Ahhh. The echo chamber.

bad news on global warming
 

I wonder if they knew that the reports of outright bribery from the energy lobby were going to come out and wanted to distance themselves.

An unlucky veteran with friends in high places.
 

Do you know anyone who doesn't?

Sure -- "smear" in the sense of linking to lengthy, detailed critiques of his work from a respected conservative economist and a lefty journalist. (To which your only response has been to post an op-ed the guy wrote in the WSJ.) With a "smear" like that, I don't have to resort to more conventional name-calling.

That is a far more interesting conversation than where you started today. The question is, why did you have to pretend that the gap between rich and poor isn't widening if you really think it isn't a bad thing.

bad news on global warming
 

I recall seeing that too (posted by John Quiggan at Crooked Timber (hi Penske!)), but that was reported in today's edition of The Guardian.

Yeah -- Ty and I are just like two peas in a pod.

Congratulations, SD -- you put more effort into it than I expected, but in the end when you're pointing to just one man and saying "there is no consensus", you're misusing the word.

That is kind of like saying the Biden-sponsored resolution condemning the "surge" was a "bipartisan" measure when it came out of the committee because one Republican (Hagel) voted for it.

S_A_M

An unlucky veteran with friends in high places.
 

I hear Penske is quite abstemious IRL.

S_A_M

I didn't pretend anything. I read your comment, recalled having read Reynolds' and said "Wait... That isn't settled fact." And I still don't concede it is. That Cowen is a right winger and disagees with Reynolds doesn't prove Reynolds is wrong. I could be wrong - income inequality may ony be overstated. If that were the case, it would still fit into my criotique of your initial argument. When you say "rising inequality," you are offering a conclusory, loaded statment which presents what is not necessarily settled or even negative as something proven and inherently bad. It is more complex than that, and what you've done today is retreate to the most technical meaning of your comment when pressed about it.

The debate over whether it is a bad thing is not interesting to me because I don't care about that. I view inequality of all sorts as a reality of life, and I view any argument, from the left on a humanitarian basis, or from the right on an economic basis, for fiddling around with the economy to change that fact to be senseless. There's Darwinism in everything. We have base safety nets to preserve civilization. Fiddling at a higher level always effects the same result - fucking the middle class.

ETA: Whew, that had a misprint in it the first time around...

A, if you read Cowen and Chait and still think Reynolds might be right, then striking a Cynical Broder is probably a better move than continuing to think about the stuff.

B, we haven't been arguing about whether income inequality is "overstated." You said it was unproven. In support of that position, you've cited three sources that say it exists, and Reynold's WSK op-ed. (In other words, you have a 1-3 record arguing against yourself.)

C, you already said it was complex, so I said, OK, how? What does it show? What does it mean? To which you now say, "it's more complex than that."

D, "more complex" than what? I said Bush gave a good speech.

E, I haven't "retreated" to a technical anything. I've been bitchslapping your stupid argument up and down all over the board.

An unlucky veteran with friends in high places.
 

Opportunities Equal- we will try to hire some minority applicants.

Outcomes Equal- we will keep these minority hires, and all white hires, in complete lock step comp. for their entire careers. We will not promote 1 unless we can promote the lot.


Other than certain biglaw firms no companies promise equal outcome.

It may be that you can manipulate stats like mad, but anecdotally it seems hard to argue, if for no other reaosn that the working class is dropping.

when I came out of HS some kids went to schools- most tried for the Detroit brass ring- get a job at a Big 3 plant. If you got a job at one you would expect to spend 30 years driving in bolts and then retire with a well paid pension.

Last year Delphi (a company spun off from GM) declared b-ruptcy. the main reason was to break UAW contracts. The contracts paid unskilled bolt drivers $28/hour. There were tens of thousands of jobs like that. now there aren't- and there won't be more. 100K for a job any dolt could do- now the uneducated don't have that, and won't have it ever again.

The unskilled middle class is gone. I am at the point of seeing my kids start deciding what to major in to get a decent job going into the 2030s. I am also seeing these poor kids who have so much stacked against them it is scary.

You want to get a look at whether the changes in the economy have teeth? imagine you are telling Sebby Jr. what he should study Freshman year to have long term job prospects in 4 years.

You have not. I said it was more complex and could not be generally described as merely "rising." Implicit in that is the proposition that it is not universally rising among all. I proved that by citing reports which showed that it was not rising in regard to all people. You said "when netted, yes it is." I said, no, even then, the netting is not accurate and cited Reynolds. You said Reynolds as a hack and cited Cowen as proof. I said "Well, Cowne is a reubttal, but he dosn't entirely disprove Reynolds." You said "again, Reynolds is a hack."

You know goddamned well your original post about income inequality was a loaded citation to a buzzword of the Left. I said, it's way more complex than the hysteria "income inequality" has been symbolic of when used by whores like Paul Krugman.

You backed down to a hyper-technical definitio of "income inequality," conceding its complexity, and that it is not universal, but merely "netted" (based on the assumption Cowen trumps Reynolds). If that's a loss for me, I'll take that any day.

I'd tell him to do what he loves. Whatever it is.

I forgot. He's 1. Keep talking theory.

Unless he's realllllllllly well hung, I don't think there is much money in masturbation. I suppose you could refer him to the recent sperm donation thread on the FB.