(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why do you assume Jim Crow laws were based on racism? They could have been enacted based on concern over maintaining the establishment.

Probably because they discriminated on the basis of race, explicilty. Read the laws. I'll let you figure out the rest for yourself; or I'll have a moment of humor watching you wander through the wilderness as you learn facts you didn't previously know.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its hard to argue with you because you seem incapable of separating one claim from another. One claim was that the disparity between the rich and poor was widening. By showing that standard of living is increasing faster for poor people than rich people...I showed that claim to be errant.

No, you didn't. The fact is, the metric for wealth is the amount of wealth. And the fact is, I've shown that the distribution of wealth over the last thirty years has been inordinate.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: A second claim was that if income of rich people was re-distributed to everyone else....everyone else would have more buy power.

That wasn't a claim I made; I'd suggest you reread my posts and link to the exact post where I made that claim.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: No...you don't know what your talking about. Demand happens for all sorts of reason. A law is passed requiring construction sites be surrounded by fences....demand for fences increases. A hurricaine hits and knocks out the power station for a month...demand for generators increases. I could go on and on.

You're so close, and yet so far away.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: The reason our standards of living have increased is because more is being produced. If you want to maximally increase peoples standard of living...set up a system that maximizes production and maximizes peoples buying power.
No minimum wage.....no silly regulations......a highly progressive tax rate....and a universal basic income will accomplish that.

All the production in the world does you no good if food is expensive. Are you really this obtuse, or are you putting on an act?

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't dispute the CBO numbers. I am saying they are irrelevant. The fact that I am arguing one thing and you keep trying to make the argument about something else...something irrelevant shows that you have lost and are now strawmanning to try to save face.

No; I'm pointing out that you don't know your ass from third base about why people buy stuff.

Here's a clue for you: they don't buy it because you've built it.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you want to win...you have to show that standards of living are not increasing....or that standards of living of the poor and middle class are growing slower than the standards of living for the rich.

I've already done that: take-home pay is a tight correlate with living standards. You should look again at the graphs you clearly ignored, and use your head to draw the appropriate conclusions.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: When I argue there is no widening disparity between rich and poor as evidenced by the closing gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor.....you can't win by tossing out irrelevant CBO numbers that have nothing to do with the claim I am making.

You need to actually provide evidence for that claim before you claim propriety.

Don't worry, I'll wait while you google to support your argumentum ex culo.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: How about you attack the claim I am making by presenting facts relevant to the claim I am making. Can you do me the courtesy?

Setting aside for the moment that I already have, howzabout you actually give evidence for your claim? Give us data. Provide information. Supply links.

Show that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor hasn't grown. Demonstrate that with numbers from credible sources.

(November 8, 2014 at 10:21 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why do you assume Jim Crow laws were based on racism? They could have been enacted based on concern over maintaining the establishment.

Probably because they discriminated on the basis of race, explicilty. Read the laws. I'll let you figure out the rest for yourself; or I'll have a moment of humor watching you wander through the wilderness as you learn facts you didn't previously know.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: Its hard to argue with you because you seem incapable of separating one claim from another. One claim was that the disparity between the rich and poor was widening. By showing that standard of living is increasing faster for poor people than rich people...I showed that claim to be errant.

No, you didn't. The fact is, the metric for wealth is the amount of wealth. And the fact is, I've shown that the distribution of wealth over the last thirty years has been inordinate.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: A second claim was that if income of rich people was re-distributed to everyone else....everyone else would have more buy power.

That wasn't a claim I made; I'd suggest you reread my posts and link to the exact post where I made that claim.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: No...you don't know what your talking about. Demand happens for all sorts of reason. A law is passed requiring construction sites be surrounded by fences....demand for fences increases. A hurricaine hits and knocks out the power station for a month...demand for generators increases. I could go on and on.

You're so close, and yet so far away.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: The reason our standards of living have increased is because more is being produced. If you want to maximally increase peoples standard of living...set up a system that maximizes production and maximizes peoples buying power.
No minimum wage.....no silly regulations......a highly progressive tax rate....and a universal basic income will accomplish that.

All the production in the world does you no good if food is expensive. Are you really this obtuse, or are you putting on an act?

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't dispute the CBO numbers. I am saying they are irrelevant. The fact that I am arguing one thing and you keep trying to make the argument about something else...something irrelevant shows that you have lost and are now strawmanning to try to save face.

No; I'm pointing out that you don't know your ass from third base about why people buy stuff.

Here's a clue for you: they don't buy it because you've built it.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you want to win...you have to show that standards of living are not increasing....or that standards of living of the poor and middle class are growing slower than the standards of living for the rich.

I've already done that: take-home pay is a tight correlate with living standards. You should look again at the graphs you clearly ignored, and use your head to draw the appropriate conclusions.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: When I argue there is no widening disparity between rich and poor as evidenced by the closing gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor.....you can't win by tossing out irrelevant CBO numbers that have nothing to do with the claim I am making.

You need to actually provide evidence for that claim before you claim propriety.

Don't worry, I'll wait while you google to support your argumentum ex culo.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: How about you attack the claim I am making by presenting facts relevant to the claim I am making. Can you do me the courtesy?

Setting aside for the moment that I already have, howzabout you actually give evidence for your claim? Give us data. Provide information. Supply links.

Show that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor hasn't grown. Demonstrate that with numbers from credible sources.

There is nothing of substance....there is no coherent argument which I can respond too.

I think you and I have both stated our positions in detail and we can let the readers of this thread can decide who is right.

(November 8, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: There is nothing of substance....there is no coherent argument which I can respond too.

Wrong. There's substance there ... but you have to have facts to address the point.

As for your ability to respond, I've already posted: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think." You have to be able to hold contrary points in your head in order to reckon their value in the balance. This is clearly an ability you need to practice.

(November 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: I think you and I have both stated our positions in detail and we can let the readers of this thread can decide who is right.

I've provided detail; you've provided rhetoric. If you think the two are the same, that might explain your simple-minded views.

Heywood Wrote:Reduce growth in government spending
Reduces taxes
Tighten the money supply to reduce inflation
Reduce regulation

You mean like what they did during and after WW2. If the government back then took your attitude we'd all be speaking German right now and have no highways or nationwide electric grid.

NO, your attitude was what caused the great depression. And your attitude is what took off 30 years ago that lead to a bubble every decade and 3 in the 2000s that caused our great recession.

Less regulation? Ok how about Tijuana or Somalia?

Jim crow laws weren't based on racism?

Have I seriously gotten into an argument? With someone who is that stupid and that much of a retarded fuckwad?

I now feel ashamed of myself

(November 9, 2014 at 1:28 am)simplemoss Wrote: Jim crow laws weren't based on racism?

Have I seriously gotten into an argument? With someone who is that stupid and that much of a retarded fuckwad?

I now feel ashamed of myself

I know, right? I feel a little filthy, and should probably take a shower.

(November 9, 2014 at 2:14 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 9, 2014 at 1:28 am)simplemoss Wrote: Jim crow laws weren't based on racism?

Have I seriously gotten into an argument? With someone who is that stupid and that much of a retarded fuckwad?

I now feel ashamed of myself

I know, right? I feel a little filthy, and should probably take a shower.

You guy think you have it bad....I have to argue with a couple of idiots who apparently don't know the difference between a statement, question, and proposition.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wrong. You have to increase their purchasing power.

Negative.....you would be giving them more money to buy the exact same amount of goods and services.

If you want to make peoples lives better, you have to give them more stuff. You have to produce more.

"Give"? Who's paying for it, Santa Claus?

No, you have to give them opportunity, and let them do the rest.

(November 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Of course, no one is arguing that their standard of living is not rising. This is a straw man on your part.

I am arguing the leftist narrative that the disparity between the rich and poor is widening is a lie when you look at from meaningful metrics. The fact that you agree with me is evidence that my argument is not a straw man but effective one.

I'm not sure what language you're reading, but I'm writing English, and I've said it clearly that I am not agreeing with you.

Your argument is clearly a strawman, for the reason stated earlier. I am not arguing that their standard of living is not rising; I'm arguing that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and I have provided data to support my assertions, a painfully obvious omission on your part.

If you're going to be dishonest, I'll stop engaging you constructively and go back to the mockery that you seem determined to earn. Please don't lower the level of discourse by making patently false claims. Your honesty in this discussion is required for it to continue.

(November 6, 2014 at 7:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Real wealth is stuff.....not 0's on a ledger. The truth is the poor and middle class in America have more stuff or wealth than they ever have had. If you compare a typical present day citizen's life style to Bill Gates versus a typical a typical 19th century citizen's life style to Cornelius Vanderbilt, you would find the life style gap has closed....not gotten wider as the left wants you think.

Since I stumbled across Bill Gates proposed solution for inequality being a consumption tax, I started to do some research to find out a little more about it.

Anyways, I ran across this short gem of a video. It seems Bill Gates would agree with me that we should be looking at inequality of consumption and not inequality of income. Pay special note to what he says about numbers in a book(0s in a ledger). Now I don't know if Gate's position is that the inequality of consumption gap between the rich in poor is widening or if he feels its closing(as I do). I'm only saying that he agrees with me that this is the important inequality to look at and income inequality really doesn't matter.

(November 9, 2014 at 10:55 am)Heywood Wrote: You guy think you have it bad....I have to argue with a couple of idiots who apparently don't know the difference between a statement, question, and proposition.

That's okay, you all can go learn that simple stuff together. This discussion will be better for it.