A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/bu...BJam7qIOA+tdHg

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0601300839.asp

http://www.themoneyblogs.com/poorand...p-1-myths.html

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/f...1/mobility.cfm

Very clever!!! Now, I'm supposed to post a bunch of links, right, and then you can say, "See, there's evidence on both sides." So, part of the Cynical Broder is to just point to the existence of stuff, without actually saying anything about. Arguing might actually lead to some sort of conclusion about something.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or not.

huh. "Global warming" only had one hit. I'd think they'd at least have half a dozen press releases that were written by Bilmore in 2001-2004.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or not.

try typing in the box at the top right of the screen

To wit:

See my edited post, above. -- T.S.

eta: I must have a republican computer, because no matter what box I type it in I get loads of results.

One thing to note, it looks like Bush prefers to call it "global climate change" not "global warming", which I assume is a conscious choice (and probably more accurate)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Breslin would eat her up, spit her out and kick her to the curb.

Breslin had her intellect and her sense of humor. He did not have her quick wit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/bu...BJam7qIOA+tdHg

Tyler Cowen was one of the conservative economists I was going to point you to. In a post on his blog shortly after he wrote this piece, he wrote, about Reynolds' book:

• I'd promised readers an analysis of this book, but I didn't have enough space in my column on inequality. . . .
  
  I don't agree with the most notorious claim of the book, namely that income inequality hasn't gone up over the last few decades. Gary Burtless has a good, non-polemical look at the data. See also Bruce Bartlett. Personally I am struck by what I know about philanthropy, art markets (booming prices, driven by wealth) and academic salaries. At the micro-level each of these areas appears to reflect a trend of rising income inequality. Even before I had heard of Piketty and Saez, I felt I was seeing their result right before my eyes. In terms of more formal data, I also was much influenced by the Thomas Lemieux piece I cited earlier today (Reynolds cites it too, I might add, approvingly, though without considering this angle), which shows that composition effects virtually require income inequality to be rising. Reynolds would have had a better book if he simply stated that income inequality isn't going up as much as some people have claimed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Very clever!!! Now, I'm supposed to post a bunch of links, right, and then you can say, "See, there's evidence on both sides." So, part of the Cynical Broder is to just point to the existence of stuff, without actually saying anything about. Arguing might actually lead to some sort of conclusion about something.

I am not half as clever as you are... This last avoidance was pretty amusing. The king of cites is unable to divine the messages within his own favored form of argument support. We are in the bizarro universe...

Within those cites, you would actually find arguments supporting both of our positions. Some argue income mobility remains high, so focusing on static inequality (note: this necessarily admits inequality) is a red herring. Others argument the data is lacking. Still other argue consumption inequality is not increasing (agin, admitting your broad point). One goes into my analysis, arguing that income inequality between white collar workers is not increasing, but is among blue collar workers.

Hence, its complex. My point. I haven't found any which net the differences between sectors, so I am stuck arguing against the "consensus" it favors an overall rising inequity with mere anecdotal evidence based on the rise and fall of incomes in industries connected to the types of law I used to practice and the ups and downs I've viewed of friends and family.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0601300839.asp

Did you both to read this one? It doesn't say that inequality is decreasing. It suggests that there are innocuous reasons (e.g., aging) for the phenomenom, or reasons that putatively don't have anything to do with "systemic flaw[s] in capitalism," like drug abuse. Most of this is the sgtclub argument, not yours.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tyler Cowen was one of the conservative economists I was going to point you to. In a post on his blog shortly after he wrote this piece, he wrote, about Reynolds' book:

• I'd promised readers an analysis of this book, but I didn't have enough space in my column on inequality. . . .
  
  I don't agree with the most notorious claim of the book, namely that income inequality hasn't gone up over the last few decades. Gary Burtless has a good, non-polemical look at the data. See also Bruce Bartlett. Personally I am struck by what I know about philanthropy, art markets (booming prices, driven by wealth) and academic salaries. At the micro-level each of these areas appears to reflect a trend of rising income inequality. Even before I had heard of Piketty and Saez, I felt I was seeing their result right before my eyes. In terms of more formal data, I also was much influenced by the Thomas Lemieux piece I cited earlier today (Reynolds cites it too, I might add, approvingly, though without considering this angle), which shows that composition effects virtually require income inequality to be rising. Reynolds would have had a better book if he simply stated that income inequality isn't going up as much as some people have claimed.

I was going to cite Bartlett, but to the extent the links contaned referecns to Townhall.org, I immediately disregarded them as far too polemic.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Its not you, but, gnerally, the intolerant bias of the left just gets tiring sometimes.

This may be the best example of ironic humor I've seen all year.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
http://www.themoneyblogs.com/poorand...p-1-myths.html

Great. Repetition as a substitute for conversation. I've posted about Reynolds, who is a hack at Cato. So you've just regurgitated an op-ed he wrote for the WSJ -- truly a bastion of disinterested intellectual inquiry if ever there was one. And this is supposed to prove that the left does it too?

Did you not even read it, or did you hope I wouldn't?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you both to read this one? It doesn't say that inequality is decreasing. It suggests that there are innocuous reasons (e.g., aging) for the phenomenom, or reasons that putatively don't have anything to do with "systemic flaw[s] in capitalism," like drug abuse. Most of this is the sgtclub argument, not yours.

Are you really suggesting that argument isn't subsumed in mine?

I'm not allowed to argue the political angle implicit in the income inequality hysteria is based on flawed data?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/f...1/mobility.cfm

Jesus Christ, Sebby, you're really mailing it in. Unlike you, I bothered to read at least a little of this one. It says:

• The common perception of the United States is that income is increasingly unequal . . . .
  
  Few people dispute the [] part regarding income inequality. From 1975 to 2000, average income in the bottom 20 percent of households rose by 24 percent, after adjusting for inflation, while the top 20 percent of households saw their incomes rise by 68 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Since then, the gap has widened even further: Income actually declined for the bottom households from 2000 to 2005, while at the top it grew another 12 percent. Research suggests that income inequality has risen in most countries and is particularly high in emerging and second-tier economies such as Russia and those in Latin America. Among rich countries, however, the United States is typically the highest or among the highest in income inequality.

What. Ever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Great. Repetition as a substitute for conversation. I've posted about Reynolds, who is a hack at Cato. So you've just regurgitated an op-ed he wrote for the WSJ -- truly a bastion of disinterested intellectual inquiry if ever there was one. And this is supposed to prove that the left does it too?

Did you not even read it, or did you hope I wouldn't?

Are you suggesting I cited the blog assuming that would somehow hide the fact that its supporting cite was Reynolds? I could have cited a blog that regurgitated his point in paraphrasing. Instead I cited you one which actually reprinted - with a reference to the fact that it was reprinting, AND a credit to Reynolds - Reynolds' entire column.

Of course, I did that to trick you. It's all part of my master plan to best you in this argument. I am jumping up and down right now, screaming "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Getting the job is both the outcome and the opportunity. The Left's argument is tantamount to saying "We don't want people to all get the same vacation at the same destination... We just want to ensure everyone gets on the same plane."

They sound as silly as intelligent design advocates. They'd do much better to admit naked social engineering.

Equality of outcome -- Everybody gets to go to Disney World for two weeks

Equality of opportunity -- Everybody gets two weeks paid vacation, no matter their pay grade, as long as they're full-time employees.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Supercomputers add stuff really fast.

Because math is hard.