Contributors

Monday, December 20, 2010

Christmas For Me! (1 of 20)

I guess I must've been nice as opposed to naughty because Santa has given me a very large present in the form of this year in the form of Ben Steverman's article/power point presentation over at Bloomberg Businessweek.

Each section details exactly how the wealthy of this country have far more advantages than the rest of us and have set up a system to not only keep it that way but to net them more money and, with it, more power. Since this has been the overall and ongoing argument in comments for the last year or more, I thought it would be cool to showcase his 20 points and see if I can make any sort of headway through the 1,000 feet of rock granite minds that make up some of my regular readers. Let's dive in and take a look at his first point.

Under U.S. law, certain investment products are only available to accredited investors, who must have a household net worth of $1 million or more. A key advantage of many of these so-called "alternative investments" is that, at least in theory, they help diversify a portfolio because they don't move in lockstep with traditional stock and bond investments, and so help balance out returns. Alternative investments include venture capital funds, private equity funds, direct investments in commodities such as timber, and stakes in private companies.

Available only to accredited investors...hmmm...but I thought that the market was free and we all had the same choices as everyone else? Apparently, we don't.

Of course, I'm certain that many of you will look at the first three words and leap into the usual GUBMINT BAD rhetoric but I'm hoping that you are smart enough to operate on the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy and figure out why and how this law exists the way that it does.

Here's to hoping!

81 comments:

juris imprudent said...

but I thought that the market was free and we all had the same choices as everyone else? Apparently, we don't.


Did you not read the first 3 words of the section you quoted? Under U.S. law - does that not mean ANYTHING to you? Would you prefer that the market operate outside of FEDERAL FUCKING LAW?

That is not "gubmint bad" - but apparently you are too goddam stupid to realize that a market can ONLY function in accordance with THE LAW. If you consider this bad law - you might want to inquire as to WHICH PARTY sponsored it.

So you want your granny to have access to financial instruments that might carry substantial risk? That she might lose money on, unlike say her FDIC insured savings? You already said she lost money on CDSs - is that true, or were you lying to make a point?

And as far as I know (certainly for myself at least) NO NON LIBERAL on this blog has ever said the wealthy don't have advantages over the rest of us. The point which you continually harp on is that they use those advantages to abuse us regular folk - without ever substantiating how YOU (or I) are actually harmed. All that it appears to boil down to is the biggest case of envy I've ever seen. You do know that your religion considers envy to be a deadly sin, right?

Four additional words you ought to pay some attention to are "at least in theory". Notice he doesn't detail how this actually works out in reality. You do know that "theory" and "reality" don't always line up, right?

I'd ask if you've been sippin' the stupid juice, but it's more like you've been gulpin' it.

The Dread Pirate Juris Imprudent said...

Notice that M does not inquire under what U.S. law this definition of "accredited investor" exists. I googled it and here is the definition.

The Securities Act of 1933. From the heart of the golden age of financial regulation according to our resident econ/finance/justice wizard - passed by a Democratic Congress (as I suspected) and signed by no less than Moses, I mean FDR, himself. The law from which we strayed - according to M into all the venality and inequity of the wicked era of deregulation. Except of course we didn't.

Truly, you have an dizzying intellect M. Worthy of Vezzini in every respect.

Last in line said...

Boo-ya!

Tess said...

Silly, Mark, you didn't expect juris or anyone else to get it, did you? Apparently, they haven't been paying attention to the things they don't like on this blog.

oojc said...

I'll give the mentally challenged here a clue. One word: TOOL.

brendan said...

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search?q=John+Verant

Remember that one, juris? That's a very big clue.

I won't jump the gun on oojc's answer but try to think here. Whether the law was written in 1933 or 2010 is immaterial. The question is why was the law made that way and who benefits? More importantly, how was the law written within the context of the overall Securities Act of 1933 abused over the years to get us to this point? What are the contents of the rest of the law? What you have linked is only one small part and any serious analysis cannot be looked at without looking at the entire law.

Think I'll get any answers, Mark?

Anonymous said...

Since you recognize that the first three words directly contradict your 'Eat the Rich' philosophy, I think you are starting to become a tea-partier, Mark.

Keep up the fine work.

dw

ps: oojc, I think you left some unanswered questions a dozen posts ago. It's ok, you couldn't help it... it's not your fault.

pps: Tess, What was it I was 'supposed to get'?

Mark Ward said...

Like I said, one can only hope, Brendan. I do like your (critical thinking) questions, though. I taught you well, grasshopper. Tomorrow's post will contain one answer to your "abuse over the years" question:)

"that a market can ONLY function in accordance with THE LAW."

I couldn't past this line, juris, sorry. I didn't think such depth in ignorance was possible especially from someone as intelligent as you clearly are. Do you have any earthly idea what is going in the financial sector in this country as it relates to our economy and educational institutions?

juris imprudent said...

I didn't think such depth in ignorance was possible especially from someone as intelligent as you clearly are.

I'm the ignorant one? When you didn't even know which U.S. law defined "accredited investor", which Congress/Administration passed/signed that law, or WHY it was done (a part we haven't even got to yet)?

You have no earthly clue (or heavenly one either) as to what a free market is - just the cartoon caricaturization in your head where Snidely Whiplash (the rich) eats delicately braised children (the poor). Apparently I have to remind YOU that YOU complained that derivatives (CDSs in particular) where outside the scope of regulation - i.e. securities LAW did not cover them. Remember now? You have argued repeatedly for including them in regulation - when the regulators themselves made the determination that existing securities law did NOT cover them. You are the one always whipping up the strawman argument about perfect competition - and then argue as though I support it, and laws that limit access to the market (thus reducing actual competitive effect there). Fuck you, you ignorant little mouse.

What are all of the regulations you desire - they are LAW. Did you actually think it was something else?

Even in the case of derivatives, they were only legally traded by "accredited investors". Now complain about that?

On top of that, I agree with you that derivatives were reckless speculation - something that should not be encouraged. Yet you complain that access to them was limited? Obviously you lied about your granny losing money on them, unless you are now going to tell us she is a person with a personal net worth in excess of $1 million.

Chutzpah doesn't even do you justice. You deserve nothing but the idiot praise of your little progressive Greek chorus. And oojc, I don't think M, Tess or brendan have any idea what tools they are - constantly kissing the ass of Democrat politicians that are all too willing to ream them in return.

juris imprudent said...

Whether the law was written in 1933 or 2010 is immaterial. The question is why was the law made that way and who benefits?

Indeed. It was written as part of the New Deal's progressive/liberal financial regulation. That makes some difference in whether it was written in 1933 or 2010. By the way, if it had been written in 2010, it could hardly have been to blame for everything that happened PRIOR to 2010, could it? How fuckin' stoopid can you GET?

So answer your own question dumbass - what WAS the intent of the New Deal Democrats in writing that law? And WHO did benefit? WHY isn't it what you little birdbrains expect it to be?

oojc - shouldn't a TOOL at least be useful to getting something done?

exe said...

The government is only a tool of a culture, of a world really, that is run by mulitnational corporations. The men that own and run these corporations will do everything they can to hold on to their power and that includes buying off elected reps. All it will take is for them to stop accepting the money. Jeff Smith, where are you when we need you?

Mark Ward said...

"When you didn't even know which U.S. law defined "accredited investor", which Congress/Administration passed/signed that law, or WHY it was done (a part we haven't even got to yet)?"

I knew exactly what law it was, juris and as it has been explained very well above, that doesn't matter. That's why I worded the last line in the post the way I did. There are going to be 19 other posts like this one, juris. If every single one is actually the fault of the government, I'm not the one who has a problem with critical thinking. You are.

Brendan, if I were you, I wouldn't answer him until he answers you. I'm done playing the dance like a monkey game.

juris imprudent said...

...that doesn't matter.

No of course not. The law doesn't actually matter. Not as it is written, nor as it was intended - only as you morons judge it.

Not even when it is made by the right people.

I would imagine that the liberal reason for passing the law was not to lock in advantage for the wealthy - but to keep the modest investor from getting into high-risk/high-return markets. I would imagine the intent was similar to what Manzi discussed about segmenting the market such that only people who could afford big losses were participants in high risk areas. After all, innovation is often very risky, and you don't want to completely squelch that - but you also don't want to let widows and orphans lose all of their money on such chances. It was with such good paternalistic intentions that the law was created.

Of course M isn't praising the law for this aspect, he is condemning it for failing to allow anyone who wanted to play into the game. Because in theory the wealthy were getting a better deal there than anywhere else and excluding smaller investors from the big profits.

And remember the set up line "but I thought that the market was free..." - as though free marketers HAD created this law, not paternalistic New Dealers. But of course M understood all this and set up such a confused premise just to test us tricky right-wingers.

Meh.

Damn Teabaggers said...

There are going to be 19 other posts like this one, juris. If every single one is actually the fault of the government, I'm not the one who has a problem with critical thinking. You are.

Okay, let's see if I have this right.

If our legislators pass bad law, that's not the fault of the legislators or anyone in government, that's the fault of "the rich" and/or "the corporations".

If the government declines to enforce the laws they do pass on their favored constituencies, that is only the fault of the government if the opposition party is in power, if your party is in power it is once again the fault of "the rich" and/or "the corporations".

And because of that, we should let these same legislators that you insist cannot be held responsible for what they do (since they are at the mercy of "the rich" and/or "the corporations", after all) pass more laws, which you insist will make things better this time.

Right?

I think I need a scorecard to keep track of how this is supposed to go.

GuardDuck said...

Well, Juris beat me to it.

Yes, the law was set up to protect grandma middle class from themselves. With the understanding that there was no way the government could watch every single transaction, certain ones with inherent risk and complexity were excluded. But in order to protect the middle class from their own ignorance they had to be excluded from participation. Acknowledging that the rich had the money to risk, and therefore lose, and further not caring if they lost they were 'allowed' to continue to risk their own money.

What is funny, is that while Mark ridicules libertarianism, he makes the point that government regulation is indeed interfering in the free market. A very libertarian view.

Unless of course, Mark is rather making the point that the interference is bad because it was done by government people with a different viewpoint than his own.

Again, he doesn't recognize that at it's most basic, the problem is when you give the government a certain power - when your guys are in office, the other guys get that very same power when they are elected.

In this case, St. FDR and his merry band of neo-progressives gave the government sweeping regulatory power over the securities market. It matters not who did what regulations during the last seventy-odd years. It wouldn't have been possible to do without letting the camels nose under the tent to begin with.

juris imprudent said...

What is funny, is that while Mark ridicules libertarianism, he makes the point that government regulation is indeed interfering in the free market. A very libertarian view.

No, that is merely terribly ironic. What is funny-to-hysterical is M's vehement opposition to actual free market policies AND his complaint that this particular regulation locked in an advantage to the wealthy.

Not just anyone can make those two arguments without their head exploding.

Flat Earthers said...

Not just anyone can make those two arguments without their head exploding.

And here all this time I thought it was the Slim Whitman music.

juris imprudent said...

Go on, I dare ya.

I double dog dare ya!

Count Juris Imprudent said...

There are going to be 19 other posts like this one, juris. If every single one is actually the fault of the government, I'm not the one who has a problem with critical thinking. You are.

Ah, my problem with critical thinking, eh?

I did not blame this on the govt - YOU did (locking in advantage to the wealthy). If I were to assign any blame it would be on the part of the paternalistic party that insisted it knew what was best for small investors. They might even have been right - but YOU are the one criticizing them in this instance - not ME.

I suggest you re-tune your receptors as to WHO has the deficiency in critical thinking.

What YOU are pointing out is an unintended consequence of the good intentions of New Deal Democrats.

Are you ACTUALLY unaware of that?

"I think that's the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous."

GuardDuck said...

I have a hard time using the term unintended consequence around here. It's no longer unintended when one group tells the other group what the consequences will be.


Of course then the other group just tends to say the first group wants their man to fail......

brendan said...

Don't worry, Mark, I won't dance like a monkey for them. Although, they are getting closer in their analysis as to why/how the law was passed.

sw said...

it was passed by a democrat congress and signed by fdr you moron. thats how it was passed. go ahead and refute that. if you cant then just shut up.

juris imprudent said...

On top of what sw said, the law didn't attempt to stop all financial transactions/investments that were deemed high-risk - but it shut out small investors from them.

Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing from your perspective? M has presented it as bad - a lock-out so only the wealthy could play. So you oppose what the New Deal Dems did, is that right?

That ought to be a simple enough form of the question that any of you are capable of answering. Whether you choose to answer of course is a different story.

Mark Ward said...

And they're back to being farther away again...ah well..maybe 18 more examples will convince them.

juris imprudent said...

I'm convinced M, oh, I am CONVINCED.

You are a lunatic. You can't even say what the problem here is, and you can't accept that the high priests of your own party created whatever problem it is that has you so spun up.

I read through the linked article already, so you putting up each snippet doesn't do much. Either get to your point or tell me to not bother reading NFTF for the next couple of weeks. If you don't have a point and you just love the way the article reads - say so.

GuardDuck said...

I really hope you're not planning on trotting out all twenty of those ' see spot run' sound bites.

Do you really not see how weak they are? Can you really not understand how easy it will be to logically pick them apart piece by ridiculous piece?

Your only hope is if we grow so bored by the kindergarten class warfare and shallow reasoning of your examples that we seek stimulation elsewhere.

Tess said...

A lunatic, juris? Because he thinks that wealthy people use government as a tool to create special conditions so they can remain in power? Wow, that is sooooo crazy. I guess that makes me a lunatic too. The only crazy part about all of this is you guys continually asking Mark to produce proof, which he does by the truck load, and then you shoot it all down saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

juris imprudent said...

Because he thinks that wealthy people use government as a tool to create special conditions so they can remain in power?

Y'know something Tess - that would make sense if the people who had created the "accredited investor" hadn't happened to have been New Deal Dems. That puts a big fat kink in the theory that the wealthy got that distinction created in federal law to protect themselves from the hoi-polloi in certain financial markets. So they could have a super special uber profitable market all to themselves. Of course, we haven't even determined that such a market exists except at least in theory.

In fact, all evidence on display is that the New Deal Dems shut the small investor out to protect him from possibly entering into very high risk transactions. We certainly could debate if that was wise or not. But that doesn't appear to be M's contention.

At this point, aside from a general hatred (and envy) of the wealthy I can't figure out what the fuck M is whinging about.

Oh, and just curious, but what power have the wealthy been abusing you with? What harm has been done to you?

Haplo9 said...

>Because he thinks that wealthy people use government as a tool to create special conditions so they can remain in power?

No, as a matter of fact, I think situations like the above aren't terribly uncommon, though less from individual wealthy people and more from corporations. What's moronic is Mark's (and yours) proposed solution to said problem, which appears to center around giving the government more power (because this time around, they will totally use that power for good!) or electing uncorruptible angels and giving them lots of power.

Neither solution is likely to work, and indeed, is likely to make things quite a bit worse as the government finds that it likes exercising the new powers that you gave it, and people/corps with means like to influence how that power is used. This is why we think of you as a bunch of kids, babbling about unicorns and wishes. Power will always be corrupted, sooner or later, regardless of party. It takes a special kind of naivete to believe that, well yeah, power is kind of corrupting, but if my favored guys get in charge, they totally won't abuse it. If you want to grow up, you're going to have to look past childish wish-think of the kind that Mark espouses. Simple as that.

Angela said...

I guess I'm a lunatic as well because even I can see that the law in the 30s was created to protect middle class people who lost money during the depression and has since been abused by the wealthy. Remove the law and you still have the wealthy figuring out ways to abuse the law. Have no laws and you still have the wealthy abusing the law. Sensing any pattern here at all, folks?

Damn Teabaggers said...

A lunatic, juris? Because he thinks that wealthy people use government as a tool to create special conditions so they can remain in power?

No.

1. Because he thinks that is the fault of "the wealthy" rather than the people in government who were specifically hired not to fold under that pressure, and

2. Because he thinks the solution to that is to make government, which he (correctly) complains is used as a tool by the wealthy, a more powerful tool, even as he defends the lack of transparency and accountability in those currently using it.

It makes precisely as much sense, for precisely the same reasons, as polluting zinc mine owner Al Gore flying in in his private Gulfstream, taking his fleet of SUVs to the hotel and expecting me to pay hundreds of bucks per ticket so he can tell me I need to make more sacrifices to "save the planet".

Haplo9 said...

>Remove the law and you still have the wealthy figuring out ways to abuse the law. Have no laws and you still have the wealthy abusing the law. Sensing any pattern here at all, folks?

I know Angela, it's totally weird. It's almost as if when the government has the power to favor one player over another in the marketplace, some players will try to gain that favor. I even heard that economists made up a term to describe that - it's known as "rent seeking". Isn't that something!

Mark Ward said...

Angela, well put. That's pretty much what I was driving at with this post. Folks, when you start from the point where everything is the government's fault, it's really difficult to get away from that. My probably futile goal with many of you is to have you see what the paradigm has been all along. I'm through coddling your sensitivity about government.

DT-they didn't fold as much as participate in the revolving door of government and the private sector. My solution is not necessarily more "power" as you would define it. It's more about a new way of thinking using ideas and methods that have worked in the past.

I have been asked to demonstrate how the wealthy in this country are afforded more advantages than the rest of the population and how they use those advantages to fuck people over. I've offered many examples--all of which have been met with "It's the government, stupid!"

I guess I have to keep going...

juris imprudent said...

and has since been abused by the wealthy.

Would one of you retards please identify the specific abuse inflicted here? Who has been harmed and how? If not, you are all just a bunch of envious whiners complaining that the rich have shit you don't. In which case you should all just STFU and re-evaluate the emphasis you place on wealth in YOUR lives.

Folks, when you start from the point where everything is the government's fault

Yo M - you do sorta realize, just a little maybe, that you are the one blaming "bad gubmint" here. Gubmint=law and the law supposedly gave an advantage to the rich here (not that that has been proven in the slightest).

Really, I don't have the problem with the govt here - you do.

It's more about a new way of thinking using ideas and methods that have worked in the past.

This example is from the past - the glorious age of New Deal regulation. You've always said the problem with the last 30 years was going away from that. Now you are saying that it wasn't so great to begin with. Why don't you tell us what "new way" you have in mind to fix what the New Dealers fucked up?

On the other hand, you are already so incoherent, that I can't imagine you can do anything better than sputter about "evil rich people". Oh like...

...and how they use those advantages to fuck people over.

And we are still waiting on that part. Are you going to offer some proof - oh like how you were fucked over? Talking about your granny doesn't count because you've already lied about that.

Tell us how the poor and middle class were "fucked over" by being kept out of a financial market that was a disaster. [This is going to be good.]

Haplo9 said...

>I'm through coddling your sensitivity about government.

Uh oh, I think Mark is bringing out the big guns. He's going to be extra incoherent and irrational when he makes his points now, not just mostly. Must have been doin some extra 'reflectin lately, eh Mark?

>It's more about a new way of thinking using ideas and methods that have worked in the past.

So what's this new way of thinking Mark? Lets see if the teacher with no apparent real world experience can tell us how he will make everything better. I'm anticipating more pie in the sky wish-think.

>I have been asked to demonstrate how the wealthy in this country are afforded more advantages than the rest of the population how they use those advantages to fuck people over.

Key part of the above sentence: "how they use those advantages to fuck people over." You have merely said "here is an advantage wealthy people have." You haven't explained how that results in fucking people over. You're just assuming that any advantage = fucking people over. Once again, why?

And dear god, why must basic logic be continually explained to this clown?

oojc said...

--He's going to be extra incoherent and irrational when he makes his points now--

Or that means he's done trying to be nice and see your side of the story.

Mark Ward said...

"Lets see if the teacher with no apparent real world experience can tell us how he will make everything better."

What exactly do you define as "real world?" It's pretty real world to me when a young person says to you, "I don't have to do my assignment because I'm gonna be Beyonce" and then you have to explain to them how doing their assignment will help them later in life. It's also pretty real world when you show them how "being Beyonce" is basically like being a travelling salesman (long hours, always on the road, hard work, mentally taxing, hawking something)

I don't know if you knew this or not but I worked in the corporate world for 8 years. Is that real world or not? Then I spent several years as a househusband. Raising kids not real world as well?

And you chide me for not being logical...sheesh.

juris imprudent said...

Or that means he's done trying to be nice and see your side of the story.

M NEVER sees the other side of the story. I would say that might be a personal defect, but it seems to be exceptionally common amongst you lefties (and, to be fair, many if not most righties).

C'mon oojc - you chimed in after the latest comments - why don't you tell us how you have been abused by the wealthy. What harm was inflicted on you by whom?

You are by far the stupidest people I've ever attempted discourse with - and that includes people half altered out of their minds on booze and/or drugs. You are worse than televangelists with your persistent preaching and moronic moralizing.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, it was M that was supposed to be done being nice.

Haplo9 said...

>What exactly do you define as "real world?"

You're right, I didn't clarify that very well. By real world, I primarily mean be in a position such that the decisions you make have implications that are objectively judged by the real world, because they very clearly succeed or fail. Being a small business owner puts you in this position very quickly, because a business will very clearly succeed or fail. Being in a position of authority (ie managing people in a corp, or making high level decisions) will put you in this position as well. The reason I ask is this - your entire belief system smacks of someone who has never had to seriously grapple with some general truisms of that real world:

1. There are negative tradeoffs to pretty much every decision you make. Sometimes, the positives greatly outweigh the negatives such that the best decision is obvious. Most of the time, it isn't that simple.
2. Creating a successful business is extremely hard. It takes some or all of luck, talent, money, and time. Being able to grow a business such that it can hire people is extremely rare, and should not be taken for granted. This does not mean that business can do no wrong, but if you like people being employed, you would do well to understand the conditions that are likely to lead to business creation and growth vs those that aren't. Someone who doesn't have the experience running a business isn't likely to know much about that, are they?
3. Regulation is a non-trivial burden on businesses and people. See point #1. We might decide that the burden is worth it overall, but acting like sprinking regulatory magic pixie dust over everything makes it better is magical thinking.

If you had tried to start your own business, for example, you'd learn those things very quickly. You'd also learn that "personal reflection", however much it may make you feel that you are smart, doesn't actually generate sales or income.

This is why I have no respect for your opinion on economic subjects. It is so ungrounded from the realities of what it actually takes to accomplish things in business that it's the equivilent of a child stamping their feet in frustration upon seeing that things don't work the way they might wish.

>I don't know if you knew this or not but I worked in the corporate world for 8 years.

Ohh, now I'm curious. What did you do? Were you in a position of authority? Did you learn anything from the experience?

Mark Ward said...

You don't have any respect for my views on economic matters simply because I don't agree with them. Would it surprise you to know that there are (gasp!) small business owners that support President Obama's efforts? I guess they are all stupid as well. The problem here, Hap, is one of hubris. I don't admit to having all the answers. I don't. But folks who have a similar ideology to you generally think they have the corner market on economics and business. You don't. The facts have shown that supply side, Austrian school, trickle down, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't really worked.

I have worked for two small businesses in my lifetime. Federal government regulation was not high on the list of burdens. New business was chief among our burdens. The first was doing sales/marketing for a media/ad firm in downtown Mpls. The second was an offshoot of that business. One of the owners, one of the programmers and me left to form our own business. That truly was small. It was during that time that I learned of how incredibly fucked up the corporate world was and, honestly, I was thankful that my daughter was born and I could stop working. Decisions made at a snail like pace, unimaginable greed, unfathomable depths of idiocy...maybe I should turn my experiences into a post for they are too long to go into in comments.

What's truly ironic about your description of me is that it's honestly more accurate of yourself. It's that old classic--attack your opponent with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness.

Small businesses are struggling now because there is a lack of demand. The middle class drive small businesses and they are being soaked right now while the rich get richer. That's why you see things like the Citigroup doc. Or this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40593905/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

One more thing-I'm a big supporter of high stakes testing so that's pretty real world as well. If instructors make a bad choice, they are now held accountable for it. I'm hoping we can extend the high stakes testing to social studies as well.

juris imprudent said...

I don't admit to having all the answers.

Wait, wait just a darn minute. Haven't you said that you know what is in other people's best interest - even when they don't?

It's that old classic--attack your opponent with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness.

Did you not ask me if I, like you, responded to a McDonalds TV ad by hopping in the car to go buy a burger from them? You asked on the assumption that I acted the same as you.

The middle class ... are being soaked right now

Soaked by what exactly M? Housing cost is down, the CPI is hardly going off the charts. What is this great soaking? And why do you then insist that the middle class is not spending enough? What do you want - them to go even deeper in consumer debt?

Honest to pete - don't your 'thoughts' die of loneliness, cause you sure as hell never let two or more of them get together.

And I don't suppose you are ever going to tell us what the nasty hedge fund investor did to you; you know, how he harmed (or "fucked over" if you prefer) you.

Haplo9 said...

>You don't have any respect for my views on economic matters simply because I don't agree with them.

No. I could have respect for your views on economics, even if I disagreed with them, if they were coherent. But all you've got is the same envious whine, over and over: "The wealthy are, well wealthy! They must be getting it on the backs of us regular folk! See! Only they can partake in certain investment types! Er, and they can network with other wealthy people!"

>Would it surprise you to know that there are (gasp!) small business owners that support President Obama's efforts?

Not at all. I just hope they have better reasoning skills than you.

>I guess they are all stupid as well.

Just you Mark, just you.

>The problem here, Hap, is one of hubris.

I absolutely agree with this. Of course, we would disagree as to who is actually suffering from hubris. :) Recall that it is not I trying to tell other people what is in their best interest.

> But folks who have a similar ideology to you generally think they have the corner market on economics and business. You don't.

Wrong again - but what folks like me can do is tell you what won't work. And having a religious faith in government to do the right thing won't work.

Haplo9 said...

>The facts have shown that supply side, Austrian school, trickle down, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't really worked.

I have a very similarly supported statement: The facts have shown that deficit spending, heavy regulation, statist-collectivist, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't worked.

Regarding your business experience - did you ever have to keep the books? How about make decisions that would significantly affect the direction of the company? In other words, success or failure of the business was all on you?

>It was during that time that I learned of how incredibly fucked up the corporate world was

I can't say I think the corporate world is all peaches and cream, but it also manages to keep a lot of people gainfully employed. So they can earn money and pay taxes and pay your salary, for example. (And then bitch about doing all that.)

>maybe I should turn my experiences into a post for they are too long to go into in comments.

I say this in all seriousness - that might actually be an interesting post, as opposed to your usual displays of narcissism and ignorance.

>The middle class drive small businesses and they are being soaked right now while the rich get richer.

Once again, you hint at a belief in a zero sum game of economics, and once again, I ask - is the economy one fixed pot of money that every takes as much as they get? This would be at least the 5th time you'll avoid the question by the way, asked by many others than me.

Anonymous said...

BAM!!!

dw

Mark Ward said...

"Haven't you said that you know what is in other people's best interest - even when they don't?"

In some cases, yes. In others, no. I don't generally deal in black and whites, juris. There are exceptions, of course. I get people who dig chick's asses (as I do). I don't get people who dig chick's tits (I like them but so what? Some men have tits).

Hap-that's an oversimplification of what I have been saying. I've offered very detailed points about the wealthy in this country. You have chose to ignore them. That's on you not me.

"The facts have shown that deficit spending, heavy regulation, statist-collectivist, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't worked"

Really? Where? I'd be inclined to agree with you on statist-collectivist from the standpoint of failures such as the Soviet Union and Cuba. But the other two...nope. Show me the major financial crisis, that occurred during the time of heavy regulation in this country and ultra high taxes, which compares to the ones of the last 30 years. Explain to me how deficit spending "failed" in WWII or the Cold War.

I didn't keep the books with the first company but I did work closely with the president of the second company on them. I was bringing in the cash and so we talked quite a bit about what we needed to make. Again, new business was paramount, not government regulation or corporate taxes.

"is the economy one fixed pot of money that every takes as much as they get?"

Some times it sure seems that way considering the people that control it. Other times, it doesn't considering the amount of money that could be made in new areas like green technology. The problem with this question is that it is (again) a black and white question in an area that is anything but black and white. Remember Harry Truman and the one armed economist? The other problem is that when you think of POWER you think of the government. When I think of POWER, I think of the multinational corporation.

Haplo9 said...

>I don't generally deal in black and whites, juris.

This statement is so rofl funny I don't know where to start. How can one person be so monumentally unaware of their own self?

>I've offered very detailed points about the wealthy in this country. You have chose to ignore them. That's on you not me.

I think the only thing that you have established is that there are, in fact, wealthy people in this country, and that their greater wealth enables them to partake in some opportunities that people of lesser wealth cannot (as easily) partake in. Strangely enough, that seems to imply that certain opportunities require money to be able to partake in. Good job Mark, you're really on a roll..

>"The facts have shown that deficit spending, heavy regulation, statist-collectivist, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't worked"

Lets review your original statement:

>The facts have shown that supply side, Austrian school, trickle down, and whatever mutant version of any of these haven't really worked.

My point, which sailed over your thick head, is that the "facts" haven't shown any such thing - you want just want to claim as much so you can set the boundaries for "reasonable" discussion as being somewhere inside of "just how much super-state do we need to fuction correctly? (according to Mark) That, of course, is a nonsense proposition. Just because you have a religious faith in government does not mean that the rest of us share it. The irony, of course, is that by virtue of your faith in the government, you place your faith in the utility of coercive power to get the ends that you desire. Me? Not so much. It is probably true that coercive power might be the quicker way to get your desired ends in some cases, but Mark? I've got a phone call for you. It's from History. It says that granting strong coercive power to governments has never worked out well.

Haplo9 said...

>The problem with this question is that it is (again) a black and white question in an area that is anything but black and white.

Actually, it is a very straightforward yes/no question. Do you believe the economy is a zero sum game, or not? You continually harp about how the rich screw other people over - the only way I can get that claim to make ANY logical sense, is if you believe that by virtue of one person making a lot of money, that directly takes money out of someone else's pocket. Do you? For the umpteenth time?

>The other problem is that when you think of POWER you think of the government. When I think of POWER, I think of the multinational corporation.

That I agree with. But once again, History is calling. Which of those entities (governments or multinational corporations) have caused more problems? (I'd ask which of them has a corner on coercive power, but you've already demonstrated (centerpoint, etc) that you aren't able to understand the difference.)

Mark Ward said...

"My point, which sailed over your thick head, is that the "facts" haven't shown any such thing"

Incorrect. Here's one example.

Reagan's "voodoo" economics saw less tax revenue. Revenue from personal income fell 9 percent from 1980 to 1984 even though average income grew by 4 percent. (Mankiw, Principles of Microeconomics, 2004). This would be a fact that demonstrates the failure of Laffer.

I don't have a religious faith in government. If you came to me with the "government by sedimentation" argument, you might have me on board. But the statist power/coercion/little or no reg argument is ridiculous when you consider what has happened. Have you seen "Inside Job" yet?

"Do you? For the umpteenth time?"

I already answered that question. This example, though, demonstrates a very large chasm between how your brain operates and how mine does. There's been at least one study that shows that the conservative brain is very different than the liberal one. This study may apply here as it showed that the conservative brain can't accept any new information. You can't grok how matters such as this aren't either-or issues. Just because you say

"by virtue of one person making a lot of money, that directly takes money out of someone else's pocket."

doesn't mean that it's true.

Of course, not being as accepting of new information can also be a good thing. The other way to look at the study is to say that liberals have no filters and, thus, suffer from analysis-paralysis...which is true.

The answer to your other question is another example of lack of connectivity. Our world used to be defined in terms of states. So, historically, it has been government power. But now we live in a global economy and the age of realism (along with idealism) died when both failed to predict the end of the Cold War. What age do we live in now? Constructivism? Behavioral Science? A potpourri of all four? It's evolving every day.

But that's my point. Power in the world has shifted and states have considerably less power than they used to. Remember Ike's speech on the military industrial complex? Now look at Iraq. The government may have been the tool but it's pretty clear who called the shots there.

juris imprudent said...

In some cases, yes. In others, no. I don't generally deal in black and whites, juris. There are exceptions, of course.

Wow, that's deep M. Deep, deep bullshit.

Are you sure you don't want to qualify it just a little more?

And out of all of my questions that is the part you respond to. Skip right over the more substantive one about the middle class being soaked (per you).

I would like to know one thing - did it register with you at all (somewhere in your conscious mind) that you were projecting when you asked about my reaction to McDonalds advertising?

Reagan's "voodoo" economics saw less tax revenue. Revenue from personal income fell 9 percent from 1980 to 1984 even though average income grew by 4 percent.

I thought you were pretty keen on Reagan? But let's dissect this little gem shall we? First, Reagan was elected in '80, took office in '81 and proposed the tax cuts that summer, with his first actual budget (spending and taxes) taking effect in '82. Second, the nation was in a sharp recession from 1980-82. Tax collections usually go down during recessions, no? Third, as any student of Keynes knows, there are lags before the full effects take place - which makes Mankiw's endpoint (and your interpretation) suspect. You are demanding the effect in less than 2 years. You do realize that you have to hold an investment at least 1 full year for it to be a capital gain. Fourth, the Reagan tax cut was actually overall smaller than the Kennedy cut. Fifth, except for the very mild and brief recession during Bush I, the economy had the longest recorded stretch of prosperity in history - starting in the Reagan years through the Clinton years.

But you would rather do your best to fuck over the rich than admit the good times rolled after the Reagan tax cuts. You better plan on a post addressing how the rich have fucked you over - with concrete example(s), because I am going to hound you about that until you either shut it about it, or put up something I can't refute.

juris imprudent said...

BTW M, have you finally figured out that you are the one making the "gubmint bad" case here? Or is that still eluding you?

Haplo9 said...

>I don't have a religious faith in government.

Are you sure? More government seems to be your answer to just about every ill that you perceive. Of course, when asked to explain how more government is Really Going To Work This Time Around, you disappear.

>I already answered that question.

Yes, or no Mark. Yes or no. Very simple. You haven't done it.

>Just because you say
"by virtue of one person making a lot of money, that directly takes money out of someone else's pocket."
doesn't mean that it's true.

Wow. This is painful. You don't even understand why we are asking you about such hypotheticals. You are so far behind in this conversation that you take a statement I'm using to try to figure out how YOU think and attributing it to me, as if I think it. I would feel sorry for you if you weren't so arrogant in your stupidity. So lets review:

Mark: Wealthy people are fucking everyone else over.
Me: how does that fucking over occur?
Mark: Because wealthy people are.. wealthy. Or something.
Me: I could see how you might say that, if you thought that when wealthy people make money, they take money directly out of other peoples pockets. Is that what you think?
Mark: Just because you say "when wealthy people make money, it takes money directly out of other peoples pockets" doesn't make it true.

Note, in case you are wondering: the last bit by you makes absolutely no sense. You are either not following the convesation, or you are just being purposefully obtuse. The purpose of these line of questions is to tease out exactly what "fucking over" actually happens that you decry. Juris and I have both been trying to get you to explain that. With no luck. Ouch.

Haplo9 said...

>This example, though, demonstrates a very large chasm between how your brain operates and how mine does.

I absolutely agree. I have trained mine to process information and to follow rational, deductive paths. I'm by no means perfect at it, but dear god, I look like Einstein next to you. This isn't even conservative vs liberal - this is you being so incompetent that you don't possess the wherewithal to assess your own competence.

>But that's my point. Power in the world has shifted and states have considerably less power than they used to.

>The government may have been the tool but it's pretty clear who called the shots there.

If you are liberal, you mean. Tell you what - let us know when a corporation goes and commits genocide, or starves millions all in the name of an ideology. Till then, the weight of history is so blatantly on the side of governments being the cause of most of humanity's ills, that I'll take your "point" with a mountain sized grain of salt. Even if a corporation were to be able to obtain the above power, it would require, yep, a complicit government in order to carry such things out. And your solution? Make the government more powerful, more intrusive. The mind boggles.

juris imprudent said...

Juris and I have both been trying to get you to explain that. With no luck. Ouch.

As my father taught me long, long ago - that is the difference between fishing and catching.

I'll take your "point" with a mountain sized grain of salt

Eh, that much salt isn't good for you, y'know.

Merry Christmas to all. To all I wish you peace and joy - despite the amount of time you may have to spend with your families. May Santa bring some of you a clue and in the New Year may you resolve to be clear in your thinking.

juris imprudent said...

Well M, and his chorus, appear to have abandoned this thread so instead he can preach his particular version of politically correct Christianity.

Alas I fear we may never know what abuse the wealthy have heaped upon any of our dear left-leaning friends here. The shame seems to be too great for them to expound upon it.

Anonymous said...

I thought the comment ~ 'can you show me on the doll where the wealthy have touched you?' [or something to that effect] was highlarious.

dw

GuardDuck said...

The way he completely misunderstood Haplo9's question earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he's 'won' this conversation and has moved on.

Mark Ward said...

"Yes, or no Mark. Yes or no. Very simple. You haven't done it."

No, it's not that simple. Sorry, but I'm not going to live in your narrow minded world, dude. If you think economics is simple matter of "yes or no" then I'm curious as to where you get off lecturing me about economic matters given how structurally organic they are in reality. And, Guard Duck, I know full well where he is going with his Hannitized question. I'm not going to dance like a monkey and be baited into "winning the argument" games. I answered it above. Hap's turn to say whether or not he agrees and what his thoughts on the economic pie.

"I have trained mine to process information and to follow rational, deductive paths."

Really? Where? The majority of what you post on here stems from massive distrust of the federal government. You refuse to acknowledge that government has worked in reducing poverty and caring for the sick even though the facts say they have. But this comment of yours betrays a very significant error. You can't analyze politics, national or international, or society/culture exclusively using behavioral science. It's nice to have aggregate data but the scientific method doesn't always explain the whys and hows of human behavior which is very complex and certainly not rational.

In addition, your personal insults (as words like these always do) betray one of two things. Either you don't like what I have to say or you are not familiar with the information that I put up on here. I'd say it's likely both.

Speaking Truth said...

All that, and still no answer to the question; yes, no, or even what makes the question invalid (other than yet another variation on the Genetic Fallacy: "OMG, any answer I give lets the right win! I can't have that!").

Note: The question (zero sum economics) is based on the third basic law of logic, the Law of Excluded Middle.

http://bit.ly/b3gYp

GuardDuck said...

I answered it above.


? Really?

All you showed above is that you didn't even understand that the question was actually a question. How the hell could you answer something that you don't even know is a question to be answered?


Tell you what, why don't we start off simple. Forget the yes or no for a moment, because we won't be sure you're not answering 'yes' to the voices in your head. Let's start instead by you simply repeating the question that has been asked of you so that we know that you know what words are directed at you.

Mark Ward said...

ST-do you think that logic has anything to do with something as fluid as economics? Good Lord...

GD-Oh, I understood the question alright. I reject the "logic" under which is was written. To say that economics is either a zero sum game or it isn't...that the pie is either a set amount or it isn't...is fundamentally flawed to begin with, hence the reason why I brought up Harry Truman and the one armed economist. Do you know why he said that? If you do, then you also know why I answered the question the way I did and why it is not a simple "yes" or "no."

I get the fact that some of you are engineers but you can't exclusively apply the scientific method to economics, politics, and cultural behavior. That's what you are doing here (combined with the usual game playing that color nearly all our interactions) and it's flawed.

Speaking Truth said...

> ST-do you think that logic has anything to do with something as fluid as economics? Good Lord...

Finally, an answer! (of sorts)

And one that makes me giggle hysterically because it tells the whole world all they need to know about Markadelphia thought processes… "Damn the logic. Full power to the magic unicorn drive!!!"

ROTFL!!!!!

GuardDuck said...

reason why I brought up Harry Truman and the one armed economist. Do you know why he said that

To say that economics is either a zero sum game or it isn't...that the pie is either a set amount or it isn't...is fundamentally flawed to begin with

You are the one hemming and hawing*, which answers the question for us, even though you don't know it because you still don't understand the question. I'm also led to believe that you don't understand logic or vocabulary as well.

*one handing and other handing - yes I know my Truman.

juris imprudent said...

M you needn't put logic in scare quotes, no matter how much logic scares you. Of course you reject it - that isn't exactly news to anyone who reads you more than twice.

I suppose if you were studying physics you would believe that Maxwell's Demon was some supernatural entity, though a beneficent one undeserving of being labeled a demon.

The scientific method may not be suitable for all fields of human endeavor. Surely it would be a poor way to develop, describe or critique poetry or even morality (all though for comparative stuidies it could be handy). But in any field with any sort of quantitative bias at all, it is indispendsible. What alternative would you use - critical theory? Or just pull it out of my ass as I go?

I'm still waiting to hear what some wealthy person did to you, all so that he could create or increase his wealth. The sooner you address that, or decide to retract your precious "rich fuck you over" refrain, the better.

Mark Ward said...

ST-So, you're saying that all economics are rooted in logic? And the scientific method? Still not sure but if you do I don't quite know where to go with that.

Juris, we aren't studying physics. That what be a science in which logic is rooted, no doubt. Herein lies the problem...there's a big difference between physical sciences and social science. Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources (Mankiw, 2004). This field of study can't be simply explained by physical science. Human behavior isn't like gravity.

I've listed other approaches of study previously....functionalism, interactionism (where Adam Smith falls), realism, idealism...there are many more. I've always thought that the best way to analyze something is an eclectic approach combining all of these methods.

As to your waiting, it's easily solved once you chuck the insta-contrarian persona you adopt with things you don't like and actually listen to the evidence I offer. I can't help it if you are willfully ignorant. Seen "Inside Job" yet?

Speaking Truth said...

Funny that you should bring up Manikow:

http://bit.ly/9n1o5J

Here are a few quotes:

1. Every economist needs to have a solid foundation in the basics of economic theory and econometrics, even if you are not going to be either a theorist or an econometrician. You cannot get this solid foundation without understanding the language of mathematics that these fields use.



3. Math is good training for the mind. It makes you a more rigorous thinker.


Math is applied logic at its most pure. Notice that Manikow says that math is a necessary part of economics, and so is logical thinking.

http://bit.ly/eGSAsu

That you could even entertain the idea that logic has nothing to do with economics, nevermind be so shocked at the idea that it could be involved is… is… is… horrifying …teacher…

Better go sell your cow for more beans Marxy, your unicorn's gonna need them to produce more farts!

Speaking Truth said...

BTW, It is not possible to be a "critical thinker" without logic. Period. (Notice that this is an open ended claim, without restrictions to particular fields of study.)

http://bit.ly/e1aAm6

Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

Speaking Truth said...

Here's an excellent (and clear) page on Critical Thinking:

http://bit.ly/8qjkbJ

Critical thinking is "reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do." [Note: This would include economics] ... Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments. Basically, it is using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper. In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something: a statement, news story, argument, research, etc.



The essence of critical thinking is logic, and logical evaluation — by using reality checks and quality checks — is the essence of Scientific Method and Design Method. On the other end of the logic spectum, (sic) we see a variety of Logical Fallacies that include circular reasoning and strawman arguments.

Hmmm, logic is central to critical thinking…

Who here claims to be a "critical thinker"? Who here is rejecting logic? Who here consistently uses logical fallacies, especially the straw man fallacy? Oh look, they're the same person: Markadelphia!

Speaking Truth said...

Aaaand, there went another comment.

Here's the bare link from the missing comment. You can go read what it says for yourself:

http://bit.ly/e1aAm6

juris imprudent said...

there's a big difference between physical sciences and social science

True. But the social sciences only came into being by applying the scientific method to social inquiry.

Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources

Thank you M, I never would've known if you hadn't quoted someone who got a BA in econ the same year I did. I understand how tingly you get when you quote a Harvard professor.

Honestly, if you eschew the scientific method - what is left to ANY of the social sciences? Back to moral philosophy and political economy!

(where Adam Smith falls)

Wrong. Smith was using the scientific method in analyzing human behavior. He explained this using metaphorical language for the benefit of his audience (unlike so many modern intellectuals). By the way, I know you haven't actually read Smith because you haven't commented on how tedious his writing style actually was. People who read about Smith (vice reading him) usually don't mention this. You really should read the de Rugy link I provided - it is mined right out of Wealth of Nationa.

As to your waiting, it's easily solved once you chuck the insta-contrarian persona you adopt with things you don't like and actually listen to the evidence I offer. I can't help it if you are willfully ignorant. Seen "Inside Job" yet?

Data would do the trick. Even one good example. Too bad you don't have one.

I'm not ignorant M - I am a non believer. I don't take things on faith, least of all from such an eccentric and incoherent person.

juris imprudent said...

I mean DAMN M, you STILL haven't admitted that YOU were the one complaining about "bad gubmint" in the original post. Not anyone else here.

juris imprudent said...

Oh M, if you put up a new post - how 'bout a Palin/Bachmann one, we haven't had one of those in a while - this whole thing will slip off the page and into the memory hole.

Then you can argue how you never said any of what you said here.

Mark Ward said...

ST-I agree. Math is a necessary part of economics. The scientific method is also a part of economics. It is NOT the exclusive method of analysis, however, wouldn't you agree?

"Who here claims to be a "critical thinker"? Who here is rejecting logic? Who here consistently uses logical fallacies, especially the straw man fallacy? Oh look, they're the same person: Markadelphia!"

From your link...

"The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit."

Would you consider yourself "open minded," ST? Anyone else? How does fair minded fit in with your evaluation and analysis of my posts? Of Democrats?

The simple fact is that the criteria listed here is what I wish that many of you would have and often fail at even coming close to the ideal. How often have I asked for many of you to be "fair minded in evaluation" when it comes to something like climate change, for example. Show me (if you accept the above as the ideal for critical thinking) how you are all of these things in regards to climate change. Or any other topic we debate.

Mark Ward said...

Juris-I guess I have to repeat myself. I'm not saying that the scientific method of analysis should be left off the table. I am saying that it should not be used as the exclusive means for perspective. Too many intangibles are ignored. Adam Smith espoused rational choice which grew out of an interactionist perspective.

German sociologist Max Weber wrote quite often about the fact that social science analysis was different from physical science analysis. His chief point being that physicists, for example, don't examine sentient beings engaged in purposeful behavior as social scientists do. Economics is, in essence, a field which includes sentient beings and behavior as chief components. Physical scientists can't always describe someone's choice or their process in bringing meaning to an interaction. This would be where logic can sometimes fail and where looking at our culture from a functionalist point of view, for example, can make the picture of behavior clearer.

For more on Weber's work as an economist, check out this link.

http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/weber.htm

GuardDuck said...

Mark,

Your failure in critical thinking here is that you continue to think that the question posed to you is somehow trying to apply logic to economics. This is incorrect. The question is actually an attempt to apply logic to the answerer - you.

I just don't get why you can't answer it. It really is a simple yes or no question. Even your hand wringing over it shows that you have an answer - but you just can't see it. The logic applies to you - and you don't have it.

That is why you fail to convince us. You ask us to be "fair minded in evaluation", yet you do not produce a logical argument. Absent a logical argument all you have is emotion - fair mindedness does not apply.

Speaking Truth said...

M, go back and reread that portion you quoted again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Now read it again. And again.

Notice a couple of other key concepts in there? For example, "well-informed", "trustful of reason", "fair-minded in evaluation", and so forth.

Your definition of "open-minded" would trump these other concepts, asking us to accept irrational and illogical arguments, and discarding everything which we are well informed of. Remember, proper critical thinking uses as much valid information as possible to reach a conclusion.

Always being "open" to everything that comes down the pike, regardless of its validity, or lack thereof, is not actual critical thinking.

Think about it; "EVALUATION" is the process examining ideas and concepts to determine their validity and filtering out the ones which are invalid.

You think we're not open minded because we discard your claims very quickly. But easily identified logic errors (such as your routine logical fallacies such as the strawman and genetic fallacies) are easily spotted and fail the evaluation process.

I am actually open minded to arguments which are factually based, take in and fit with as much evidence as possible, and which use valid logic and reasoning. As a result, I do change my mind from time to time as I encounter better ideas and arguments. You just don't see it happening in my arguments with you because your own claims are so wildly lacking in these attributes.

Speaking Truth said...

::: Sigh :::

And there goes another one.

Mark, apparently there is a way to have Blogger let you get it back.

Speaking Truth said...

Maybe this will help:

http://bit.ly/dEGpf1

Mark Ward said...

ST-try posting your comment in another thread if you can't do so here. Remember to cut and paste what you wrote offline. You can always try to repost.

GD-Well, you are right about one thing: I'm not Spock. It appears that you are but I could be wrong. One thing I've noticed about some posters here is that they use logic as their protective cloak. It's terribly insecure in a way because when they don't have an adequate explanation of facts, they simple say...well, it's not logical so therefore it is wrong. There was nothing logical about the question in the first place...pure, weasel words and emotion instead.I suggest delving into Weber, GD, and see what you think regarding his view of reason and logic.

juris imprudent said...

This is curious indeed. Most intellectuals even when not actually using the scientific method have been quite keen to leverage the credibility associated with the process. Here we have M now claiming that the process isn't sufficient, even in areas where it has actually been applied.

M if you really want to get into a debate about the limits of logic and reason, Weber isn't your man - Kant is. However, I suspect that water is too deep for you to wade around in it.

But how much can you expect when someone criticizes securities law and blames a purported failing therein on people that did not write that law. Then howls how the rich fuck everyone over without ever explaining how it has been done to him. Not even once.

No, you are no Spock for sure M - you are more like the character with no last name in Galaxy Quest.

GuardDuck said...

There was nothing logical about the question in the first place


It's a yes or no question mark. Pure binary and digital. That you can't answer it is illogical.

Speaking Truth said...

> You can always try to repost.

I've tried it before. When Blogger deletes one, it will delete it again unless I change something. Of course, what to change can take tons of experimentation, especially since there isn't anything about the post any human being would delete as being "spam." Not something I have time for.

Did you check the link above? It supposedly explains how to manage what Blogger has marked as spam.