tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post7295549456855910752..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: So you think you can debate a creationist?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-24183798364133114842016-03-18T20:43:45.262-04:002016-03-18T20:43:45.262-04:00It appears the third link refers to the same bones...It appears the third link refers to the same bones in the Davies 1987 paper.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-64308353431272557642016-03-18T20:35:00.253-04:002016-03-18T20:35:00.253-04:00I know I'm very late to the party, but I only ...I know I'm very late to the party, but I only found this blog because of the references to "fresh dinosaur bones unfossilized".<br /><br />I've looked into two of the three references, and both of them clearly say that the bones are fossils.<br /><br />Here is the first one:<br /><br />http://www.toriah.org/articles/Davies-1987.PDF<br /><br />And here is the second one:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17794968<br /><br />Having a little trouble finding the third one ...Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-56025815280536870922014-03-31T18:26:51.558-04:002014-03-31T18:26:51.558-04:00Nice one guys,However not all of Jon's facts a...Nice one guys,However not all of Jon's facts are complete. Especially about tree rings . Dendrochronology is usually generally used to compare known species' patterns of rings from known ages.<br />C14 analysis is based on the known (statistical) rate at which the ion is absorbed into a once living test sample.<br />It gives a range of probabilities.<br />Not precision.<br />Ice cores also measure the isotopic content of the Ice to determine the age. Again it is a complex analysis with a lot more involved. My point is that it is way too simplistic for many of the generalities mentioned.<br />Also one should examine the growth rings in things like Stromatilites.<br />It is possible via chemical analysis to show these could have only existed in conditions that were consistent with the hot ball earth and cooling etc i.e. many hundreds of millions of years ago.<br />The 'intelligent designists' are over simplifying the basic physics/ cumulated scientific dovetailing of facts.<br />Righties tend to see life , creation in wantonly overly simplistic discrete bubble terms of either or absolutes.<br /><br />The reality is that such micro analysis is more emotionally/epigenetic (faith) based that scientific (objective).<br />As such discussions with Chad etc. on the rational science involved is a waste of time his is a belief based on a self referential collection of books written for and in another time and circumstances. He simply can't/ won't argue the science.<br /> Examinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990595916031900662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-7592228070287665432014-03-06T17:15:15.814-05:002014-03-06T17:15:15.814-05:00How about this then Jon - so this is all about so ...How about this then Jon - so this is all about so called Social Responsibility - not about really tackling the problem at the root, but a social so called connection I have with some unknown poor person.<br /><br />So why not assign 2 or 3 earners with 1 non earner - in person - we pay their bills, we know their name, where they live, we help them make financial decision and life decisions and those decisions are tied to our bank accounts? The power of not being held responsible, but yet getting money is pretty large. Make it a neighbor or someone around the corner you can check in on - lets make it real. <br /><br />That is a way to make some serious change - my recipient would be held responsible, would need to grow, would have rules that they would need to live by.<br /><br />Now that is an idea right there. That way if you can turn your recipient into a productive citizen you no longer have to pay for someone else - win/win.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-19734024023193892362014-03-06T14:45:59.972-05:002014-03-06T14:45:59.972-05:00It certainly isn't enjoyment John, it is a hum...It certainly isn't enjoyment John, it is a human tragedy.<br /><br />Its funny that I have to be responsible for not only my family, but somehow other peoples kids/families, but when I point to the exact problem - when I lay blame where it belongs than I am somehow the monster?<br /><br />My wife and I chose to stop at 2 children - we wanted more, but unfortunately we understood the responsibility of having children and then had to build up finances to support those children - you know personal responsibility. It took us longer to do that because well we are being taxed to pay for the irresponsible. That extra time stopped us from having a 3rd child because of age. Meanwhile you want me to have sympathy for the single mom who has not developed any skills, who didn't exercise any personal responsibility and popped out a couple kids? You want me to sympathize when she then has to go to work to pay for her decisions? I am okay with being the monster because at least I am telling the truth - at least I am talking about the real problem.<br /><br />Imagine what would happen to poverty if a person was fined and or forced to pay for the child that they decided to bring into this world - a permanent tax to pay all of us back for whatever they could not pay for back when the child was born? That is the covenant most of us make anyhow so what do you suppose would happen then Jon? You have a child you can't pay for - you then get snipped so you can't do that anymore - what do you think what happen then? That is easy to predict what would happen -- a shrinking population of people that routinely make bad decisions and repeat those bad decisions at the expense of others.<br /><br />Education falls under the same umbrella Jon - it is not a human right to have access to education at an affordable price. Making education free would simply create another void - if everyone has a free 4 year degree - 310 million citizens it does not create any more jobs - any more openings. So you have a BA from U of M - graduate 1,100,100 from the top your still going flip burgers because there would be a limited amount of jobs in the field of study.<br /><br />Education should receive very little gov't money - it should cost exactly what it costs and those Universities who's students find success/make a lot of money should be allowed to charge more. It is simply the cost of getting into the game of making money - Colleges/Universities are ran like a Fraternity and Sorority - they are not places of higher education. They sell the 'experience' which normally promotes high levels of alcohol consumption, unneeded classes, stretched over 4 years of time all to make and charge more money. Take away all the gov't cash and watch them get thin - eliminate the BS classes and that will make better professors, better path to graduation, create more competition for kids to attend their schools.<br /><br />Student loan debt is just the cost of potentially getting a job is all.<br /><br />Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-62905869605688029372014-03-06T13:57:10.867-05:002014-03-06T13:57:10.867-05:00Come on Jon, you know the Puritan ethic does not g...<i>Come on Jon, you know the Puritan ethic does not gain some sick pleasure by watching suffering.</i><br /><br />I don't know that at all. Look at Chad below blaming the poor. Why are they pregnant? No discipline. So wouldn't that mean that their suffering is their just reward for lack of discipline? I think there is a measure of pleasure Chad gets from that, like the pleasure you get when a violent criminal is punished. It's justice. Their suffering is exactly what teaches them to develop, so it's a good thing that some enjoy seeing.<br /><br /><i>The best explanation that fits the data available is that it takes both an incentive to break through poverty, and the intentional actions to make a meaningful change in one's life in order to move out of poverty. You acknowledge the former, but ignore the latter.</i><br /><br />I don't ignore the latter. See here for instance.<br /><br />http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2012/12/capitalist-confusion.html<br />http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2012/04/lazy-and-hard-working.html<br /><br />I do agree with you on schooling in that it's not necesarily something you need to perform a function well in a job, but unfortunately it is signaling for those that seek to hire. That's one problem. An additional problem though is what I'm saying. These days without the degree you aren't considered for a lot of opportunities AND (thanks to Republican taxation preferences) you are now buried in debt. Sure, you can say that it was POSSIBLE in the past to have a lot of debt. Maybe. But I never really heard of that. I don't really know of people of that age group, like our parents, that managed to accumulate that much student loan debt. It wasn't much of an actual problem. What we have now is exactly what Chad and tea party types have wanted. Radically reduced public assistance for funding higher education, and that has translated directly to increased tuition and loans. These incredible student loans are a direct result of Republican policy preferences. Those that are rich today benefited from gifts of the past and yet today refuse to help those in the next generation.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-17597972324314938452014-03-06T00:47:10.097-05:002014-03-06T00:47:10.097-05:00Why is that person pregnant? No education, no dis...Why is that person pregnant? No education, no discipline and pregnant - well you've answered your own question there.<br /><br />Yes - I worked at McDonalds for 2 years Jon. It installed pride in self, offered training, offered an opportunity to advance then lead - skills I use today - absolutely huge.<br /><br />There is the lie you tell yourself - they might pay for a meal or two, but they lack the personal reaponsibilty to make their lives better is the point. You teach them nothing except to hold their hand out in a different direction because the truly motivated are not in that position - thanks for making my point.<br /><br />The rich get bailouts because they pay 75% plus of the income taxes without so much as a thank you. Hell yeah they are going to be sure to protect heat they got - they pay 75% plus and don't even get the courtesy of being asked what do you think. Gov't is the enemy because people like ou made I that way - I look for every single possible way to avoid paying taxes because Gov't is no good - imagine if I had unlimited resources - I'd pay nothing.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-43573584710448334972014-03-05T17:27:39.161-05:002014-03-05T17:27:39.161-05:00Regarding the affordability of school, sure - it w...Regarding the affordability of school, sure - it would be nice if it was more affordable, but the real crime here isn't that it cost too much money, it's that schools and society are telling young kids that they have no other viable choice. Even when it was less expensive, you could still double major in philosophy and classical music, come out with a huge debt, and have no viable way to pay back the debt. So is the issue the fact that the student is saddled with a huge debt and they should be able to get out of it, or is it more systemic in that schools are often times an accreditation business to give you a title but not equip you for being a productive member of society?<br /><br />Granted, technical degrees can provide useful skills, but often schools provide a false choice - get a degree or flip burgers. My goal is to teach my children the skills in sales, entrepreurship, and business so that they can both tailor their life in a way they can make a living doing what they enjoy and are good at, and also, for the times when things fall through, they know how to go to the hardware store, buy a bucket of paint, and go paint some houses, or otherwise do what it takes to survive in any situation - not be running with resume in hand to interview after interview hoping and praying some company or business will hire them.<br />Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-44995798519385793132014-03-05T17:13:33.672-05:002014-03-05T17:13:33.672-05:00What exactly are you hoping to see pregnant women ...<i>What exactly are you hoping to see pregnant women learn? Or single mothers that must leave their kids at home alone while they go to Burger King? With a mother that can stay home and raise them, giving them a better chance of being productive members of society, they can in the future contribute positively rather than being a drain, maybe end up in prison, which is an enormous expense (the one area of public housing that hasn't been neglected in the US recently is prison). These are cycles that build, which we can break if we aren't like Puritans, gaining some sort of sick pleasure from watching the suffering of the poor as if it was their just punishment for having been born into the wrong family.</i><br /><br />Come on Jon, you know the Puritan ethic does not gain some sick pleasure by watching suffering. Your issue is that you see capitalist exacerbating the problems which they then say the poor must work through, and that's a fair critique, but you are avoiding the fundamental issue of the value of trying to fight through one's situation to make things better. You assume that the poor are trying - I say that for the most part, none of us are trying to do more than the status quo. That's not a capitalist stance, that's an entrepreneurial one. <br /><br />If it were true that a large bulk of the population were honestly trying all they could to better their situation, and it's just the capitalist trying to keep them down, then you would not have results like the Georgia land lottery where a huge financial windfall had no real meaningful positive impact to the descendents of the recipients.<br />http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really-change-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/. What is your explanation for this? <br /><br />I'm not saying that money never has an immediate positive impact on the poor in the US - the negative income tax has been a huge success in incentivizing the poor to work more, and reap more benefits, not be punished by abruptly losing their food stamps, low income housing etc, at a certain threshold. <br /><br />The best explanation that fits the data available is that it takes both an incentive to break through poverty, and the intentional actions to make a meaningful change in one's life in order to move out of poverty. You acknowledge the former, but ignore the latter.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194529646410525617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-83652995914335732862014-03-05T11:25:41.248-05:002014-03-05T11:25:41.248-05:00You're right that jobs are created when capita...You're right that jobs are created when capital is used to start businesses, but my point is it's not the end goal. The capitalist generally wants to reduce labor expenses. So if you want to improve the employment situation and you put someone in charge that generally wants to reduce labor expense, what kind of result do you expect? Generally captialists are getting what they want. Reduced labor expenses. The share of revenue going to labor is constantly declining, currently at the lowest levels we've seen in over 60 years.<br /><br /><i>Here is the undeniable thing though - it did not take any discipline nor hard work to achieve that - free money so we have taught those people absolutely nothing.</i><br /><br />What exactly are you hoping to see pregnant women learn? Or single mothers that must leave their kids at home alone while they go to Burger King? With a mother that can stay home and raise them, giving them a better chance of being productive members of society, they can in the future contribute positively rather than being a drain, maybe end up in prison, which is an enormous expense (the one area of public housing that hasn't been neglected in the US recently is prison). These are cycles that build, which we can break if we aren't like Puritans, gaining some sort of sick pleasure from watching the suffering of the poor as if it was their just punishment for having been born into the wrong family.<br /><br /><i>all the money will simply make its way right back into the pockets of the very people you took it from x number of months ago.</i><br /><br />So what are you complaining about then? If it goes back to the rich then there's no harm done. At least it had a chance to pass through the hands of a poor man, and he was able to buy himself and his children dinner as a result.<br /><br /><i> Except again - they handed out loans (money) to people who did not deserve those loans - they did not earn that right and it failed miserably while - while lining the pockets of the ultra rich even further.</i><br /><br />And you know who got bailed out, right? The rich. They had to have their bonuses, and they got them, with tax payer support. You pretend these people are better because they aren't lazy, but lazy is better when you are working to crash an economy or working to obtain taxpayer bail out. We should prefer that these people were lazy because then at least they aren't wrecking our economy.<br /><br /><i>None of your plans will work until the people your trying to help develop discipline and hard work skills - which if they do they will not need the money my friend.</i><br /><br />It's not easy to develop new skills when your job at Burger King is barely enough to get food on the table and your kids are getting terrible grades because you can't be home to help them, so all your free time is an effort to get their grades up to a C level. What I'm saying is the rich, who benefit from taxpayer gifts more than the poor, give back so the poor can go to school instead of flip burgers. Basically the same kind of life our parents had, and that we had to a lesser degree. For our parents college was basically free. For us it was worse because the conservative assault on taxes and funding of universities was underway. Today it's much worse. People were given support via taxation before, and they had a good life as a result. Since then conservatives have gotten what they wanted. Low taxes, cutting funding of universities, reduced regulations, freeing up the financial sector. Your methods are what have been dominating since Reagan. That's why it's so much worse today than it needs to be.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-78650538876457350762014-03-05T09:32:59.122-05:002014-03-05T09:32:59.122-05:00Your right about the true capitalist and God Bless...Your right about the true capitalist and God Bless that. Of course their plan is to make as much money as they can and as a by product jobs are created. In order to sell a million widgets to make $2 per widget for themselves they need an entire infrastructure.<br /><br />The beauty that your not and may never see is that once that widget has been made - a pipeline developed - with proper competition the top person on the pyramid will not be able to make $2 per via competition. Jobs are created by virtue of greed/money and that is great news for us all.<br /><br />Capitalism is a beautiful thing - raw and hurtful at times, but it gives us all the freedom to exercise its beauty. Those who do not wish to stick their neck out to advance should worship the true capitalist so that they may always have an opportunity to live a great life on the vision of others.<br /><br />Sure Jon - if we take 50% from the Uber rich - we re-distribute that starting from the ground up it would temporarily be a good thing - your probably right. Here is the undeniable thing though - it did not take any discipline nor hard work to achieve that - free money so we have taught those people absolutely nothing. They would pay off a few bills, buy a new car, a tv some booze maybe, but 95% would not invest, would not start a new company - they would be the exact same opposite evil except when that money is all gone guess what - and you know I am right and your going to hate this - all the money will simply make its way right back into the pockets of the very people you took it from x number of months ago.<br /><br />We do not have a stable of entrepreneurs being held down by the rich - those people find a way to be successful. We have lazy, entitlement class of people that by in large do not have the discipline or skills to parlay that money into anything. Just like what happened in the housing market - open up lending to allow a larger group of people to get a loan - in theory great idea. Except again - they handed out loans (money) to people who did not deserve those loans - they did not earn that right and it failed miserably while - while lining the pockets of the ultra rich even further.<br /><br />None of your plans will work until the people your trying to help develop discipline and hard work skills - which if they do they will not need the money my friend.<br /><br />That is why your argument will always fail - no matter what model, business genius article says - people are lazy and the recipient class will always grow when allowed to grow. Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-35915041463657127822014-03-04T17:27:49.612-05:002014-03-04T17:27:49.612-05:00I don't know - I think he yielded when she sai...<i>I don't know - I think he yielded when she said that the Über rich doesn't pay 38% - he acknowledged it as do I.</i><br /><br />She didn't correct him and he didn't yield. Again, this is standard lies from the rich. They don't want jobs for people. Why would they? They want more money. More profits. They'll do whatever it takes, including lie.<br /><br /><i>It's also recognition that no matter what Gov't tries to do - the Über rich are either smarter or hirer smarter people than Gov't ideas which will always be the case</i><br /><br />The rich pay lobbyists to write tax code that hides little nuggets that only they know about, and then they go in there and exploit them. The problem is that the rich rig the rules so government works for them only, not everyone else. You can just give up, or you can work to try and create a more just society, one where they don't get secret tax breaks because they have enough money to buy them. They should pay in the same way the poor and middle class do.<br /><br /><i>Hannity has proven many times over that he pays about 58% of his earning to taxes when adding it all up.</i><br /><br />No, Hannity has not done that. He's not proven anything. He makes claims, but he doesn't really put the facts on the table so we can examine them. It's like these Koch front groups saying people are worse off under Obama Care. When we ask them to give us the literal numbers they won't do it because OVERALL these people are better off.<br /><br /><i>He would be an EXCELLENT guy to head the jobs pane</i><br /><br />Capitalists are not interested in creating jobs. That's not their goal. In fact they generally try to eliminate as much jobs as possible, because that means more profits. That's the goal. Put him in charge and he'll get very rich, but we won't have jobs. Actually that's exactly what's happening right now since people like him are in charge.<br /><br /><i>Your view is to walk in and take from the Über rich - no reason just because they make or earn more is also not substance.</i><br /><br />I give reasons all the time. Number 1, it's good for the economy. We see that in historical US growth rates. Take a look at this story about the IMF, bastion of neoliberal economics, which is the preferred policies of the rich. They're saying yes, taxing the rich and redistribution is just plain good for an economy.<br /><br />http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-paper-redistribution-2014-2<br /><br />The point on computers is that the free market was always there. Anybody could have developed computers without government meddling in the market, that is taking tax dollars and hiring people to do the work. It didn't happen, for good reason. Too expensive, too long term, something investors generally aren't interested in. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got the rewards of that public subsidy. And maybe they deserve a lot of that wealth, but they'd be nothing without the public sector doing the heavy lifting. That's why they should give back.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-6911056576569034262014-03-03T22:15:53.464-05:002014-03-03T22:15:53.464-05:00I don't know - I think he yielded when she sai...I don't know - I think he yielded when she said that the Über rich doesn't pay 38% - he acknowledged it as do I. But similarly to my thoughts - so what. I mean they pay millions to accountants and lawyers to hide all that money from gov't - essentially the Gov't gets the money just from a different source - the employed. It's also recognition that no matter what Gov't tries to do - the Über rich are either smarter or hirer smarter people than Gov't ideas which will always be the case - meanwhile your hurting the 'rich' that are not the filthy wealthy because they pay way more than 38% when adding all taxes - Hannity has proven many times over that he pays about 58% of his earning to taxes when adding it all up. <br /><br />BTW O'Leary is a practicing Capitalist - he's not a fake - he's been there, owns the T'shirt and everyone else is just watching the re-runs. He would be an EXCELLENT guy to head the jobs panel - someone with battle scars and the deep understanding of what the 20 millions small businesses need. He is also a big proponent do competition leveling the playing field and pulling down the top 1% naturally through the market.<br /><br />Your view is to walk in and take from the Über rich - no reason just because they make or earn more is also not substance. As a true capitalist you accept that there will be winners, losers and those with more and others with less, but always the opportunity to find a new, taller hill to conquer.<br /><br />Once again we must agree to disagree about Gov't 'improvements'. First it takes people from the private market to make the things you claim Gov't invented. Second with unlimited resources I say so what - if Gov't hired 4 private companies with a specific goal to create the computer for instance - winner takes the pot of gold - my bet which is almost a guarantee would be that computers would have been invented faster, would have been more efficient quicker and the cost would have been lower, but we'll never know now will we. But what we do know is that when computers where no longer a secret - when the private market got a hold of the technology - it went places never thought of by gov't. <br /><br />Gov't has fallen victim (and I think you will agree) of watching great ideas with only the best of intentions at heart being barriers to the many for the few. The Über rich has always been two steps ahead and now laws simply create a bigger gap - an out of control gap. <br /><br />I don't have the answers, but I think it would wise to talk to the job creators before making one more law - we need unemployment to get back to under 4 percent and we need small businesses to be 30 million strong. The Über rich will get more than their share for sure, but get people back to work and the democrats have no idea how to do that.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-18321429895304805692014-03-02T19:16:47.595-05:002014-03-02T19:16:47.595-05:00See, you're not really being fair. When you q...See, you're not really being fair. When you quote economists that support your view even though they haven't started businesses that's fine, but when I quote economists that support my view and they don't run a business suddenly they aren't qualified because they don't run a business. Shouldn't sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?<br /><br />Erin Burnett made a couple of great points in that interview, and O'Leary simply didn't respond on substance. He says government needs to get out of the way, but she says government has been involved and it's structure things in ways that make the 1% rich. Why not reorganize it so government policies help everyone?<br /><br />He seems to have this delusion that the government isn't helping the rich. Let's see, educating people so that they can work as engineers and lawyers? That's a lot of public support. Interstate system. Law enforcement. Enforcement of regulations that allow things like a stock market to exist. I've talked about government funded technological advancement like computers, the internet, lasers, satellite communications, commercial aviation. There's all kinds of government intervention that helps the rich. We're just saying government involvement should help everyone, not just the rich.<br /><br />He lies and says the rich pay 38% in taxes while the middle class pay 12%. Standard lie from right wingers who know very well that they are talking about one tax and one tax only, the federal income tax, and ignoring the many other federal taxes that lead to a situation where the poor and middle class pay a HIGHER % than the rich. These people have to lie to justify their views. That tells you something.<br /><br />Finally she says that the rich have had all the things they've been asking for. Minimum wage has technically been falling for a long time when you consider inflation. No increase for many years. Regulations have been stripped away from the financial sector. Taxes historically are incredibly low on the rich. All the things conservatives pretend make things prosper. Yet most of America is struggling, a recent banking collapse and state bail out (publicly funded) thanks to the government "getting out of the way". Wages declining, people in a more and more precarious financial situation. Sure, good for the rich, but not for most of society. He just offers boilerplate nonsense in reply, never really addressing the argument. The only reason anyone would think he puts on a good show here is he just gets more time to talk. On points he just doesn't say anything. Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-43781568233650630622014-02-28T16:51:56.782-05:002014-02-28T16:51:56.782-05:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHlPTII4ak
Here i...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHlPTII4ak<br /><br />Here is my professor of Economics - listen to a guy that has done it and why your ideas don't work.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-74336141436331735552014-02-28T16:46:23.813-05:002014-02-28T16:46:23.813-05:00The CBO just offers a score - they have very littl...The CBO just offers a score - they have very little skin in the game that is why I referenced them.<br /><br />To the point - when a policy is brought to the table who would be better to offer feedback? Someone who has been brainwashed in the Liberal education system, nose deep in a book or the guys who actually hire, who create jobs is the point Jon.<br /><br />It's great that they know Macro Economics on PAPER which 99% of them will never apply to real life business, but who better to know the result or the predictive models of some policy than those of us doing the hiring?<br /><br />Not the rich guys I am talking about the blue collar companies - they will be happy to let you know exactly what a policy decision will do - these ****tards in Washington should be visiting the companies I listed plus all the other small, medium size business and do a cause/effect model - if it kills 1 single job then that policy should scrapped immediately.<br /><br />The opposite is actually what should be happening - the minimum wage should be lowered or eliminated here in America. The youth would thank you for it - no company is going to hire a 16 year old to sweep floor for whatever the min is going to per hour so your killing their opportunity to get the much needed work experiences, your putting more burden on mom/dad earner cause Johnny can't get a job to pay for gas and your raising unemployment - good idea.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-68981807347104656592014-02-28T12:33:06.516-05:002014-02-28T12:33:06.516-05:00Sorry, forgot the link.
http://www.realclimate.or...Sorry, forgot the link.<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-26478648459184098072014-02-28T12:32:42.712-05:002014-02-28T12:32:42.712-05:00You're citing the CBO report. Did the authors...You're citing the CBO report. Did the authors of that report start a business? How many of them are entrepreneurs?<br /><br />Though entrepreneurs aren't people who necessarily understand macro economics. There's no reason they should understand the effects of overall increases in minimum wage on overall demand. Entrepreneurs know their product, their customers, their costs. That's a totally different area of expertise.<br /><br />You are pointing to the range of 1998 to today when you say the models haven't been predictive. Take a look at the chart labeled "21 year modeling hiatus". This tight window doesn't inform us of the long term trend.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-4405150460640954892014-02-28T12:26:28.643-05:002014-02-28T12:26:28.643-05:00JC - I am not looking at the short term. Why the ...JC - I am not looking at the short term. Why the talking points? I am the one who is saying look at the carbon levels/temps before man - look at them during medieval times when they were a lot hotter than now so I don't know what your saying there. Mother nature is going to do her thing - we are but a spec of dust in her eye.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-33402245810106546542014-02-28T12:24:03.655-05:002014-02-28T12:24:03.655-05:00I am very curious to find out how many of the 600 ...I am very curious to find out how many of the 600 economists you referenced ever ran a business? I see a whole lot of academia on that list and not many/if any Entrepreneurs.<br /><br />I see that idiot Weisskopf from UM on the list - not surprised. That guy has never created a single job, never wrote a paycheck, never built anything in his entire life and is not only allowed to talk about economics, but teach it a major university - sad.<br /><br />Well I will put your 600 academic non business running group of so called higher thinkers against my list of producers/business people and entrepreneurs - Lock Joint Tube, James Steel & Tube, Century Tube, Heat Transfer Tubular Products, T&B Tube, Woodsage Industries, Lacay Fabrication, American Manufacturing and or course Phillips Metals Inc.<br /><br />I work with these companies nearly everyday - they are the producers who help pay those academic supposed higher thinkers huge salaries to tell us it won't hurt, but all of us are preparing for layoffs, cut hours and pulling back on raises/bonuses for current employees waiting for this next great move.<br /><br />Manufacturing is trying our damndest to pull American out of its own ass and all we get is slapped with new stupid rules, regs and laws to slow us down, but hey its a great idea right so says those 600 really smart people.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-69054880232482448632014-02-28T11:42:38.663-05:002014-02-28T11:42:38.663-05:00One thing I keep hearing about is that there are g...One thing I keep hearing about is that there are gaps in the arctic weather station network. When you correct for this the warming trend is right in line with the IPCC predictions. I think I posted this link before.<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/<br /><br />I just think it's very important to trust scientists in subjects like this. What they keep saying is that yes, the media focuses on the short term trends, and so this kind of thing that you point to gets a lot of play, but with VERY few exceptions they are telling us that the overall conclusions are right.<br /><br />It's like you look at the waves coming in and you say there's no tide coming in because the last 9 waves were short of the 10th wave. Focusing on an extremely short window is an error, according to the scientists. One individual defecting doesn't change that.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-38357315356502768142014-02-28T11:33:51.496-05:002014-02-28T11:33:51.496-05:00So your not bothered by the fact the very people w...So your not bothered by the fact the very people who want to prove that man made global warming exists also created, gathered the select data for and designed the computer models that BTW have been off 95% of the time.<br /><br />Similar to the Democratic Party or the mob - you have a collective group basically voting themselves money and your surprised at the result? Global Warming needs to be real for scientist - it has to be so you have a smart group of people who look for, find and then compute data strictly to prove the already predetermined result. Well it is what it is - your a flag flying member not interested in the truth.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-79645385404228748292014-02-28T08:05:56.134-05:002014-02-28T08:05:56.134-05:00I argued that you support force, but for the rich....I argued that you support force, but for the rich. You didn't agree, but here's where we had that discussion before.<br /><br />http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2013/11/push-back-on-social-security.html<br /><br />On GW, science is not what one scientist says. It's what the community of scientists say. If it was what one scientist says then we'd never reach conclusions, because you never have total unanimity. We're only at 99.9% at this point, which is of course enough uncertainty for Koch money.<br /><br />He says "extremely likely" is not a scientific term? That's very strange. All of science is inductive reasoning, which means it's all about probabilities. Gravitation is what we've observed, so we say it's likely that if you drop the object it will fall.<br /><br />CBO says raising the minimum wage would cause high job losses, but here's a list of 600 economists that say it wouldn't.<br /><br />http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/<br /><br />Here's a link to a report that does a meta study on many different studies that evaluated the effect of rising minimum wage on employment and concludes there is no discernible effect. Again, CBO is credible so it's a strike against my view, but there's good reason to disagree.<br /><br />http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-56570672836571364852014-02-27T16:08:51.571-05:002014-02-27T16:08:51.571-05:00Your right - I fully believe in the words that Jes...Your right - I fully believe in the words that Jesus spoke while on this earth that were written down and put in the Bible - absolutely.<br /><br />I object to the notion that I support force by the wealthy because that is untrue. Some things are what they are because of a variety of reasons, but I don't openly support the rich's monopoly or use of force - our difference is that I don't hate them and I don't want to tax them back to the stone age for their success however it may have come. My feeling/solution has always been to unplug gov't or to make sure level rules apply to increase competition to naturally reduce the ability for the ultra rich to make a million dollars without getting out of bed. When I see that a CEO of a company makes $9 million a year - I see a competition opportunity and wonder why there are not 10 more of those companies starting ASAP with a $9 million cost structure advantage and the answer is gov't regs, rules and the ultra rich lobbyist keeping new blood from entering the market to compete and I am fully against that sir. Our differences are not defined in the way you defined them. I am a make and your a take is the best way I can explain our differences on that front. <br /><br />On GW - I am little confused to be honest. Someone who thrives on evidence, factual evidence is not willing to accept -- the Co-Founder and an Ecologist no less -- that the predictive models were designed by the very people selling us the bill of goods in the first place?<br /><br />Read what this man is saying - the Co-Founder - a man of the Eco system is saying here.<br /><br />"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.<br /><br />The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” <br /><br />“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.<br /><br />These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods."<br /><br />There is more brilliance of course, but he is right Jon - computer models that have failed 95% of the time so far (previous post) and are even more wrong this year. <br /><br />So wrong in fact that now - the scientist are saying that Global Cooling is on its way and again - caused by man when up until now we were set to catch on fire.<br /><br />I am a little taken aback that your not interested in the truth - in fact based analysis in this case.<br /><br />The CBO report only scratches the surface IMO.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828361282326797453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-77233641686327431932014-02-27T09:34:24.993-05:002014-02-27T09:34:24.993-05:00Well, we had a long discussion about force last ti...Well, we had a long discussion about force last time. My view is that you don't object to force that helps the rich, but do object to force that helps the poor. But I don't want to re-hash that.<br /><br />The difference between you and me on God is I'm just not so certain I know what he thinks, if he's there. Sure, the Bible says this and that, but maybe the Bible was just written by men that thought they knew what God likes, as you seem to.<br /><br />The global warming thing to me is not a big deal. It's 99.99% of scientists in my corner. Because there are a small handful that disagree your going to see this kind of thing for a while, occasionally a person moving away from the overwhelming consensus and towards your view. This will get trumpeted about because of the money influence of certain people that deny the science, like the Koch brothers. When you say what many billionaires want to hear, sure, you'll get publicity. The many more that continue to convert in the other direction just don't get the same coverage.<br /><br />The CBO thing I will grant you though, that's a good piece of evidence that goes against my opinions. So you're right to point that out. This is a credible source, not like Heritage or AEI who are so often pointed to. I'm not convinced CBO is right because my understanding is that many studies have been done, particularly examining state and county borders where the minimum wage varies and they are unable to to see a correlation with unemployment. I assume CBO is aware of that. I think they are balancing the losses due to higher costs for employers with gains from increased demand now that workers have more in their pocket. This is the key issue in my opinion. So it's probably a serious study that deserves to be considered.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com