On 2/18/2012 9:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you
would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what
constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary.

Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.

Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is:

" free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception;
conforming with established standards or rules"

Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the
fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the
government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the
worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the
layabout's beers and chips.

It needn't even be that drastic. Assume everyone works reasonably hard
and to the best of his ability; assume there are no layabouts. Assume
different people all have different innate abilities. Then it is
reasonable to assume there will be a distribution of unequal wages, with
some earning more than others. By statistical definition, there will be
a median wage: half will earn below the median, and half will earn above
it.

That would be fair. There is no reason to think that two people both
working the same amount of time with roughly the same degree of effort
"ought" to earn the same amount of money. This is what was always, and
is still, wrong with the feminists' "equal pay for equal work" mantra:
they are looking only at the amount of input - effort - without regard
to the *value* of the output.


Here's the problem. Lots of people are not as capable as others.
Sometimes the differences are drastic. So by your thinking those gifted
with ability are going to make a lot of money and those shafted at birth
are going to make hardly anything. Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery just because they
can't do things as well as others. If that was your kid would you not be
bothered by that?

I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world. In a civil world those with plenty help
those who can't provide for themselves. In a Mad Max world we just let
the weak ones die. That is fine with me but what if your family members
are weak? Throw them to the wolves seems to be your answer. Anyone who
does that to his own family isn't much of a human being. You would be
one of them, right. Your kid can't make it, you'd let him starve. Bad
luck to get you for a father.

Hawke

On 2/19/2012 3:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.


Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.

Hawke wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.



I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.
but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.



jk

On Feb 19, 6:43*pm, Hawke wrote:

Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's wealth?

Hawke

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan

On 2/19/2012 3:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to
understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you
would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what
constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary.

Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other
half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a
moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.

Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is:

" free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception;
conforming with established standards or rules"

Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the
fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the
government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the
worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the
layabout's beers and chips.

It needn't even be that drastic. Assume everyone works reasonably hard
and to the best of his ability; assume there are no layabouts. Assume
different people all have different innate abilities. Then it is
reasonable to assume there will be a distribution of unequal wages, with
some earning more than others. By statistical definition, there will be
a median wage: half will earn below the median, and half will earn above
it.

That would be fair. There is no reason to think that two people both
working the same amount of time with roughly the same degree of effort
"ought" to earn the same amount of money. This is what was always, and
is still, wrong with the feminists' "equal pay for equal work" mantra:
they are looking only at the amount of input - effort - without regard
to the *value* of the output.


Here's the problem.

Nope - there isn't any problem.


Lots of people are not as capable as others.

Too bad.


Sometimes the differences are drastic. So by your thinking those gifted
with ability are going to make a lot of money and those shafted at birth
are going to make hardly anything.

No one was shafted at birth merely because he was not born with as much
innate ability.


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.

You have no valid reason not to accept it as fair.


Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery just because they
can't do things as well as others.

No, they're not necessarily "consigned" to poverty. Even people without
a lot of endowed ability can still do well enough if they apply
themselves. It's their responsibility to do the best with what they have.


If that was your kid would you not be bothered by that?

I only would be bothered if someone - say, liberal do-gooders pushing
affirmative action - set up immoral impediments in his way, such as
keeping him out of a decent school because minorities with worse grades
were admitted instead.



I hate to keep bringing up society

Then stop. It means nothing. "Society" doesn't do anything - ever.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

That's false. That is by no means the definition of civilization.

On Feb 19, 6:55*pm, Hawke wrote:


I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Dan

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:26:24 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:35:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:

[...]

In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

Agreed. And those do vary, as seen in this thread... and those
differences seem to be the basis (if that's not too strong a word)
for much of the apparent disagreement in this thread.

If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.

Interesting. Assuming grin! that "American society"(*) could
come to agreement on two general principles, namely:

1) Passing along assets one acquired during one's lifetime was
"fair", and
2) Passing along _inherited_ assets was "unfair",

what mechanisms could one imagine that would effect these
principles? I can't come up with any myself, but that doesn't mean
that it couldn't be done.

Also, and perhaps as important, what would the likely consequences
be, I wonder?

Oh... and what happens to the assets that are _not_ passed along? I
think there might be strong objection to giving these to the
federal, or state, or local governments (although it would make for
interesting fluctuations in tax revenue). "Cui bono?", indeed.
grin!

Sorry for the interjection... let the carnage resume!


Frank McKenney
--
The prohibition of dodgeball represents the overshooting of yet
another successful campaign against violence, the century-long
movement to prevent the abuse and neglect of children. It reminds
us of how a civilizing offensive can leave a culture with a legacy
of puzzling customs, peccadilloes, and taboos. The code of
etiquette bequeathed by this and other Rights Revolutions is
pervasive enough to have acquired a name. We call it political
correctness.
-- Steven Pinker / The Better Angels of Our Nature
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:46:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:55Â*pm, Hawke wrote:

I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Actually, if you buy Steven Pinker's recent book-length exposition
on the subject ("The Better Angels of Our Nature"), we are.

If you accept "less violent" as a measure of civilization, which
doesn't seem unreasonable to me, then we are now living in a world
that is several orders of magnitude more civilized than it was in
1400. I won't try to do justice to Pinker's 800-odd page book
here, but some noticeable changes have taken place over recent
centuries:

- Torture not condoned as a public spectacle, and, in fact,
generally prohibited.

- Slavery, by and large, outlawed rather than being considered a
normal part of human existence.

- Hangings not considered "sport".

- Violence against women and children no longer generally
condoned.

- Dueling no longer an acceptable way of settling disputes.

Pinker doesn't claim that every vestige of violence has been
eradicated from every human being around the world; in fact, he
admits that this may never happen. His point, however, is that,
judged on the basis of violent deaths per 100k population we're
better off than we were in (say) 1900, and _way_ better off than
the state of things in 1400.

( He doesn't, however, address whether we _feel_ safer these days
than people did in 1400. That's another question entirely. )


Frank McKenney
--
Utopian ideologies invite genocide for two reasons. One is that
they set up a pernicious utilitarian calculus. In a utopia everyone
is happy forever, so its moral value is infinite. Most of us agree
that it is ethically permissible to divert a runaway trolley that
threatens to kill five people onto a side track where it would kill
only one. But suppose it were a hundred million lives one could
save by diverting the trolley, or a billion, or -- projecting into
the future -- infinitely many. How many people would it be
permissible to sacrifice to attain that infinite good?

Not only that, but consider the people who learn about the promise
of a perfect world yet nonetheless oppose it. They are the only
things standing in the way of a plan that could lead to infinite
goodness. How evil are they? You do the math.

The second genocidal hazard of a utopia is that it has to conform to
a tidy blueprint. In a utopia, everything is there for a reason.
What about the people? Well, groups of people are diverse. Some of
them stubbornly, perhaps essentially, cling to values that are out
of place in a perfect world, They may be entrepreneurial in a world
that works by communal sharing, or bookish in a world that works by
labor, or brash in a world that works by piety, or clannish in a
world that works by unity, or urban and commercial in a world that
has returned to its roots in nature. If you were designing the
perfect society on a sheet of paper, why not write these eyesores
out of the plan from the start?

-- Steven Pinker / The Better Angels of Our Nature
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:27:35 -0600, Frnak McKenney
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:26:24 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:35:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:

[...]

In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

Agreed. And those do vary, as seen in this thread... and those
differences seem to be the basis (if that's not too strong a word)
for much of the apparent disagreement in this thread.

Positions harden and polarize; pretty soon, no one can pick the
disagreement apart and see where the real problems are. This is
American politics ca. 2012.


If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.

Interesting. Assuming grin! that "American society"(*) could
come to agreement on two general principles, namely:

1) Passing along assets one acquired during one's lifetime was
"fair", and
2) Passing along _inherited_ assets was "unfair",

what mechanisms could one imagine that would effect these
principles? I can't come up with any myself, but that doesn't mean
that it couldn't be done.

I don't see any realistic mechanism that actually resolves the issue.
It looks like a natural conflict that results from incompatible
principles. One person can hold both as long as the actual conflict
doesn't rise to the surface.

The sophists, priests, and casuists specialize in dealing with these
things. I wouldn't want to spoil their fun.


Also, and perhaps as important, what would the likely consequences
be, I wonder?

Oh... and what happens to the assets that are _not_ passed along? I
think there might be strong objection to giving these to the
federal, or state, or local governments (although it would make for
interesting fluctuations in tax revenue). "Cui bono?", indeed.
grin!

That's another conflict. With our present state of government, most of
us recoil at the idea of just handing the money over to the
legislators.


Sorry for the interjection... let the carnage resume!

That was a good interjection.

--
Ed Huntress



Frank McKenney
--
The prohibition of dodgeball represents the overshooting of yet
another successful campaign against violence, the century-long
movement to prevent the abuse and neglect of children. It reminds
us of how a civilizing offensive can leave a culture with a legacy
of puzzling customs, peccadilloes, and taboos. The code of
etiquette bequeathed by this and other Rights Revolutions is
pervasive enough to have acquired a name. We call it political
correctness.
-- Steven Pinker / The Better Angels of Our Nature

On 2/19/2012 3:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say.

So a comparison of the two proves.


To a layman like you, yes. To real economists like Peter Orszag or Dan
Ariely, no. But then as far as what they know about economics they crap
on you.

Hawke

On 2/20/2012 11:44 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say.

So a comparison of the two proves.


To a layman like you, yes.

To the entire academic and business world.

On Feb 20, 2:40*pm, Hawke wrote:


In his presentation he said all the economists including the CBO got it
wrong in predicting the financial and economic crisis we just went
through. I say that is proof of the "magnificent" job economics does in
predicting the future. In short, it stinks. So keep that in mind next
time Pimpton tells you how great economics is a predicting, because it
ain't.

Hawke

But you do note that Congress believes it is worthwhile to have a
CBO. So that means that a lot of people think economics is worth
studying. And even if the miss the mark, they generally get the
direction that the economy will take. You are right they do not get
their predictions exactly right, but you have to remember that
thousands of people read what the CBO says and that changes what
happens.

Dan

On 2/20/2012 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:40 pm, wrote:


In his presentation he said all the economists including the CBO got it
wrong in predicting the financial and economic crisis we just went
through. I say that is proof of the "magnificent" job economics does in
predicting the future. In short, it stinks. So keep that in mind next
time Pimpton tells you how great economics is a predicting, because it
ain't.

Hawke

But you do note that Congress believes it is worthwhile to have a
CBO. So that means that a lot of people think economics is worth
studying. And even if the miss the mark, they generally get the
direction that the economy will take. You are right they do not get
their predictions exactly right, but you have to remember that
thousands of people read what the CBO says and that changes what
happens.

Dan



It's the best we have. But my point is that even our best isn't very
good at making economic predictions. They are as often wrong as they are
right and they miss the huge events as often as the man on the street.
So I think I've made my point that even the best economists aren't very
good at seeing the future. And I'm not down on economics as a field of
study either. I think it has a lot to offer. But it has a lot of
shortcomings too, which some folks don't seem to know. My father has an
economics degree from the University of Illinois so that ought to tell
you something about what my family thinks about economics.

Hawke

On 2/20/2012 11:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/20/2012 11:44 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say.

So a comparison of the two proves.


To a layman like you, yes.

To the entire academic and business world.


Economics may be the best tool they have. I'm just saying it isn't
nearly as great as you make it out to be. You can cheer lead for
economics all you want but there are a lot of real smart people who
don't think much of economists. Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke
have a lot of people who think they are idiots and do nothing but bungle
things.

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:14 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/20/2012 11:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/20/2012 11:44 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say.

So a comparison of the two proves.


To a layman like you, yes.

To the entire academic and business world.


Economics may be the best tool they have. I'm just saying it isn't
nearly as great as you make it out to be. You can cheer lead for
economics all you want but there are a lot of real smart people who
don't think much of economists. Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke
have a lot of people who think they are idiots and do nothing but bungle
things.

We're not talking about individual economists.

Economics as a discipline makes generally accurate predictions about
people's behavior. It has theory behind it that yields testable
hypotheses, and when too many anomalous predictive results occur, the
theory is revised. The biggest part of economics is not concerned with
predicting exact numbers, but rather changes in behavior. When
economists predict that imposition of rent controls at below-market
rates will lead to discrimination occurring on issues other than price,
those predictions are virtually always borne out.

Sociology can't make any predictions at all, because there's no theory
behind any of it.

On 2/19/2012 4:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant. Only a handful of
people have the opportunity to play in the NBA meaning they have the
ability to even be considered as a member. It's not likely that anybody
will play in the NBA for that matter. So let's just agree the
opportunity to play is only granted to those who have the ability to
play basketball on that level, and that applies to almost nobody. So
everybody doesn't have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA. Without
the ability you don't have the opportunity, do you?


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

When there are no other factors that would negate that argument. And
there are many.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't? When I point out a case
where someone who doesn't work hardly at all and makes far more than you
do you chalk that up to her having some market value you don't have.
Well yeah, what the hell do you think I was talking about. The field
isn't level for anyone. She has things to allow her to make a lot that
you don't have. It's the same with everyone else too. It's not just who
works hard and who's a slacker. Like I said, "if" it was only that then
it would be easy to determine what's fair.

But when the field is anything but level in "innate market value" that
some have and most don't then that throws out the who works hard and who
doesn't argument. Because those with the innate market value are going
to clean up in the marketplace and those without it are going to be left
holding an empty bag.

Hawke

On 2/19/2012 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:43 pm, wrote:

Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's wealth?

Hawke

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan



Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money. Then look at the
Walmart family. Six members of that family have more wealth than the 150
million Americans of the lowest level of wealth. So between the six
Waltons and the two Kochs you have eight people with more wealth than
half the people in America and you know they didn't earn it. You look at
that wealth disparity and start talking about effort and jobs and high
school and college. How out of touch are you?

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:41 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 4:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant.

Yes, I know that you are determined, one way or another, to say that the
system is "unfair".

Sorry - it is *NOT* "unfair" that someone doesn't have the talent to
play pro basketball. It is *NOT* "unfair" that few people have the sort
of insight and personal drive that Bill Gates had. It's just life.


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

When there are no other factors that would negate that argument.

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.



But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

It is nearly entirely the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't?

You think there aren't a million pretty bimbos out there, Hawke-Ptooey?
There are, and Paris Hilton works harder than most of them.

On 2/19/2012 4:15 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives
then you aren't going to get it because I tell you they do. It's enough
to say that millions of Americans live lives on or below the poverty
level and their lives can be accurately called miserable. There are
millions of them and they are all over America.


I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life then this country is a
failure and being the richest and most successful nation is of little
use to most of its citizens. If we can't provide a good life for our
people then you can consider this country a failure.


Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:46 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:43 pm, wrote:

Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's wealth?

Hawke

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan



Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money.

They did not. They took their father's reasonably successful company
and grew it phenomenally. They earned their fortunes by being smart and
working hard.

On 2/19/2012 6:46 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:55 pm, wrote:


I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Dan



Those people are not. I thought we didn't consider ourselves to be like
those you mentioned. You may not know it but here in the west we do
believe we live in a civilized society. They don't in other parts of the
world. That's why we say we're different...and better than them.

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:53 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 4:15 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?


I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.

Sociology studies people, not "society". It studies people, and it does
a bad job of it.

You'll note there is a presidential Council of Economic Advisors. There
is no corresponding group of sociologists.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

On 2/21/2012 11:57 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 6:46 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:55 pm, wrote:


I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Dan



Those people are not. I thought we didn't consider ourselves to be like
those you mentioned.

You leftists consider America to be *worse* than those he mentioned.
You leftists regularly label America "fascist."

On 2/20/2012 8:01 AM, Frnak McKenney wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:46:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:55 pm, wrote:

I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Actually, if you buy Steven Pinker's recent book-length exposition
on the subject ("The Better Angels of Our Nature"), we are.

If you accept "less violent" as a measure of civilization, which
doesn't seem unreasonable to me, then we are now living in a world
that is several orders of magnitude more civilized than it was in
1400. I won't try to do justice to Pinker's 800-odd page book
here, but some noticeable changes have taken place over recent
centuries:

- Torture not condoned as a public spectacle, and, in fact,
generally prohibited.

- Slavery, by and large, outlawed rather than being considered a
normal part of human existence.

- Hangings not considered "sport".

- Violence against women and children no longer generally
condoned.

- Dueling no longer an acceptable way of settling disputes.

Pinker doesn't claim that every vestige of violence has been
eradicated from every human being around the world; in fact, he
admits that this may never happen. His point, however, is that,
judged on the basis of violent deaths per 100k population we're
better off than we were in (say) 1900, and _way_ better off than
the state of things in 1400.

( He doesn't, however, address whether we _feel_ safer these days
than people did in 1400. That's another question entirely. )


Frank McKenney


All right!, a Steven Pinker fan. I saw him give a presentation on Book
TV on this subject. He mentioned that in England in the 16th or 17
century they had over two hundred laws on the books that carried the
death penalty and he told about an 8 year old girl that they hung for
some ridiculous reason. His argument we have come a long way from our
uncivilized roots is a strong one. I think he's right. We're more
civilized than ever before. The problem is that aside from you and me
how many guys in this group do you think have ever even heard of Pinker.
I'm sure those geniuses Dan and Plimpton have no clue who he is.

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:58 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:53 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 4:15 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.



I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.

Sociology studies people, not "society". It studies people, and it does
a bad job of it.

Right but that's only according to you. According to me Economics does a
bad job of predicting economic events and trends.



You'll note there is a presidential Council of Economic Advisors. There
is no corresponding group of sociologists.

He uses them on an ad hoc basis, so what?


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life though isn't there?


Hawke

On 2/21/2012 11:56 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:46 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:43 pm, wrote:

Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody
knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but
not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's
wealth?

Hawke

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan



Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money.

They did not. They took their father's reasonably successful company and
grew it phenomenally. They earned their fortunes by being smart and
working hard.

And by inheriting the country's largest private energy company to start
with. Funny how you downplay ever example of inherited wealth and make a
mountain out of the work when it's the inherited wealth that makes all
the difference most of the time. How many of the Waltons made the money
compared to how many got it for nothing?



Hawke

Hawke wrote:


That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives
then you aren't going to get it because I tell you they do.

The question (oh comprehension deprived one) was can YOU DEFINE what
YOU mean by misery/miserable.

With your way with words, we need that otherwise we are talking apples
and kumquats. I don't really care HOW you want to define it, just
that you DO.

It's enough
to say that millions of Americans live lives on or below the poverty
level and their lives can be accurately called miserable.
You can "accurate" any thing you can't or wont define.

There are
millions of them and they are all over America.


I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life then this country is a
failure and being the richest and most successful nation is of little
use to most of its citizens. If we can't provide a good life for our
people then you can consider this country a failure.


Now who's hating on the country?

I poke fun at some government institutions and suddenly I hate
America, but you call it a failure and that's ok?
What a double standard
jk

On 2/21/2012 12:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:58 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:53 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 4:15 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.

I've heard of all those places. Where is your cite that people there
are living "miserable lives"?


I hate to keep bringing up society
Then don't, I don't think it is central to your argument.

I was addressing that specifically to Plimpton because he doesn't think
there is anything of value to be found in sociology. I do, and as do
most people do.

Sociology studies people, not "society". It studies people, and it does
a bad job of it.

Right but that's only according to you.

It's a fact.



You'll note there is a presidential Council of Economic Advisors. There
is no corresponding group of sociologists.

He uses them on an ad hoc basis, so what?

When has he ever relied on sociologists for official advice?


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

I don't think any one said any thing about not helping those who cant,
just those who wont. I don't know that " a good life" should be the
goal however.


If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life

Cite some of it.

On 2/21/2012 12:10 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:56 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:46 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:43 pm, wrote:

Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody
knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but
not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's
wealth?

Hawke

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan



Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money.

They did not. They took their father's reasonably successful company and
grew it phenomenally. They earned their fortunes by being smart and
working hard.

And by inheriting the country's largest private energy company to start
with.

No, it wasn't at the time.

On Feb 21, 2:46*pm, Hawke wrote:

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not *go to
college.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money. Then look at the
Walmart family. Six members of that family have more wealth than the 150
million Americans of the lowest level of wealth. So between the six
Waltons and the two Kochs you have eight people with more wealth than
half the people in America and you know they didn't earn it. You look at
that wealth disparity and start talking about effort and jobs and high
school and college. How out of touch are you?

Hawke

Well you may be talking about real wealth of a very few people, but I
am talking about the vast majority of people. I knew kids in high
school that worked at learning and other kids that just did enough to
get by. I think it is fair that those that studied make more money
than those that coasted.

I knew engineers that worked at being current in engineering and other
engineers that thought that the company ought to have courses to keep
them current. Guess who were the more productive engineers. And
somehow the more productive engineers got bigger pay raises than those
that wanted the company to teach them the advances in engineering.

I know a number of people who volunteered to go to a satellite
tracking station in Alaska because they got an additional 20 % more
pay. Was it fair that they got more pay just because they worked in
Alaska? I think it was. It was only a fifty mile trip on a gravel
road to get to town.

I know an engineer that did a lot of the work of building a house
while he still worked as an engineer full time. He was able to use
his savings to get the house so it could be lived in and avoided
having to get a mortgage. He then saved the amount that would have
gone to a mortgage and invested in some land and stocks. He is now a
multi millionaire. Is that fair? That he has millions just because
he was willing to work 60 hour weeks?

I know these people. So who is out of touch?

You are talking about a very small percentage of the population that
inherited money.
I am talking about a much larger number of people who put in a lot of
extra effort and now are a lot better off than. And you think it is
fair for them to pay a lot more in taxes than those that did not apply
themselves in school and did not make any effort to put money away.

Dan

On Feb 21, 2:53*pm, Hawke wrote:

If the average American can't have a good life then this country is a
failure and being the richest and most successful nation is of little
use to most of its citizens. If we can't provide a good life for our
people then you can consider this country a failure.

Hawke

And I maintain that the AVERAGE American can have a good life if they
make the effort. There are people who are below average and have to
have help. But the AVERAGE Amercan can do it. They may have to not
buy a new car every three or four years, they may have to buy a house
that is not a new house. They may have to cut up the credit cards if
they can not budget their money. They may have to actually save and
invest. They may have to read books about finance. But it can be
done. I know people that have done it, but it takes effort.

Dan

Hawke wrote:

Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.


Appalachia (a rather vague term at best) does not of itself constitute
misery, I live quite close to SEVERAL Indian reservations, some of
which are very much non miserable. As to Camden, I can't speak, but if
you are saying that giving a city name constitutes a citation of a
source, how did you ever graduate? Or did you?




If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life though isn't there?

It appears that you wouldn't know "evidence" if it popped out of a
hole, and bit you on the nose, while waving as flashing neon sign
saying evidence.
jk

On 2/21/2012 11:52 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Not if you figure in probability. Once you put that in you find that
only a select handful have the opportunity to be rich. If that isn't the
case then why is the number of rich so small?


Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant.

Yes, I know that you are determined, one way or another, to say that the
system is "unfair".

I'm saying that a system that only gives a tiny few a fighting chance to
succeed and leaves out everyone else is not a fair system.


Sorry - it is *NOT* "unfair" that someone doesn't have the talent to
play pro basketball. It is *NOT* "unfair" that few people have the sort
of insight and personal drive that Bill Gates had. It's just life.

So it's not unfair that only a small group of people are born with the
talent, insight, or drive to succeed? Meaning that all the rest of the
people not endowed with those attributes can't be successful but that's
fair. You seem to think that just because something is a certain way
that makes it fair. But then you do not understand the meaning of fair.
You think it means as it is. But that isn't what it means. It means
people get equal treatment.



In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

When there are no other factors that would negate that argument.

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where all it takes is hard work to
succeed. You would think a guy like you would have done the work to be
rich. Why didn't you? All it takes is effort. So what prevented you from
making the necessary effort to be successful? You just lazy?



But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

It is nearly entirely the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

It would be if you were right but clearly you are not. Effort is the
least important element in being rich.


Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't?

You think there aren't a million pretty bimbos out there, Hawke-Ptooey?
There are, and Paris Hilton works harder than most of them.

We were talking about those with an innate market value and those
without one. Examples provided were you for having no innate market
value and Paris for having it. You were trying to weasel out again. The
fact remains that hard work is worthless in the face of other factors,
which Paris proves in spades. It is extremely common for people to make
lots of money while not working hard and plenty of people work their ass
off and get little for it. So effort only goes so far. If you expect to
make real success you need far more than effort. But I'm sure you can
find some lame excuse to claim that isn't true.

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:46 pm, wrote:

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan

Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money. Then look at the
Walmart family. Six members of that family have more wealth than the 150
million Americans of the lowest level of wealth. So between the six
Waltons and the two Kochs you have eight people with more wealth than
half the people in America and you know they didn't earn it. You look at
that wealth disparity and start talking about effort and jobs and high
school and college. How out of touch are you?

Hawke

Well you may be talking about real wealth of a very few people, but I
am talking about the vast majority of people. I knew kids in high
school that worked at learning and other kids that just did enough to
get by. I think it is fair that those that studied make more money
than those that coasted.

I knew engineers that worked at being current in engineering and other
engineers that thought that the company ought to have courses to keep
them current. Guess who were the more productive engineers. And
somehow the more productive engineers got bigger pay raises than those
that wanted the company to teach them the advances in engineering.

I know a number of people who volunteered to go to a satellite
tracking station in Alaska because they got an additional 20 % more
pay. Was it fair that they got more pay just because they worked in
Alaska? I think it was. It was only a fifty mile trip on a gravel
road to get to town.

I know an engineer that did a lot of the work of building a house
while he still worked as an engineer full time. He was able to use
his savings to get the house so it could be lived in and avoided
having to get a mortgage. He then saved the amount that would have
gone to a mortgage and invested in some land and stocks. He is now a
multi millionaire. Is that fair? That he has millions just because
he was willing to work 60 hour weeks?

I know these people. So who is out of touch?

You are talking about a very small percentage of the population that
inherited money.
I am talking about a much larger number of people who put in a lot of
extra effort and now are a lot better off than. And you think it is
fair for them to pay a lot more in taxes than those that did not apply
themselves in school and did not make any effort to put money away.

Dan




What did I say that would make you think that I don't think that people
who do more or work harder don't deserve to get more in return for
putting out more than others do? I call that fair. You do more you
should get more. I'm saying that principle isn't in operation very much.
Too many people are getting gigantic pay where it's not warranted and
lots of people work very hard and get crap for pay. It's the disparity
between the 1% and the working people that I'm talking about. That's
what is screwing up the country not the minor things you just mentioned.

Hawke

On 2/21/2012 1:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.


Appalachia (a rather vague term at best) does not of itself constitute
misery, I live quite close to SEVERAL Indian reservations, some of
which are very much non miserable. As to Camden, I can't speak, but if
you are saying that giving a city name constitutes a citation of a
source, how did you ever graduate? Or did you?

Where in the world do you get the idea that anyone owes you a citation
like you would get in a professional journal. You're a nobody. You're
lucky you get anything. For you information, which you need, Camden is
one of if not one of the worst cities in the U.S. If you knew that you
would know why I chose it. If you can't find miserable people in the
worst city in the U.S. then there aren't any. Believe me, there are
people in America with miserable lives.




If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life though isn't there?

It appears that you wouldn't know "evidence" if it popped out of a
hole, and bit you on the nose, while waving as flashing neon sign
saying evidence.


Yeah, all I did was take law classes in college to learn how to weigh
evidence. What was it that made you such a better judge than me? You
watch a lot of TV? So let's get real. You questioning my ability to
weigh evidence is a joke. You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal. So you're an idiot if you think you know
what constitutes evidence better than I do. I say prove it.


Hawke

On Feb 22, 4:18*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 1:47 PM, jk wrote:



Where in the world do you get the idea that anyone owes you a citation
like you would get in a professional journal. You're a nobody. You're
lucky you get anything.

Yeah, all I did was take law classes in college to learn how to weigh
evidence. What was it that made you such a better judge than me? You
watch a lot of TV? So let's get real. You questioning my ability to
weigh evidence is a joke. You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal. So you're an idiot if you think you know
what constitutes evidence better than I do. I say prove it.

Hawke

You are absolutely correct. No cites are needed, unless you want
someone to take your statement as the truth. I will take the word of
some people, but you have been caught making statements that are
wrong.

Law classes are not the only way to learn how to weigh evidence.
Science has a better track record in weighing evidence. Some of what
you learn in Law School is how to get a jury to believe you when you
really do not have any evidence. In engineering you build things and
test them to see if the theory is correct.

Dan

On 2/21/2012 11:59 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:57 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/19/2012 6:46 PM, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:55 pm, wrote:


I hate to keep bringing up society but if people are not willing to
help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.
Hawke

What makes you think we live in a civilized world? Do you really
think people now are much different than those that killed six million
in concentration camps in WWII?

We still have thousands being killed in Syria. Iran in working on
nuclear weapons so they can kill millions. Saddam Hussein used
poisonous gas on the Kurds. I could come up with lots more examples.

Grow up. We are not living in a civilized world.

Dan



Those people are not. I thought we didn't consider ourselves to be like
those you mentioned.

You leftists consider America to be *worse* than those he mentioned. You
leftists regularly label America "fascist."


"America" isn't Fascist. People are Fascists. People who think and act
like you. You have unamerican values. Your values are like those of a
Neanderthal living in a cave. You really are out of place in a civilized
society. That's why I don't for a minute believe you are on the left
politically. Everything you say is in perfect accord with the far right
wingers.

Hawke

On 2/22/2012 1:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:52 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Not if you figure in probability.

Forget probability. You had every opportunity to show up at the closest
NBA team's facility and try to make their team. No team posts armed
guards that prevent people from going to the practice facility and
asking for a tryout.


Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant.

Yes, I know that you are determined, one way or another, to say that the
system is "unfair".

I'm saying that a system that only gives a tiny few a fighting chance to
succeed and leaves out everyone else is not a fair system.

Our system doesn't do that.


Sorry - it is *NOT* "unfair" that someone doesn't have the talent to
play pro basketball. It is *NOT* "unfair" that few people have the sort
of insight and personal drive that Bill Gates had. It's just life.

So it's not unfair that only a small group of people are born with the
talent, insight, or drive to succeed?

Most people have enough of all of those to succeed.


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

When there are no other factors that would negate that argument.

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

It is nearly entirely the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

It would be if

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't?

You think there aren't a million pretty bimbos out there, Hawke-Ptooey?
There are, and Paris Hilton works harder than most of them.

We were talking about those with an innate market value and those
without one.

I'm talking about Paris Hilton working hard at what she does. That's
why she is a big success, and other bimbos don't have as much success as
she. But of course, they don't *deserve* her success simply for being
pretty bimbos.

No one "deserves" any particular level of success, Hawke-Ptooey. All
anyone deserves, and our system definitely provides it, is the right to
do the best they can with what they have. If someone brought up by a
single mom working a low-wage job busts his hump in school but only can
get into a ****ty school like CSU Chico and then gets a $60,000 a year
job as an accountant for Kaiser, that's fair; and if someone else
breezes through school and gets good enough grades and SAT to get into
Stanford and then gets a $150K job right out of the gate, that's fair,
too. Switch the outcomes of the two people if you like - it's still fair.

Get it through your dense head, Hawke-Ptooey: No one has any "right" to
a particular level of success in life.

On 2/22/2012 1:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:46 pm, wrote:

I think most people believe that those that put in real effort to get
money such as actually studying in high school and then going to
college to prepare themselves for a good job deserve to make more
money than those that slide through high school and do not go to
college.

Dan

Wake up, man! We're talking about real wealth here and who has it. Let's
take two examples of real wealth. The two Koch brothers are worth 20
billion a piece minimum. They inherited that money. Then look at the
Walmart family. Six members of that family have more wealth than the 150
million Americans of the lowest level of wealth. So between the six
Waltons and the two Kochs you have eight people with more wealth than
half the people in America and you know they didn't earn it. You look at
that wealth disparity and start talking about effort and jobs and high
school and college. How out of touch are you?

Hawke

Well you may be talking about real wealth of a very few people, but I
am talking about the vast majority of people. I knew kids in high
school that worked at learning and other kids that just did enough to
get by. I think it is fair that those that studied make more money
than those that coasted.

I knew engineers that worked at being current in engineering and other
engineers that thought that the company ought to have courses to keep
them current. Guess who were the more productive engineers. And
somehow the more productive engineers got bigger pay raises than those
that wanted the company to teach them the advances in engineering.

I know a number of people who volunteered to go to a satellite
tracking station in Alaska because they got an additional 20 % more
pay. Was it fair that they got more pay just because they worked in
Alaska? I think it was. It was only a fifty mile trip on a gravel
road to get to town.

I know an engineer that did a lot of the work of building a house
while he still worked as an engineer full time. He was able to use
his savings to get the house so it could be lived in and avoided
having to get a mortgage. He then saved the amount that would have
gone to a mortgage and invested in some land and stocks. He is now a
multi millionaire. Is that fair? That he has millions just because
he was willing to work 60 hour weeks?

I know these people. So who is out of touch?

You are talking about a very small percentage of the population that
inherited money.
I am talking about a much larger number of people who put in a lot of
extra effort and now are a lot better off than. And you think it is
fair for them to pay a lot more in taxes than those that did not apply
themselves in school and did not make any effort to put money away.

Dan




What did I say that would make you think that I don't think that people
who do more or work harder don't deserve to get more in return for
putting out more than others do? I call that fair.

I call it "fair" if they don't work as hard, but work smarter, and get
much higher rewards.

No one is entitled to any particular level of success.

On 2/22/2012 1:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 1:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.
Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without
much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery

That (misery) is a statement you can not support, with any real
definition of misery. We already know you have a rather strange view
of poverty.

So what in real concrete terms is this "misery" you speak of.

If you aren't aware that plenty of Americans are living miserable
lives

Cite?

Appalachia, Native American Indian reservations, Camden, NJ.


Appalachia (a rather vague term at best) does not of itself constitute
misery, I live quite close to SEVERAL Indian reservations, some of
which are very much non miserable. As to Camden, I can't speak, but if
you are saying that giving a city name constitutes a citation of a
source, how did you ever graduate? Or did you?

Where in the world do you get the idea that anyone owes you a citation
like you would get in a professional journal. You're a nobody. You're
lucky you get anything. For you information, which you need, Camden is
one of if not one of the worst cities in the U.S. If you knew that you
would know why I chose it. If you can't find miserable people in the
worst city in the U.S. then there aren't any. Believe me, there are
people in America with miserable lives.




If the average American can't have a good life

There is nothing to support the idea the average American can't have a
good life.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the average American doesn't
have a good life though isn't there?

It appears that you wouldn't know "evidence" if it popped out of a
hole, and bit you on the nose, while waving as flashing neon sign
saying evidence.


Yeah, all I did was take law classes in college to learn how to weigh
evidence.

No, you didn't. That's not part of a poli sci curriculum. You also
said you were a paralegal, but they don't teach you how to evaluate
evidence there, either.

You're bull****ting, again.


What was it that made you such a better judge than me?

It's *obvious* that he is, and the reason is because he isn't blinded by
an extremist, simpleton ideology as you are.