician ITT. Like i said its good for a laugh.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 11:09:53 AM

Quote :

"You said this in response to my post on investors purchasing mortgage derivatives fueling the housing "bubble". If those wall street investors are not the greedy capitalists in your statement, i wonder who they are. You really need to work on your communication skills son."

What I posted was easily misinterpreted and I should have given more thought to that when I posted it.

http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Foundations-Econometric-Modelling-Spanos/dp/0521269121 You worked through this? Maybe you should.

Quote :

"Unsubstantiated hyperbole from a populist patrician ITT. Like i said its good for a laugh"

Cool keep laughing I guess. I sure as hell didn't laugh when I found out it was happening.

7/12/2010 11:16:13 AM

Quote :

"I'm not. They want to make money. Off your broken back."

I can never figure out if you're actually trolling or not. The "evil rich" that allegedly make their money off the "broken backs" of the poor are the ones that bring us the great innovations we've seen in the past two decades. It wasn't government that brought us those things, it was the free market. If we did it your way, there would be no incentive to create new technology or inventions.

I'm sure railing on the rich makes you feel like your life is a little more significant, though.

7/12/2010 11:28:10 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure railing on the rich makes you feel like your life is a little more significant, though."

I don't think thats it. Its a phase some members of the left are going through. Day dreaming about being New Dealers or closet left-wing radicals.

For example, Brad Delong, an economist at UC Berkley, has said several times throughout the past that the formalization of private property rights and the creation of the interconnected-market economy is the single most important factor for improving living standards around the world.

Yet, not long ago, he approvingly quoted Woody Guthrie's original version of "This Land is Your Land", which explicitly bemoans private property. Why? Because at the moment its kinda cool in some circles to be nostalgic for more radical days (in another thread, McDanger was talking about the "exploitation of workers").

If I wanted to play arm-chair sociologist, I would say it is a "manifestation of their frustration with the slow progress of the democratic agenda under Obama and his inability to be outraged by it". But that's just a guess. Either way, the rise of the bourgeoisie radicals is not restricted to this board or God in particular. Its a wide-spread contagion that I am sure will pass with time (the cure will be found when their 401ks turn around).

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 11:42:39 AM

Quote :

"The "evil rich" that allegedly make their money off the "broken backs" of the poor are the ones that bring us the great innovations we've seen in the past two decades. It wasn't government that brought us those things, it was the free market. If we did it your way, there would be no incentive to create new technology or inventions."

Surely you're joking? Government grants are the backbone of scientific research. "The free market brought us those things" is absolutely false. Privately-funded research is ultimately profit-oriented. If a project has no near-future profit potential, who is going to invest, other than the government? Basic research (research into the nature of things, ex. quantum mechanics) provides the source material for technological innovation.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 12:04:12 PM

^ basic research does underly technological innovations, but taking an idea you found in academic journal and turning it into a product (which is what actually improves our living standards) isn't easy AT ALL.

In 2008, Industry accounted for over 2/3 of total R&D expenditures in the U.S and over 90% of that was spent on applied research and development.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/pdf/tab1.pdf

Here for more.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/content.cfm?pub_id=4000&id=2

Basic research is important, but it is only first step on a long long road to creating life improving products.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 12:15:21 PM

Loneshark:

Quote :

"over the past two decades, the poor have done better than the statistics show, since the prices of what they spend most of their income on have fallen, while the rich have done worse than the statistics show, since the prices of what they spend most of their income on have risen sharply."

Surely you jest ... Those poor rich people ... Every statistic I've seen shows that globalization moves manufacturing jobs overseas, leaving more lower paid service jobs at home, and higher profits for investors.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

7/12/2010 12:20:24 PM

Quote :

" ^ basic research does underly technological innovations, but taking an idea you found in academic journal and turning it into a product isn't easy AT ALL. "

Agreed. But you can't apply a scientific discovery without discovering it first.

Quote :

" In 2008, Industry accounted for over 2/3 of total R&D expenditures in the U.S (most of which was conducted in applied research and development). http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/pdf/tab1.pdf Here for more. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/content.cfm?pub_id=4000&id=2 Basic research is important, but it is only first step on a long long road to creating life improving products. "

I'm definitely not arguing that the private sector hasn't contributed to scientific progress. Like you said, though, most of it is applied research. And that's just fine, because they are looking for specific solutions. Fundamental research broadens our understanding of the universe and it's components, and paves the way for applied research. It is also largely dependent on government support.

7/12/2010 12:34:01 PM

^ agreed.

7/12/2010 12:37:05 PM

Sure, profits are up, but not really by that much. But even if they were, what would you have us do? Wreck the system just so you don't have to suffer the existence of rich people?

7/12/2010 12:38:34 PM

I have nothing against rich people ... But, I do find that poor people take more of a beating. My only complaint is that they have more access to power, and can skew the system in their favor.

7/12/2010 12:44:52 PM

^ how do you do that?

7/12/2010 12:56:12 PM

Inventing new investment vehicles that the poor don't really have access to is one way.

7/12/2010 1:00:43 PM

Oh I misread the statement. I thought BoBo was saying his complaint was that the wanted poor people to have more access to power (so I was asking him how he would fix it), not that rich people had too much.

Though I am not sure what the solution to either complaint would be.

7/12/2010 1:20:10 PM

Best I can come up with is government enforced income redistribution through progressive taxation and entitlements. It's saved us from the pains of feudalism so far.

7/12/2010 2:16:14 PM

^ Then the problem is already solved? Since we are indeed already doing that?

7/12/2010 2:30:07 PM

^ Ha-ha!

7/12/2010 4:41:36 PM

Herp-derp!

Well we could get to another galaxy on a rocket and we have plenty of those so I guess we've already been right?

7/12/2010 5:17:54 PM