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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

I'm curious about what Bartlett says, since Cowen cites him in a way that suggests he think that inequality has been rising, but I'm not a TimesSelect customer so I can't make the link work. If someone else is and can, some quotation would be appreciated.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Did you bother to read the next five paragraphs after that one discussing the debate about mobility?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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?

Of course you are, but that's not what you've said yet. You said that there's no proof of income inequality -- that left and right alike lie with the data.

If you want to argue instead that inequality is rising but that it's not a problem, go right ahead. That's a much more interesting conversation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

If I say, "only right-wing hacks are still insisting that income inequality is not rising," and you respond by posting a WSJ op-ed by a right-wing hack, I don't think you have improved the conversation's signal-to-noise ratio.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did you bother to read the next five paragraphs after that one discussing the debate about mobility?

Yes. But since you and I were discussing inequality, and not mobility, I did not think it was germane, however interesting. Perhaps a topic that Burger and I will kick around on the economics board, though.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course you are, but that's not what you've said yet. You said that there's no proof of income inequality -- that left and right alike lie with the data.

If you want to argue instead that inequality is rising but that it's not a problem, go right ahead. That's a much more interesting conversation.

I didn't say there was no evidence. I said the stistics were manipulated from both sides. They are.

I said you can't say rising income inequality is uncontroverted truth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. But since you and I were discussing inequality, and not mobility, I did not think it was germane, however interesting. Perhaps a topic that Burger and I will kick around on the economics board, though.

Distinction without a difference. What is inequality's significance without the implicit conclusion it has a negative impact on someone?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I didn't say there was no evidence. I said the stistics were manipulated from both sides. They are.

I said you can't say rising income inequality is uncontroverted truth.

So you posted:

Tyler Cowen, a conservative economist who says that the data shows rising inequality;

A National Review piece saying that rising inequality doesn't mean there are problems with capitalism;

A WSJ op-ed by a hack; and

Someone at the Minneapolis Fed who says there's rising inequality.

W p, p.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Distinction without a difference. What is inequality's significance without the implicit conclusion it has a negative impact on someone?

If you want to say "uncle" on the foolishness you started earlier and say that rising inequality is not important for whatever reasons, go nuts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want to say "uncle" on the foolishness you started earlier and say that rising inequality is not important for whatever reasons, go nuts.

When you get past Reynolds.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In hiring, I've always argued that if we were really strictly merit based, we'd hire relatively few lawyers from rich, white suburban backgrounds - they're disproportionately lazy shits accustomed to easy living.

I hear they also like lots of liquor, drugs & sex.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
When you get past Reynolds.

I'm past Reynolds. After what Tyler Cowen (from the right) and Jonathan Chait (from the left) have to say about him, you should be, too. He is a hack, fighting a rearguard action.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm telling you that I think the rising inequality is more significant across the economy than the decreasing inequality elsewhere. You know this. But you aren't interested in having that debate.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

Said the spider to the fly . . .

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you want to say "uncle" on the foolishness you started earlier and say that rising inequality is not important for whatever reasons, go nuts.

Why would I? Your best reply os to smear Reynolds. And as to income inequality, I frankly don't care about its adverse effects. I'd like to be wealthy, but I'm not. Maybe I will be. Maybe I'll wind up destitute. That's life.

I won't have anyone or anything to credit or blame but myself.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Try it yourself. The blogger is wrong. Or they've fixed it.

And I thought I've read that ExxonMobil has very recently dropped its funding for "anti-global warming" research.

S_A_M