Looks Like People Still Care!!

[jeremyrh]

I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo's obviously satirical comparisons seriously to the point of developing arguments against them.   

I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo seriously.  As I've said before, I like Slobo, he is a smart guy, a good writer and a good photographer. But his politics is full of ****

[OmerV]

How would we know that, Andrew? There hasn't been a genuine "private sector" in the U.S. at least since F.D.R. On the other hand, we can look at the history of Henry Ford back when there actually was a private sector and see that it really was a "magic bullet." Same thing with deregulation. How could we judge? There hasn't been any for a long, long time.

Hadn’t the loan industry been deregulated before the recession?

[jeremyrh]

Prices rise for complex reasons.

Indeed, the entire point of a "free market" is that it is the only known way to calculate pricing for things in an economy of non-trivial scale. The problem is literally too large to be calculated, which is basically why planned economies don't work. And yet we have people saying "well, the prices went up because..."

You can calculate prices, but that doesn't get you very far unless your system is at an optimum point, which is never the case. All civilised societies are "planned"; the alternative was tried out in caves.

[JoeKitchen]

Ok, without getting entangled in the semantics of burden, let's see your apparent solution. If "more attainable" or free (higher) education is the solution, then countries like India and China, among others, wouldn't have the poor and "undereducated," right? Or even European countries with free education wouldn't have the poor and undereducated.  And yet...

I was listening to Jordon Peterson (and no, I don't agree with everything he says.  I also listen to liberal podcasters too, lately Jonathan Haidt) and he made a rather interesting observation, which is somewhat depressing.  But it could go a long way to explaining why we seem to always have a 15% poverty rate in this country regardless of how much money we spend. 

He pointed out the US military has an extremely large range of jobs and range of skill set requirements for those jobs, not to mention a very large range of stress levels depending on the particular job.  This range is so big in fact that it somewhat mirrors the range of skills in a normal economy.  Now regardless of this huge range, the military has found that people with an IQ below 85 really cant fit in anywhere and are denied entry, which is about 10% of the population. 

So the military operates with the policy that 10% of the population is too unintelligent to be useful regardless of the very large range in differing levels of job skills it has. 

If you juxtapose this reasoning onto the overall economy, it could be the case that the 10 percentage points of that 15% poverty figure is due to 10% of the population just being too unintelligent to make it out of poverty.  This is a pretty depressing theory, which could be true, and, if so, I cant even imagine how you would fix this.  Although more education can certainly improve overall knowledge, your cognitive skills are pretty much set biologically, so I am not sure more education is really going to change anything. 

The remaining 5 percentage points could be accounted for from people just entering the workforce and therefore not make a lot of money yet, or someone being hit with an accident that puts them in poverty, etc.  Often though, these are temporary positions for most; it's just a large number of people tend to cycle in and out of these situations. 

[RSL]

Hadn’t the loan industry been deregulated before the recession?

You should have posted a couple smileys with that one, Omer. You know perfectly well it was a political effort to buy votes by making housing "more affordable" that pushed freddy mac and fannie mae to make loans to people who had no business borrowing money, and crashed the economy. As usual, the problem was politics and the government was the instigator.

[jeremyrh]

10% of the population just being too unintelligent to make it out of poverty.  This is a pretty depressing theory, which could be true, and, if so, I cant even imagine how you would fix this. 

Really? Surely the fix is blindingly obvious?

[amolitor]

Jordan Peterson is, functionally, an idiot. In reality I suspect that he's fairly bright, but his job is carrying water for conservative interests and he cannot as a general rule be bothered to construct sensible arguments, and he doesn't actually know anything. That works out fine, because reasoned arguments and facts actually have essentially no effect on the opinions and ideas people, we are emotional animals and respond well to propaganda.

The idea that the poor are just stupid is insane. Poverty is a vastly complex multi-faceted problem, and there are plenty of profoundly stupid people who are not poor, good lord.

As soon as he drags out "IQ 85" though, you know he's just throwing dog-whistles.

He's got it all: Rah rah! The military is a great model, because, heros! IQ is actually a thing, not a completely discredited pile of bunk! The poor are just stupid!

It's a gorgeous job of work. It doesn't resemble an argument, but by god it's solid propaganda!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think my biggest surprise with this topic is there are still people on this forum who take Slobo seriously.  As I've said before, I like Slobo, he is a smart guy, a good writer and a good photographer. But his politics is full of ****

Thanks for the other compliments, but your opinion of my politics is just that, an opinion. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say you just don’t like it? I am usually trying to provide reasoned explanations for my politics, so feel free to argue with that, rather than simply dismissing it as ****.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Andrew, righteous indignation doesn’t constitute a sensible argument. Nor is reductio ad absurdum. Or feigned sarcasm. You can do better, occasionally.

[amolitor]

If, when some fellow launches into  an argument, you can reliably predict his conclusion without bothering to look at his argument, you are probably dealing with an ideologue.

This applies even if "some fellow" is yourself.

Have you surprised yourself lately?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If, when some fellow launches into  an argument, you can reliably predict his conclusion without bothering to look at his argument...

Or, perhaps, you are just a pompous ass, full of yourself, too lazy and arrogant to bother looking at the argument? Know-it-all-in-advance kind of guy? I don’t know, just asking.

[JoeKitchen]

Really? Surely the fix is blindingly obvious?

Well point it out?

Beside charity, what do you got?

Amendment: beside charity and the countless programs we have spent money on since the 60s, which has had zero effect of changing the 15% poverty rate, what do you got? 

[amolitor]

Or, perhaps, you are just a pompous ass, full of yourself, too lazy and arrogant to bother looking at the argument? Know-it-all-in-advance kind of guy? I don’t know, just asking.

All things are possible, you appalling, and incredibly rude man.

[RSL]

Which kettle is that, Andrew?

[amolitor]

Seriously, Russ? I was unkind to you one time, for a calculated reason. Slobodan is consistently horrible to everyone.

But it's ME that's the bad guy?

Stuff it.

Oh, wait, let me couch that in classic Slobodan style, so I  can pretend I'm not actually telling you to stuff it:

"If were a less generously inclined,  Russ, I would tell you to stuff it. LOL. Just Kidding.  "

because that's not disingenuous at all.

[JoeKitchen]

Jordan Peterson is, functionally, an idiot. In reality I suspect that he's fairly bright, but his job is carrying water for conservative interests and he cannot as a general rule be bothered to construct sensible arguments, and he doesn't actually know anything. That works out fine, because reasoned arguments and facts actually have essentially no effect on the opinions and ideas people, we are emotional animals and respond well to propaganda.

The idea that the poor are just stupid is insane. Poverty is a vastly complex multi-faceted problem, and there are plenty of profoundly stupid people who are not poor, good lord.

As soon as he drags out "IQ 85" though, you know he's just throwing dog-whistles.

He's got it all: Rah rah! The military is a great model, because, heros! IQ is actually a thing, not a completely discredited pile of bunk! The poor are just stupid!

It's a gorgeous job of work. It doesn't resemble an argument, but by god it's solid propaganda!

I'm pretty sure being "stupid" (as you so rudely put it) can be a really big challenge to overcome, especially when it comes to making a good income.  To insist otherwise is, well, being stupid.  And this is not to say the reasoning for poverty is not a multi-facetted problem, which I alluded to above.  I was merely pointing out something which could be a major cause.  Second, I never said he suggested that he was right and that his theory was proven; it was merely a conjecture that he had. 

Third, lack of evidence does not imply a lack of existence.  Forth, the idea that there exist some, as you put it, "stupid people" that make money does not imply the conjecture is false. 

This is the equivalent of when a person points out that the two parent system is the best way to the raise a child.  Then someone else invariably says, but wait, there are plenty of good single parent households out there and plenty of bad two parent households.  Well no $&*% Sherlock!  But the existence of a few good single parent households does not negate the extremely large amount of statistical evidence that proves two parent households are much better at raising children. 

By the way, for someone who claims to be very learned, I have yet to see you supply an argument in this topic that is not a classic fallacy or a truism.  Actually, most of the time you provide neither, and just insist you're right with no evidence. 

Still waiting on the rebuttal from my K12 post. 

[amolitor]

I am utterly uninterested in constructing detailed arguments on an internet forum. You and I both know what happens:

I spend so-and-so many minutes or hours constructing the thing, and then you spend 30 seconds airily waving it away. This is an asymmetry I have not been draw in in to in some years.  I am not new to the internet.

If, perchance, you are actually interested in following and checking my arguments, I give you the tools to do so. If you read my brief remarks carefully, you can easily work out what sorts of things to look for to see what sources, or kinds of sources, I an referring to. I suspect, based on the structure of your replies, that you have no such interest, but it's certainly possible I am wrong. In either case, best of luck with your research.

[JoeKitchen]

I am utterly uninterested in constructing detailed arguments on an internet forum. You and I both know what happens:

I spend so-and-so many minutes or hours constructing the thing, and then you spend 30 seconds airily waving it away. This is an asymmetry I have not been draw in in to in some years.  I am not new to the internet.

If, perchance, you are actually interested in following and checking my arguments, I give you the tools to do so. If you read my brief remarks carefully, you can easily work out what sorts of things to look for to see what sources, or kinds of sources, I an referring to. I suspect, based on the structure of your replies, that you have no such interest, but it's certainly possible I am wrong. In either case, best of luck with your research.

Ahhh.  The I don't need to explain myself, I'm just right and accept it approach. 

Not a very great counter to my K12 post which gave well thought reasons for inner city education failures and why politicians, who never focus on the actual cause, is making it worse. 

[amolitor]

You may continue to attempt to draw me into an asymmetrical argument on an internet forum, or you could fire up google to see what I am talking about.

Or both, really. The former will not produce any effect, the latter might.

[JoeKitchen]

You may continue to attempt to draw me into an asymmetrical argument on an internet forum, or you could fire up google to see what I am talking about.

Or both, really. The former will not produce any effect, the latter might.

Perhaps you could supply those links for me ...

It is not up to me to prove your argument.