On 2/22/2012 2:46 PM, Hawke wrote:
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.

Leftists say the country is and always was fascist.


People who think and act
like you.

Nope - I support liberty. Fascists hate liberty. That's why many
people refer to you and others like you as left-wing fascists. Strictly
speaking, it's in accurate, but leftists like you will ecstatically use
the means used by fascists in order to destroy liberty.



You have unamerican values.

My values are quintessentially American, of course: private enterprise,
private property, civil liberties *including* the liberty to exclude
anyone I wish, for any reason or no reason at all, from associating with
me - championing the absolute rights of the individual, and refusing to
knuckle under to any bull**** notion of "collective" rights or interests.

Yep - I am the American in this conversation. You're like a Stasi agent.

On Feb 22, 4:11*pm, Hawke wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them. But
there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

it isn't hard for the average guy to save enough for retirement, but
the average guy does not do it. The average guy does not even bother
to go to the library and read up on how to save and invest.

Dan

On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them.

There not only aren't that many of them, but if you seized all their
wealth and changed the tax system so that no one could acquire that kind
of wealth ever again, it wouldn't do one damned thing to improve the lot
anyone at the bottom. If all the super-rich - the 0.01% - had nearly
all their wealth confiscated, and if the tax system were rigged so that
no one ever again could amass that kind of wealth, there *still* would
be tens of millions of unwed mothers - out-of-wedlock births now account
for more than 30% of all births - and those children *still* would grow
up with ****ty prospects. There *still* would be a lot of idiots like
Hawke-Ptooey getting degrees in worthless fields like political science,
and they *still* would be unable to find a decent-paying job in the
modern economy.



But there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

And none of that would change one iota even if there were punishing
income and wealth redistribution.



it isn't hard for the average guy to save enough for retirement, but
the average guy does not do it. The average guy does not even bother
to go to the library and read up on how to save and invest.

Dan

Hawke wrote:

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.
Never said any one did. YOU responded to some one else's request for
one with the (miserable) pathetic excuse above

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.
Why?, did you move there?
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.

BTW still waiting for that definition of what you call misery or
miserable.

Believe me, there are
people in America with miserable lives.

"Believe" you??? When you can not (or at least have not to date, been
able to support any of your puffery and hot air, with real,
quantifiable facts, or even a reasonable basis.


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.
SO, you TOOK classes, but so what? It does not appear that you
actually learned anything.

What was it that made you such a better judge than me?
No, It was your inability (or refusal) to think for yourself.
It was also your constant broad, unsupported claims. When those are
questioned you either 1: Claim "every one knows" 2: make personal
attacks or 3: change the subject.
You
watch a lot of TV? So let's get real.
I would doubt my level of involvement with TV watching, is as large as
yours, but I doubt it's relevant so I will let that slide.
You questioning my ability to
weigh evidence is a joke.
NO it is the setup, your response is the punch line, and only
together do they constitute a joke.

You're the one with no training, education, or
experience in anything legal.
So, you know this for a fact how?
Last time you claimed to know exactly where I stood on all issues,
based on a single (misunderstood) statement, and I asked you to "put
up or shut up" by telling me where I stood on a laundry list of
today's more "popular" issues, and you shut up.

So pray tell, since you are now also an expert on my education,

What School did I graduate from?
What classes did I take there?
What was my major
Have I done ANY post graduate education?
DO I have an Advanced Degree?
Have I ever been accredited as an instructor for a college?
If so what subject.


So you're an idiot if you think you know
what constitutes evidence better than I do.
So many punch lines

I say prove it.
I say I just did.



Hawke


And still waiting for that definition of misery.
jk

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:11:32 -0800, 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. 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

What qualifies you to say that high pay isn't warranted? Lets say, for
example, that Man A makes his company a profit of a million dollars
while Man B cleans tables at Macdonald's. Don't you think that Man A
is a more valuable employee and it is logical for his company to
reward him accordingly?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/21/2012 11:26 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


I'm not a sociologist, and don't claim to be one, so I am not going to
go to bat for the subject. I would leave that to a qualified sociologist
to do that, and I'm sure one could do a fine job in rebutting your
uninformed negative view of sociology. After all it is based on your
ignorance of the subject. So we'll have to get a real sociologist here
and they can tell you how full of **** you are. I've done that enough
already.

Hawke

On 2/22/2012 6:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:26 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


I'm not a sociologist, and don't claim to be one, so I am not going to
go to bat for the subject.

Political science is little better, and to the extent it is, it's
because of the influence of economics. Economics "colonized" political
science starting about 30 or 40 years ago. Political science used to be
like sociology - nothing but political opinion. The economists
"invaded" poli sci and began to explain political phenomena - voting
behavior, party strategy - that the political scientists had never been
able to explain. The political scientists now use the methods of
quantitative taught to them by economists as everyday practice. But you
wouldn't have learned anything about that at Chico.

On 02/22/2012 06:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
The sophomore, Hawke-Ptooey, blabbered pointlessly:
On 2/21/2012 11:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
....
Economists earn more than sociologists because they're right more
often.
....
I wouldn't ask either. I'd ask a historian.

Worthless. They don't know.

But historians are right more often than economists.

On 2/22/2012 7:17 PM, Sent packets: wrote:
On 02/22/2012 06:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
The sophomore, Hawke-Ptooey, blabbered pointlessly:
On 2/21/2012 11:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
...
Economists earn more than sociologists because they're right more
often.
...
I wouldn't ask either. I'd ask a historian.

Worthless. They don't know.

But historians are right more often than economists.

It's easy to be right when you're looking into the past. In fact, I'm
right 100% of the time when I look into the past.

On 2/22/2012 7:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 6:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:26 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


I'm not a sociologist, and don't claim to be one, so I am not going to
go to bat for the subject.

Political science is little better, and to the extent it is, it's
because of the influence of economics. Economics "colonized" political
science starting about 30 or 40 years ago. Political science used to be
like sociology - nothing but political opinion. The economists "invaded"
poli sci and began to explain political phenomena - voting behavior,
party strategy - that the political scientists had never been able to
explain. The political scientists now use the methods of quantitative
taught to them by economists as everyday practice. But you wouldn't have
learned anything about that at Chico.


Every time you write something it exposes the level of your ignorance.
Your "history" of political science is wrong. Why am I not surprised?
Where did you get it off an unfinished Wiki page?

Political science didn't come out of economics it came out of history.
It wasn't economists who brought anything to political science it was
science that changed political science just like it changed economics.

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

You really ought not to talk about things you have so little knowledge
about. I can't help but wonder if you tell your doctor that you know
more about medicine than he does? Or your lawyer, or investment adviser,
or is it just political scientists you think you know more than?

Hawke

On 2/22/2012 2:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

Why? Because you say so? It ruins your argument so we just forget about
probability. I don't think so.


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.

If one has no chance of achieving something then for all intents and
purposes they have no opportunity to do it. Crippled people have the
same opportunity to make the NBA as anyone. That's your goofy logic.


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.

Get some facts before blabbing. Tell me how many Americans can retire on
what they have earned and put away during their lifetime without
government programs to help them?


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.

But 98% of them don't. That the fact. So what are all those people
lacking? A fair system?


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.

Only to a simpleton.


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

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

To a simple simon.


Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Okay Simon, if you say so.


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.

If all things were equal that might be true. But nothing is equal.


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.

You know that how?


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.

She's not a big success. She doesn't even work for a living. She's an
heiress and has no need to work so she does it for the hell of it, and
it was handed to her on a silver platter. Kind of unfair, huh?



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.

I have no problem with that scenario. I think that is fair. Both worked
and achieved a measure of success. The difference between the two isn't
all that much. I'd say a fair amount due to unequal ability. It's not
that they don't make the same. It's the degree to which they are paid
unequally. This is not out of line. 18 million for the CEO of Macy's
compared to his workers is not fair. See, it's the degree not the fact
pay is not equal.


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

Is that right? Okay, then nobody has a right to life either. Right? As
long as nobody has rights then nobody has a right to live either or are
you making an exception for whatever you want to?

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 10:25 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 7:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 6:05 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/21/2012 11:26 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


I'm not a sociologist, and don't claim to be one, so I am not going to
go to bat for the subject.

Political science is little better, and to the extent it is, it's
because of the influence of economics. Economics "colonized" political
science starting about 30 or 40 years ago. Political science used to be
like sociology - nothing but political opinion. The economists "invaded"
poli sci and began to explain political phenomena - voting behavior,
party strategy - that the political scientists had never been able to
explain. The political scientists now use the methods of quantitative
taught to them by economists as everyday practice. But you wouldn't have
learned anything about that at Chico.


Every time you write something it exposes the level of your ignorance.

No.

Your "history" of political science is wrong.

No, it's right. Why don't you ask some people in the field...people at
a good school, not a ******** like Chico.


Political science didn't come out of economics it came out of history.

I didn't say poli sci "came out of" economics, you dumb fat ****; can't
you read? I said it was stumbling along a lot like sociology up until
the 1960s, when economics "invaded" it and taught the political
scientists how to do quantitative analysis. They did that because
economists began to measure things that poli sci /should/ have been
analyzing, but never could, such as why people vote.


Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

....and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school.
Yes, we know.

On 2/23/2012 10:42 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 2:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
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.

Why? Because you say so?

Because it's irrelevant to the issue.


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.

If one has no chance of achieving something then for all intents and
purposes they have no opportunity to do it.

No, that's false. That's not what opportunity means.


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.

Get some facts before blabbing.

I have them, and I have an excellent mastery of them. Our system does
not "only gives a tiny few" a chance at success. In fact, our system
gives a chance at success to far more than virtually any other system.

In Europe, for example, which you leftists just insanely adore, children
are judged at the end of what would be middle school here, and if
they're seen as not having much academic potential, they're frog-marched
into vocational schools, and they have virtually no chance thereafter to
attend university. It's possible to make the jump back into the
university track later, but it's extremely difficult and very few even
attempt it.


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.

But 98% of them don't. That the fact.

That is *NOT* a fact - it's bull****. Most people have all they need to
succeed. Your definition of success is complete bull****.


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.

Only to

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.



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

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

To a

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


Yeah, it is in your fantasy world where

It *is* the argument, Hawke-Ptooey.

Okay

Okay.



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.

If all things were equal that might be true.

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.

You know that how?

I've seen 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.

She's not a big success.

I'd say she has been.


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.

I have no problem with that scenario. I think that is fair. Both worked
and achieved a measure of success. The difference between the two isn't
all that much. I'd say a fair amount due to unequal ability. It's not
that they don't make the same. It's the degree to which they are paid
unequally. This is not out of line. 18 million for the CEO of Macy's
compared to his workers is not fair.

You can't say anything that's "unfair" about it. It has no meaning.
You just don't *like* it, but that doesn't mean there is anything
inequitable or unjust or unethical or "unfair" about it.


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

Is that right?

Yes.


Okay, then nobody has a right to life either. Right?

No, that's wrong. We are endowed with a right to our own lives.

On Feb 23, 1:42*pm, Hawke wrote:


Get some facts before blabbing. Tell me how many Americans can retire on
what they have earned and put away during their lifetime without
government programs to help them?


Hawke

Most Americans can retire on what they earned during their lifetime.
But most Americans do not save enough during their lifetime. For most
Americans the government programs actually hurts them. As the payroll
tax for Social Security takes about 12.6 percent of their income which
leaves them less able to save.

Social Security does benefit those that make very low wages as the
benefits are highly skewed to those that did not earn much. And it
also benefits those that do not save even though they could save.
In that it takes a good percentage of what they earn and later pays
back a portion of that money.

Dan

On 2/22/2012 2:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


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.


No one is entitled to anything. We make the system that we want. We can
make a fair one or we can make an unfair one. Throughout history we've
mainly made unfair ones. Granted we can't make anything perfectly but by
now humans do know enough to make a system that is mainly fair to most
of the people. What we have now isn't close. We're more like Mexico now.
Do you think they spread the wealth fairly in Mexico or do a few
families control just about all the wealth? You want that here?

Hawke

Hawke wrote:



Most people have enough of all of those to succeed.

But 98% of them don't. That the fact.
"Fact"
In the immortal words of "Inigo Montoya"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means. "

You made up a number and call it a fact? 9Your SOP) or do you actually
have an actual source?
..
So what are all those people
lacking? A fair system?


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.

I have no problem with that scenario. I think that is fair. Both worked
and achieved a measure of success. The difference between the two isn't
all that much. I'd say a fair amount due to unequal ability. It's not
that they don't make the same. It's the degree to which they are paid
unequally. This is not out of line. 18 million for the CEO of Macy's
compared to his workers is not fair. See, it's the degree not the fact
pay is not equal.


Ok so EXACTLY where is the dividing line then,
between fair and unfair differentials?

jk

On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them. But
there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

it isn't hard for the average guy to save enough for retirement, but
the average guy does not do it. The average guy does not even bother
to go to the library and read up on how to save and invest.

Dan



Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

Just look at what it used to be like here back in the fifties when it
comes to income distribution. It was much more equal. The country's
wealth is far more unequally distributed now. That is wrong in my book.
Way too much money is concentrated in too few hands. As a political
scientist I see that as a threat to the political system and to
democracy. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is a recipe for a
corrupt country and regime.

There are all kinds of reasons why a more equal wealth distribution
would be better for most Americans than what we have now. I really don't
see any argument you could make why 1% should be in control of most of
any country's wealth. In the past that almost always leads to a
revolution. Is that what you want?

Hawke

George Plimpton wrote:



Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

...and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school.
Yes, we know.

Actually George, his school is renowned and highly regarded in some
fields. admittedly that is MOSTLY in mixology and the related party
sciences, but I understand they also have a fairly highly regarded
forensics program.
jk

Hawke wrote:

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?

jk

On 2/22/2012 3:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them.

There not only aren't that many of them, but if you seized all their
wealth and changed the tax system so that no one could acquire that kind
of wealth ever again, it wouldn't do one damned thing to improve the lot
anyone at the bottom. If all the super-rich - the 0.01% - had nearly all
their wealth confiscated, and if the tax system were rigged so that no
one ever again could amass that kind of wealth, there *still* would be
tens of millions of unwed mothers - out-of-wedlock births now account
for more than 30% of all births - and those children *still* would grow
up with ****ty prospects. There *still* would be a lot of idiots like
Hawke-Ptooey getting degrees in worthless fields like political science,
and they *still* would be unable to find a decent-paying job in the
modern economy.

You're too dumb to know the benefits that would come about if the super
rich were relieved of a good chunk of that wealth and it was
redistributed throughout the system. If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it then
you never learned the first thing about economics.

In addition, with more money available to way more people all kinds of
beneficial things would be done that never happen when all the money is
held by a privileged elite class. You don't seem to know the first thing
about anything, history, politics, economics, any of it. Did you learn
anything in school? And by the way, what is your great success you
achieved from having a degree in economics. We know it didn't make you
rich. Did it even get you an average paying job or are you like the rest
of those econ majors who can't make a dime as an economist? So shut up
about my degree. I didn't have to have it. I only got it because I felt
like it.



But there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

And none of that would change one iota even if there were punishing
income and wealth redistribution.

You don't have a clue the benefits that would come from what you call
punishing income and wealth redistribution. I call it a return to
normalcy and it would be great for just about everybody but the few.


Hawke

Hawke wrote:



Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

Just look at what it used to be like here back in the fifties when it
comes to income distribution. It was much more equal. The country's
wealth is far more unequally distributed now.
Can you support that statement. I am NOT saying you are wrong, I just
don't think there is evidence to support it.

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

I think that perception is driven by media.

OTOH I am quite sure there are far more millionaires today, than
there were in the 50's, but a million bucks ain't what it used to be.

That is wrong in my book.
Way too much money is concentrated in too few hands. As a political
scientist
You forgot to put that first word in quotes. If it isn't
quantitative, it isn't science.

I see that as a threat to the political system and to
democracy. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is a recipe for a
corrupt country and regime.

There are all kinds of reasons why a more equal wealth distribution
would be better for most Americans than what we have now. I really don't
see any argument you could make why 1% should be in control of most of
any country's wealth.


In the past that almost always leads to a
revolution. Is that what you want?
Oh really? When, Where?
I can think off hand of two cases where that probably was seen as one
of the causes of the "revolutions" but a half dozen or so where
similar distributions did NOT lead to revolutions.

In both of the first cases, the regimes revolted against were also
totalitarian.


Hawke
jk

Hawke wrote:

So shut up
about my degree. I didn't have to have it. I only got it because I felt
like it.


So you and Paris Hilton, are birds of a feather?
jk

On 2/23/2012 11:12 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 2:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


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.


No one is entitled to anything.

People are entitled to their lives, of course. That's considered a
universal human right, and it is *NOT* a right "given" by anyone or any
group of people. It is a fundamental condition of being human.

No one is entitled to any material goods and services - there are no
positive rights to anything you would like in life.


We make the system that we want. We can
make a fair one or we can make an unfair one.

In terms of people's opportunities to succeed in life, we have a fair
system.


Throughout history we've mainly made unfair ones.

Except in the United States. In the US, ours has been a preeminently
fair system, except in its treatment of blacks, and that was corrected
more than a century ago.


Granted we can't make anything perfectly but by
now humans do know enough to make a system that is mainly fair to most
of the people.

And ours is.

On 2/23/2012 11:19 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them. But
there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

it isn't hard for the average guy to save enough for retirement, but
the average guy does not do it. The average guy does not even bother
to go to the library and read up on how to save and invest.

Dan



Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

You can't define "high level of prosperity." In fact, the overwhelming
majority of people who apply themselves and work hard have fairly
prosperous lives. It is wholly irrelevant that they don't live at the
same level as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

On 2/23/2012 11:24 AM, jk wrote:
George wrote:



Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

...and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school.
Yes, we know.

Actually George, his school is renowned and highly regarded in some
fields. admittedly that is MOSTLY in mixology and the related party
sciences, but I understand they also have a fairly highly regarded
forensics program.

I don't really mean to disparage Chico State completely, but it is known
as one of the academically weaker campuses among the 23 CSU campuses,
and the entire CSU system is second tier in California behind the UC.

On Feb 23, 2:19*pm, Hawke wrote:





Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

No. The average guy should not have a high level of prosperity. The
average guy ought to have average prosperity.

You want everyone to be above average. It is not possible.


Just look at what it used to be like here back in the fifties when it
comes to income distribution. It was much more equal. The country's
wealth is far more unequally distributed now. That is wrong in my book.
Way too much money is concentrated in too few hands. As a political
scientist I see that as a threat to the political system and to
democracy. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is a recipe for a
corrupt country and regime.

The reason it is this way is that the country has changed. Manual
labor is no longer in much demand. Back in the fifties manual labor
was more in demand.

The days of graduating from high school and getting a good job are
gone forever.
And the same thing is beginning to happen with graduating from college
and getting a good job. Oh you can still graduate from college and
get a good job, but only with some majors if you are an average
student. Major in science or engineering, then yes. Major in Art
History , then you could be hurting.

So what you want is gone forever. Manual labor just is not needed
now, and the average white collar job is quickly going the same way.
So what is happening is that the top 1 or 2 % or so are in demand,
and get the good jobs. And the 98 % can get jobs, but there is not
much demand. So the wages are not too good. It is caused to some
extent by computers. Thousands of jobs have disappeared. We used to
have a bunch of secretaries. Now we just use a word processor. We
used to have a lot of people doing income taxes. Now we use Tax Act
or Turbo tax. We used to have a bunch of draftsmen. Now we use a Cad
program. We use to have a bunch of receptionists. Now we have voice
recognition programs.

It may not be what we want, but it is inevitable. The smart people
are still in demand, the so so smart are not in demand. Bitch all you
want, but we are never going back to where there is a demand for
average workers.

This is not an argument that the top 1 percent should be in control of
most of the wealth, it is just an explanation of why it is that way.
If you took economics in college, you would understand.

Dan


There are all kinds of reasons why a more equal wealth distribution
would be better for most Americans than what we have now. I really don't
see any argument you could make why 1% should be in control of most of
any country's wealth. In the past that almost always leads to a
revolution. Is that what you want?

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 11:27 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

Anyone with a name in poli sci does the quantitative analysis. Before
the economists taught the political scientists how to do it right, there
was no rigor in poli sci at all. It was nothing but subjective opinion.

The idea of "economics imperialism" - that is, economics invading other
social sciences because those other so-called "sciences" couldn't
explain anything coherently - has been around a long time. There's even
a Wikipedia entry on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...28economics%29

The economists have always laughed about it. The older practitioners of
those other fields were pretty resentful when it first happened, but the
younger generation of political scientists and even some sociologists
simply accept it as part of the fields they learned; they never knew
anything different.


That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?

jk

On 2/23/2012 11:29 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them.

There not only aren't that many of them, but if you seized all their
wealth and changed the tax system so that no one could acquire that kind
of wealth ever again, it wouldn't do one damned thing to improve the lot
anyone at the bottom. If all the super-rich - the 0.01% - had nearly all
their wealth confiscated, and if the tax system were rigged so that no
one ever again could amass that kind of wealth, there *still* would be
tens of millions of unwed mothers - out-of-wedlock births now account
for more than 30% of all births - and those children *still* would grow
up with ****ty prospects. There *still* would be a lot of idiots like
Hawke-Ptooey getting degrees in worthless fields like political science,
and they *still* would be unable to find a decent-paying job in the
modern economy.

You're too dumb to know the benefits that would come about if the super
rich were relieved of a good chunk of that wealth and it was
redistributed throughout the system.

There wouldn't be any. We'd all be poorer for it. There would be a
one-time injection of money that would all be wasted on bull****. What
happens when poor people buy brand new stuff they can't really afford?
It's ruined in a very short time.

The *key* thing is, taking that money would do *nothing* to make it
easier for people at the bottom to be more productive. Any money spent
on them would make them a bit happier for a very short time, kind of
like buying a double portion of ice cream makes a child happy for a
while, but it would not change their long term prospects in the least.


If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it

You have not shown, and you are unable to show, that it is any "better".


In addition, with more money available to way more people all kinds of
beneficial things would be done that never happen when all the money is
held by a privileged elite class.

Nope. There *WOULDN'T* be more money available to people. It would all
be spent immediately on extravagant **** that doesn't really make the
people at the bottom any better off. Okay, so you buy some deadbeat who
rambles around town in a ****ty polluting 1983 Dodge van a brand new car
- what is that car going to look like in two years? It's going to be a
dilapidated wreck. Meanwhile, that deadbeat's employment prospects have
not changed. So, he enjoyed having a nice car for two years, but in the
long run he's no better off - no better able to provide for himself.

The money seized would *NOT* be invested to yield a permanent
improvement in anyone's standard of living, that's for certain. What
happened when the State or California was rolling in more money than
they knew what to do with during the late 1990s? Did they invest any of
it? No - they spent every last goddamned dime of it, on new programs
they couldn't afford to keep funding after the bubble burst. It would
be no different if wealth were confiscated from rich people - it would
all be spent in the first year.


But there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

And none of that would change one iota even if there were punishing
income and wealth redistribution.

You don't have a clue the benefits that would come from what you call
punishing income and wealth redistribution.

I know exactly what would come of it: a one-time transfer of money that
would be squandered.

I know - *YOU* know - that seizing all of Bill Gates' and Warren
Buffett's wealth would not change the life prospects of anyone.

On Feb 23, 2:29*pm, Hawke wrote:


You're too dumb to know the benefits that would come about if the super
rich were relieved of a good chunk of that wealth and it was
redistributed throughout the system. If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it then
you never learned the first thing about economics.


Hawke

I do not think there would be much if any increase in benefits if the
super rich were relieved of a large portion of their wealth. It would
certainly end a lot of the charity work. No more funds to get rid of
Malaria. No sponsors of PBS. Less money for research in colleges.
So maybe I am just stupid to know. I certainly am not dumb.

So why don't you tell us of the benefits of wealth distribution.

Dan

On 2/23/2012 11:43 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

Just look at what it used to be like here back in the fifties when it
comes to income distribution. It was much more equal. The country's
wealth is far more unequally distributed now.
Can you support that statement. I am NOT saying you are wrong, I just
don't think there is evidence to support it.

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

Wealth concentration just doesn't matter in terms of how people live
their lives. Suppose there is a given distribution of wealth today -
people own whatever they own. Now suppose that some new innovation by
Microsoft causes their stock price to increase 100 times, so that Bill
Gates's fortune is suddenly substantially larger. That gain in his
wealth did not come at the expense of some cashier at Wal-Mart or anyone
like her. Those people *still* own whatever they owned before; their
standard of living hasn't changed (actually, if the Microsoft innovation
leads to better and cheaper products that they consume, their standard
of living has improved.)

Hawke-Ptooey and other bitter leftists like him always get caught up in
comparisons that are invalid.




I think that perception is driven by media.

OTOH I am quite sure there are far more millionaires today, than
there were in the 50's, but a million bucks ain't what it used to be.

That is wrong in my book.
Way too much money is concentrated in too few hands. As a political
scientist
You forgot to put that first word in quotes. If it isn't
quantitative, it isn't science.

I see that as a threat to the political system and to
democracy. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is a recipe for a
corrupt country and regime.

There are all kinds of reasons why a more equal wealth distribution
would be better for most Americans than what we have now. I really don't
see any argument you could make why 1% should be in control of most of
any country's wealth.


In the past that almost always leads to a
revolution. Is that what you want?
Oh really? When, Where?
I can think off hand of two cases where that probably was seen as one
of the causes of the "revolutions" but a half dozen or so where
similar distributions did NOT lead to revolutions.

In both of the first cases, the regimes revolted against were also
totalitarian.


Hawke
jk

George Plimpton wrote:

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

Wealth concentration just doesn't matter in terms of how people live
their lives.
I think that to the extent that Bird-e is talking about it as an
indicator of power concentration in the hands of a few, that it can
matter.

Suppose there is a given distribution of wealth today -
people own whatever they own. Now suppose that some new innovation by
Microsoft causes their stock price to increase 100 times, so that Bill
Gates's fortune is suddenly substantially larger.
jk

On 2/23/2012 1:30 PM, jk wrote:
George wrote:

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

Wealth concentration just doesn't matter in terms of how people live
their lives.
I think that to the extent that Bird-e is talking about it as an
indicator of power concentration in the hands of a few, that it can
matter.

Apart from having a little more disposable income to spend on lobbyists,
I don't think it matters if the top 0.01% have 20% of the wealth or 30%.
The reason is that it's not a zero sum game. If their share has grown
over time, it's because total wealth has grown, and they've received
more of the growth. It's not as if wealth is static and the top wealth
holders have increased their share of a constant size pie, in other
words by taking wealth away from people who used to have it.

jk wrote:

Hawke wrote:

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?


They know better that to try to teach economics to 'Pol-sci' idiots.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:29:20 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 3:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:11 PM, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, wrote:



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

When you complain that the system is unfair. The fact is that the
system is fair for most people. You worry too much about a few
people that get a lot of money There are not that many of them.

There not only aren't that many of them, but if you seized all their
wealth and changed the tax system so that no one could acquire that kind
of wealth ever again, it wouldn't do one damned thing to improve the lot
anyone at the bottom. If all the super-rich - the 0.01% - had nearly all
their wealth confiscated, and if the tax system were rigged so that no
one ever again could amass that kind of wealth, there *still* would be
tens of millions of unwed mothers - out-of-wedlock births now account
for more than 30% of all births - and those children *still* would grow
up with ****ty prospects. There *still* would be a lot of idiots like
Hawke-Ptooey getting degrees in worthless fields like political science,
and they *still* would be unable to find a decent-paying job in the
modern economy.

You're too dumb to know the benefits that would come about if the super
rich were relieved of a good chunk of that wealth and it was
redistributed throughout the system. If you don't know it's better that
more people having more wealth than just a few having most of it then
you never learned the first thing about economics.

In addition, with more money available to way more people all kinds of
beneficial things would be done that never happen when all the money is
held by a privileged elite class. You don't seem to know the first thing
about anything, history, politics, economics, any of it. Did you learn
anything in school? And by the way, what is your great success you
achieved from having a degree in economics. We know it didn't make you
rich. Did it even get you an average paying job or are you like the rest
of those econ majors who can't make a dime as an economist? So shut up
about my degree. I didn't have to have it. I only got it because I felt
like it.

The question that comes to mind is "how will this redistribution of
wealth take place? From reading your posts you seem to assume that
there will be a large tax imposed on the rich to strip them of their
wealth. But the result of that exercise to simply to increase the
amount of money available to the government. How will this windfall be
distributed to the proletariat? Will the present crop of layabout's
that are presently sucking on the government tit become bloated with
money? Or will the offer to become wards of the state be tendered to
more of the lower orders in order to lure any borderline cases into
the government's care?


But there are a huge number of people that get pretty good wages. There
are a good many that screw up and do not save as much as they need to
save. They buy new cars and trucks Or they have more cars and trucks
than they need. Like you. You have two motor vehicles, you are not
married, and frankly I do not see why you need two vehicles. Or why
you need to carry a concealed weapon and spend so much time and money
at the range. Some of them smoke. Lot of them buy bottled water.
And buy things on credit cards. You have five acres. Do you have a
vegetable garden? Got a cell phone? Cable TV?

And none of that would change one iota even if there were punishing
income and wealth redistribution.

You don't have a clue the benefits that would come from what you call
punishing income and wealth redistribution. I call it a return to
normalcy and it would be great for just about everybody but the few.


Hawke
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/23/2012 10:57 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

Political science is little better, and to the extent it is, it's
because of the influence of economics. Economics "colonized" political
science starting about 30 or 40 years ago. Political science used to be
like sociology - nothing but political opinion. The economists "invaded"
poli sci and began to explain political phenomena - voting behavior,
party strategy - that the political scientists had never been able to
explain. The political scientists now use the methods of quantitative
taught to them by economists as everyday practice. But you wouldn't have
learned anything about that at Chico.


Every time you write something it exposes the level of your ignorance.

No.

Your "history" of political science is wrong.

No, it's right. Why don't you ask some people in the field...people at a
good school, not a ******** like Chico.


Political science didn't come out of economics it came out of history.

I didn't say poli sci "came out of" economics, you dumb fat ****; can't
you read? I said it was stumbling along a lot like sociology up until
the 1960s, when economics "invaded" it and taught the political
scientists how to do quantitative analysis. They did that because
economists began to measure things that poli sci /should/ have been
analyzing, but never could, such as why people vote.

So when did you invent that nice little fairy tale? Yesterday? I see you
have no citations proving a single word. What's your problem? Got no
references? Gee I'm shocked. It would have been nice for you to have
told us where you got this information but I already know. You ****ing
made it up. Talk about a jerk. You can't prove a point so you have to
fabricate it out of wholecloth. You are a prolific liar.



Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

...and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school. Yes,
we know.

Says who? Got any cites saying Chico is a bad school? of course not
because you just made that up too like you do for everything you say.
You just make it all up and think people will believe it. No one does.
You provide no citations while asking for them from everyone else. You
claim to know about things you have no education or experience in, and
you have a B.S. that is so old you wouldn't even know what they were
talking about in a modern economics class. You're old, and out of date,
and you have only one degree and you seem to be an authority in all
subjects. Huh, you sound exactly like someone else around here. Yeah,
you know who, his name starts with the letter G. You may be a bigger
liar than he is though. It's close.

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 11:24 AM, jk wrote:
George wrote:



Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

...and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school.
Yes, we know.

Actually George, his school is renowned and highly regarded in some
fields. admittedly that is MOSTLY in mixology and the related party
sciences, but I understand they also have a fairly highly regarded
forensics program.
jk


You probably noticed that he knows nothing about my school. It also has
a great reputation for its IT school too. All he is doing is calling it
names instead of me personally. Do you see where he also provides no
proof for anything he says?

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 12:16 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/23/2012 11:24 AM, jk wrote:
George wrote:



Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and

...and acquired a ****ty degree in a weak field at a ****ty school.
Yes, we know.

Actually George, his school is renowned and highly regarded in some
fields. admittedly that is MOSTLY in mixology and the related party
sciences, but I understand they also have a fairly highly regarded
forensics program.

I don't really mean to disparage Chico State completely, but it is known
as one of the academically weaker campuses among the 23 CSU campuses,
and the entire CSU system is second tier in California behind the UC.


That may have been true twenty years ago when you were in school but not
any more. Nowadays the CSU schools are considered to be as good as the
UC schools. Not surprised you wouldn't know that. You aren't current on
much that is happening these days.

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 11:27 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?


I learned to do that in law classes. I bet you have a lot of units in
that field too, right? No, you don't? But you talk like such an expert
on all things to do with the law. Were you just born knowing the law?
How lucky for you. I had to go to college to learn what I know.

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 12:22 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/23/2012 11:27 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Unlike you I actually attended college at Chico state and got to know
the faculty there in the political science dept. There were not any
economists. There was a branch that came to being in political science
that uses quantitative analysis in its approach to the subject but most
political scientists don't follow that methodology.

Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

Anyone with a name in poli sci does the quantitative analysis. Before
the economists taught the political scientists how to do it right, there
was no rigor in poli sci at all. It was nothing but subjective opinion.

The idea of "economics imperialism" - that is, economics invading other
social sciences because those other so-called "sciences" couldn't
explain anything coherently - has been around a long time. There's even
a Wikipedia entry on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...28economics%29

The economists have always laughed about it. The older practitioners of
those other fields were pretty resentful when it first happened, but the
younger generation of political scientists and even some sociologists
simply accept it as part of the fields they learned; they never knew
anything different.


That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?

jk



If you knew anything about what is taught in political science classes
instead of just making it up you would know that most people are not
into the quantitative area of it. It's all mathematics. If you think
mathematics explains human behavior better than anything else good for
you. Show me an equation that explains why someone votes the way they do.

What you don't know is that political science is a very wide field. You
can specialize in one part of it and know little or nothing about the
rest. I started out to get paralegal training and my first year was all
legal classes. When I graduated I had the units to qualify for a degree
in political science but it was mainly about the law.

You can go into the quantitative area and know nothing about the legal
area or the more subjective areas. After I had a lot of law classes then
I learned more about the political side of things and I specialized in
American government and specifically in the presidency.

What's weird is that after all the time and effort it took to learn all
I did some yahoo like you knows more about the subject than me. At least
that's what you claim. Me, I just think your a blowhard that doesn't
know what he's talking about and thinks he's way better than he really
is. I've met lots of guys just like you. Mainly they're short.

Hawke

On 2/23/2012 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:42 pm, wrote:


Get some facts before blabbing. Tell me how many Americans can retire on
what they have earned and put away during their lifetime without
government programs to help them?


Hawke

Most Americans can retire on what they earned during their lifetime.
But most Americans do not save enough during their lifetime. For most
Americans the government programs actually hurts them. As the payroll
tax for Social Security takes about 12.6 percent of their income which
leaves them less able to save.

Social Security does benefit those that make very low wages as the
benefits are highly skewed to those that did not earn much. And it
also benefits those that do not save even though they could save.
In that it takes a good percentage of what they earn and later pays
back a portion of that money.

Dan



I can tell you one of the sources I got that information from. It came
from a real estate expert named Russ Whitney but I have heard it from
other places as well. Without the forced savings of social security most
people would not save that money. Even with it most people retire on
their social security and little more. Between that and Medicare old
people can survive. Only 2% put away enough to live in the same
lifestyle they were used to when working. Only 2% of households have an
"estate" to leave. When you look at the statistics it's clear that after
a lifetime of work most Americans have very little and are lucky if they
have a house that's paid off. If you don't believe me do the research on
your own. But it just shows that after a life of work you can't say most
people were ever prosperous. That is the fact and it proves the American
dream is a myth for almost everyone.

Hawke