[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-05, 11:42, said:

I appreciate your comments but at the same time feel you fell a bit into the trap of confusing implementation with goals, and when the dialogue is confused in that manner the setting is ripe for whataboutisms instead of genuine movement toward to goals.

I'll answer my own questions - seems the fair thing to do.

1) Yes, healthcare for all is a good idea. To think otherwise is a form of arrogance, a matter of thinking oneself in some way superior to those whose lives are different.
2). We should educate everyone up through whatever level is needed for that person to accomplish goals - that is not the same as free education all the way through but a better way to say it might be affordable education for all.
3) We need a military. Wars like Iraq need to be avoided - but that is not always possible.
4).Social benefits are one of the great reasons to form a society - we should take care of our own.

A final thought. The difference between me and a street person or drug addict is the difference between a close shave and 5 o'clock shadow, more a matter of opportunity and luck than genetics or fortitude. We are not at odds with one another so much as with our beliefs.

I don't see that I fell into any trap. Of course you might think that this just shows how good the trap is, but I really do not see that I have fallen into one. Take the question on education:
"Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?"
Well, if this means that a 17 year old can sit down one evening and say "I wish to go to college' and that settles the matter, then my answer is "No, I don't think that should settle the matter". Otoh, I think a simple "No" to your question would also seriously mis-represent my view. So I answered at greater length. I was not confused, and I do not believe I fell into a trap.


Too often we are offered the choice between two extremes. I thought the idea behind your questions was to get at what people think. But you did suggest answering "yes" or "no" so I suppose that's my mistake. If I am restricted to "yes" or "no" then I have to decline to answer.

[Al_U_Card]

There is no room for nuance when the situation is framed as: I am right and you are wrong.
Not playing the game disables the conflict and isolates the transgressor. Reframing is a good idea if the person is able and willing to moderate or even ajust his position. Rare but possible. Politicking, like drinking in moderation, tends to be the way to go.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-August-05, 19:31, said:

I don't see that I fell into any trap. Of course you might think that this just shows how good the trap is, but I really do not see that I have fallen into one. Take the question on education:
"Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?"
Well, if this means that a 17 year old can sit down one evening and say "I wish to go to college' and that settles the matter, then my answer is "No, I don't think that should settle the matter". Otoh, I think a simple "No" to your question would also seriously mis-represent my view. So I answered at greater length. I was not confused, and I do not believe I fell into a trap.


Too often we are offered the choice between two extremes. I thought the idea behind your questions was to get at what people think. But you did suggest answering "yes" or "no" so I suppose that's my mistake. If I am restricted to "yes" or "no" then I have to decline to answer.

Ken, I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. My meaning was that the greater good in a general sense is for us to have a well-educated citizenry - the trap, as I meant it, was one we all fall into of objecting to outliers to the main point. For example, when and how a 17-year-old decides to go to college is getting into specifics - and there would be little argument with you on your point. But that point doesn't really matter to the broader assertion that a well-educated citizenry is in all of our best interests, does it?

Perhaps I offended with my choice of words - I was not trying to lay a trap or accuse you of falling into a trap because of some thinking fault - I meant it only in the sense that this seems to me where we are all going off the rails - arguing about specifics before we agree on the big-picture goal. I called it a trap - I see now that could have been construed as insulting. I certainly did not mean it that way.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-05, 19:52, said:

Reframing is a good idea if the person is able and willing to moderate or even ajust his position.

So Al...

Still insisting that you know "the truth" about 9/11?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-05, 20:37, said:

Ken, I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. My meaning was that the greater good in a general sense is for us to have a well-educated citizenry - the trap, as I meant it, was one we all fall into of objecting to outliers to the main point. For example, when and how a 17-year-old decides to go to college is getting into specifics - and there would be little argument with you on your point. But that point doesn't really matter to the broader assertion that a well-educated citizenry is in all of our best interests, does it?

Perhaps I offended with my choice of words - I was not trying to lay a trap or accuse you of falling into a trap because of some thinking fault - I meant it only in the sense that this seems to me where we are all going off the rails - arguing about specifics before we agree on the big-picture goal. I called it a trap - I see now that could have been construed as insulting. I certainly did not mean it that way.

A busy day ahead so a brief WAMBUT (We ain't mad but) response. Times have not only changed, they have become weird.

A quick read:

https://www.washingt...m=.78adcff2c3c7

One ting in particular struck me:

Quote

The result: The higher the parents' incomes, the less likely that their children will match them. This is even true for the richest 1 percent of families, says economist Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute. The children born in 1980 in the richest 1 percent have only a 1 percent chance of themselves being in the top 1 percent, she says.

What? Come again? It's a matter of arithmetic that 1% of the babies will later become in the upper 1% of wealth (compared with others of their age, ignoring the effect of some dying off). So the numbers above say that starting out in a family in the upper 1% gives absolutely no advantage in growing up to be in the upper 1%. This seems extremely unlikely to me.

Samuelson repeats this with no indication of skepticism. Maybe it's right. Anyway, I think skepticism is a very useful trait.

More later.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2018-August-06, 06:41, said:

What? Come again? It's a matter of arithmetic that 1% of the babies will later become in the upper 1% of wealth (compared with others of their age, ignoring the effect of some dying off). So the numbers above say that starting out in a family in the upper 1% gives absolutely no advantage in growing up to be in the upper 1%. This seems extremely unlikely to me.

Ken, the game is rigged...

Consider the range of possible results that are consistent with a positive outcome.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-05, 20:37, said:

this seems to me where we are all going off the rails - arguing about specifics before we agree on the big-picture goal.

On-ness must precede going-off-ness?

kenberg's reply was a perfect example of why agreeing on goals is hard. So is this lecture (and the other 5) by Ralf Dahrendorf

We can probably all agree to a large extent with Dahrendorf that what matters most in this world is liberty: that is, human life-chances. As for whose life chances, perhaps not so much.

[y66]

From Events Matter More Than Trump’s Strongest Supporters by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

We really have to discuss the effects of events on presidencies.

Politico’s Annie Karni reports that what President Donald Trump’s White House learned from his wildly inappropriate comments after Charlottesville last year was that nothing matters — things that were thought to be toxic to a presidency are not, at least not for this president.

But in some ways, the experience of Charlottesville, as well as his ability to recover from any short-term crisis, has been empowering for Trump and his allies. Three former aides said the takeaway from Charlottesville is the nihilistic notion that nothing matters except for how things play.

“The lesson of the Trump presidency is that no short-term crisis matters long term,” said one former White House official who worked in the administration last year during the racial crisis.

On one hand, the fact that some media frenzies have little or no long-term effects is important and accurate, and some presidents go four or even eight years without learning not to overreact to whatever minor flap people are obsessed with at the moment. One of Barack Obama’s enormous strengths as a politician was that he was aware of that early on, and while his administration didn’t always act accordingly, overall it was a real plus for him.

But, no, it’s certainly not true that “nothing matters.”

Quote

@mattyglesias
It’s a little odd to me that we’re discussing things in these terms after Doug Jones & Conor Lamb and on the eve of a tight special election for an R+7 Ohio House seat.

Clearly _something_ has gone awry for Trump and it’s not all LOL Nothing Matters.

Quote

@anniekarni
Charlottesville, a year ago, “puts Trump in the dung heap of presidents who are completely insensitive of race,” says Brinkley. In present though, the lesson learned is closer to: nothing matters other than how things play. https://www.politico...midterms-764348 …

6:52 PM - Aug 5, 2018 · Washington, DC

Make that: Doug Jones, Conor Lamb, blowout Democratic wins in off-year elections in 2017, quite a few down-ballot special elections that have flipped seats to Democrats, historically low approval ratings over the course of his presidency, generic ballot questions, and seat-by-seat analysis all pointing to a very bad Election Day for Republicans in November.

Yes, Trump has retained his strongest supporters. So did Richard Nixon well into 1973; so did Jimmy Carter in 1978, Ronald Reagan in 1982, Bill Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006 and Obama in 2010, all just before brutal midterm results for their parties. The big difference is that all of those examples of disastrous midterms came during hard economic times of one kind or another. Trump is maintaining weak approval ratings despite relative peace and prosperity. Based on that, one might expect him to have approval ratings similar to George H.W. Bush or John F. Kennedy at this stage of their presidencies. That he’s not even close to them strongly suggests that Trump’s conduct in office is having dramatic negative effects on his popularity.

It also suggests something that we can’t yet prove: that Trump has permanently alienated half or more of the electorate. We’ve never had a president do that before. But Trump has never reached 50 percent approval, and it’s quite possible he can’t. My guess is that the only previous president to achieve that dubious distinction was Nixon in his final nine months or so. But it’s not hard to imagine the others whose approval slumped to around 25 percent (which is well below where Trump has been) recovering had they had more time, and peace and prosperity had broken out.

Determining which of Trump’s various scandals and outrageous comments and actions are responsible for his unpopularity would be a difficult task indeed, and it’s almost certainly the case that some things blown out of proportion really didn’t matter in the long run. But people trying to figure out the effects of anything on Trump’s popularity would be smart to entirely ignore his strongest supporters (and strongest opponents), because that’s not where changes in any president’s popularity will be found. And yes, losing popularity matters, even if a president retains those strongest supporters.

[johnu]

Another defining moment for Dennison

Dennison Accuses California Of Causing Wildfires By ‘Diverting’ Water To Pacific

The question Americans need to ask is why are Californians letting gravity cause rivers and streams to drain into the Pacific. It takes a stable genius to put things into perspective. My question is why are California restaurants and backyard BBQ'ers letting these fires go to waste by not grilling and BBQ'ing with the already burning coals?

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2018-August-06, 08:57, said:

Another defining moment for Dennison

Dennison Accuses California Of Causing Wildfires By ‘Diverting’ Water To Pacific

The question Americans need to ask is why are Californians letting gravity cause rivers and streams to drain into the Pacific. It takes a stable genius to put things into perspective. My question is why are California restaurants and backyard BBQ'ers letting these fires go to waste by not grilling and BBQ'ing with the already burning coals?

Obviously the problem was caused by the 3 million illegals who crossed the border for the sole reason of voting - the ones who now live in limestone caves carved out from the cement banks of the Los Angeles river, who are waiting patiently and silently for the next election, while in the meantime raising an entire clan of "takers" by working 14 hour days in jobs no one else is willing to do.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-06, 06:47, said:

Ken, the game is rigged...

Consider the range of possible results that are consistent with a positive outcome.

Yes. But there is intentionally rigged and rigged where it's just that nobody looks very closely/ In the specific case where only 1% of those born into the 1% grow into the 1%, I expect that it's a matter of when. Possibly only 1% of the babies of 1 %ers become 1 %ers when they are 30, but ive them a chance. As mentioned I was off to do some stuff and so I did not read it all in detail. It seems almost certain that a study that shows that only 1% of the children of 1%ers become 1%ers is not looking at the right comparisons. We all know of examples of people who have come a long way from not much, and we know of some going in the other direction as well. It happens both ways, fairly often. But the kids of Jeff Bezos are more likely to become mega-rich than my grandkids are (too late for my kids) and certainly more likely than kids growing up in public housing.
I pulled the result from a column of Robert Samuelson. I read him regularly and I think he is fair and intends to be informative. But that figure just leapt out at me. I see it as a good example because as far as I am concerned it does not matter greatly. I have never wanted to be mega-rich, in fact I would prefer not to be, at least if being mega-rich included being known to be mega-rich. So, for me, this particular example is interesting mostly just as one more case of people reading data without adequately thinking about it. I think that there are far more toxic examples.
I often wonder if kids are really that much different now than my friends and I were in the 1950s. When contemplating my future, I paid attention to what I liked and what I didn't like and to what I seemed to be good at. After that. I thought about how I could make a living at it. Making a living was important, doing something I enjoyed and was interested in was very important, becoming rich was not even a consideration. I gave zero thought to how I could make more money than my father did. I expect that many young people still approach things in that way. I would be surprised, maybe even shocked, to learn otherwise.

Data can be useful, of course it can be useful. But it requires care.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-August-06, 12:07, said:

Yes. But there is intentionally rigged and rigged where it's just that nobody looks very closely/ In the specific case where only 1% of those born into the 1% grow into the 1%, I expect that it's a matter of when. Possibly only 1% of the babies of 1 %ers become 1 %ers when they are 30, but ive them a chance. As mentioned I was off to do some stuff and so I did not read it all in detail. It seems almost certain that a study that shows that only 1% of the children of 1%ers become 1%ers is not looking at the right comparisons. We all know of examples of people who have come a long way from not much, and we know of some going in the other direction as well. It happens both ways, fairly often. But the kids of Jeff Bezos are more likely to become mega-rich than my grandkids are (too late for my kids) and certainly more likely than kids growing up in public housing.

Becoming a 1%er is hard, even if you're born into a 1% family. It requires incredible good luck and hard work. What can Jeff Bezos do to ensure that his kids become as uber-successful as he has been? He can give them some shares of Amazon.com, but the rest is mostly on their own. Yes, they have a leg up on the competition -- he can send them to the best schools, and help them get good jobs when they graduate. I'll bet most of the children of 1%ers are in the top 10-20%, but they're not all in the top 1%.

The article is mostly talking about the middle class -- the paragraph about the 1% was just an extreme example of the more general phenomenon it's discussing. What the article says is that upward mobility opportunities today are not the same as they were in previous generations. It used to be normal for children to do better than their parents. The economy was improving, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Many people born in the first half of the 20th century didn't go to college, and it was quite common to hear their children say that they're the first ones in their families to get a higher education, which allowed them to get better jobs and make more money than their parents.

But since then, things have slowed down. If you're in the second generation to go to college, it's not as easy to do better than your parents -- they already made the quantum leap from lower class to middle class. Most of the 1% are pretty old, like Warren Buffett -- there are only a handful of Mark Zuckerbergs, making huge bucks from new technologies.

My paternal grandfather (a first-generation American) started a successful business, all his sons all eventually became executives at the business (and my mother's brother was his IT manager, and later became a salesman), and my father took over the helm when my grandfather retired. Grandpa did reasonably well, but my father and uncles were much better off -- they all moved out to very nice homes in the suburbs. When I was a teenager we moved to an even nicer town, where we bought a house with a pool and tennis court; my high school was one of the few around in the 1970's that had their own computer and taught programming (most other schools on Long Island had cooperative arrangements with a vocational school).

I got to go to the most prestigious engineering college, and my father was able to pay for it without me having to get any financial aid (I got a federal student loan because it was cheap -- I think I paid it off in less than 10 years). I live a comfortable life, but I'm pretty sure I don't make nearly as much as my father did. But I haven't really tried -- I've been happy being an individual contributor in all my jobs, I haven't tried to get into management or start my own business. I don't have a family to support, I have a very modest lifestyle, so I don't need much money (I actually took a small pay cut, including losing company-provided medical insurance, to come work for BBO). I think I was a little spoiled, and I've always been lazy -- it would take lots more effort than I'm willing to exert to do as well as my father did, despite the opportunities that are potentially available to me.

Wow, I finally got to use anecdotes from my own life to illustrate a point, like Ken usually does!

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2018-August-06, 18:55, said:

Becoming a 1%er is hard, even if you're born into a 1% family. It requires incredible good luck and hard work. What can Jeff Bezos do to ensure that his kids become as uber-successful as he has been? He can give them some shares of Amazon.com, but the rest is mostly on their own. Yes, they have a leg up on the competition -- he can send them to the best schools, and help them get good jobs when they graduate. I'll bet most of the children of 1%ers are in the top 10-20%, but they're not all in the top 1%.

The article is mostly talking about the middle class -- the paragraph about the 1% was just an extreme example of the more general phenomenon it's discussing. What the article says is that upward mobility opportunities today are not the same as they were in previous generations. It used to be normal for children to do better than their parents. The economy was improving, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Many people born in the first half of the 20th century didn't go to college, and it was quite common to hear their children say that they're the first ones in their families to get a higher education, which allowed them to get better jobs and make more money than their parents.

But since then, things have slowed down. If you're in the second generation to go to college, it's not as easy to do better than your parents -- they already made the quantum leap from lower class to middle class. Most of the 1% are pretty old, like Warren Buffett -- there are only a handful of Mark Zuckerbergs, making huge bucks from new technologies.

My paternal grandfather (a first-generation American) started a successful business, all his sons all eventually became executives at the business (and my mother's brother was his IT manager, and later became a salesman), and my father took over the helm when my grandfather retired. Grandpa did reasonably well, but my father and uncles were much better off -- they all moved out to very nice homes in the suburbs. When I was a teenager we moved to an even nicer town, where we bought a house with a pool and tennis court; my high school was one of the few around in the 1970's that had their own computer and taught programming (most other schools on Long Island had cooperative arrangements with a vocational school).

I got to go to the most prestigious engineering college, and my father was able to pay for it without me having to get any financial aid (I got a federal student loan because it was cheap -- I think I paid it off in less than 10 years). I live a comfortable life, but I'm pretty sure I don't make nearly as much as my father did. But I haven't really tried -- I've been happy being an individual contributor in all my jobs, I haven't tried to get into management or start my own business. I don't have a family to support, I have a very modest lifestyle, so I don't need much money (I actually took a small pay cut, including losing company-provided medical insurance, to come work for BBO). I think I was a little spoiled, and I've always been lazy -- it would take lots more effort than I'm willing to exert to do as well as my father did, despite the opportunities that are potentially available to me.

Wow, I finally got to use anecdotes from my own life to illustrate a point, like Ken usually does!

We all draw on our own experiences in forming our views. Growing up we are told things, and perhaps some of it is true. But we watch, and we try out things, and we form our view of the world. I am not saying that logic plays no role, but much less of a role than advertised. Logic is useful for deducing B from A. Usually that's the easy part.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't think it would be so hard to stay a billionaire if you inherit a billion from your parents. Just invest the money in a variety of stock and pull out a small fraction of the revenue for living expenses.

[awm]

helene_t, on 2018-August-06, 20:20, said:

I wouldn't think it would be so hard to stay a billionaire if you inherit a billion from your parents. Just invest the money in a variety of stock and pull out a small fraction of the revenue for living expenses.

This is obviously true, but not everyone in the top 1% is a billionaire. Typically the amount that very wealthy parents pass to their children is less than what they have for a number of reasons: they may have multiple children, they may decide to give some fraction of their wealth to charity, and they may have to pay some amount of inheritance-related tax. Of course Jeff Bezos's kid is still a billionaire and still in the top 1% (once his parents die anyway). But someone whose parents are towards the bottom of the top 1% will often not get there just based on inheritance. And there's a lot of "wealth inequality" even within the 1%, so a lot more people are towards the bottom of that range than the top.

There's also a question of what people do with their money -- if you inherit ten million dollars, are you motivated to risk it all by starting a business that might make you a billionaire? Or do you decide to just live off the dividends and do charitable work or whatever you enjoy? Even if you do decide to "try and become a billionaire" your chances of success may only be a little better than someone who started with much more modest net worth.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2018-August-06, 18:55, said:

Becoming a 1%er is hard, even if you're born into a 1% family. It requires incredible good luck and hard work.

And then Dad (or Mom) will decide to retire and appoint you as president and CEO of their multi-million (or billion) dollar company. I'm sure the children worked very hard to be successful sons and daughters.

Or Mom and Dad set up multi million dollar trust funds for their kids, or die and leave their kids their entire estates.

As a minimum, the 1% kids will go to the finest prep schools, the best colleges in the country, they hobnob with other 1%'ers, and their kids. If they decide to start their own businesses, Mom and Dad will usually loan or give them the money, or refer them to a 1% friend who can facilitate a loan.

[kenberg]

I have not yet gone back to look in detail att he data. But in a wat that illustrates my point. It has to be looked at with a bit of care to see how it could happen that fewer than 1% of the 1%ers become 1%ers. We start with the simple. If you give a math exam to 10,00 kis the no mater how well or how poorly the kids have been taught, 100 of the kids will end up in the top percentile. That's the way it is. But now if we examined the data and found that, say, 500 came from households with really smart parents and these kids had been sent to the best schools and had been given private tutoring, we would be surprised if only 5 of them scored, among the 10,000 in the top percentile.
If it were to happenm we would probably think something is funny with the way the comparisons went.And so it is with the wealth. As Richard pointed out early on, there are various ways to explain it.Actually Samuelson mentioned some caveats. I just picked this as one example that should be a caution against taking data at face value.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-04, 20:02, said:

If you believe me to be far left, how about some honest answers. Simple yes or no is all that is required.

Do you think healthcare for everyone is a good idea?
Do you think everyone who so wishes deserves an education up to and including college?
Do you think less money should be spent on warfare?
Do you think a social safety net is a valid government expenditure?

If the world was populated with countries with unlimited means that were completely amiable and fair with each other, then the answer to all those questions would be yes. Unfortunately, that utopian vision is a pipedream. I don't think there's a problem with viewing those concepts as ideals.

In the real world, countries have limited resources while enduring rivalries and enmities with other countries/blocs. So, the best that can be hoped for by each country is to find a mix of resource allocation that gives reasonably good outcome among those concepts. For instance, it does you no good to provide healthcare for all when your armed forces are so weak that next week or month, Uncle Vladimir and his Cossack hordes will take the country over.

The other issue is that as population increases more resources will have to be created to meet that mix of good outcomes. But in order to grow those resources, you must devote a certain amount of existing resources to insure that resource growth. Should a country fail to do so, it is doomed to decline and then fail. Then it will not be able to provide any of those good outcomes.

We can see a microcosm of that in many central urban areas. Maybe it would be better to focus on getting better outcomes there than trying to implement massive new social welfare programs.

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2018-August-07, 01:45, said:

And then Dad (or Mom) will decide to retire and appoint you as president and CEO of their multi-million (or billion) dollar company. I'm sure the children worked very hard to be successful sons and daughters.

Or Mom and Dad set up multi million dollar trust funds for their kids, or die and leave their kids their entire estates.

As a minimum, the 1% kids will go to the finest prep schools, the best colleges in the country, they hobnob with other 1%'ers, and their kids. If they decide to start their own businesses, Mom and Dad will usually loan or give them the money, or refer them to a 1% friend who can facilitate a loan.

My suspicion is:

The 1%ers split their fabulous wealth between several children

It takes a special kind of person to want to work hard when you never have to work again

Many kids of 1%ers don't bother, so they're fabulously wealthy but outside the 1%.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-August-07, 04:59, said:

If the world was populated with countries with unlimited means that were completely amiable and fair with each other, then the answer to all those questions would be yes. Unfortunately, that utopian vision is a pipedream. I don't think there's a problem with viewing those concepts as ideals.

In the real world, countries have limited resources while enduring rivalries and enmities with other countries/blocs. So, the best that can be hoped for by each country is to find a mix of resource allocation that gives reasonably good outcome among those concepts. For instance, it does you no good to provide healthcare for all when your armed forces are so weak that next week or month, Uncle Vladimir and his Cossack hordes will take the country over.

The other issue is that as population increases more resources will have to be created to meet that mix of good outcomes. But in order to grow those resources, you must devote a certain amount of existing resources to insure that resource growth. Should a country fail to do so, it is doomed to decline and then fail. Then it will not be able to provide any of those good outcomes.

We can see a microcosm of that in many central urban areas. Maybe it would be better to focus on getting better outcomes there than trying to implement massive new social welfare programs.

I appreciate the honest response. Once the ideal is agreed upon (not goals, but ideals), then we can have a rational discussion about whether or not those ideals should become goals. But you have to start somewhere. I see you are quite concerned about the implementation of these ideals, and that is OK. If you agree that these are worthwhile ideas, that is a start, because I, too, think they are worthwhile.

If we both think these are valid ideals, then why can't we discuss how or if we can move toward those goals.

See, this is where I came in - when I first became politically aware the country had Democrats and Republicans, and they came at problems from different viewpoints, but they worked out differences in policy by compromising in order to move the country forward.

People of different viewpoints can work together if they have common ideals - and the way to do that is through compromise. Holding the idea that fellow countrymen are enemies to be defeated is a prescription for collapse.