Panther, I don't think Glenn wants you to apologize for living in a rich country or to regress to make things fair. Rather, he is pointing out that contrary to Bill's assertion that pareto sytle wealth distributions occuring because the wealthy "get it" and other's don't, a lot of this is happening because of structural situations that individuals don't control. We can't take credit, individually, for our vastly greater wealth compared with impoverished nations and people doing subsistence farming. We have that greater wealth because we were born into a stable democracy (er, constitutional republic?) with good sanitation, infrastructure, education, and preexisting wealth. That'll set up a lot of the resultant wealth whether or not you "get it."
On the other hand, that macrocosm illustrates that the USA "gets it" to a greater extent than subsaharan Africa. Those countries are largely corrupt, inefficient, qustionable rule of law, poor incentives for innovation and wealth creation, run by dictators. USA has been doing some dumb sheet recently but overall we're closer to ideal. I don't feel guilty about that nor do I feel guilty about having more than others BUT I do feel deeply thankful and lucky rather than all personally responsible for where I am. Bill would probably note that wealth redistribution at this macrocosm level doesn't work either; tons of aid has poured into these dysfunctional nations and they're still dirt poor. THAT effort should be stopped. It's ineffective as it's being done, and whether you want to help or not, it's not a good idea. I recommend "The White Man's Burden" to foreign aid enthusiasts.
So I see some Bill and some Glenn in the issue... I think it's worth pointing out that the extreme wealth concentration in the USA is wacko and only laughably due to output. Those billionaires "work" that much harder? Puhlease. I see many examples locally of executives paid at 5 times my salary who have no common sense and less schooling. There are more capable people with better people skills that make less. In Japan and at Ben and Jerry's there are ratio caps on I would say overcompensation of executives compared to the people who actually, you know, design and make cars, in the case of Toyota. Think of those yahoos who made poorly functioning road tanks for commuting and got many many millions of dollars in compensation, driving American automakers into the ground--yeah, that was commeasurate with their performance. Sure. How about (for example) Palin making doggone multiple millions on a ghost written book just for quitting her job, donchaknow? Athlete or comedian with a $50 million dollar contract? Those things may be able to generate more income in our culture, but they don't represent harder work, necessarily, or better work, or anything actually produced. That said, Panther, I'm sorry your insufferable and lazy neighbor doesn't "get it." He definitely makes the case that we play a role in our own success or failure.
TRT editorial - Bush policies failing??
Moderator: Available
Wow Ian! Your just no fun when I largely agree with you! 
And on top of that you get 10 extra credit points for knowing that we were founded and supposed to be a Constitutional Republic... not even a "democratic republic".... Good job!
Now write something that I can... nevermind.
And on top of that you get 10 extra credit points for knowing that we were founded and supposed to be a Constitutional Republic... not even a "democratic republic".... Good job!
Now write something that I can... nevermind.
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
That is correct, I am not a believer in having to apologize for success or luck, even if doing so does seem to be in vogue lately. I also do not see wealthy countries regressing being in anyone's best interest, that would just increase global instability. Some apply the label of "overdeveloped" to wealthy countries like the U.S., and while I use that concept as a point of discussion when covering economic development in my classes I do not agree with it.IJ wrote: I don't think Glenn wants you to apologize for living in a rich country or to regress to make things fair.
And Ian, do you know how annoying it is when someone else does a better job explaining what I am trying to say than I do?!
Glenn
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn
Your assertions were quickly showing a political bias.
I tried very hard to be neutral in my assessment. I had all the pieces and parts there in something less than a thesis or dissertation or paper that would be the output of a peer-reviewed process. But it's certainly been the fodder for a lively post-posting discussion.
And then what do we get? It's like showing a Rorschach diagram. People see what they want to see, or what their own perspectives allow them to see. In politics, it's manifested in ignoring half of what's going on around them and pointing out that which one wants to see that fits in with their political point of view. I know the phenomenon very well. I often use it against the very people who employ it - just to rattle their cages.
So I'm reading, and reading, and reading... and seeing your bias showing. How am I going to get this across to you???
And Whoomp! There It Is! (With apologies to Tag Team)
You should know that to all but the socialist Norwegians who by the way nominated Obama for a Peace Prize when he was in office for all of 2 weeks, Krugman is a flaming uber liberal.
Krugman sees what Krugman wants to see. Meanwhile I'm one of those PhDs who actually works with the data rather than ask my flunkee grad students to do the work and shape the data in my likeness.
ABC This Week includes Krugman in on their Roundtable Discussion because they like to have a token liberal (or two) in there to balance out against George Will. And yet Will regularly pulls the rug out from under him, week after week. It's all great sport, which may explain why Krugman isn't doing it so much any more. He'd rather preach where the congregation will shout "Tell it, tell it!!!"
Don't believe me, Glenn? Here's a piece he published today in (surprise, surprise) The New York Times.
The Conscience of a Liberal
Krugman just can't help himself.
In the words of Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a crisis go to waste." It's an excuse to prop up faulty theories, "regulate the schit out of ---" (words I borrowed from a Krugman-loving friend of mine), and impose a socialist world paradigm. And the theories and political points of view will always find an audience. Pareto's laws/observations make that possible. They've got the numbers!
As to laws of Nature vs. observations, well... semantics that can be discussed by folks smarter than yours truly. Argue they will... but it doesn't change the data.
The movers and shakers in a group may or may not burn more calories. But they organize/prioritize their lives and interact with the world around them in ways that amplify and/or capitalize on their considerable physical/mental potential. Panther gave a fantastic personal example. It's one I *try* to teach my son, who would rather get the next iPhone NOW than worry about his abysmal grades this last year. Oy!
(Note to self - Put Emotional Intelligence by Goleman on number 1 son's summer reading list.)
It isn't "luck" in the pejorative sense. Luck = preparation x opportunity. Some people just always seem to have more of it than others. Start today with everyone having the same amount of money. Go ten years ahead. Pretty close to the same people will have accumulated more than the average wealth, and a considerable majority will have pissed their's away.
And yes, productivity is definable and measured in the world of economics. It may be difficult to assess at an individual level, but you can sure measure it in whole economies.
More in a bit.
- Bill
Your assertions were quickly showing a political bias.
I tried very hard to be neutral in my assessment. I had all the pieces and parts there in something less than a thesis or dissertation or paper that would be the output of a peer-reviewed process. But it's certainly been the fodder for a lively post-posting discussion.
And then what do we get? It's like showing a Rorschach diagram. People see what they want to see, or what their own perspectives allow them to see. In politics, it's manifested in ignoring half of what's going on around them and pointing out that which one wants to see that fits in with their political point of view. I know the phenomenon very well. I often use it against the very people who employ it - just to rattle their cages.
So I'm reading, and reading, and reading... and seeing your bias showing. How am I going to get this across to you???
And Whoomp! There It Is! (With apologies to Tag Team)
Sccrrreeeeeeeeccchhh!!!!!!!Glenn wrote:
There is growing debate as to how relevant Pareto's Principle is to economics, with economists such as Paul Krugman saying...
You should know that to all but the socialist Norwegians who by the way nominated Obama for a Peace Prize when he was in office for all of 2 weeks, Krugman is a flaming uber liberal.
Krugman sees what Krugman wants to see. Meanwhile I'm one of those PhDs who actually works with the data rather than ask my flunkee grad students to do the work and shape the data in my likeness.
ABC This Week includes Krugman in on their Roundtable Discussion because they like to have a token liberal (or two) in there to balance out against George Will. And yet Will regularly pulls the rug out from under him, week after week. It's all great sport, which may explain why Krugman isn't doing it so much any more. He'd rather preach where the congregation will shout "Tell it, tell it!!!"
Don't believe me, Glenn? Here's a piece he published today in (surprise, surprise) The New York Times.
The Conscience of a Liberal
Krugman just can't help himself.
In the words of Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a crisis go to waste." It's an excuse to prop up faulty theories, "regulate the schit out of ---" (words I borrowed from a Krugman-loving friend of mine), and impose a socialist world paradigm. And the theories and political points of view will always find an audience. Pareto's laws/observations make that possible. They've got the numbers!
As to laws of Nature vs. observations, well... semantics that can be discussed by folks smarter than yours truly. Argue they will... but it doesn't change the data.
It's called productivity, Glenn. Or as I constantly tell my boys, "Don't work harder when you can work smarter."Glenn wrote:
Even if a small percentage of people may do most of the work and a small percentage of the people has most of the wealth, that does not mean the two are causally related. If anything, the relationship is inverse. Do you really think that the top 20 (or 1) % who are working primarily for wealth accumulation do more work than the bottom 40% who are working so that they and their families can survive day-to-day? I guarantee a subsistence farmer in Africa is working more, and harder, than is a CEO in the U.S. ...
{snip}
The movers and shakers in a group may or may not burn more calories. But they organize/prioritize their lives and interact with the world around them in ways that amplify and/or capitalize on their considerable physical/mental potential. Panther gave a fantastic personal example. It's one I *try* to teach my son, who would rather get the next iPhone NOW than worry about his abysmal grades this last year. Oy!
(Note to self - Put Emotional Intelligence by Goleman on number 1 son's summer reading list.)
It isn't "luck" in the pejorative sense. Luck = preparation x opportunity. Some people just always seem to have more of it than others. Start today with everyone having the same amount of money. Go ten years ahead. Pretty close to the same people will have accumulated more than the average wealth, and a considerable majority will have pissed their's away.
Believe it or not, I was *TAUGHT* this in one of my graduate biomedical engineering classes. He (an MIT grad from Greece and UVa full professor) used wealth accumulation as an example to illustrate principles of physical chemistry. No matter if it's molecules or people, the same laws of Nature (observations if you must...) apply.In his book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman retells the story of a group of American scientists who created a specific torture for four-year-olds. A scientist places a marshmallow on a table, telling the four-year-old that the scientist is off on an errand, and that if the child can resist the temptation to eat the marshmallow, they may gorge themselves on an extra one on the scientist's return. Some kids manage to resist temptation; some don't.
The children are tracked and, 14 years later, their results in the marshmallow test prove to be a more reliable indicator of academic success than an IQ test.
And yes, productivity is definable and measured in the world of economics. It may be difficult to assess at an individual level, but you can sure measure it in whole economies.
More in a bit.
- Bill
The rich people always think the poor people are just all lazy and stupid. It's such a glaringly self-serving analysis I sometimes wonder how anyone can say it without feeling embarassed.
Sure, there are some frugal, hardworking geniuses that earn everything honestly by the sweat of their brow. And there are no-account self-entitled layabouts whose horizon extends only to their next welfare check. But there are also unethical sharks with a few key skills that worm their way into luxury without really producing anything of value. And there are smart, hardworking people who get trapped in crappy situations. Like everything else in life, the majority falls in the middle.
Sure, there are some frugal, hardworking geniuses that earn everything honestly by the sweat of their brow. And there are no-account self-entitled layabouts whose horizon extends only to their next welfare check. But there are also unethical sharks with a few key skills that worm their way into luxury without really producing anything of value. And there are smart, hardworking people who get trapped in crappy situations. Like everything else in life, the majority falls in the middle.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
The rich people always think the poor people are just all lazy and stupid. It's such a glaringly self-serving analysis I sometimes wonder how anyone can say it without feeling embarassed.
When you post something like this, Justin, it makes me wonder why I bother to do the work that I do.
- Bill
Bill Glasheen wrote: When you post something like this, Justin, it makes me wonder why I bother to do the work that I do.
"The movers and shakers in a group ... amplify and/or capitalize on their considerable physical/mental potential."
...
"Go ten years ahead. Pretty close to the same people will have accumulated more than the average wealth, and a considerable majority will have pissed their's away. "
- Bill Glasheen
This sounds a lot to me like "poor people are lazy and stupid, rich people are hardworking and smart" Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. There's no 1 to 1 relationship between wealth and work or wealth and brains. Work and brains help with, but don't grant wealth. Got it?
Bill, it must be frustrating when everyone else's posts show their bias, and you speak the truth. 
Listen, we know you're very smart and well educated, and we know there's at least some truth to what you post. But sometimes it's so dismissive of others, and fails to respond to other's reasonable points, that it just doesn't stand up. For example, repeating your quote about not being a conservative at 35 (guess who just had a birthday) means you have no brain is just a roundabout, aloof, not as sneaky as some might think way of calling fellow posters morons. We're not.
While I don't dispute the wisdom of saving and understanding the world (I just signed on for extra duties that add 10% to my salary, distributed an educational DVD to all members of the national hospitalist group (woot!), do extra shifts, max out my retirement, get 54 mpg, and don't buy anything, for example), it's not the only factor. Saying that people who do well just "get it" and others don't IS self serving. Let us pause and let a sense of wonder and gratitude wash over us for the teaching our parents, schools, and yes, Hillary's village gave us, for being born into situations that promoted our success, and for a large measure of other kinds of luck, instead of just claiming credit.
Ahhhh. Didn't that feel good, and humble?
Anyhoo, I posted interesting articles from Harvard economist types (remember when W's Harvard MBA was a major selling point? These were the teachers) about predatory credit schemes that trap and destroy people, preferentially hitting those who need that credit, eg, the less well to do. Paris Hilton is in the lending class. She just needed to show up and be notorious, and has no need to borrow. She's safe from this behavior that sends people into debt and foreclosure. Do you have any comments on that piece?
And we hear from you that business and the market know best and regulation and government destabilize and destroy. I asked whether you could tell us what % of these troubled assets were forced on banks by "community leaders" and evil government, and how many were made by greedy, risk taking bank leaders, whose mistakes cost all of us huge sums. Comment on that? I mean, did Obama make Goldman Sachs bet against the products they themselves were selling, or was that just inconceivably unethical and irresponsible behavior that I had to bail them out for? And I linked to a piece which was somewhat convincing to me (not exactly a liberal at 35, but not being a full fiscal conservative, lacking a brain by some reports) that suggested that government regulation of financial industry activity had stabilized the market and prevented major collapses until the deregulation ear took over. Do you have opionions about that?
And how can I resist a medical analogy...
People are more or less the same now as they were 40-50 years ago, but obesity rates and diabetes are exploding. Do they all not get it? Are they all not responsible, intelligent? Obviously there is a genetic input on this, and obviously personal behavior affects it, but the temporal and regional trends tell us there is a systematic problem. People are being set up for diet and exercise failure. The nation is contemplating a lot of fixes--transfats out, less salt, calorie info, sin taxes on sodas to name a few--to set people up for success AND drilling responsibility (which is tough when you're working long hours and the food options are mainly chain junk in your locale). I'm not guilty about being fit given the work I put into it, but I had some help being primed to make the decisions I've made.
These fixes are like credit regulations, including limits on nasty products as well as more transparency in the disclosures (the credit card apps are like pharmaceutical inserts, crikey!). Just like obesity, debt and wealth disparity are blowing up when people are not more stupid, that much more irresponsible, and so on. Similar people are facing greater risks. It's easier to get into credit trouble now.
This is largely a QI project writ large. You know that when airline pilots or doctors regularly make mistakes working with a certain display, that there's a systems problem, not a bad persons problem, not a morals problem, not a "getting it" problem alone, whether or not more conscientious or trained people have a lower error rate. It's both.
I for one do not celebrate ONLY my prowess if I have an error free day at work. I know that other team members are backing me up, bar coding technology and allergy checks have my back, all that stuff. My work and diligence contributes but is not the only factor in my economic or doctoring successes. Can we admit that economic success results from a combination of personal skills and choices as well as luck, systems issues, parenting and education that individuals cannot self congratulate too loudly for? Or will we critique one another for focusing on one side of the coin while we overfocus on the otherside ourselves?
Listen, we know you're very smart and well educated, and we know there's at least some truth to what you post. But sometimes it's so dismissive of others, and fails to respond to other's reasonable points, that it just doesn't stand up. For example, repeating your quote about not being a conservative at 35 (guess who just had a birthday) means you have no brain is just a roundabout, aloof, not as sneaky as some might think way of calling fellow posters morons. We're not.
While I don't dispute the wisdom of saving and understanding the world (I just signed on for extra duties that add 10% to my salary, distributed an educational DVD to all members of the national hospitalist group (woot!), do extra shifts, max out my retirement, get 54 mpg, and don't buy anything, for example), it's not the only factor. Saying that people who do well just "get it" and others don't IS self serving. Let us pause and let a sense of wonder and gratitude wash over us for the teaching our parents, schools, and yes, Hillary's village gave us, for being born into situations that promoted our success, and for a large measure of other kinds of luck, instead of just claiming credit.
Ahhhh. Didn't that feel good, and humble?
Anyhoo, I posted interesting articles from Harvard economist types (remember when W's Harvard MBA was a major selling point? These were the teachers) about predatory credit schemes that trap and destroy people, preferentially hitting those who need that credit, eg, the less well to do. Paris Hilton is in the lending class. She just needed to show up and be notorious, and has no need to borrow. She's safe from this behavior that sends people into debt and foreclosure. Do you have any comments on that piece?
And we hear from you that business and the market know best and regulation and government destabilize and destroy. I asked whether you could tell us what % of these troubled assets were forced on banks by "community leaders" and evil government, and how many were made by greedy, risk taking bank leaders, whose mistakes cost all of us huge sums. Comment on that? I mean, did Obama make Goldman Sachs bet against the products they themselves were selling, or was that just inconceivably unethical and irresponsible behavior that I had to bail them out for? And I linked to a piece which was somewhat convincing to me (not exactly a liberal at 35, but not being a full fiscal conservative, lacking a brain by some reports) that suggested that government regulation of financial industry activity had stabilized the market and prevented major collapses until the deregulation ear took over. Do you have opionions about that?
And how can I resist a medical analogy...
People are more or less the same now as they were 40-50 years ago, but obesity rates and diabetes are exploding. Do they all not get it? Are they all not responsible, intelligent? Obviously there is a genetic input on this, and obviously personal behavior affects it, but the temporal and regional trends tell us there is a systematic problem. People are being set up for diet and exercise failure. The nation is contemplating a lot of fixes--transfats out, less salt, calorie info, sin taxes on sodas to name a few--to set people up for success AND drilling responsibility (which is tough when you're working long hours and the food options are mainly chain junk in your locale). I'm not guilty about being fit given the work I put into it, but I had some help being primed to make the decisions I've made.
These fixes are like credit regulations, including limits on nasty products as well as more transparency in the disclosures (the credit card apps are like pharmaceutical inserts, crikey!). Just like obesity, debt and wealth disparity are blowing up when people are not more stupid, that much more irresponsible, and so on. Similar people are facing greater risks. It's easier to get into credit trouble now.
This is largely a QI project writ large. You know that when airline pilots or doctors regularly make mistakes working with a certain display, that there's a systems problem, not a bad persons problem, not a morals problem, not a "getting it" problem alone, whether or not more conscientious or trained people have a lower error rate. It's both.
I for one do not celebrate ONLY my prowess if I have an error free day at work. I know that other team members are backing me up, bar coding technology and allergy checks have my back, all that stuff. My work and diligence contributes but is not the only factor in my economic or doctoring successes. Can we admit that economic success results from a combination of personal skills and choices as well as luck, systems issues, parenting and education that individuals cannot self congratulate too loudly for? Or will we critique one another for focusing on one side of the coin while we overfocus on the otherside ourselves?
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Wow! Once again... can you say strawman?Valkenar wrote:Bill Glasheen wrote:
When you post something like this, Justin, it makes me wonder why I bother to do the work that I do.
"The movers and shakers in a group ... amplify and/or capitalize on their considerable physical/mental potential."
...
"Go ten years ahead. Pretty close to the same people will have accumulated more than the average wealth, and a considerable majority will have pissed their's away. "
- Bill Glasheen
This sounds a lot to me like "poor people are lazy and stupid, rich people are hardworking and smart" Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. There's no 1 to 1 relationship between wealth and work or wealth and brains. Work and brains help with, but don't grant wealth. Got it?
Deep breath, Justin. Resist the temptation to fire off a post because I lampooned a liberal.
Take some time to ponder what I wrote. If a day doesn't do it, give it longer. I have nothing to apologize for in the 4 hours or so of effort it took to post what I did. How long did it take for you to post that "Rich bad, poor good" post? You obviously have a sore spot. And I'm not going to go there. I'm not licensed...
How can I be dismissive and arrogant when I don't fall into that upper tier?IJ wrote:
Listen, we know you're very smart and well educated, and we know there's at least some truth to what you post. But sometimes it's so dismissive of others, and fails to respond to other's reasonable points, that it just doesn't stand up.
BY DEFINITION most people don't, Ian. (You very well may.) Hell... I haven't had a paycheck in almost a year. How can any of you wolves be accusing ME of such character imperfections?
The difference between me and the next person is that I neither blame the hyper-achievers for their achievement, nor do I resent them for their accumulated wealth.
- One share of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway stock originally sold at $19 a share. It's now worth in excess of $100,000, and Buffet's net worth is somewhere north of $50 BILLION dollars. Justin would have us believe that he's a member of a group of "unethical sharks with a few key skills that worm their way into luxury." Well I'm glad Justin knows such people so well. And yes, Ian, I get really dismissive of such an attitude. Bully to me, eh?
Meanwhile... As I was telling my son just this morning (who HAD to have the latest iPhone RIGHT NOW...) Mr. Buffet still lives in his middle-class home and drives a very ordinary car. And he's going to give virtually all his fortune to charity. His kids won't be rolling in the dough. My son thought this was stupid. Nope, I said, he's wealthy BECAUSE he's "cheap" - in the eyes of my son. It's a mindset.
Start him from scratch, and I'll bet dollars to donuts he'll earn a pile of money again. It's a gift. He has it and I don't. And I admire him for it.
And if I study him, maybe I'll learn something. Arrogant of me? Dismissive of me? Sorry, Ian, but I think my attitude is anything but that. - Dustin Pedroia of the Boston Red Sox is 5 foot 7. Last night he hit 3 homers, a double, a single, and got a walk. He almost single-handedly won the game for the Red Sox last night. His career started with being Rookie of the Year. Shortly after that, he got MVP.
Dusty has it. I don't. Do I think he's on steroids and doesn't deserve his achievement? Nope... I've read about him. Mama gave him one of those little bats when he could barely walk, and he broke everything in sight. They had to get rid of the pet duck, hide all the breakables, etc., etc.
He has a gift. I don't. But I admire him. And maybe if I read up about one of these rare achievers, I might learn something.
Arrogant of me? Dismissive of me? I dunno, Ian. I'm not feeling it.
But you go feel what you want.
You gentlemen ponder this image for a bit. As they say, a picture can be worth a thousand words.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
What questions, Ian?IJ wrote:
1) No answer to my questions?
Meanwhile... Are you taking my considerable effort seriously? I think not.
Dishonesty begats a loss of credibility, Ian.IJ wrote:
2) Calling posters who also spend a good amount of time thinking about their posts and post reasoned ideas stupid is dismissive. Yup.
Maybe you have no argument, but instead don't like the message. Well... don't shoot the messenger.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
No matter how much people protest, we know that a small portion of the population will own most of the wealth. Political constructs exist to flatten that wealth somewhat, but often those attempts don't always succeed in redistributing the wealth.
So why was all the pie-charting by the announcer of TYT misleading? Two facts.
1) What we observed recently is a transient condition brought about by an economic "bubble" - for lack of a better word. I took a whole course in transient analysis in engineering school. By definition it's a temporary condition that goes away.
2) Did Pareto's observation not hold as the announcer in TYT suggested? Well... that depends. The truth is that the same statistical distribution occurred. However a good deal of the population chose to get WAY over their heads in debt. Even though less than 5 percent of the total homes have been forclosed, a good deal more folks are waaay behind on their mortgage payments. Many who have chosen not to walk owe more than their home is worth. Some are hovering near virtually zero equity. It's as if they were renting, only they still have to pay for repairs, mow the grass, etc.
The distribution still exists - if you consider negative net worth as valid. That's very sad, but true.
Somewhere in all of this, I don't feel sorry for many who have lost their homes. They can be angry at financial institutions who created, collected, and traded these junk loans. But the truth is, folks far less bright than yours truly saw it all long before it happened. I'd have conversations with my State Farm insurance agent about it. Reggie told it like it was to his customers.
"You really think your income will rise with your increasing payments? You really think you're going to be able to re-sell that house?"
We would talk about it. My dad and I would talk about it. My wife wanted me to jump into the home-trade-up frenzy, and I wouldn't.
And it all came tumbling down.
And some of us (my sister the banker, myself, my insurance agent, my father, my lawyer brother, etc., etc.) are now saying "Told you so!"
Go beat up on those bad banks all you want. But the truth is we live in a society that values personal possessions over achievement. And we get angry at those mean bankers when our possessions go down the toilet.
Do all those who want to argue with me REALLY feel like their lives are meaningless without lots of "things?" You feel malice towards the wealthy? How sad.
I'm at a different place in my life now. I have two kids. Can't buy that. I have a few final years with my dad. Can't buy that. I have my martial arts, my music, my research (when employed), the students I teach, my dog, the baby bird I'm raising, the plants outside I tend to...
I live a very rich life. And it has nothing to do with my bank account. And it has a LOT to do with the spiritual journey I started while in graduate school earning nothing, but enjoying life through hard work - both mental and physical.
Go ahead... You can take my stuff away. You can try to argue with me. But you can't take what I have. And I truly feel sorry for those whose material worlds have left them empty. And that sadness has nothing to do with the things they lost.
- Bill
So why was all the pie-charting by the announcer of TYT misleading? Two facts.
1) What we observed recently is a transient condition brought about by an economic "bubble" - for lack of a better word. I took a whole course in transient analysis in engineering school. By definition it's a temporary condition that goes away.
2) Did Pareto's observation not hold as the announcer in TYT suggested? Well... that depends. The truth is that the same statistical distribution occurred. However a good deal of the population chose to get WAY over their heads in debt. Even though less than 5 percent of the total homes have been forclosed, a good deal more folks are waaay behind on their mortgage payments. Many who have chosen not to walk owe more than their home is worth. Some are hovering near virtually zero equity. It's as if they were renting, only they still have to pay for repairs, mow the grass, etc.
The distribution still exists - if you consider negative net worth as valid. That's very sad, but true.
Somewhere in all of this, I don't feel sorry for many who have lost their homes. They can be angry at financial institutions who created, collected, and traded these junk loans. But the truth is, folks far less bright than yours truly saw it all long before it happened. I'd have conversations with my State Farm insurance agent about it. Reggie told it like it was to his customers.
"You really think your income will rise with your increasing payments? You really think you're going to be able to re-sell that house?"
We would talk about it. My dad and I would talk about it. My wife wanted me to jump into the home-trade-up frenzy, and I wouldn't.
And it all came tumbling down.
And some of us (my sister the banker, myself, my insurance agent, my father, my lawyer brother, etc., etc.) are now saying "Told you so!"
Go beat up on those bad banks all you want. But the truth is we live in a society that values personal possessions over achievement. And we get angry at those mean bankers when our possessions go down the toilet.
Do all those who want to argue with me REALLY feel like their lives are meaningless without lots of "things?" You feel malice towards the wealthy? How sad.
I'm at a different place in my life now. I have two kids. Can't buy that. I have a few final years with my dad. Can't buy that. I have my martial arts, my music, my research (when employed), the students I teach, my dog, the baby bird I'm raising, the plants outside I tend to...
I live a very rich life. And it has nothing to do with my bank account. And it has a LOT to do with the spiritual journey I started while in graduate school earning nothing, but enjoying life through hard work - both mental and physical.
Go ahead... You can take my stuff away. You can try to argue with me. But you can't take what I have. And I truly feel sorry for those whose material worlds have left them empty. And that sadness has nothing to do with the things they lost.
- Bill
Responding to the points in the post would be a good start!Bill Glasheen wrote: Your assertions were quickly showing a political bias.
<snip>
So I'm reading, and reading, and reading... and seeing your bias showing. How am I going to get this across to you???
Since I do not belong to a political party, do not believe in political parties, have voted for both Republican and Democratic candidates (I'm one of those rare types who actually listens to what candidates say rather than voting just for members of one party or the other, not that I really believe any of them), tend to be middle of the road in the liberal-conservative spectrum but with conservative leanings on some topics (pro-gun, pro-military) and liberal leanings on others (anti-offshoring, pro-oversight) I am assuming you are seeing what you want to see. Admittedly in debates with you I tend to play a more liberal devil's advocate due to your conservative leanings, but in the case of my Pareto post it was an apolitical technical response about the limitations of Pareto and the futility of applying the term "laws of nature" in socio-cultural systems. Unless...
OK, so you clearly do not care for Krugman and my including him may have made you focus on that minor sidebar and dismiss the rest of my post. Sorry about that, I was not aware of Krugman's political leanings, nor do I really care. I do not blanketly dismiss people based on their political views...if I did I would never vote in any elections!You should know that to all but the socialist Norwegians who by the way nominated Obama for a Peace Prize when he was in office for all of 2 weeks, Krugman is a flaming uber liberal.
Then it must be very difficult for you, because comments likeI tried very hard to be neutral in my assessment.
are hardly unbiased!Well here's the thing. The phenomenon exists for a few simple reasons.
1) In any society, a small percentage of the people often do most of the work.
2) In any random group, a small percentage of the people "get" what's going on around them.
3) Some people are savers. Other people can't keep a dime in their pockets.
4) Most importantly, a small percentage of the people take positive advantage of the time value of money. The rich get richer because of compounding gains in their investments. The poor get poorer because of compounding losses in their debts, late fees, etc. The middle class is in the middle, basically treading water.
Statistical data show generalizations at best, which actually is what "laws" meant in a scientific sense in the 19th century, back when it was last in vogue to evoke that term. So when Ravenstein published his "Laws of Migration" papers in the 1880s he was emphasizing that he had discovered some generalizations that could be made about human migration trends and patterns when others thought none existed. His papers in no way claimed (or even indicated) that these "laws" would always prevail and could not be changed. To the contrary, he was clearly reporting about statistical generalizations as they existed at that time and for the regions on which he had data. That his "laws" are still applicable today and for most of the world does not change the fact that they are still just generalizations and that not everyone adheres to them when making migration decisions.As to laws of Nature vs. observations, well... semantics that can be discussed by folks smarter than yours truly. Argue they will... but it doesn't change the data.
I am curious about how you are using "nature" in "laws of nature", I think part of the semantics aspect may be that we are using that term differently. From my natural and geographical sciences background I view nature as the physical environment, and thus "laws of nature" to be laws about physical processes such as Newton's laws of motion, etc. As such applying the term "laws of nature" to socio-cultural phenomenon seems wrong to me, but I am assuming you are using "nature" in a different sense.
Whether we use "productivity" as you suggest now or "work" as you originally used, neither are directly considered in Pareto-style wealth distributions. You are merely offering that "wealth" is positively correlated with "work" or "productivity". But no matter what kind of mover and shaker or how much more productive or harder working than a corporate CEO he may be, a subsistance farmer in Africa is not going to end up at the top of any Pareto-style wealth distribution, hence the fallacy of making too much out of Pareto. For one thing there is a definite bias in what is considered as "wealth" in Pareto-style wealth distributions. All Pareto modeling can do is say whether or not such distributions exist, it cannot explain the causes and your biased list of four potential causes barely scratched the surface.It's called productivity, Glenn. Or as I constantly tell my boys, "Don't work harder when you can work smarter."
The movers and shakers in a group may or may not burn more calories. But they organize/prioritize their lives and interact with the world around them in ways that amplify and/or capitalize on their considerable physical/mental potential.
If you are referring to Panther's neighbor, yes he did. It highlights the limitations of Pareto, namely that while we in the U.S. may see his neighbor as failing economically and not "getting it", he is still wealthier than most people in the world. Pareto is good for developing management strategies and the insurance modeling you do, particularly for specific populations, but it falls short when you start trying to explain wealth distributions with it, particularly at an international scale.Panther gave a fantastic personal example
Glenn
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
What is factually incorrect about that, Glenn? If it's factually true, then one's emotional response to those facts doesn't make the messenger biased. I spent a good deal of time explaining these comments in detail. I thought by now you would understand.Glenn wrote:
comments likeare hardly unbiased!Bill Glasheen wrote:
Well here's the thing. The phenomenon exists for a few simple reasons.
1) In any society, a small percentage of the people often do most of the work.
2) In any random group, a small percentage of the people "get" what's going on around them.
3) Some people are savers. Other people can't keep a dime in their pockets.
4) Most importantly, a small percentage of the people take positive advantage of the time value of money. The rich get richer because of compounding gains in their investments. The poor get poorer because of compounding losses in their debts, late fees, etc. The middle class is in the middle, basically treading water.
It's like death, Glenn. I may not like it. But it doesn't make the undertaker a bad person.
Ubiquitous statistical distributions don't care what you think about them. So maybe it would help to dig down to the person level to understand why life happens.
And maybe it isn't because bad happens.
- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Now who's using the strawman tactic? We are questioning some of the points in your response to the video, not indicating that our lives are meaningless nor directing any malice toward the wealthy. Where the heck did this come from?!?!Bill Glasheen wrote: Do all those who want to argue with me REALLY feel like their lives are meaningless without lots of "things?" You feel malice towards the wealthy? How sad.
Glenn
