Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7275)

handle 01-04-2012 12:09 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236089)
reunited at last!

I knew you were a closet intellectual. B&B are pretty deep. Sure you can grok?

Don Zeko 01-04-2012 12:10 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236099)
you betcha.

So what would be your simple, obvious answer to my question?

Those mathematical equations make up a model that attempts to recreate the behavior of a real economic system in the way that a map recreates the land it describes. The model will make predictions about how the system will work in different situations. If those predictions turn out to be accurate, then we can conclude that the model is probably a mostly accurate depiction of reality. If they don't, then we need to find a new model or revise the old one.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 12:40 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 236103)
Those mathematical equations make up a model that attempts to recreate the behavior of a real economic system in the way that a map recreates the land it describes. The model will make predictions about how the system will work in different situations. If those predictions turn out to be accurate, then we can conclude that the model is probably a mostly accurate depiction of reality. If they don't, then we need to find a new model or revise the old one.

But it really isn't that simple at all. Isn't it true that models can be interpreted in different ways? and that interpretations can be incorrect. This wouldn't be so bad if these were just models on a blackboard in some classroom but these models affect policy and by extension, the economy.

For instance, the Laffer Curve. There are many people who swear that Laffer modeled the perfect tax rate structure and there are those who think he was some incarnation of the devil.

Quote:

The fundamental issue is circularity: embedding one's assumptions as foundational "input" axioms in a model, then proceeding to "prove" that, indeed, the model's "output" supports the validity of those assumptions. Such a model is consistent with similar models that have adopted those same assumptions. But is it consistent with reality?

sugarkang 01-04-2012 12:46 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235976)
??? Do you really think the ubiquity of cell phones is at all a compensation for the fact that families used to be able to survive on the income of one wage earner, and now cannot?

Do you think it's unfair that the bottom 20% of Americans live better lives than the rest of the world's 80%? Yay Americans, fuck everyone else?

miceelf 01-04-2012 01:43 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236110)
Do you think it's unfair that the bottom 20% of Americans live better lives than the rest of the world's 80%? Yay Americans, fuck everyone else?

I just don't think the solution is to ensure that the bottom 80% of Americans are dragged down to the level of the most destitute person in the world. Why isn't there concern about the unfairness of how the top 10% of Americans are living, if it's so tragic that the poorest Americans aren't poor enough?

handle 01-04-2012 02:39 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236041)
Families haven't been able to survive on the income of one wage earner (or haven't thought they could) for at least thirty years and that was largely due to women entering the workforce in large numbers.

Badhat wins the Fox award by throwing her own gender under the bus.
You could at least have tempered it by pointing the remaining fingers on that hand at the gays, blacks, immigrants, and minimum wage teenagers.
I liked the post better before you edited it.

uncle ebeneezer 01-04-2012 02:57 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Damn all those shrill feminists and their 83-cents-on-the-(male)-dollar wages!!1!

sugarkang 01-04-2012 03:21 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236166)
I just don't think the solution is to ensure that the bottom 80% of Americans are dragged down to the level of the most destitute person in the world. Why isn't there concern about the unfairness of how the top 10% of Americans are living, if it's so tragic that the poorest Americans aren't poor enough?

I am concerned about it. I've been on record saying that the rich should pay more. I've also said that the left has a fantastical notion that undoing Bush tax cuts would fix everything. Furthermore, I find it deeply troubling that Gallup polls find socialism more popular than capitalism.

Did you get anything out of Capitalism and Freedom?

handle 01-04-2012 03:50 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 236173)
Damn all those shrill feminists and their 83-cents-on-the-(male)-dollar wages!!1!

Careful Unc, we are treading dangerously close to getting slapped with a jpeg of Beavis and Butthead.. nobody wants that!

badhatharry 01-04-2012 05:16 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236171)
I liked the post better before you edited it.

Thanks, except I realized that it didn't address miceelf's post well enough. However that wouldn't really matter to you since your style is entirely non-sequiter.

Quote:

Badhat wins the Fox award by throwing her own gender under the bus.
You could at least have tempered it by pointing the remaining fingers on that hand at the gays, blacks, immigrants, and minimum wage teenagers.
How is pointing out a well known sociological phenomenon throwing my gender under the bus?

handle 01-04-2012 05:26 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236191)
Thanks, except I realized that it didn't address miceelf's post well enough. However that wouldn't really matter to you since your style is entirely non-sequiter.

Got to hand it to you. You have successfully rephrased and reposted your "I don't get it so it's meaningless" retort. Well played once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236191)
How is pointing out a well known sociological phenomenon throwing my gender under the bus?

Perhaps I was expressing my skepticism that it is one in a clever way.
But since you did not read it that way, then I wasn't.
That about right?

miceelf 01-04-2012 06:25 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236176)
I am concerned about it. I've been on record saying that the rich should pay more. I've also said that the left has a fantastical notion that undoing Bush tax cuts would fix everything. Furthermore, I find it deeply troubling that Gallup polls find socialism more popular than capitalism.

Did you get anything out of Capitalism and Freedom?

Well, people were promised the capitalism would solve all ills and lift all boats, so it's not surprising if some people are mistakenly souring on it. Most serious people recognize that capitalism isn't a guarantee of all goodness and especially without some kind of regulation and effort toward equality of opportunity.

It's been a few years but I remember capitalism and freedom as having some good ideas, but gave short shrift to the degree to which transparency isn't a given without some regulation and in general a little magical thinking about how it would inevitably lead to the best possible outcomes without effort toward the outcomes that most serious conservatives acknowledge are orthogonal to capitalism. Of course, I was reading it through the prism of the mid Bush years which was when I read it, so I was not in an overly generous mood.

And, yes, you've said that the rich should pay more and that it's not a panacea. But "the rich should pay more" is a little different than "the rich should be satisfied as long as they're better off than the poor in bangladesh" which seemed to be where you were headed with regard to the bottom of the American economic pile. If we were to tax the rich to the level at which you were arguing Americans should be satisfied, we would indeed be pretty close to solving the deficit problem. But neither of us is actually proposing that.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 06:58 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236195)
Perhaps I was expressing my skepticism that it is one in a clever way.

I would never call you clever.

PS. Why don't you just say what you mean? if you are aware of what that is, of course.

handle 01-04-2012 07:10 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236206)
I would never call you clever.

PS. Why don't you just say what you mean? if you are aware of what that is, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236195)
But since you did not read it that way, then I wasn't.
That about right?

C'mon Badhat, you can do this.

Or are you deflecting from the fact you can't defend your assertion that the women's liberation movement played a large role in creating the need for dual incomes?

I'll translate:
You, badhat, pretend not understand, to avoid defending statements.
Like:
1.Meaningless sentences make up progressive narrative.
2.Women working made need for women to work.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 07:20 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236200)
Well, people were promised the capitalism would solve all ills and lift all boats, so it's not surprising if some people are mistakenly souring on it. Most serious people recognize that capitalism isn't a guarantee of all goodness and especially without some kind of regulation and effort toward equality of opportunity.

It's been a few years but I remember capitalism and freedom as having some good ideas, but gave short shrift to the degree to which transparency isn't a given without some regulation and in general a little magical thinking about how it would inevitably lead to the best possible outcomes without effort toward the outcomes that most serious conservatives acknowledge are orthogonal to capitalism. Of course, I was reading it through the prism of the mid Bush years which was when I read it, so I was not in an overly generous mood.

You can be completely hostile to the book; that's perfectly fine. I just find it hard to believe that you could say the above after having read it. While I didn't read that specific book, I did read the simplified version published afterward.

Quote:

And, yes, you've said that the rich should pay more and that it's not a panacea. But "the rich should pay more" is a little different than "the rich should be satisfied as long as they're better off than the poor in bangladesh" which seemed to be where you were headed with regard to the bottom of the American economic pile. If we were to tax the rich to the level at which you were arguing Americans should be satisfied, we would indeed be pretty close to solving the deficit problem. But neither of us is actually proposing that.
I think you meant the poor should be satisfied? No, I wouldn't tell the poor how to feel about their economic situation. I made a factual assertion, not a normative one. It is a fact that our bottom 20% are better off than the rest of the world's 80%. So, if birth into the world is pure chance, there's an 80% likelihood that your life would be worse than America's poorest, e.g., perpetual war, disease, starvation, manual labor, lack of clean water, plumbing, electricity, etc.

TwinSwords 01-04-2012 07:20 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236200)
And, yes, you've said that the rich should pay more and that it's not a panacea. But "the rich should pay more" is a little different than "the rich should be satisfied as long as they're better off than the poor in bangladesh" which seemed to be where you were headed with regard to the bottom of the American economic pile. If we were to tax the rich to the level at which you were arguing Americans should be satisfied, we would indeed be pretty close to solving the deficit problem. But neither of us is actually proposing that.

Here's a quick visual of the impact of letting the Bush tax cuts expire:

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/8...ternative1.jpg

And the corresponding article:

Quote:

... the medium-term budget outlook is perfectly fine if Congress adheres to the law as it’s currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more “doc fixes.”

Helpfully, CBO juxtaposed these two alternative futures in a pair of graphs and, just as last time, it projects that deficits will disappear entirely by the end of President Obama’s second term (if he gets a second term) if Congress were to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 07:25 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 236212)
...

LOL. Projections to the year 2035!

miceelf 01-04-2012 07:25 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236211)
I think you meant the poor should be satisfied? No, I wouldn't tell the poor how to feel about their economic situation. I made a factual assertion, not a normative one. It is a fact that our bottom 20% are better off than the rest of the world's 80%. So, if birth into the world is pure chance, there's an 80% likelihood that your life would be worse than America's poorest, e.g., perpetual war, disease, starvation, manual labor, lack of clean water, plumbing, electricity, etc.

Sure, although you characterized concern for American poor as kind of a national chauvinism.

But there's a 99.999999999% chance that someone born into the world will be worse than America's well-to-do. I just don't see how a statement about how good it is to be poor in America can be disentangled from how good it is to be rich in America.

miceelf 01-04-2012 07:27 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236213)
LOL. Projections to the year 2035!

It's either out of bounds to use the CBO or it isn't. I take it from the above you think it is out of bounds.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 07:38 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236215)
Sure, although you characterized concern for American poor as kind of a national chauvinism.

But there's a 99.999999999% chance that someone born into the world will be worse than America's well-to-do. I just don't see how a statement about how good it is to be poor in America can be disentangled from how good it is to be rich in America.

You see an obligation for the rich to equalize outcomes. That's not something I believe in some moral sense. I think the rich should pay because they're threatening the future of capitalism entirely if conditions get worse. In other words, we believe in higher taxes for the rich for completely different reasons.

I'm saying the American way of life has afforded our bottom 20% better outcomes than the rest of the world's 80%.


Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236217)
It's either out of bounds to use the CBO or it isn't. I take it from the above you think it is out of bounds.

You can make reasonable predictions about who might win the World Series next year. You can't possibly do that for the year 2035. (Yankees)

TwinSwords 01-04-2012 07:52 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236223)
I'm saying the American way of life has afforded our bottom 20% better outcomes than the rest of the world's 80%.

Yep. Thanks to the American left, which your kind have been violently opposing since, oh, about the first decade of the 20th century. We've done a lot of good, while you're determined to roll back the clock and restore the "natural capitalist order."

sugarkang 01-04-2012 08:01 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 236231)
Yep. Thanks to the American left, which your kind have been violently opposing since, oh, about the first decade of the 20th century. We've done a lot of good, while you're determined to roll back the clock and restore the "natural capitalist order."

Ahh. How quickly we regress to the ad hominem. I'm always willing to have substantive conversations with people. I don't know why people don't want to have them with me.

TwinSwords 01-04-2012 08:12 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236234)
Ahh. How quickly we regress to the ad hominem. I'm always willing to have substantive conversations with people. I don't know why people don't want to have them with me.

I didn't think that was an ad hominem. I thought it was a straightforward description of your libertarian philosophy. Or are you a closet socialist, now?

miceelf 01-04-2012 08:32 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236223)
You see an obligation for the rich to equalize outcomes.

No, I actually don't. As I said, I just don't see how we can demand that the poor in America be grateful without making a proportionate demand of the wealthy in America.

AemJeff 01-04-2012 08:46 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236234)
Ahh. How quickly we regress to the ad hominem. I'm always willing to have substantive conversations with people. I don't know why people don't want to have them with me.

No, no no! This is ad hominem:

Quote:

Your argument is meaningless, because you're incapable of substantively engaging on this or any other topic.

stephanie 01-04-2012 09:02 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236246)
No, I actually don't.

I was rather wondering where that strange claim came from.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 09:08 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 236235)
I didn't think that was an ad hominem. I thought it was a straightforward description of your libertarian philosophy. Or are you a closet socialist, now?

20% / 80%. Let's stay on topic, hmm?


Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 236250)
No, no no! This is ad hominem:

Donuts?

sugarkang 01-04-2012 09:17 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236246)
No, I actually don't. As I said, I just don't see how we can demand that the poor in America be grateful without making a proportionate demand of the wealthy in America.

I see. My word choice was poor. I should've said that you want to move towards less inequality through redistribution and it looks like you've confirmed that. If you'll recall, we've had this conversation months ago and it was a long one. The conclusion was the same as it is now: let Bush cuts expire. Absolutely.

Then what? And what if that doesn't work? Increase taxes again? Then what? I really want to know what's the alternative plan.

miceelf 01-04-2012 11:33 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236257)
I see. My word choice was poor. I should've said that you want to move towards less inequality through redistribution and it looks like you've confirmed that. If you'll recall, we've had this conversation months ago and it was a long one. The conclusion was the same as it is now: let Bush cuts expire. Absolutely.

Then what? And what if that doesn't work? Increase taxes again? Then what? I really want to know what's the alternative plan.

HOnestly, for me, let tax cuts expire. First for the top, then for everyone else in a year. Close the capital gains loophole. Then if there's still structural deficit problems, we figure out what to cut.

badhatharry 01-05-2012 12:34 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236210)
Or are you deflecting from the fact you can't defend your assertion that the women's liberation movement played a large role in creating the need for dual incomes?

I can absolutely defend it but you never asked me to. Instead you used some sort of strange thing you describe as cleverness to indict me for saying it. And what's more you insinuated that saying such a thing is horrible beyond belief and essentially throws women under the bus. Liberal kneejerk nonsense, again. I should probably say just kneejerk nonsense and leave the liberal out of it.

Here's what I said:
Quote:

Families haven't been able to survive on the income of one wage earner (or haven't thought they could) for at least thirty years and that was largely due to women entering the workforce in large numbers.
So apparently, according to you, the increased income that families enjoyed due to women entering the workforce did absolutely nothing to the economy. Families weren't able to buy more things and increase their standard of living which resulted in greater costs to familes in the form of more expensive housing, more cars, more stuff, more education costs because they now had to educate their daughters, more debt obligations, child care, etc. And according to you it is very controversial, almost heretical, to say that over time the standard of living for the average family rose to such an extent that two incomes were needed to sustain it.

But I will admit that my time frame was off. It would probabaly be more accurate to date the dramatic increase of women in the workplace to be around 1960 which would make it fifty years.

TwinSwords 01-05-2012 12:51 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236265)
HOnestly, for me, let tax cuts expire. First for the top, then for everyone else in a year. Close the capital gains loophole. Then if there's still structural deficit problems, we figure out what to cut.

Yeah, I agree. Plus some drastic cuts to the military, and we could be running surpluses.

I think we all know we do have a long term problem with Medicare; something has to be done to fix that problem. But, as sugarkang pointed out, simply letting the Bush tax cuts carries us at least through 2035. Maybe over the course of the next 4, 8, or 12 years we'll be able to advance the national conversation about the best remedy for skyrocketing health care costs, helping us to agree on a better solution. I'm not an expert on health care policy, but my impression is that the best way to control costs would be with single payer. If we could ever neutralize influence of the tea party and corporate dominance of our political system, we might be able to elect enough reality-based representatives to fix the problem in a way that doesn't, like the Ryan Plan, sacrifice millions of lives on the altar of libertarianism.

We're the richest and most technologically advanced nation on earth. We can figure out a way to take care of our people in their old age. It's just a question of willingness. The problem isn't that we can't; it's that we have a radical faction of far right extremists who don't want us to: they're the people Ron Paul whipped into a frenzy by championing the death of the uninsured. As long as people of that (lacking) moral character dominate our politics, we won't be able to solve these problems.

sugarkang 01-05-2012 01:40 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 236274)
We're the richest and most technologically advanced nation on earth. We can figure out a way to take care of our people in their old age. It's just a question of willingness. The problem isn't that we can't; it's that we have a radical faction of far right extremists who don't want us to: they're the people Ron Paul whipped into a frenzy by championing the death of the uninsured. As long as people of that (lacking) moral character dominate our politics, we won't be able to solve these problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 236271)
To be honest, a lot of people are going to have strong doubts about your morality if you connect yourself to Ron Paul. I personally think doing so is morally inexcusable. The man is a revolting, disgusting peddlar of hate, and if that doesn't cause you to run away from him as fast as you can, the question becomes, "What's wrong with you? How can you be so morally blind and morally bankrupt that you would not only associate your own name with his, but help to promote him?" There can be no justification or excuse for doing either.

Pathological altruism.

Quote:

Altruism can be beneficial at every level of society—a brother’s love, a neighbor willing to lend a helping hand, a philanthropist’s endowment. But in the same way, pathologies of altruism can be harmful in many ways, at many levels. The Germans followed Hitler not because they believed he was evil, but because they believed that by following him, they were doing something good.

...

Pathological altruism is associated with disorders and conditions such as anorexia, the amorphous traits of codependency, animal hoarding, depression, excessive and misplaced guilt, and self-righteousness. It is also seen in suicide bombing—the one common trait of suicide bombers is their sense of altruism for those who share their ideology. Pathologies of altruism can even underlie genocide. A Rwandan Hutu, for example, didn’t wake up in the morning and think “Gee, I’m feeling totally evil today—I’m going to go out and kill Tutsis.” No—instead, he thought—“I’ve got to protect my family and people against those cockroaches, the Tutsis.” In other words, it was feelings of altruism, as well as hatred, that impelled many Hutus to kill.
I wrote this last year. I might have to sue this woman for copyright infringement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 220627)
Why do liberals always fail to grasp the fundamental pre-requisites for Nazism. It's not a coincidence that the long form name for Nazis is the National Socialist Party. These people did not wake up each morning to say, "What evil can I do today?" No, they said, "How many Tea Partiers (Jews) can I kill to make the world a better place?" Evil in such magnitude can only come from an overriding moral purpose; this propensity to do good, no matter the cost.

...

Evil happens whenever an in-group decides that the out-group is evil. Evil is a self fulfilling prophecy. Evil happens when you declare another person is evil. Evil happens when you believe that you're so adamantly right that you need to shut the other person up. It's when you feel that we'd all be better off if we just wiped the "others" out, tuned "them" out, didn't have to listen to them, shut them the fuck up, put them on an ignore list.

You seriously scare me. Seriously, don't hurt anyone.

badhatharry 01-05-2012 02:06 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236280)

You seriously scare me. Seriously, don't hurt anyone.

a walk down memory lane! most of the good stuff landed in the dungeon. impressive effort on your part.

but, i've got to admit i still don't quite get the nazi thing or think it may be a bit extreme. but i could be wrong. there doesn't seem like a really good explanation for some of the stuff that goes on here.

miceelf 01-05-2012 06:07 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236280)

Do you think all altruism, or most of it, is pathological?

Ocean 01-05-2012 07:50 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236293)
Do you think all altruism, or most of it, is pathological?

No, he thinks that putting some weirdo given to drama, whining, and inappropriate insults in an ignore list is the same as sending millions of people to be tortured and killed in concentration camps. And all that happens while one is trying to do some good.

Conclusion: do evil for better results?

Go figure.

badhatharry 01-05-2012 09:32 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 236302)
No, he thinks that putting some weirdo given to drama, whining, and inappropriate insults in an ignore list is the same as sending millions of people to be tortured and killed in concentration camps. And all that happens while one is trying to do some good.

Conclusion: do evil for better results?

Go figure.

oh my goodness! the mask comes off.

badhatharry 01-05-2012 09:47 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236293)
Do you think all altruism, or most of it, is pathological?

only in the case of animal hoarding. :)

miceelf 01-05-2012 09:56 AM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236310)
only in the case of animal hoarding. :)

Well, we agree for once. Mark your calendar- I've marked mine.

sugarkang 01-05-2012 04:33 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236293)
Do you think all altruism, or most of it, is pathological?

Come on, man. Why have you been doing this lately? Can we not extrapolate to extremes? I provided a link and everything.

Altruism is good. It's the pathological part that makes it pathological. The book is important because it identifies what I've noticed for quite some time: the moral certainty and hatred that some people have on here. This is the same sort of rational thinking that allows someone to murder a doctor who performs abortions or firebomb a clinic.

This has nothing to do with ideology. You have to know that when eeeeeeeli was a more frequent commenter, I rarely if ever exchanged uncivil words with him and he was quite possibly the most socialist person on this board.

I'm not saying TS will go out and commit horrible acts. You need physical violence and intent to do so for it to qualify. Thoughts are not enough; words are not enough. But this type of thinking, this so called pathological altruism, is a necessary, not a sufficient. And that means you don't get horrible behavior if you don't have this type of thinking.

Because the left shares similar moral sensibilities, it might be difficult for a liberal to distinguish between altruistic and pathologically altruistic sentiments. After all, that's a subjective evaluation. This happens to people on the right as well, like in my abortion clinic example. I am not trying to score points here.

But one should take note that of the 6 factors for moral foundations, conservatives have all 6, as do virtually everyone else in the world. Liberals, by contrast, only have 4. See Haidt. So, that's where the bias creeps in. You can't see it if you don't have it.

handle 01-05-2012 05:18 PM

Re: Matt Yglesias: Creating Jobs by Cutting Wages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236272)
I can absolutely defend it but you never asked me to. Instead you used some sort of strange thing you describe as cleverness to indict me for saying it. And what's more you insinuated that saying such a thing is horrible beyond belief and essentially throws women under the bus. Liberal kneejerk nonsense, again. I should probably say just kneejerk nonsense and leave the liberal out of it.

Talk about kneejerk. Not to mention dishonestly paraphrased, but you didn't understand what I was saying, right? BTW the "clever" comment was sarcasm. You are right about my cleverness, I could never think up anything as clever as a JPEG of beavis and butthead. Or Harkin drooling and spitting his vile "nanny state" nonsense. I came across that PM you sent me by mistake recently, cheerleading how fantastic his post was... cleverness in action, to be sure! By whoever made up his stale talking points in the first place, that is.
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236272)
So apparently, according to you, the increased income that families enjoyed due to women entering the workforce did absolutely nothing to the economy. Families weren't able to buy more things and increase their standard of living which resulted in greater costs to familes in the form of more expensive housing, more cars, more stuff, more education costs because they now had to educate their daughters, more debt obligations, child care, etc. And according to you it is very controversial, almost heretical, to say that over time the standard of living for the average family rose to such an extent that two incomes were needed to sustain it.

But I will admit that my time frame was off. It would probabaly be more accurate to date the dramatic increase of women in the workplace to be around 1960 which would make it fifty years.

What you said was about survival, not standard of living, but I think women's liberation, as you put it pre-edit, had little to do with SURVIVAL depending on two wage earners. I think most of our economic ills are due to the scrapping and exporting of our manufacturing base, and your finger pointing at social issues are just smoke and mirrors put in your field of vision intended to divert attention long enough to finish the job.

This is all pretty hard to quantify with hard facts IMO. But since you got to make a causal connection between a far right conservative social beef and an economic consequence, then it was pretty clear from the start what the angle was. Defending would, as evidenced by your response, only amount to reiteration.

The real problem I had with your comment is that you seem to be arguing for reversing the trend, and think we ought to turn back the clock on this, hence the bus reference. You would do much better to clarify that aspect of it, but once again your reading comprehension level gets you off the hook as you had no idea what my crazy ramblings were driving at, right?

Before you get all rabidly partisan on me (again), I've said it before and I'll say it again, this was a group effort, all ideological, political, demographic, race, and gender divisions are responsible. But if you want to continue to believe it was the evil, (I paraphrase for effect sometimes) "progressive narrative" at play, I really don't care, 'cause those jobs ain't coming back unless everyone gets thier head out of their ass ASAP, and I'm not holding my breath.

Don't worry, This forum is about to go down the tubes and I probably won't be calling you on your "aw shucks" "Fox and Friends" inspired passive aggression anymore. But keep the links to those JPEGs on your desktop just in case!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.