AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (179 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    I can predict with a fairly high probability where your household falls on the income distribution by knowing only three things:

    1. Marital status
    2. Age
    3. Educational attainment

  2. Benjamin Cole

    If your IQ is higher than your weight, I predict you sre in the top 10 percent. Especially if your kids call you “Daddy Fatty.”

    1. hitssquad

      Actually, the IQ average in the 9th decile is higher than that in the 10th decile. See: Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen, 1980, p44.

      1. morganovich

        while nothing as messy as humans is going to have perfect statistical correlations, there are very strong correlations between IQ decile and wealth/income, particularly at the high end.

        http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/iq-income-and-wealth.html

        such correlations are suggestive of meritocracy.

        1. Certainly that explains part of it, though motivation can often be more important. On the other hand, IQ is not necessarily a perfect measure. For instance, IQs have increased for people over the last few generations for reasons other than inheritance.

          1. morganovich

            but deciles are still deciles.

            i am not arguing that it explains everyhting, only that there appears to be a strong positive correlation between relative intelligence and income and wealth and that such a correlation is consistent with notions of meritocracy.

          2. care to rank.. Gates, Buffet, Walton, and Donald Trump and the Koch Brothers in terms of “smarts”?

            here are some really smart guys:

            http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/current-top-10-people-with-highest-iqs-2/

            most (except Allen) never excelled at making money….at least not like the richest guys:

            billionaires/list/

            i think entrepreneurs are not necessarily “smart” in the same way as IQ is… they understand human behavior and economics.. I’m sure you agree with this!

            there are folks who are pretty good at making money that are not that bright…comparatively…

            like Forest Gump, eh? Conservatives LOVE that film because it shows how a not so bright guy can stick to his knitting and do GOOD!

          3. morganovich

            mr bill gates has
            an iq of one sixty
            seems quite high to me

            no one said it is
            the only variable
            but it does matter

            you like reality
            the reality is this
            smarts are linked to wealth

          4. mr bill gates has
            an iq of one sixty
            seems quite high to me

            You think Gates’ IQ seems high, would you believe Sylvester Stallone’s IQ is also 160? I read it on the internet so it must be true:

            http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/these-celebrities-are-smarter-than-they-look/story-fn907478-1226482660623

          5. morganovich

            paul-

            but we’ll never know about chuck norris.

            no one had the guts to test him.

            lol.

          6. morganovich: i am not arguing that it explains everyhting, only that there appears to be a strong positive correlation between relative intelligence and income and wealth and that such a correlation is consistent with notions of meritocracy.

            Some difference in IQ may be a *result* of wealth, not just a cause. Better nutrition and better education can apparently increase IQ.

          7. Harold Saxon

            IQ is a crap indicator anyway. So many better ways of measuring intelligence.

          8. Z: “Some difference in IQ may be a *result* of wealth, not just a cause. Better nutrition and better education can apparently increase IQ.

            Indeed. And that would be consistent with a strong correlation.

          9. Harold,

            So many better ways of measuring intelligence.

            Like what?

          10. Paul

            You think Gates’ IQ seems high, would you believe Sylvester Stallone’s IQ is also 160? I read it on the internet so it must be true:

            I’ve read that too. Stallone always impresses me as someone who may have trouble tying his own shoes, but I suppose that’s why he’s called an “actor”.

  3. Jon Murphy

    Sowell does a good job talking about the absurdity of income categories, and he does just as well talking about real income (by measuring it per capita).

    This whole “real wages are stagnant, thus the middle-class is weak!” meme is really just lazy thinking and anyone who has analytic training can tell you why: it’s drawing a conclusion from a single indicator. A good analyst never draws from a single indicator.

    Yes, real wages have been flat. But that’s measuring more the changing nature of total compensation. Compensation and wages used to be very similar. Now, compensation has taken on more non-monetary benefits, like heath care or vacation time or family leave, things like that. So, then it makes sense that wages would stay just about the same as inflation as other benefits increase with productivity.

    Using real wages and only real wages to measure well-being is like using only blood pressure to measure health. It’ll tell you one aspect.

    1. Mankiw had a good post about that a while back: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2013/12/on-measuring-changes-in-income.html

      “So, during this period, has the middle class experienced stagnant real income (a mere 3.2 percent increase) or significant gains (a 36.7 percent increase)? It depends on which measure of income you look at. It seems clear to me that the latter measure is more relevant, but the former measure of income often gets more attention than it deserves.”

  4. When people talk about lack of social mobility, they are usually referring to intergenerational mobility. No one doubts that the children of the rich start out with low incomes after college, move quickly up, then as they retire, their income drops again.

    1. morganovich

      there will always be some correlation in income between parents and children over time.

      in the US, estimates are that this correlation is about .4, which is to say that 40% of income status accross generations can be explained by parental income.

      https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/16_02_02.pdf

      but that does not imply a rigged system.

      intelligent, educated parents are more likely to have intelligent, educated children.

      this is likewise true of traits like discipline, propensity to save, work ethic etc.

      sure, there are also likely structural advantages like seed money and connections, but i suspect a great deal of this just comes down to nature and nurture traits and education.

      a son born to a man in the bottom quartile has a 60% chance of moving up and one born in the top one has a 58% chance of moving down.

      in the middle 2, distribution is almost completely even and parental earnings have very little predictive power over the child’s.

      1. morganovich

        also:

        as marital status has a high correlation to income, i wonder: is that heritable?

        are the children of married parents more likely to marry? are the children of parents that stay married more likely to stay married and are those of divorced parents more likely to divorce?

        it’s an honest question to which i do not know the answer, but if it is so, that right there may go a long way toward explaining some of the persistent differences.

        1. Jon Murphy

          are the children of married parents more likely to marry? are the children of parents that stay married more likely to stay married and are those of divorced parents more likely to divorce?

          Morganovich,

          I believe that Charles Murray looked into this in Coming Apart and he found those children who come from a two-parent home are more likely to remain married in adult life.

          1. Jon Murphy

            I had another thought about generational mobility.

            It’s possible that, although the family is better off as a whole, the children are made worse off when the older generation dies.

            The idea behind generational mobility is that wealth stays in the family. But, if that’s true, then wealth can be distributed in such a way that the children fall into a lower bracket than the parents.

            For example, let’s say a family of 5 has wealth totaling $1 million. Mom and Dad die, and divide the wealth up evenly among the three kids, so each get $0.333 million. When it was one household, the family was worth $1M. Now, they are three households each worth a third of that. Could we conclude that the kids are worse off than their parents? I think that would be a false conclusion to reach.

          2. morganovich

            also worth considering in that vein is the effect of the inheritance tax.

            40% is a big slug to pay and can often require family businesses to be broken up to pay it (absent tax planning like life insurance).

          3. Jon

            For example, let’s say a family of 5 has wealth totaling $1 million.

            Yeah, that’s the problem with using households as unit of measure for income or wealth. The same thing happens with household income studies. In bad times, grown children may lose jobs & move back in with parents. Household income may rise, but individuals are worse off.

        2. Morganovich,

          as marital status has a high correlation to income,

          Also, the increase in assortative mating over time has turbocharged the differences. The “cognitive elite” as Charles Murray deems them, are much more likely than ever before to pair up. Meanwhile, fertility levels decline as education level rises, creating an even smaller pool of the elite in the long run.

          1. morganovich

            morlocks and eloi?

          2. Lol.
            Look for that around 2200 AD. Also, see Mike Judge’s magnum opus Idiocracy.

          3. morganovich

            president camacho has my vote!

          4. Heh. Got my Tivo set up for “Ow! My Balls!”

          5. morganovich

            you like chicks AND money?

            me too.

            we should hang out.

          6. I didn’t find “Idiocracy” to be very realistic. Are we really expected to believe it would take 500 years to reach that level of moronicity? More like 80 years max.

          7. Ron,

            Ok, but you gotta admit the toilet couch is pure genius.

          8. Paul

            ‎Ok, but you gotta admit the toilet couch is pure genius.

            Yeah, you got me there. :)

  5. re: those who are 60…

    prior to Medicare, a significant number of retired people had modest assets and incomes.

    Many retired people today can earn 85k/170K married and:

    1. – be guaranteed health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions with no lifetime caps

    2. – have two or more homes and multiple cars… significant assets…

    3. – for the total price of 100.00 per person.

    this results in an irony….

    that’s kids are paying the subsidies for Medicare…

    that those same kids, now can inherit the significant assets of their parents rather than those assets going to pay for their health care …

    Many “kids” jump income categories when they inherit their parents assets instead of those assets having been used to pay for end-of-life medical care.

    and an even bigger irony – MedicAid – health insurance for the indigent is used to provide nursing home care for people who own homes … but transfer their assets before they go into nursing homes.

    some kids grow up to do better than their parents.. but others.. basically benefit from their parents ability to keep their assets even as they incur thousands of dollars of health care costs.

    1. morganovich

      “that those same kids, now can inherit the significant assets of their parents rather than those assets going to pay for their health care …”

      but forty percent
      inheritance taxes bite
      bite hard into estates

      1. what is the threshold for the tax “bite” Morg?

        pretty high isn’t it?

        most folks can inherit (or have transferred in a trust) quite a bit of assets.. before the taxman commeth.

        people who are still paying a 30 year mortgage now, all of a sudden own another house free and clear…

        and they get that at about the time they themselves are going to get 100.00 a month medical care… and the cycle goes on.

        1. morganovich

          but your argument
          is still a negative sum
          pay now, get later

          what they save in care
          you already lost in tax
          plus forgone interest

          1. morganovich

            and it’s regressive
            you pay even if parents
            leave nothing to you

          2. well actually no. Kids are getting their parents assets.

            there are numerous ways to accomplish that:

            ” Comparison with estate tax
            The key difference between estate and inheritance taxes lies in who is responsible for paying it. An estate tax is levied on the total value of a deceased person’s money and property and is paid out of the decedent’s assets before any distribution to beneficiaries.

            However, before an estate tax is due, the value of the assets must exceed certain thresholds that change each year, but generally it’s at least $1 million. Because of this threshold, only about 2 percent of taxpayers will ever encounter this tax.”

            this means many kids inherit their parents assets… which many parents would not have as much of if they did not have MediCare – which the kids pay for with their taxes.

          3. morganovich

            yet you miss the point
            as you pay for that estate
            long before they die

            and you pay such costs
            even if you get nothing
            it goes to others

          4. I actually stated that kids pay the taxes that provide the medicare subsidies that allow the elderly to keep their assets and give them to their kids.

            and yes.. everyone pays.. even those who don’t have parents with assets…

            prior to MediCare – end of life hospital costs would suck up all or most of many folks modest assets…. often their home… and personal effects.

            the entire point of this relates back to the idea that people move from one income strata to another.. and this is one of the ways that does happen these days.

            Many more elders now are able to keep more of their assets because of Medicare..and MedicAid.

            there’s actually an entire industry:

            http://www.tn-elderlaw.com/Family_Resources/Asset_Protection_FAQ

          5. morganovich

            twenty percent of
            us households have over
            two million dollars

            http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/distribution-of-income-and-wealth/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=friendly%2Blinks&utm_campaign=twitter%2Bfl%2Bplugin

            most people may not
            pay this draconian tax
            but most money does

          6. However, before an estate tax is due, the value of the assets must exceed certain thresholds that change each year, but generally it’s at least $1 million. Because of this threshold, only about 2 percent of taxpayers will ever encounter this tax.

            so 98% of kids inherit up to a million tax-free?

            is that a reality also?

          7. morganovich

            our crazy larry
            misses the point once again
            what a giant shock.

            paying taxes now
            to get your money later
            is negative sum.

            and eighty percent
            of actual estate money
            subject to the tax.

          8. re: ” paying taxes now
            to get your money later
            is negative sum.”

            morg .. that was the irony I made a point about.

            but what if your taxes now are less than what you inherit later – because others who won’t inherit are also paying taxes?

            “and eighty percent
            of actual estate money
            subject to the tax.”

            what does this mean?

            Comparison with estate tax

            The key difference between estate and inheritance taxes lies in who is responsible for paying it. An estate tax is levied on the total value of a deceased person’s money and property and is paid out of the decedent’s assets before any distribution to beneficiaries.

            However, before an estate tax is due, the value of the assets must exceed certain thresholds that change each year, but generally it’s at least $1 million. Because of this threshold, only about 2 percent of taxpayers will ever encounter this tax.

            How inheritance tax works
            Once the executor of the estate has divided up the assets and distributed them to the beneficiaries, the inheritance tax comes into play. The tax amount is calculated separately for each individual beneficiary, and the beneficiary must pay the tax.

            Exemptions and tax rates
            Year Exclusion
            Amount Max/Top
            tax rate

            2011 $5 million 35%
            2012 $5.12 million 35%
            2013 $5.25 million[25] 40%
            As noted above, a certain amount of each estate is exempted from taxation by the law. Below is a table of the amount of exemption by year an estate would expect. Estates above these amounts would be subject to estate tax, but only for the amount above the exemption.
            For example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means the estate would have paid a taxable rate of 19.7%.

            98% of inherited real estate is lower than these thresholds and the point of the discussion was to note that those kids who do inherit real estate which usually is worth less than a million will still jump to a different wealth tier…

            Most parents real estate is not in the millions – so the vast majority of kids are not dealing with inheritances of that scale.

          9. morganovich: twenty percent of us households have over two million dollars

            The exemption is $5 million.

          10. re: ” The exemption is $5 million.”

            not if you are Morg and he is struggling to deny facts and realities..

            that’s what is so loony here…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

          11. Z: The exemption is $5 million.

            Actually, a bit higher, as it’s indexed to inflation. Also, it’s per person, so that would typically be father and mother, with the ability the combine the exemption through proper planning.
            http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/What's-New—Estate-and-Gift-Tax

          12. Results from haiku –
            we see that comprehension
            improves not at all.

          13. morganovich

            “what does this mean?”

            it means most money
            in top percentiles
            and taxed when you die.

            5 percent of folks
            have 80 percent of cash
            and that cash gets taxed

            if one wants to look
            at what cash gets passed on
            follow the money

    2. Jon Murphy

      prior to Medicare, a significant number of retired people had modest assets and incomes.

      Nope

      1. yup:

        ” In 1965, the elderly were the group most
        likely to be living in poverty—nearly one in
        three were poor (Figure 1). Today, the
        poverty rate for the elderly is similar to that
        of the age group 18-64—about 1 in 10 are
        poor. Children are now the group most
        likely to be living in poverty.”

        https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/00fallpg75.pdf

        where would seniors today get insurance if not for MediCare? virtually every senior alive has a pre-existing condition and is a obvious high risk.

        Medicare has transformed seniors financial well being – not without great cost to taxpayers…

        1. Jon Murphy

          That does not support your statement “a significant number of retired people had modest assets and incomes.”

          1. Harold Saxon

            This guy may just be the master in connecting two unrelated things.

          2. careful now Harold…

          3. “About one-half of America’s seniors did
            not have hospital insurance prior to
            Medicare. By contrast, 75 percent of
            adults under age 65 had hospital insurance,
            primarily through their employer. For the
            uninsured, needing hospital services could
            mean going without health care or turning
            to family, friends, and/or charity to cover
            medical bills. More than one in four elderly
            were estimated to go without medical
            care due to cost concerns (Harris, 1966b).
            Medicare, along with other programs,
            notably Social Security, and a strong economy,
            have greatly improved the ability of
            the elderly and the disabled to live without
            these worries. Medicare covers nearly all
            of the elderly (about 97 percent), making
            them the population group most likely to
            have health insurance coverage. Today,
            the groups least likely to have health
            insurance coverage are young people,
            Hispanics, and low-wage workers.”

            Figure 1
            Poverty Rates, by Age: 1966-1998

          4. Jon Murphy

            No, Harry. I think our friend over at CH has that title.

            Larry just has extremely poor reading comprehension skills and relies on assumptions to advance his hypotheses. His whole “minimum wage only has one outcome!” meme demonstrates that conclusively.

          5. Jon Murphy

            Larry, you need to understand, that does not support your statement that ” a significant number of retired people had modest assets and incomes.”

            You think it does, but it does not. Repeating it over and over will not change that.

            What it supports is that elderly folks were more likely to be in poverty then compared to now. It does not support anything in regards to absolute numbers.

            Please drop it.

          6. Harold Saxon

            Murph, you’re just wasting your breath.

            $5 says his next accusations will be of you being a “wacko-bird.”

          7. Jon Murphy

            I know, Harry, but it’s just really frustrating when people misapply statistics.

            It’s the gambler’s fallacy going on here and, as a gambler, I hate it when people make such an illogical conclusion. “Oh, hey, Red hasn’t come up in a while, so it must be due!” or “I’m going to put my money on Black because I’m going to win half the time!”

            There are two things that annoy the devil out of me: poor reading and poor thinking. Unfortunately, both seem to characterize our society.

            Nobody can think critically anymore. The ones that do are attacked. It’s like the Dark Ages.

          8. settle down Jon and Harold.. be good.

          9. morganovich

            with apologies to bill the bard, may i present:

            the sonnet of larry

            shall i compare thee to a wacko bird?
            thou art more loony and more foolish
            sound logic here is never heard
            and appeal to practice has too long a date.

            sometimes too hot fallacy lies
            and often sanity’s complexion dimmed
            and rationality here often dies
            by chance or wacko course untrimmed.

            but thy eternal stupid shall not fade
            nor gain possession of the facts
            nor light of reason create shade
            on dogma which you claim to lack.

            so long as men can breathe or eyes can see
            a wacko bird, you’ll always be.

          10. Morg – calling that a sonnet is like calling a _urd filet migon!

            good god boy!

          11. Jon Murphy

            Morganovich,

            Ol’ Bill must be spinning in his grave :-P

          12. morganovich

            calling your musings
            sense or reality is
            the real dog turd here

          13. morganovich

            jon-

            it seems to me that old bill enjoyed a good parody.

            my hope is that he is chortling.

          14. Harold Saxon

            He probably is, Morganovich. But he was also a very dirty person. It needs more crude humor.

          15. oh oh Jon.. that sounds like an AH … are you keeping score?

          16. Jon Murphy

            No ad hominum.

          17. morganovich

            LOL.

            wow.

            larry does not understand what “ad hominem” means, does he?

          18. that’s right Morg.. turds don’t count!

          19. I can play the game any way you boys want – but I guarantee you won’t like it and you won’t prevail.

            Morg has promised over and over to stop talking and urged others to but the poor man can’t seem to honor his own words!

            and Harold.. I mostly just ignore you and now Jon…

            no problem… the more childish you kids get .. the funnier it is…

            ya’ll are going to learn that you cannot stop others from making comments.. that kind of childish behavior is not rewarded.

          20. morganovich

            “I can play the game any way you boys want – but I guarantee you won’t like it and you won’t prevail.”

            you can color me
            very deeply unimpressed
            you are a joke dude.

          21. Jon Murphy: That does not support your statement “a significant number of retired people had modest assets and incomes.”

            A third is a significant number, and the number with modest means, but above poverty, would be a larger group.

          22. re: ” A third is a significant number, and the number with modest means, but above poverty, would be a larger group.”

            not to Jon and Harold.. they decide what is up and what is down and that’s that!

          23. Harold Saxon

            and Harold.. I mostly just ignore you and now Jon…

            Your comments here today have determined that to be a lie.

          24. He claims to ignore,
            but manages to respond
            to every comment.

          25. :-)

          26. Z: “A third is a significant number, and the number with modest means, but above poverty, would be a larger group.

            Why would you assume that?

    3. Harold Saxon

      You said you were here to “remind people of facts and realities.” Your comments have determined that to be a lie.

      You may be in the running for the Lie of The Year 2014.

      1. morganovich

        harold-

        isn’t it fascinating the way that larry uses “everyone does it” to defend policy after policy, yet refuses to accept such a popular verdict when it condemns his own views?

        democracy for thee
        but none of that stuff for me
        babbles our larry

        1. Oh. I accept ALL realities.. no problem..

          it’s not really optional except for wacko birds.

          1. morganovich

            then what’s stopping you
            from seeing reality
            with regard to you?

            you argue badly
            use bad logic on bad facts
            the demos votes: dolt.

          2. Harold Saxon

            Oh. I accept ALL realities.. no problem..

            Your constant cries that Don and Mark claim “minimum wage only has one outcome” has determined that statement to be a lie.

            it’s not really optional except for wacko birds.

            Ergo, you’re a wacko-bird. You just did ad hominum upon yourself. Never seen that before.

          3. Harold Saxon

            http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/minwage1.png

            Case in point.

            To quote George Selgin: “Gross error, indeed!”

          4. Harold Saxon

            Larry, Larry, thank you for providing the evidence to further my case! I think we have seen enough.

            Gross error, indeed!

  6. lies determined by liars…??? jesus harold.

    1. Jon Murphy

      Ad hominum. Day 7

      1. really? and yours and Harolds?

        how wacky can you get Jon?

        this is how you do life boy?

        1. Jon Murphy

          No ad hominum from us. One from you.

          Harry said your statement that you remind people of facts and realities is untrue. That is a judgement on your argument.

          I said your data does not support your conclusion. That is a judgement on your argument.

          You may not like them, but that does not make them ad hominum.

          You may not like the way they were said, but that does not make them ad hominum.

          All ad hominum are personal attacks, but not all personal attacks are ad hominum.

          It is what it is.

          Day 7.

          1. as someone over at CH told you Jon- you don’t know guy. you’re making things up as you go along..

            that’s living in LA LA Land.. which seems to be the preferred mode for some…

            you’re funny..in a sad sort of way.. you know?

          2. Jon Murphy

            A week straight of initiating ad hominum. Kind of weakens your claims.

            Day 7.

          3. what claims?

          4. Harold Saxon

            that’s living in LA LA Land.. which seems to be the preferred mode for some…

            This from the guy who claims Don and Mark and Williams claim minimum wage can have only one outcome.

            Gross error, indeed!

            I’m coining a new phrase. Whenever someone uses a ad hominum-strawman, I’m going to call it a Gross error. Hopefully it catches on.

          5. Jon Murphy

            Your claims that you are merely the victim of ad hominum and you only respond because it’s “the environment.”

            A solid week where you initiated them provides evidence that you are the problem.

            Anyone want to take bets that this extends another day?

          6. Oh no Jon.. I just said I’ll return the favor guy and I’m still outnumbered 10 to 1…

            and then you claimed that personal attacks don’t count bu AHs do.. .more looney tune logic guy…

            no.. I made you boys a deal a long time ago. you be nice and I be nice.. you be ugly and I be ugly.

            clean up your act Jon… and Harold and Morg..

            there is no victim .. other than the truth here..

          7. Jon Murphy

            there is no victim .. other than the truth here..

            That’s the first correct thing you’ve said all day!

          8. Jon Murphy

            and then you claimed that personal attacks don’t count bu AHs do

            I never said that.

            I made you boys a deal a long time ago. you be nice and I be nice.. you be ugly and I be ugly.

            Again, your 7 straight days of initiating (key word there) ad hominum has determined that is a lie.

          9. Harold Saxon

            Anyone want to take bets that this extends another day?

            I’m kind of curious how long the unbroken streak will last.

            What’s the over/under on 2 weeks?

          10. like I said Jon.. I give back when I get…

          11. morganovich

            “like I said Jon.. I give back when I get…”

            if that claim is true
            when do we start getting back
            sensible comments?

          12. Jon Murphy

            ike I said Jon.. I give back when I get…

            I’m guessing you don’t know what the word “initiate” means.

          13. you mean like effing nuts?

            was that “initiate”?

          14. Make a note to self:
            This day is beginning of
            logic from the troll.

          15. you be nice and I be nice.. you be ugly and I be ugly.

            They be smart and you be….

            Oh, that doesn’t work, does it?

          16. sure it does.. thinking oneself as ‘smart’ does not do much at all for “nice”. now does it?

            you’d think that “smart” folks would have no reason to be childish and nasty, eh?

            so it must be something about self-esteem or something, eh?

          17. Jon Murphy

            Larry,

            2 things

            1: I never said “effing nuts.”

            2: Not ad hominum.

            Regardless, 7 consecutive days where you initiated ad hominum. Harry things it could run 2 weeks. I say no. Which one of us are you going to prove right?

            So, you going to keep insisting that you “will play nice if treated nice?” This is just about true as you saying “Mark and Don think only unemployment comes from minimum wage.”

            Both are uncompromising lies.

            So much for “realities and facts.”

          18. Harry Things

            Isn’t that one of the characters in “Owe, My Balls”?

  7. Every time some new income statistics come out, two predictable fallacies follow in their wake: 1) The rich are getting richer, while the poor are falling behind, and 2) the real income of American families has not risen significantly for years.

    Am I the only person to notice that Sowell fails, in the comments quoted, to support his assertion that claims (1) and (2) are false. Presumably, therefore, Sowell’s assertion is false, which is to say that income inequality in America has increased in recent years and that, for years, real incomes of American families have not risen significantly.

    So the argument quoted is simply a non sequitur.

    1. as is much of what he asserts..

    2. Jon Murphy

      He never said they are false. He said they are fallacies. Different things.

      1. A fallacy is a false or mistaken idea. (Merriam Websters Dictionary). Therefore when Sowell says an idea is a fallacy, he asserts that it is false.

        1. Jon Murphy

          No. A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning.

        2. Jon Murphy

          A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

          -Dr. Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, FAMU

          1. when you being talking about fallacies then use the entire narrative to show how they are false.. then what?

            this is how you guys think Jon..it’s loony

            and Jon be sure you know the difference between calling a person a loon and calling his argument loony.. can you figure that out?

          2. Jon Murphy

            Thus further evidence you do not know how to read.

          3. and here you are joining Ron in attacking CanSpeccy…

            you should be ashamed guy…

          4. Jon Murphy

            I did not attack Can. Neither did Ron.

            No clue where you are getting that.

            But this is exactly what I mean when I said you see criticisms as personal attacks. This is just further evidence to support my thesis.

    3. Jon Murphy

      When something is false, it means it’s not true.

      When something is a fallacy, it means it is illogical, or uses poor reasoning.

      What Sowell is saying is that the arguments that come forth from the income inequality and real wages things are poorly reasoned because they rely on these poor statistics.

      He is not saying that those trends are not occurring.

      For example, let’s say a poll is taken, and 60% of respondents say the support Policy X. It would be a fallacy to say that Policy X is a good/useful/successful policy because a majority support it (appeal to popularity fallacy). But that does not mean that the results of the poll are incorrect.

      Sowell is making a judgement based upon the usefulness of the numbers, not their factual properties.

      1. When something is a fallacy, it means it is illogical, or uses poor reasoning.

        Not so. See above.

        Sowell’s use of the term “fallacy” does not conform with the use you infer, since the “fallacies” he enumerates are not arguments, bit factual statements. Therefore, he is using the term “fallacy” in its primary sense, i.;e., a false proposition.

        1. Jon Murphy

          No, no he is not.

        2. Jon Murphy

          Actually, Can, you are inferring there are no arguments. That is incorrect.

    4. Presumably, therefore, Sowell’s assertion is false, which…</i."

      Wow! Talk about faulty reasoning. A failure to support an assertion that a claim is false doesn't mean that claim ISN'T false, and it doesn't mean the assertion is, therefore, false. It only means he hasn't made his case.

      Of course if you were to read the entire Sowell column cited in the blog post rather than relying on the excerpt posted above, you would realize that Sowell does, in fact, support his assertions, and you have ejaculated prematurely.

      1. If Sowell make the fallacies statements and stopped then one could argue his intended meaning but when he spend the rest of the entire article on those subjects it’s pretty clear what his intent is and take some seriously twisted logic to essentially deny the point of the article – the point he was making – without scintilla of evidence other than his assertions and then it gets into CD as if it were gospel and which point said folks deny that’s one he is talking about..

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

        1. Harold Saxon

          Once again, Larry shows he is completely ignorant of the topics he chooses to discuss.

          Facts and realities, indeed!

          1. well the FACT here is ” More insight from Thomas Sowell on income statistics, written in 2000, ”

            and it’s 2014…. and income disparity is not what it was in 2000…

            this is dumb… just more ideological blather … about what Sowell “believes” and not much else but par for the course for those whose orientation is primarily anti-govt to start with.

          2. Jon Murphy

            Day 8.

          3. ” Once again, Larry shows he is completely ignorant of the topics he chooses to discuss.”

            back at ya Jon… are you so dishonest that you keep track of only one out of dozens of others?

            what’s the purpose of that guy? to show just how biased you are?

          4. Jon Murphy

            Actually, there are two logical fallacies here:

            1) ad hominum

            2) Assertion fallacy

            Maybe a 3rd, begging the question, but it’s not entirely clear. Definitely two.

          5. Jon Murphy

            are you so dishonest that you keep track of only one out of dozens of others?

            I’m only counting the days you initiate the ad hominum, not the “dozens of others” you commit during the day.

            Besides, I am only countering your rampant propaganda and reminding people of realities and facts. The reality is you have initiated ad hominum for 8 consecutive days. Those are the facts, guy. Right, guy? Right?

          6. been coming here long enough to see what happens to people who express a dissenting opinion….

            it’s not just me.

            there is a long history of a group here that will not only gang up on individuals but personally attack them …

            and Jon.. you utter not a word of dismay when others do that.. you’re good with it apparently…

            and now you’re keeping track?

            you lack something guy… morals.

            you defend the folks who attack others in cowardly groups and attack the folks who object to it…

            no good Jon.

          7. OFF-TOPIC

            LarryG: there is a long history of a group here that will not only gang up on individuals but personally attack them

            It’s a shame, because it dilutes the relevant content of the thread. But it’s best just to ignore it.

          8. re: the “history”

            You do a better job with it than I do Z… but you have been one of the folks I’ve watched them gang up on.. and thought it just wrong… wrong to not let others express their views even if they disagree and wrong to personally attack them…peak, benji, and others.. just hateful behaviors.

          9. Jon Murphy

            No, Larry. I am merely collecting data to support (or refute) your claim that you are merely the victim here, that you just react.

            8 consecutive days of you initiating (initiate, verb, cause (a process or action) to begin) the attacks suggests that you are the problem and the others are just responding to you, not the other way around.

            Sorry, guy, but them’s the facts. Them’s the realities. Denying reality isn’t going to get you anywhere, guy.

            But, there is a chance these 8 days are anomalous. We’ll see going forward, won’t we? But as of right now, 100% of the data points collected show you started the attacks and everyone else is responding to you. Let’s see if that changes going forward.

          10. Jon – when I see you “collecting” on ALL transgressions, I’ll believe your motives.

            until then, you have long been complicit in doing nothing when others attack..

            why the sudden attack of virtue?

            you lack a basic moral compass guy.. you ignore the avalanche of AH and personal attacks here from others to keep track of one.

            you’re funny guy! sad but funny!

            you need to grow up guy these folks here are not good
            role models.

          11. Jon Murphy

            You see, Larry, the problem is you often see things as personal attacks when they are, in fact, not. Because of this, you lash out at folks who are only trying to have a conversation with you. That’s what you did to me back in June and why I became hostile to you.

            It pretty much happens whenever someone criticizes your argument. Criticism is not a personal attack. Criticism is “the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of an argument.”

            There is a formal structure to criticism. The critic seeks to examine the argument based on formal logical structure and factual nature.

            The rules and structure of criticism are quite ancient, having been developed by Socrates in response to sophism.

            When someone, no matter who, criticizes your argument, you simply cannot take offense from it.

            For example, when you say “All OECD countries have minimum wage laws!” and someone replies “That is a logical fallacy: appeal to popularity, so your argument is illogical” you cannot get offended by that and immediately launch into ad hominum attacks like “This is reality! Are you denying reality?!” That person’s comment is a legitimate criticism of your argument. Your response, however, was illegitimate.

            If you want the cycle to end, you need stop being offended by everything.

            Anticipating your objection, you are allowed your opinion. Dissent all you want. But when your opinion is illogical and your dissent is based upon things that never happened or words never spoken (like this “minimum wage only has one consequence” claim), do not be offended when your argument is dismissed as being illogical or being fantastic.

            Ask yourself one simple question: if you really are the victim here, if you really the oppressed, if you really are just responding to the culture, why is it people aren’t writing letters complaining about my behavior?

          12. and all the others who get attacked also?

            I’m not offended anymore.. I know the rules..and
            I’ll play them per the rest of you.

            you do not get to decide which comments you don’t like and therefore can attack the individual unless of course that’s the same rule for all..

            make up your mind little boy.

          13. Jon Murphy

            Sorry, that link should go here

          14. It’s funny watching the slow-witted troll flail about.

            wrong to not let others express their views even if they disagree..

            It’s not that we disagree. It’s that you’re so dumb, a liar, and corrupt.

          15. Jon Murphy

            If you want to be this way, Larry, fine. But don’t complain. You are voluntarily opting into this.

            You’ve no one to blame but yourself.

  8. re: ” It’s funny watching the slow-witted troll flail about.”

    this is typical here Jon and I never once saw you complain about it.. til now…

    so now you’re “keeping track”?

    ;-)

    what the doda are YOU complaining about NOW?

    there are “victims” here? hahahahah

    you’re funny guy

    1. Jon Murphy

      Um…I’m not even sure that was English…

    2. Like i said, funny stuff!

    3. Jon Murphy

      Look, I get why you are bitter, Larry. Everything you’ve ever known to be true is being shattered before your very eyes. Everything you’ve stood for turns out to be wrong. You are finally seeing that you have become the villains you sought to fight. It’s heartbreaking, I know.

      What’s more, any argument you do put forth is destroyed by myself, a 24-year old kid. Someone half (a third?) your age is showing you up. That must be embarrassing for you.

      So, of course you lash out. It’s a natural reaction. But it’s ok. I forgive you.

      I forgive you. For all the sins you have committed against me and my friends. All the names, all the insults, all the insinuations, accusations, cheap shots, and dirty play. I forgive you.

      1. still Deacon at your Church, guy?

      2. re:

        ” Look, I get why you are bitter, Larry. Everything you’ve ever known to be true is being shattered before your very eyes. Everything you’ve stood for turns out to be wrong. You are finally seeing that you have become the villains you sought to fight. It’s heartbreaking, I know.”

        Good GOD BOY! you ARE delusional!

        What’s more, any argument you do put forth is destroyed by myself, a 24-year old kid. Someone half (a third?) your age is showing you up. That must be embarrassing for you.

        you’re right about the “kid” part but you do need a little more “seasoning”.. just saying…

        So, of course you lash out. It’s a natural reaction. But it’s ok. I forgive you.

        who is lashing out? do you need a moment?

        I forgive you. For all the sins you have committed against me and my friends. All the names, all the insults, all the insinuations, accusations, cheap shots, and dirty play. I forgive you.

        still going to church, eh? Might consider changing brands… you know… this one is not doing if for you.

      3. Jon Murphy

        I forgive you. Even for this post, which is deeply insulting, I forgive you.

        1. that’s effing nuts, Jon!

          1. Jon Murphy

            I didn’t realize forgiveness was a crazy thing (although it kind of explains a lot about you if you think it is).

            Ah well, I guess I’m nuts, because I still forgive you.

          2. Hey , do me a favor..since you are so accommodating…

            can you put your forgiveness in the form of a limerick, please?

            that would be special.

          3. Jon,

            You’re a better man than I am.

            He shows no remorse for his crimes against the truth, logic, and the American taxpayer, so I don’t forgive him.

          4. givemefreedom

            Jon,

            You are also a better man than I. However I fear that your efforts will be wasted. There is always a small chance, very small chance, though that he may see the light.

            Larry, just try to take Jon’s advice. You can always learn something new in your life, even on a blog that is populated by people who obviously have very different views than you. If you take Jon’s advice and start posting your views in a fashion that is easier for other posters to have a reasoned, logical and unheated debate with you then I think you will be amazed at the responses you get from other posters.

            Just try it. What have you to lose? Obviously what you have been doing up till now has not been received well by others here.

          5. Jon Murphy

            Larry, how’s this:

            There once was a man from Nantucket.
            I really suck at limmericks-ucket
            You attack me all day
            And scream and brey
            But it’s ok because you are forgiven…ucket

          6. Jon

            I really suck at limmericks-ucket

            Can’t disagree with that. :)

            If I may, the last line would flow more smoothly as follows:

            But it’s OK, you’re forgiven, so *uckit

          7. Jon Murphy

            Next time, Ron, I am paying you to take my place.

  9. From all of the above it follows that when Sowell says:

    Every time some new income statistics come out, two predictable fallacies follow in their wake: 1) The rich are getting richer, while the poor are falling behind, and 2) the real income of American families has not risen significantly for years.

    He is (a) mistaken, (b) talking through his hat, (c) lying, or (d) all of the above.

    Or to be so clear that even most people here will get it:

    Both of Sowell’s numbered “fallacies” are propositions, not arguments. Therefore, when Sowell calls these propositions “fallacies” he is using the term “fallacy” in its primary sense of a “false idea.” But neither of the propositions enumerated by Sowell is false. Therefore, Sowell is, at the very least, talking through his hat, which is disappointing in view of the fact that he is a professor at a very expensive university.

    1. if you think this is talking through his hat, you should read his “views” on the minimum wage”

      just GOOGLE:

      “thomas sowell” “minimum wage” unemployment

      to get a whos-who of the websites that take as gospel his claim that minimum wage policies lead to unemployment and only unemployment.

      taken as gospel on little more than Sowell insisting it’s true.

      Sowell and company are not about legitimate inquiry into economics.. but rather ideological beliefs they repeat over and over and the acolytes genuflect.

      keeping count Jon Boy?

      1. Well about minimum wage laws he’s probably right. Minimum wage laws are job killers. Thing is, job-market-clearing wages for America’s currently unemployed would have to be below the starvation level for millions.

        the solution is a free labor market with a negative income tax, and idea that excites libertarians to a frenzy.

        1. Jon Murphy

          Why would wages have to fall below starvation for millions?

          1. I don’t know but costs increase for a lot of things – labor and materials for lots of reasons that may not have anything to do with govt – and don’t cause layoffs if those costs can be passed on as higher prices.

            the guy that brings you fuel oil still have to bring you fuel oil even when the price goes up…

            the means of production must support the demand – no matter the costs.

            you only lay off when your demand decreases.. and that can happen even if your prices don’t go up – i.e. a new competitor next door…

            the whole issue is predicated on a conceptual theory that assumes no real world influences just a static labor commodity and a static demand for the same labor with price as the only determinant.

            it only works for theories.

            when you get to real world situations there are lots of other things in play.

            that’s been shown in a number of studies..

            the view towards minimum wage from Sowell is consistent with his view towards income – based on theory.

          2. Jon Murphy

            the whole issue is predicated on a conceptual theory that assumes no real world influences just a static labor commodity and a static demand for the same labor with price as the only determinant.

            *facepalm*

            Please stop repeating this nonsense. You know it’s not true.

          3. here: ” Well about minimum wage laws he’s probably right. Minimum wage laws are job killers.”

            listen to David Henderson:

            ” So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. [Krugman should have pointed out here that Card and Krueger didn’t study employment in general. They studied employment in fast-food restaurants.] Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.”

            tell me Henderson is wrong..

            what exactly are the “other forces” and where does Sowell discuss them?

          4. Jon Murphy

            You really are illogical.

            Do me a favor.

            Let’s pretend, just for the moment, you are right. That Mark, Don, Sowell, Williams, and others claim that minimum wage has only one effect, unemployment.

            That their blogs are always espousing this.

            That they are constantly saying this.

            Why is it, then, that when you make posts like this, you get no back up? Marmico, CanSpeecy, PeakTrader (when he was here), Greg G, Zach…none of them support you. Why is it that you stand alone with this claim? Why is it, whenever you make this claim, no one jumps to defend you? They did on the elderly thing. They do on other things. But why not here? Are you the only one who can read? Everyone, including other dissenters, cannot see what is actually being said?

            Explain to me why you stand alone on this issue. Can you?

          5. Jon – didn’t folks have different views. I would not expect each person to be exactly alike on these issues.

            I base my view on the preponderance of CD/CW blogs, that do include Sowells views that primarily say that minimum wage causes unemployment and little other and they almost never discuss what the other impacts are including what happens when increased costs are passed on as increase prices.

            the majority of mainstream economists think there is SOME effect BUT that the other impacts are greater.

            David Henderson is a good example of someone who acknowledges there are other impacts and that quite a few economists believe those impacts are greater than unemployment.

            So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. [Krugman should have pointed out here that Card and Krueger didn’t study employment in general. They studied employment in fast-food restaurants.] Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

            You say that CD and CH talk about the other impacts.

            How about you show me a couple that talk about them and not unemployment? How about you show me a couple that talk about passing on increased costs to increased prices?

          6. Jon Murphy

            Clearly, you have not read anything written by Don, Mark, Walter, or Thomas.

            Objecting to something that never occurred.

            Gross error indeed!

          7. Why would wages have to fall below starvation for millions?

            Well you’re dealing with probably several tends of millions of people unable to get a job at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 and hour. So for quite a few of them to find employment (several millions I would expect), they’d likely have to accept a wage closer to 72 cents than $7.25 an hour.

            In time, though, one would expect these very low-wage workers would increase in skill and reliability, etc., in which case they would be able to earn more. But during the interim they would most likely need some form of income assistance to lead a normal life, i.e., eat adequately, sleep indoors, commute to work and to dress and groom themselves in a way compatible with their employment.

            A negative income tax is the neatest most efficient and market compatible way for government to supplement the income of such workers. Much more sensible that food stamps, more police and jails to deal with those who turn to crime, etc., etc.

          8. well…always helps to have the data in hand:

            ” Perhaps surprisingly, not very many people earn minimum wage, and they make up a smaller share of the workforce than they used to. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year 1.566 million hourly workers earned the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour; nearly two million more earned less than that because they fell under one of several exemptions (tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others), for a total of 3.55 million hourly workers at or below the federal minimum.”

            and still need to consider that any business that has a continuing demand for their products and services will not lay off people that they need to meet that demand.

            and if they have cost increases to labor or materials for all manner of reasons why – they normally would first, before they lay off, attempt to accommodate the increased costs in various ways in their menu offerings perhaps reducing sizes and quantities a little but keeping the price the same OR if they are in a group of businesses all of which are experiencing the same cost increases – say like a new excise tax – they may well pass those increased costs along in the prices of their products and services.

            the basic theory assumes one commodity – labor and one single way is gets paid for by buyers.. the theory holds static all the various other things that are actually present in a real world circumstance.

            Most economists believe there are more impacts than just unemployment but few, if any studies actually show how the increase gets expressed across the different areas where, for instance, you may have a combination of impacts in some proportion to each other.. that’s why you see respected economists like Henderson say this:

            ” So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. [Krugman should have pointed out here that Card and Krueger didn’t study employment in general. They studied employment in fast-food restaurants.] Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.”

            these are not the words of some ideologue who subscribes to a conceptual theory no matter what – he acknowledges that the are a number of impacts possible and that many mainstream economists are not convinced that there is only one impact.

            look at question B for this poll of credentialed economists from the NYT:

            Is the Distortionary costs of raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour and indexing it to inflation are….

            sufficiently small compared to other benefits….

            that it would be a desireable policy…

            strongly agree 5%
            agree 42%
            uncertain 32%
            disagree 8%
            strongly disagree 3%

            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists-think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

            this is hardly indicative of the claimed truism that all economists believe increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment.

            it’s not just the unemployment.. it’s how much.. what are the other impacts… and are they compensating benefits that almost half think is worth it?

            this goes way, way beyond the basic conceptual theory that treats all labor as one commodity and the market as one type of buyer and the two are so tightly related that only one outcome of increased costs is less demand.

        2. there are quite a few other possible outcomes from increased labor costs.. beside just one – unemployment.

          it’s an example of using a conceptual theory to try to predict theoretical outcomes when many other increases in costs – can get passed on as price increases – like you’d see in high cost areas.

          As long as there is demand for the product – even at higher prices – who would lay off labor you need to meet production?

          an obvious outcome of increased costs including labor prices is increased prices – why is only one increased cost – labor – and even then only minimum wage labor lead to only one outcome?

          Many mainstream economists point out that there are a number of possible ways that the increase can be pushed through the economy.

          Even David Henderson says this:

          So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. [Krugman should have pointed out here that Card and Krueger didn’t study employment in general. They studied employment in fast-food restaurants.] Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.”

          the obvious question is – what are these other forces?

          like increased prices?

          1. Harold Saxon

            When did Can say unemployment was the only effect of minimum wage?

            Is he now a right-wing wacko bird? You were defending him a few hours ago. Amazing how quickly you sell out.

    2. Jon Murphy

      Repeating this still does not make it true.

      You are wrong

        1. Jon Murphy

          Yes, I know. You have fiction. That’s not really a surprise to anyone here.

          1. so… Jon Boy – do you think you accomplished anything?

            are you high-fiving and strutting or are you back where you started – effing nuts again?

            remember Jon – forgiveness…

          2. Jon Murphy

            Accomplished anything?

            Yes, I think I have. Got a whole day out of entertainment from you.

            Also learned something about you: I learned that you think forgiveness is “effing crazy.” Gonna file that away with the time you called reasoned dialogue “arrogant.”

            So, what we have here between you and I is a divergence of values. Whereas I see forgiveness as moral and necessary, you see it as insane. Whereas I value highly reasoned debate, you dismiss it as arrogant. I place a high value on logic and objective evidence, and Socratic debate in order to achieve Truth. You, on the other hand, value that very little. Which is fine. Value is subjective.

            These are important things to know.

            Values are very important. If someone does not value evidence, what evidence can you provide that they should? If someone does not value logic, what logical argument can you provide to show the value of logic?

            So, do I think I have accomplished anything? Yes. I’d say this was a very informative exchange.

            As to forgiveness, in your past few posts since I last forgive you, I did not think you had done anything that needed my forgiveness.

            But, since you come seeking it, I forgive you.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content