If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   "When individuality asserts itself, we find that household incomes are nearly always the product of factors other than inequality. Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile"   (americanthinker.com) divider line 153
    More: Fail, median household income, wage gap, progressive taxes, Joseph Stalin, Organization for Economic Cooperation  
•       •       •

2959 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 10:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-05 07:07:58 AM
This article is exhaustingly over-written.

A slog to be sure.
 
2012-05-05 07:28:57 AM
The Economist magazine wouldn't publish my community college statistics paper, but the American Thinker did!
 
2012-05-05 07:56:27 AM
tl;dr
I voted just 'cause the headline.
 
2012-05-05 08:24:01 AM
So, worthless pieces of shiat who don't work hard or go to school or save their money are right where they should be. I don't have a problem with this.
 
2012-05-05 08:27:57 AM
That article seems to be saying: "All statistics are lies. And here's some statistics." And that is, in itself, all lies.

The thrust seems to be that women don't make less than men. But yeah, again, we can actually examine the data and find that women working the same job and the same hours as men take home less money.
 
2012-05-05 08:32:52 AM
These are the sorts of folks who take it on faith that people get what they deserve.

If you make that your initial assumption, then all conservatism follows.
 
2012-05-05 09:03:14 AM
Ah, the compassionate conservative. It's all your fault, no we're not helping you, and now we're going to tax you so we can give that money you don't have to the rich.
 
2012-05-05 09:31:29 AM
I love this paragraph since it fails so goddamned hard:

"But one could just as persuasively argue that the millionaire experiences little drop in marginal utility on the next dollar earned, or he wouldn't consistently drive himself to success. The day laborer's inconsistent work habits could just as easily reflect his low marginal utility for that next dollar earned. (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)"

/ceteris parabis violations
//tard-like grasp on marginal analysis
///self-anointed persuasiveness
//using an anecdote from a work of fiction as economic data
/... oh lawd
 
2012-05-05 09:47:05 AM

GAT_00: Ah, the compassionate conservative. It's all your fault, no we're not helping you, and now we're going to tax you so we can give that money you don't have to the rich.


Well, this has been the conservative playbook for a while now. The point here is to argue that poor people are the way they are because they're losers, so helping them out is a waste of time and money. You there, Mr. Lower Middle Class Voter, on the fringes of the middle class, struggling to get by, on the other hand, are fully capable of getting rich if the government would just get off your back and stop propping up these deadbeats. The system is not definitely rigged to keep wealth concentrated in a tiny little circle. Oh no. It's the welfare moms and crackheads' fault you aren't getting ahead. Definitely not Goldman Sachs.

So, Mr. Lower Middle Class Voter, you see, cutting social programs and giving the richest a tax break won't hurt you. You don't need that, you're a good white moral person (gotta be careful to not make the dogwhistles too obvious) who will do fine when the playing field is leveled and you aren't dragged down by all those deadbeats. So you'll be getting your tax cut soon enough! Just try to not get your house foreclosed, or have a medical crisis that bankrupts you, or have your job downsized and sent overseas, before you can get there!

/this is what Republicans actually believe
 
2012-05-05 09:47:22 AM
Poor people be lazy...
 
2012-05-05 09:53:38 AM

jake_lex: this is what Republicans actually believe


It's what Jesus told them is true!
 
2012-05-05 10:05:27 AM
When individuality asserts itself, we find that household incomes are nearly always the product of factors other than inequality. Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile. He'll find the intelligent youth -- people who will soon enough lift themselves up to higher income quintiles. He'll find the clever poor -- those working under the table and who receive uncounted in-kind welfare. He'll find the intransigent loser whose lousy work habits, belligerence, and high time preference doom him to a hopelessly menial existence.

hmm...so basically, the point here is that 1. all statistics are lies and 2. if you're poor its your own damn fault.
 
2012-05-05 10:18:53 AM
Don't even try to measure economic quantities, because you'll never get it right. But don't worry, the Austrians have it all figured out anyway. And what they've figured out is that the poor should shut the fark up and quit being poor if they don't like it so much.
 
2012-05-05 10:32:59 AM
Well, measuring might not be perfect, but not measuring certainly isn't good either.
 
2012-05-05 10:37:52 AM
So, is this, like, the "Ignorance is Bliss" doctrine?

/WTF did I just read?
 
2012-05-05 10:39:17 AM

SoxSweepAgain: slog


"Your slog sucks!"
 
2012-05-05 10:39:51 AM

Weaver95: When individuality asserts itself, we find that household incomes are nearly always the product of factors other than inequality. Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile. He'll find the intelligent youth -- people who will soon enough lift themselves up to higher income quintiles. He'll find the clever poor -- those working under the table and who receive uncounted in-kind welfare. He'll find the intransigent loser whose lousy work habits, belligerence, and high time preference doom him to a hopelessly menial existence.

hmm...so basically, the point here is that 1. all statistics are lies and 2. if you're poor its your own damn fault.


That's a very expensive way of saying, "Those poors are where they are because they're filthy and lazy!"
 
2012-05-05 10:41:18 AM
You see, they want to be poor! Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit? Can somebody point me to one that wasn't just horrible trolling?
 
2012-05-05 10:42:46 AM

EatHam: Well, measuring might not be perfect, but not measuring certainly isn't good either.


Yeah, because this isn't a way to try to create "results" that back their own preconceptions.

i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-05 10:43:22 AM

Shvetz: Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit?


Because other wise we're showing liberal bias.
 
2012-05-05 10:43:25 AM

verbaltoxin: Weaver95: When individuality asserts itself, we find that household incomes are nearly always the product of factors other than inequality. Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile. He'll find the intelligent youth -- people who will soon enough lift themselves up to higher income quintiles. He'll find the clever poor -- those working under the table and who receive uncounted in-kind welfare. He'll find the intransigent loser whose lousy work habits, belligerence, and high time preference doom him to a hopelessly menial existence.

hmm...so basically, the point here is that 1. all statistics are lies and 2. if you're poor its your own damn fault.

That's a very expensive way of saying, "Those poors are where they are because they're filthy and lazy!"


its a variation on the prosperity gospel - you are poor because GAWD made you poor! if you were right with the Lord, he'd make you rich. Now the right wing is saying that you're poor because you're lazy, but they can't track it because all statistics lie.
 
2012-05-05 10:43:55 AM
(George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)

Oh, FFS American Thinker, can you possibly FAIL any harder than this?
 
2012-05-05 10:45:05 AM
I find the author's insight and analysis on par with his writing skills.
 
2012-05-05 10:45:48 AM

quatchi: (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)

Oh, FFS American Thinker, can you possibly FAIL any harder than this?


Tune in next week.
 
2012-05-05 10:46:27 AM

ginandbacon: quatchi: (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)

Oh, FFS American Thinker, can you possibly FAIL any harder than this?

Tune in next week article.

 
2012-05-05 10:47:15 AM
blogs.reuters.com

Where do you suppose that extra productivity gain is going?
 
2012-05-05 10:48:26 AM
Could American Think please give us a courtesy flush between "articles"? It's just good manners.
 
2012-05-05 10:48:43 AM
When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?
 
2012-05-05 10:51:24 AM

GAT_00: ginandbacon: quatchi: (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)

Oh, FFS American Thinker, can you possibly FAIL any harder than this?

Tune in next week article.


Thank you.
 
2012-05-05 10:52:53 AM

Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?



That phrase insists upon itself.
 
2012-05-05 10:53:16 AM
Anyone who believes otherwise should spend time with someone in the lowest household income quintile. He'll find the intelligent youth -- people who will soon enough lift themselves up to higher income quintiles. He'll find the clever poor -- those working under the table and who receive uncounted in-kind welfare.

Intelligent urban youths will educate themselves, so there's no need to work to improve their schools. In fact, that's just the excuse we need to cut funding further and move some of that money into private schools. And women? Don't even get me started; any woman who wants to earn the same money as a man for doing the same job for the same hours will simply find a way to grow herself a dick.
 
2012-05-05 10:55:11 AM

MithrandirBooga: Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?


That phrase insists upon itself.


This comment is shallow and pedantic.
 
2012-05-05 10:55:58 AM
Poor people are poor cause God hates them.
 
2012-05-05 10:56:11 AM

Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?


Came here to say this exact thing. Thank you.

I mean, I guess based on the point of the article, that wimmins and poor folks is just following the herd, and if they'd just get off their butts and BE THEMSELVES, they'd have money?
 
2012-05-05 10:57:32 AM
Everyone who's poor deserves to be poor.

Don't you believe in Jesus? You must hate America.
 
2012-05-05 10:59:36 AM

redqueenmeg: Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?

Came here to say this exact thing. Thank you.

I mean, I guess based on the point of the article, that wimmins and poor folks is just following the herd, and if they'd just get off their butts and BE THEMSELVES, they'd have money?


<Steven Wright> So I decided that to make money I would be myself. Turns out they already have a guy for that. And he's better at it than I am. </Steven Wright>
 
2012-05-05 10:59:48 AM
That's a whole lot of unnecessary words to espouse what is essentially a Just World fallacy.
 
2012-05-05 11:02:32 AM

GAT_00: EatHam: Well, measuring might not be perfect, but not measuring certainly isn't good either.

Yeah, because this isn't a way to try to create "results" that back their own preconceptions.

[i575.photobucket.com image 640x453]


That single mother must have slept around. You can tell those two guys had different fathers.
 
2012-05-05 11:05:21 AM

quatchi: (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)

Oh, FFS American Thinker, can you possibly FAIL any harder than this?


American Thinker: Challenge Accepted.
 
2012-05-05 11:07:29 AM
Levitt, in Freakonomics, has an interesting take on wealth disparity, arguing that intelligence is the primary long-term determining factor when it comes to wealth. The higher you score on IQ tests, the more wealth you are likely to have.

If this is the case, then the day to day behavior and actions of the "lowest quintile" is only a reflection of their inherent intelligence and not due to structural problems of society. The outcome of that behavior feeds a cycle of poverty which they can't break out of, but even if they were to suddenly come into wealth, they would soon be back in destitution.

He has a lot of crazy ideas, and this is one of the more controversial ones.
 
2012-05-05 11:11:40 AM
you mean to tell me that a lifestyle of frugality, thrift and conscientious spending will more often than not lead to financial stability later on in life? Color me shocked.

Case in point:

You spent how much on Prom?

But the statistic that Visa describes as "troubling" is how prom spending differs by family income. In general, the lower the income bracket, the more Americans are likely to spend on prom. For parents who make more than $75,000 a year, for example, prom spending averages about $850. For those making between $20,000 and $29,999, average prom spending leaps to $2,635 - the most of any income bracket.
 
2012-05-05 11:14:34 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Levitt, in Freakonomics, has an interesting take on wealth disparity, arguing that intelligence is the primary long-term determining factor when it comes to wealth. The higher you score on IQ tests, the more wealth you are likely to have.

If this is the case, then the day to day behavior and actions of the "lowest quintile" is only a reflection of their inherent intelligence and not due to structural problems of society. The outcome of that behavior feeds a cycle of poverty which they can't break out of, but even if they were to suddenly come into wealth, they would soon be back in destitution.

He has a lot of crazy ideas, and this is one of the more controversial ones.


In other words money doesn't really change a person it just makes them more of what they already are.
 
2012-05-05 11:15:09 AM

jake_lex: GAT_00: Ah, the compassionate conservative. It's all your fault, no we're not helping you, and now we're going to tax you so we can give that money you don't have to the rich.

Well, this has been the conservative playbook for a while now. The point here is to argue that poor people are the way they are because they're losers, so helping them out is a waste of time and money. You there, Mr. Lower Middle Class Voter, on the fringes of the middle class, struggling to get by, on the other hand, are fully capable of getting rich if the government would just get off your back and stop propping up these deadbeats. The system is not definitely rigged to keep wealth concentrated in a tiny little circle. Oh no. It's the welfare moms and crackheads' fault you aren't getting ahead. Definitely not Goldman Sachs.

So, Mr. Lower Middle Class Voter, you see, cutting social programs and giving the richest a tax break won't hurt you. You don't need that, you're a good white moral person (gotta be careful to not make the dogwhistles too obvious) who will do fine when the playing field is leveled and you aren't dragged down by all those deadbeats. So you'll be getting your tax cut soon enough! Just try to not get your house foreclosed, or have a medical crisis that bankrupts you, or have your job downsized and sent overseas, before you can get there!

/this is what Republicans actually believe


Welcome to my faves list, man. I love a good insightful political rant. :)
 
2012-05-05 11:17:54 AM
I love how money = success to this sad pathetic party we call Republicans. A firefighter or someone mentally ill struggling to pay their bills is just a worthless piece of shiat...
 
2012-05-05 11:19:16 AM

culebra: That's a whole lot of unnecessary words to espouse what is essentially a Just World fallacy.


No, no, he thought it up all by himself. You can tell by all the unnecessary words he used to say, "Poor people are stupid."

Stephen Mauzy is a financial writer and principal of S.P. Mauzy & Associates.

= "I got my job because my daddy knew a guy."
 
2012-05-05 11:24:27 AM

redqueenmeg: Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?

Came here to say this exact thing. Thank you.

I mean, I guess based on the point of the article, that wimmins and poor folks is just following the herd, and if they'd just get off their butts and BE THEMSELVES, they'd have money?


Thirded.

/ Btw, just went to your profile because I dig your style. Hello, fellow theater Farker!

// Yeah, I jumped ship to politics, but whatever. ;)
 
2012-05-05 11:26:00 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Levitt, in Freakonomics, has an interesting take on wealth disparity, arguing that intelligence is the primary long-term determining factor when it comes to wealth. The higher you score on IQ tests, the more wealth you are likely to have.

If this is the case, then the day to day behavior and actions of the "lowest quintile" is only a reflection of their inherent intelligence and not due to structural problems of society. The outcome of that behavior feeds a cycle of poverty which they can't break out of, but even if they were to suddenly come into wealth, they would soon be back in destitution.

He has a lot of crazy ideas, and this is one of the more controversial ones.


There are a lot of things that have an influence on how "intelligent" somebody is. There's evidence that intelligence is affected by the mother's health care while the baby is still in utero. Lots of studies have also found a link between intelligence and the quality of pre-K education the kid receives. If the child doesn't get these positive influences, they're essentially starting life with a broken-down Pinto while others already have a Maserati. That's the devastating aspect of his theory. People who would otherwise be the next Bill Gates are consigned to a low ceiling because they had the gall and the sheer audacity to choose to be born to poor parents who couldn't give them a leg up. Not only is that a tremendous waste of our human capital, it is also cruel and unusual punishment considering he is innocent.
 
2012-05-05 11:26:03 AM

Too much free-market derp to read and respond to.

[ the author is writing about Hong Kong but doesn't mention the Opium Wars - the first "free-market" war fought and won for the "right" of corporations to addict Chinese peasants to opium. ]

Anyway we get this typical babble:

Rare is the bureaucrat and other overhead who will acknowledge such an obvious limitation. Cowperthwaite could; most can't. From the outside looking in, markets appear as irrational and uncoordinated as the flight paths of a million butterflies. Surely a guiding hand, backed by the iron fist of government, can instill order, and thus push the economy closer to utilitarian efficiency.


Free marketeers are against government regulation, intervention, and in the worst case Soviet style "command economies" where the government decides that it is wasteful to have say 20 different factories building say 40 different types of bicycles so it decides that only 1 factory should build the 3 best bicycle types.

They think that government monopolies are bad as are regulation and intervention to prevent private monopolies.

And meanwhile almost all corporations are run as "command economies" - it is rare for a company to produce products that actually compete with each other. Mostly so called competing products are targeted to different market segments.
 
2012-05-05 11:27:04 AM

HairBolus: the author is writing about Hong Kong


I'm guessing he didn't mention the fact they have universal health care either huh?
 
2012-05-05 11:29:12 AM

Shvetz: Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit?


img338.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report