Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think you're completely wrong in what you've just said. (Not about who cares how much the rich get, but in your rejection of the concept of a growing gap.)

There is at least one other factor to consider . . i.e. how much does the important shit cost as time goes on? How much are the prices for housing, health care, insurance, higher education, etc. rising each year?

That is why a person whose income goes from 100 to 110 isn't necessarily making any progress, and may be worse off. It is also why: (a) the relative and absolute gap between the bottom half (or pick a group) and the top 5-10% (which includes most all of us) has been notably increasing in the past 30 years; and (b) why the gap matters.

S_A_M

Every year basic commodities decrease in real dollars in this country. Thanks to companys like Walmart and Costco. The only thing that keeps food prices in this country up are farm subsidies. But of course food is much cheaper here than in Western Europe or in Japan. Every other developed country I have ever lived in: France, Italy, Britain, and Japan have a much higher cost of living. Mainly due to market regulations that limit cost cutting businesses access to the market.

In the US our incomes are now higher and the costs of almost everything are lower in the United States. Housing in the big cities is really expensive, but there is no consitutional right to live where housing is expensive. There are many places in this country (Arizone, the South) where housing is incredibly cheap (much cheaper than the rest of the developed world).

In any event, no one has ever shown me a system that works better than ours (or at least the free market model).

The Gap is not the issue. It is a distraction used by politicians to get elected. The issue is the standard of living of the bottom third of the society. If it is getting better then great, and if it is not then you have a problem.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap

Your original comment seemed to suggest that the gap doesn't matter, so long as the bottom quartile improves in an absolute sense. I disagree, for the reasons that Burger and SAM mentioned above.

I am sorry I missed that. What is wrong with the bottom quartile getting better?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I sense that the Little Chinaskis will learn to use this devastating line of argument to shame literature professors into abandoning Faulkner as well, or at least to agree to the use of stickers proclaiming that As I Lay Dying is only a theory.

You believe in evolution?



or de-evolution?

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Before calling anyone stupid please explain how single celled organisms could develop organ systems?

I have some questions, too: When science cannot provide the definitive answer to a question, should we use God to fill in the gaps?

And as a follow-up, doesn't the use of God to fill in the gaps result in lazy science?

Lastly, why are there no efforts to introduce intelligent design theories into physics classes to fill in the gaps of the theory of relativity (which isn't much of theory at the subatomic level)?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry I missed that. What is wrong with the bottom quartile getting better?

There's nothing wrong, in itself, with the bottom quartile getting better. What's additionally important is the continuation of a large middle class, for a variety of economic, cultural and political reasons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I have some questions, too: When science cannot provide the definitive answer to a question, should we use God to fill in the gaps?

Dunno. Should we ridicule those who think God does?

And as a follow-up, doesn't the use of God to fill in the gaps result in lazy science?

Is that better or worse than using our imagination to dream up an answer?

Lastly, why are there no efforts to introduce intelligent design theories into physics classes to fill in the gaps of the theory of relativity (which isn't much of theory at the subatomic level)?

even intro to Physics is a year long course. Any particular part? Maybe one that directly contradicts a portion of the bible?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I have some questions, too: When science cannot provide the definitive answer to a question, should we use God to fill in the gaps?

Actually, in my experience, this happens all the time.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dunno. Should we ridicule those who think God does?

Belief in God/Allah/Buddah/Yahweh/FSM and acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution are not mutually exclusive - despite the best efforts of the religious right.

Is that better or worse than using our imagination to dream up an answer?

Not at all. The testability of the answer dicates which class it should be taught in.

even intro to Physics is a year long course. Any particular part? Maybe one that directly contradicts a portion of the bible?

Quantum mechanics is such a trip (the direction of spin of an electron is not fixed until you measure it). All it means is that FSM has not revealed all to us - but FSM did not give us the mechanisms to develop, over eons, the most magnificent brains in the history of the world so that we could intentionally refuse to use them and somehow equate that with faith. To my mind, although I cannot say for certain, it seems possible that would just piss FSM off no end.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dunno. Should we ridicule those who think God does?



Is that better or worse than using our imagination to dream up an answer?



even intro to Physics is a year long course. Any particular part? Maybe one that directly contradicts a portion of the bible?

Yes.

Worse.

What?

ETA: Wait, maybe I understand what you're saying. Are you saying we should teach the story of the burning bush as a contradictory theory to the laws of thermodynamics?

Originally posted by cuckold
Well, I hope down below, because he's a bit blobby all around. If he's not hung like Sunny's new squeeze I'd feel like an ass for getting left for a doughboy. Not that I don't feel like an ass anyway for getting left for a doughboy.

Sunny's new squeeze is that roll of fat she is developing around her waist. She retired from the dating pool once she crossed the spinster line inot her thirities bc she thinks thirty something women trying to date are pathetic. I am not making this up. I bet she even took her profile off of match. Oh wait, she never had it up = too pathetic. She emailed Lunchbox anonymously.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, you... Fuck. I... can't... muster a comeback...

ITS NOT A UNIBROW!

When I received your email about your unibrow this morning, I was a little confused as to why you thought to pen me a letter on the subject. But it came from you, so I didnt think too much of it. But now that I catchup, I see it was borne of a whiff. I meant the eyebrows on the Old Coot in the picture you (or whoever) posted. "You" were the old guy just like TM was Freddy Boom Boom Washington in a picture I once posted. Not literally, but for purposes of absurdism.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have been hearing this every year since Reagan got elected in 1980. I don't think it is true. I think it is just a political spin used by the left to still find criticism when the economy is growing. A way to find fault with capitalism when it is succeeding. The trick is like this: If I make $100 a year and you make $1000 dollars a year and each of our incomes goes up by ten percent then I make $110 and you make a 1100 a year. The gap between us has widened. The wealthier the economy the wider the gaps just because you are dealing with bigger numbers.

When they use these stats it implies that the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. That is not the case. The only stat that really has any significance is look to are every quartile of income and see if people are getting better off. As long as the prospects of the bottom fourth are getting better who cares how much the rich are getting. That is just political exploitation of people's envy.

As long as everyones incomes are rising who cares how much the rich are getting. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way to tax them without hampering growth so you can decrease the tax burden on the bottom half.

What I look at is the fact that the people who could buy 50 foot yachts last year are buying 125 foot motor launches this year, while the number of people living day-to-day, one paycheck away from the street is growing by leaps and bounds.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Do you know how sometimes, when your sphincter is really tight, you produce a very slender stool?

S_A_M

SAMMY! Who loves ya, baby? How are things on the ole DC board? Still running a tight, on topic ship? Any JWAD sightings? Mario?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You believe in evolution?



or de-evolution?

Hi

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Belief in God/Allah/Buddah/Yahweh/FSM and acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution are not mutually exclusive - despite the best efforts of the religious right.

"God snapped his fingers and life started" is not mutually exclusive to "A primordial ooze got zapped with lightning and a single cell was created?"

Not at all. The testability of the answer dicates which class it should be taught in.

Outline a theory for how a single cell mutates into an animal having organ systems. Then sketch out a test protocal.