Potpourri
[UPDATE below.]
==> If you’re in the Jersey area, Murray Sabrin is hosting a symposium on the income tax on April 17. Details here.
==> Gene Callahan on the meaning of faith.
==> Rob Bradley (founder of the Institute of Energy Research) has another article at EconLib on Enron.
==> Wendy McElroy thinks it trivializes the term to say the US has a “rape culture.”
==> The CIA openly admits it is funding research into geo-engineering. Some of you need to email them and say, “No you’re not. That’s an absurd conspiracy theory.”
==> Here’s a sentence I never expected to type: Adam Kokesh and Josie the Outlaw talk about the benefits of a compassionate approach to bringing the liberty message to police officers.
==> I’m gonna throw you guys a curveball: I really liked two recent posts by Daniel Kuehn. In this one he argues that Bryan Caplan is walking down a dangerous path when he (Bryan) laments that the government didn’t follow Simon Kuznets’ recommendation to take military expenditures out of GNP calculations. In this one, Daniel points out that a female pay gap isn’t a myth; rather, one might deconstruct the reasons for it. If that seems like a goofy distinction to you, look at his reductio ad absurdum: “The black unemployment rate is a myth because if you control for unequal education, terrible treatment by the justice system, and differences in a family structure a whole lot of it seems to go away! Also must not be caused by discrimination.”
UPDATE: Daniel Kuehn has a new post discussing Steve Horwitz’s piece on the male/female pay gap. (Also Daniel says he can’t leave comments here for some reason; he’s not “staying above the fray,” even though that might be wise.)
Bob, geoengineering is a well-established area of research, a Plan B in case carbon taxing regimes prove ineffective or politically infeasible. Levitt and Dubner even wrote about it in Superfreakonomics (in a chapter that was widely criticized for being overly optimistic about the prospect). The dispute isn’t about whether there is such a (proposed) technology as geoengineering. You can accept that while rejecting conspiracy theories about chemtrails and nefarious plots.
No Keshav. That they make no secret of this just shows how much other stuff they must be hiding.
Everybody knows our NWO overlords hide in plain sight. They have secret plans no one must ever find out about, but they leave clues all over the place out in the open on purpose just to fuck with us.
Come on.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/february/tradebom_022608
So.
Your idea is the CIA doesn’t keep secrets?
I happen to agree in a way.
Why the CIA?
The null hypothesis is incompetence and I await falsification.
By the way, Obama was either stupid or lying about the NSA. Lying is almost better.
The only reason they wouldn’t be screwing around with contrails is that they don’t work. They have more evil ways to waste our money.
“By the way, Obama was either stupid or lying about the NSA.” When did Obama say anything false about the NSA?
“When did Obama say anything false about the NSA?”
1. “We don’t have a domestic spying program”
2. No evidence the NSA has been “actually abusing” its power
3. The FISA Court is transparent
4. His insistence that the NSA programs are legal and checked by Congressional oversight
5. His claim that he knew nothing about spying on Merkel
I’m sure there’s probably other examples I missed.
Keshav,
Obama has never said a true thing about the NSA.
“Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/15/remember-when-obama-said-the-nsa-wasnt-actually-abusing-its-powers-he-was-wrong/
“For Gene Healy’s money, the biggest presidential lie of the year came on June 7…”
“I welcome this debate,” Obama proclaimed—even as his administration was hunting down the whistleblower who started it and preparing to hit him with 30 years of Espionage Act charges.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/24/gene-healy-on-obamas-nsa-lie
Rose: “Should this be transparent in some way?”
Obama: “It is transparent,…”
Politifact: “We rate his claim Pants on Fire”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-foreign-intelligence-surveillanc/
Obama: “Every member of Congress has been briefed on these programs.”
Nope
Obama: “NSA Not Listening to Your Phone Calls ”
NSA: “Oopsie, we really are listening to your phone calls”
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/10/nsa-james-clapper-admit-to-wrongdoing
Obama “…have to go back to a federal judge just like they would in a criminal investigation”
Nope
Four Questionable Claims Obama Has Made On NSA Surveillance
Are we done here?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/obama-nsa-surveillance_n_4616506.html
Whenever someone says, after some big revelation, something like “I welcome this debate”, it is almost 100% sure he is lying.
Keshav,
Just for fun, and I’m serious, about the fun part, someone can try to find a quote from Obama about the NSA issue that is 100% truthful.
http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/
If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
So much for Congress having been fully briefed on these programs.
So much for them not doing what the president claimed they weren’t doing now that they are claiming they have legal authority to cover that they absolutely have been doing them.
The day after the Guardian revealed details of the NSA’s Prism program, President Obama said: “Now, with respect to the internet and emails, this doesn’t apply to US citizens and it doesn’t apply to people living in the United States.”
Oopsie…WRONG again Barry.
This president just doesn’t have Clinton’s or even Bush’s dissembling chops to be able to tell untruths that he can later spin.
To level set, your choices for the head of government are “stupid or liar?”
The relevance, to reiterate, is the head of government either has no idea what government is doing or is complicit (or both, of course- stupidly lying being the most likely explanation).
Thus, who could possibly know or realistically vouch for the motives of the CIA?
Now we know they are interested in aerial aerosols. All we know for sure is that what they tell us isn’t the truth.
That first paragraph was from here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls#
Still waiting for an Obama truth statement.
And I’m even willing to wait until Obama actually tells the truth at some point in the future.
This could be a continuing series:
“Has Obama said something true yet?”
Because they’re trying to see if proposed geoengineering projects by other countries has national security implications for the United States.
There was a paranoid theory I recall in the late 70s or early 80s, reported on by the network news, that the Russians were causing droughts in the mid-west by controlling weather.
So?
Ken B, what is your exact position and can you tell me when it would be proven wrong?
The relevance is really quite obvious if you are willing to try to understand Andrew. There are people who think geo-engineering could be used as a weapon, and there have been for a long time. Do you see how, whether geo engineering is possible or not, that people who worry about threats take the possibility seriously bolsters Keshav’s point?
I could also point out the army funded ESP experiments.
My exact position is that Keshav has a good point.
Okay, that’s not really your point.
And you are probably wrong about that too.
The CIA isn’t researching geoengineering in order to determine other country’s capabilities…unless they are even stupider than I think they are, which they might be.
What’s my point then Karnac?
Right now it is deflection.
Very similar to the justification given for why the USA needed to manufacture weapons-grade anthrax… because someone else might be doing it.
Andrew’s rule #69
If you don’t want to be seen as doing something wrong that others class you ate doing and you maintain you are not, when you see other kids doing it run the other way.
Personally, this is neither here nor there except to prove their hubris and that they don’t know what they are doing because they are completely out if control.
Is that what you believe, or are you repeating what someone told you they said?
So, Keshav, the CIA believes that atmospheric aerosolization has military applications.
I think my exact words last time was “you would do research on aerosolization independent of the chemicals whose specific effects are known or could be researched independently.”
Bob, you should be aware that the CIA is reading the comments on your blog!
So, the CIA is just curious that maybe someone ELSE could weaponize this…but they aren’t interested in it for themselves.
But they want to fund research that might help others weaponize it.
I actually believe they ARE that stupid. So, Keshav, you either do or don’t make a good point depending on if the CIA is stupid or effing stupid.
Keshav, I realize you and I have a slight communication difficulty, because I’m a “wise guy” on my blog often, and I gather you may not have been raised in the United States? (I’m just going off your name.)
In any event, just skim this article and note the date.
If the government came out tomorrow and said, “OK OK, we actually have been lying for decades and we have known all along there were 3 gunmen who took out Kennedy, but we promise we had nothing to do with it,” I’m sure Ken B. would guffaw and say, “I bet Bob and the other nutjobs think this somehow helps their case! But why would the government admit this if they are just going to lie anyway!?”
I don’t know where Keshav is from, but it is perfectly clear his grasp of English is quite excellent, and considerably better than many here who were raised in this country.
Good for you, Ken. It’s perfectly clear that you have picked a few allies in your never ending trolling here. I wasn’t saying Keshav doesn’t know how to conjugate verbs, I was explaining that I make “wise guy” remarks a lot that he isn’t getting; it’s why he thought I was unfamiliar with geo-engineering based on my sarcastic statement.
Keshav picked up on your sarcasm. Anyone who has read his commentary sees he catches these kinds of things quite well. He didn’t know about your article from 2009. Why should he?
Bob, I apologize for the misunderstanding. (I’m an Indian American born and raised in the US, so I don’t have that excuse.). Kristin Meghan’s video made it sound as if geoengineering was just an unambiguously nefarious thing, and that any quote from a scientist which acknowledges the existence of geoengineering was tantamount to confirming the chemtrails conspiracy theory. So I thought your remark in this post meant you believed the same thing. I had no idea that you were actually aware of the legitimate uses of geoengineering.
By the way, does Kristin Meghan know about your geoengineering article? I’d be interested to see how she’d respond to it, given the rather categorical-sounding statements she made in her talk. She might say that information about geoengineering that your article and Levitt and Dubner’s book relied on is actually government misinformation about the technology.
Keshav wrote:
Bob, I apologize for the misunderstanding. (I’m an Indian American born and raised in the US, so I don’t have that excuse.).
Yikes! I actually was trying to apologize to you, meaning, “Sorry Keshav I was being ‘funny’ and realize now that you misunderstood what I was saying…” Not the first time my jokes have missed.
By the way, does Kristin Meghan know about your geoengineering article?
Heh, actually I told her at that conference that I had to email her something I had written which might be awkward. She still Likes my status updates on Facebook, so I think she’s OK with it…
What annoyed me about about Bob’s sarcastic remarks is not that I thought he didn’t know about geoengineering. It’s that it implies the skeptics didn’t know about it and that we believe the whole concept behind engineering is an absurd conspiracy. Why would we be calling telling them telling them is an absurd conspiracy theory? What the skeptics think is absurd is that they’re currently doing this specific type of of geoengineering at this very minute (especially at the grand scale that the chemtrailers claim they are) without the public’s awareness.
Oh youI I love it when you pontificate so!
“OK OK, we actually have been lying for decades and we have known all along there were 3 gunmen who took out Kennedy, but we promise we had nothing to do with it,”
This sort of thing goes a long way to explaining why Keshav assumed you believe “geoengineering [is] just an unambiguously nefarious thing, and that any quote from a scientist which acknowledges the existence of geoengineering was tantamount to confirming the chemtrails conspiracy theory”. In your Kennedy fantasy there would be ex hypothesi proof of decades of lies about the topic at hand. Where is the record of decades of lies about the very existence of geo-engineering or its nefarious use? Conpiracism oozes from your every pore Bob. Perhaps that, not missed irony, explains Keshav’s assumption.
Your explanation of Bob’s motives sounds like a crackpot conspiracy theory.
I did not mention or discuss Bob’s motives. You need to look that word up.
I think it is a goofy distinction, still. Obviously, the debate is whether the wage gap is caused by discrimination or not. If I point out that there is a wage gap between NBA players and WNBA players, and somebody comes by and points out I’m comparing apples to oranges, would you think DK’s reductio is a good point to bring up?
For the Wall St Journal article that DK criticized,
“The 23% gap implies that women work an extra 68 days to earn the same pay as a man. Mr. Obama advocates allowing women to sue for wage discrimination, with employers bearing the burden of proving they did not discriminate. But the numbers bandied about to make the claim of widespread discrimination are fundamentally misleading and economically illogical.”
Clearly, or at least it seems clear to me, the Wall St Journal is arguing that the myth is believing discrimination is the cause of the wage gap.
DK said,
“Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs (April 7th, 2014, “The ’77 Cents on the Dollar’ Myth About Women’s Pay”) seem to confuse our ability to attribute the gender pay gap to various factors with the idea that the gap itself is a “myth”.”
No, IMO, they don’t make that mistake at all. I think you have to be very uncharitable to not acknowledge that there article is a critique of the position that the wage gap is created by discrimination and that laws against discrimination will fix the problem.
Dr. Murphy, do you agree with DK that those two guys who wrote that article “seem to confuse our ability to attribute the gender pay gap to various factors with the idea that the gap itself is a “myth”?
And if you do, why do you think they used the entire article to explain why there was a wage gap, and why pointing to discrimination as the cause was illogical and counter to the facts?
I agree here with Dan. The myth is NOT that a pay gap exists or that there are economically sound reasons for it. The myth is that there exists an pay gap that is caused by economically unjustified discrimination against women. Put differently, the myth is that women are consistently underpaid only because businesses are too stupid or too misogynistic to treat women economically the same as they treat men.
I realize that Daniel Kuehn thinks it inappropriate to suggest that he seize these profit opportunities by going into business himself. But I don’t see the inappropriateness. What’s inappropriate is for someone to allege that profit opportunities exist and persist, but that only other people should be obliged to act in ways that that someone believes will remedy the situation.
It’s fair for an academic to acknowledge that he or she personally has no particular skills at running a business, but then it’s doubly odd to follow this academic’s advice on unleashing government power to intervene in the running of businesses. An academic who is appropriately modest about his or her ability to engage in private enterprise ought to be equally modest about his or her ability to advise other people on how to engage in enterprise – especially when that advice involves using the power of the state.
“An academic who is appropriately modest about his or her ability to engage in private enterprise ought to be equally modest about his or her ability to advise other people on how to engage in enterprise – especially when that advice involves using the power of the state.”
+10
Except the way it is phrased most of the time is a myth. Nearly everyone citing that statistic says it says women earn 77% of what men earn for the same work.
That IS a myth! In fact I was watching a TV show the other day that said-I am being serious now-70% for the same job!
Several prominent Democrats have cited that statistic, in the halls of the US Congress, in exactly the way I stated. Including the Senate majority leader.
They add on the important sentence fragment that makes the statement false!
This is pretty ordinarily what one would call a myth.
And let’s be clear here. The way we attribute it does rule out discrimination in the labor market as the cause of nearly all the gap.
That leaves as people potentially guilty of discrimination: parents, teachers, “society” writ large. But the one group of people almost certainly off the hook are employers.
BTW, which word is trivialized, rape, or culture?
ZING! I’ll be here all week.
Perry and Biggs do not confuse the issue at all. DK does. Taking into account all of the real discrimination and hatred that actually takes place and continues to exist in society, it turns out that people with similar years of experience and education levels are paid virtually the same regardless of gender or race. Most of the prior non-employment discrimination can be blamed upon cultural problems, various violations of the NAP and statist policies in general. Basically, whatever problems that actually exist are not particularly problematic in the market. But that never seems to stop the statists from blaming the market and clamoring for more market “regulation” and other violent interventions to solve a problem that does not exist.
Callahan:
“Let me be careful not to place the sole burden of this misinterpretation of the meaning of faith on nonbelievers: there are, of course, a minority of Christians who contend that faith means believing nonsense such as that there once was a boat that could have held all million-plus of the world’s animal species at once, and that platypuses, pandas, penguins and pythons all somehow jetted to Israel to hop aboard this vessel.”
But before:
“And that, my friends, has always been the actual meaning of faith as talked about in Christianity: going all in. It has nothing to do with assent to dubious intellectual propositions: it is about commitment.”
If faith is “commitment” to an idea despite evidence and reason, and if we ought to have faith, then it makes no sense to attach the faith that the story of Noah’s Ark is true, on the non-faith evidence basis that it is “nonsense.” It makes no sense to attack someone’s faith on the basis that it contradicts evidence, and then tell them to strive to have faith as a “commitment” to an idea, despite evidence.
The reason why faith is such a difficult nut to crack is that it not only does not permit falsification based on evidence, but it does not even permit refutation bases on self-reflective reason. Faith is a rejection of reason and evidence in favor of emotional “commitment.”
Humans are physically capable of believing an idea is true even though it is not in fact true. Faith is really just a prostration to that capability we have. The awe and wonder of being able to emotionally attach oneself to and deeply believe in a concept that contradicts both evidence and self-reflective reasoning, has its own religion.
Seriously though, sometimes I wrack my brain over thinking about how it is even possible for us to believe in the truth of an idea that is not in fact true. A person can really believe that unicorns exist on Earth, even if they do not. Why, or how, is that possible?
“…makes no sense to attack the faith…”
“Seriously though, sometimes I wrack my brain over thinking about how it is even possible for us to believe in the truth of an idea that is not in fact true. A person can really believe that unicorns exist on Earth, even if they do not. Why, or how, is that possible?” Why is that so hard to imagine? Is it so strange that our mental model of the world may be an imperfect reflection of the world as it really is?
“Humans are physically capable of believing an idea is true even though it is not in fact true. Faith is really just a prostration to that capability we have. The awe and wonder of being able to emotionally attach oneself to and deeply believe in a concept that contradicts both evidence and self-reflective reasoning, has its own religion.
Seriously though, sometimes I wrack my brain over thinking about how it is even possible for us to believe in the truth of an idea that is not in fact true. ”
You must be talking about silly people who believe in governments ability to centrally plan utopia…
So Bob my garage door broke a spring this past weekend and I found this garage door website. I stumbled upon this link He had, thought you might like it. The only thing in life that really matters.
http://ddmgaragedoors.com/garage-door-good-news.php
Thanks Gamble I’ll check it out.
The Adam Kokesh link doesn’t surprise me. If you watch his videos of talking to police, he’s always polite and never loses his patience. Maybe he shouldn’t stick a camera in their faces and ask how they feel about infringing liberty. It probably puts them on the defensive. But somebody has to do it.
Funding research into geo-engineering has zilch in common with the ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding chemtrails and other nonsense. from actually trying to control the climate. The article says they are funding research “to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security.”
Ridiculous to suggest that quote gives credibility to the chemtrails garbage.
Take it up with the CIA who thinks it does.
Hey joe, by the way, did you think it was ridiculous to suggest that the NSA was reading Americans e-mails and listening to phone calls before some libertarian told you they were?
Before or after Obama told you they weren’t?
Before or after Clapper lied to Congress?
Hey Joe,
A conspiracy is when 2 or more people plan to break the law.
geo-engineering is when people try to control the weather.
So it is reasonable to think chem-trails and other methods may be used to control weather, it is also reasonable for some people to think this weather controlling and the associated environment and human life destruction is illegal.
The big is , do taxpayers really have the resources for this? Is there something better to spend taxpayer money on? Are taxes above and beyond the enumerated powers legal?
“Chemtrails” are just contrails. Contrails stay in the air for a long time. It’s the reason birds fly in a V formation:
Flock Formation Aftershow
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/flock-formation-aftershow.htm
Contrails are a natural result of a hot wing creating vapor. This has nothing to do with birds.
CHEMTRAILS are thick and nasty. Big difference.
Also none of this explains the intentional grid patterns…
Also none of this explains the intentional grid patterns…
It is *because* the contrails stay in the air for a long time that pilots would choose to avoid traveling the exact path of others; The goal would be to minimize turbulence.
Or maybe I should qualify: “It is because the wingtip vortices (which trap the water vapor that forms) stay in the air for a long time …”
Yeah they avoid safely landing when they run our of fuel because they flew horizontal and vertical rather than directly to destination…
FYI I am not talking about contrails at 35000 feet from commercial airliners. Nope.
The grid patterns are much lower, start early in the morning, and are created by smaller airplanes, not commercial travel planes.
These grids don’t happen right now but a few years ago, for a few years, there are reports and pictures of them. They are small grids, localized.
I could take a guess but it would probably be wrong. 15000 feet elevation, 25 square miles…
Now back to the large contrails, maybe this is a new result of GE efficient engines and other airline changes that nobody wants to address? Maybe these are harmless, yet a nuisance to people who do not like their sky clouded out by planes? Maybe GE does not want to deal with possible public outcry so they are simply ignoring it all hoping it will go away, people will get use to the new fuel/engines/wings?
Check out his vid. What you think is a naturally occurring cloudy sky, is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szo1wTkFUyU
Incidentally, for newcomers who don’t know the context: I have no idea whether the claims of “chemtrails” are true or not. I met Kristen Meghan at a conference in Long Island, and had expected her to get up and show pictures of the sky and say, “You know what that is, right!”
But instead, she told the audience of her personal experience in the Air Force and how she stumbled upon its activities of releasing things from planes (presumably to test the effects). So I posted that video here, and then I had a bunch of the resident experts (who are well versed in economics, politics, evolutionary biology, Biblical textual analysis, physics, chemistry, and non-Euclidean geometry, to list but a few topics on which they have pontificated) quite confidently tell me the woman I had just met was either insane or lying. Hence my sarcastic comment in the OP above.
Their critique essentially boils down to “why would the government something so pointlessly stupid?”
And I agree with them! And yet there is nary an example where they aren’t doing something pointless, stupid, and counter-productive. And one perfectly good answer is that they have a crapload of our (and Chinese) money that they have to waste.
So, the confidence they have against all evidence is remarkable. It must make life a lot easier.
So, to recap, they sprayed Chemtrails over Vietnam for chemical warfare. They are studying geoengineering aerosolization and weaponization. They have studied chemical warfare agents. So, why would they ever have to put all of them together? They wouldn’t have to. But they are stupid assholes! So who the hell can know?
“how she stumbled upon its activities of releasing things from planes ” Bob, that isn’t actually what happened. She’s not an actual chemtrails whistleblower. What she claims is that she stumbled upon is government use of carcinogenic materials that were harmful to workers on the airbase, and that when she tried to document and report it she was fired for being deranged. See e.g. this comment from her:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kristen-meghan-former-us-air-force-whistle-blower.1066/page-2#post-24804
The experience of witnesseing government malfeseance and being fired for trying to catch it is what led her to start accepting other conspiracy theories, like chemtrails and water flouridation. But I don’t think she’s actually claimed that the hazardous materials she saw had anything to do with chemtrails.
This is correct. Some of the ways I have seen her introduced are artfully vague in the way they describe her alleged whistle-blowing, but I read on her site an explicit statement, after her status was questioned.
Keshav, she also says in that video that she has had ground crew personnel admit to her that they have loaded stuff onto planes but were afraid to speak out for fear of being fired, and encouraged her to keep it up etc.
Now (a) she could be lying or (b) guys could be making up stories to have a reason to hit on her (I’m not kidding), granted. But in that video she is talking about tracking chemical shipments etc.
And right, she actually doesn’t like being known as “the chemtrails girl” for obvious reasons.
Now (a) she could be lying or (b) guys could be making up stories to have a reason to hit on her (I’m not kidding), granted.
It’s also possible that (c) she talked to a crazy person, and believed their crazy story.
Sure. But why jump to conclusions and assume other people are jumping to conclusions.
Bayesianism is a thing.
Go to the video at 10:30.
“Whistleblower” is a status and a description.
She claims to have seen orders for large volumes of chemicals that she suspects were for spraying.
I see a person who claims to have seen orders for large volumes of chemicals.
That’s it.
“then I had a bunch of the resident experts (who are well versed in economics, politics, evolutionary biology, Biblical textual analysis, physics, chemistry, and non-Euclidean geometry, to list but a few topics on which they have pontificated)”
I wasn’t going to comment earlier but now I will. This petulance shows a fundamental immaturity. People can know more than you, and on several topics, and on topics you post erroneously about, and point out your errors. You for instance raised the issue of John 8, which is spurious, and you flatly denied it and were insulting about it, but I was right. You raised issues about geometry and Keshav corrected you. Philippe destroyed the post on contrails. I could go on.
Ken B, you are the model of restraint.
Philippe destroyed the post on contrails.
Where was that? I’d bet not.
Your entire point, as I remember, was “that woman is nuts.”
And I won’t bring up that above Keshav implies Obama hasn’t said anything false about the NSA and then I go on to demonstrate that he hasn’t said a single true thing about the NSA…because I’m not about ad hominem…like you.
Bob was obviously making a funny. Feel free to chill.
But it seems you can dish it out and can’t take it.
I’m sure you do remember it that way.
This is your defense against my charge of ad hominem? Interesting, if ineffective.
I do remember it that way, because that’s how it was.
It was also your first ad hominem against me, and it is interesting that you still haven’t provided an argument yet.
Oh yeah your other major contribution was to link to the Demagoguing concern trolling Cass sunsteon article that I destroyed.
Paranoia = mass spying
Ken B. wrote:
I wasn’t going to comment earlier but now I will.
Did you use a time machine?
What about John 8?
Johns 1-7 are out of order.
It’s spurious. http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/06/casting-stones-at-bob-murphys-favorite.html
Ask Bob about how his knowledgeable friends at chuurch reacted.
Hi Ken,
2 Tim 3:16
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So if we could get past/overlook the legitimacy of John 8 for just 1 moment, what is it about the adulteress you do not understand and or what is the argument? I read your link and I want to make sure I understand your point.
That John 8 is spurious.
Just in case KenB does not reply.
Put this on for size.
Matt 20:25
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
On the pay gap stuff: The title of the WSJ made it sound as if the pay gap itself was a myth, and I saw several people approvingly link to the Perry/Biggs article by saying they destroyed the “myth of a male/female pay gap.”
I too thought Daniel’s point was silly nitpicking, until his reductio ad absurdum: Nobody would talk about the “myth of a gap in white/black unemployment,” instead people would explain why that gap exists.
Obviously I agree with the substance of the standard free-market analysis, I’m just pointing out that Daniel brought up an issue of how free market economists talk about this topic that I had never considered.
The differences between blacks and whites are too obvious to attempt the “equal” assumption.
With the m/f pay gap, I do still see arguments about years of education attainment with absolutely no attempt to differentiate the degree.
I literally see people de facto equating education master’s and engineering master’s degrees (not explicitly, but by not making any attempt to differentiate). By “correcting” for years of education, they are in effect reverse-correcting for education.
You can’t do that with the b/w differences.
Before some ad hominem mis-characterization artist goes off the deep end, let me be clear that by saying:
“The differences between blacks and whites are too obvious to attempt the “equal” assumption.”
I of course mean the situational differences, such as incarceration rates, graduation rates, etc. are too different to make an equivalence assumption. That as an explanation as to why economists wouldn’t talk about the b/w gap (although they do talk about the b/w education gap).
See, I wouldn’t disagree if Daniel had said that a lot of the titles of these articles are misleading and can add to the confusion. But, he said the authors ““seem to confuse our ability to attribute the gender pay gap to various factors with the idea that the gap itself is a “myth”?”
The title, which they may not have chosen may have indicated that, but the substance of their article did no such thing. For example, if the article was titled “The ’77 Cents on the Dollar’ Myth About Women’s Pay Being The Result of Discrimination” then Daniel’s post would have no merit whatsoever. So it seems the only problem is with the title and not the substance of the piece. That, to me, is clearly nitpicking.
It wouldn’t DK if it wasn’t.
wouldn’t be*
Yeah, DK is technically right, but generally missing the point.
What the feminist crowd, and its leftist sympathizers generally advocate for is “equal pay for equal work.” They then point to this pay gap as evidence that currently, women do not get paid for equal work.
But when you dig into the numbers, you find that the work isn’t actually equal at all. Tom Woods did a podcast on this recently that was pretty good.
So, it’s not a myth that in the aggregate, women earn less (in terms of average annual wages) than men do. But it is a myth that women earn less than men for doing the same amount and/or type of work. Which is what the “equal pay” movement generally wants you to believe is the case, even though they’re smart enough to avoid declaring that specifically, because they know its wrong.
So, it’s not a myth that in the aggregate, women earn less (in terms of average annual wages) than men do.
Right, so libertarians should stop saying, “So-and-so in this article destroy the myth of a male/female wage gap,” and, “OMG Obama says women get paid 77 cents on the dollar to a man, that’s such BS!”
I’m making a minor little point here about how we often talk about stuff, and pointing out that we would never talk this way when addressing, say, the big gap in black/white unemployment rates, or incarceration rates, or graduation rates, etc. All of this analysis is in my Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism book, after all; you guys don’t have to lecture me on “what we’re trying to say Bob.” I know.
Bob,
I think it’s just a matter of convenience though. In casual conversation, it’s much easier to say to someone “the male/female wage gap is a myth” than it is to say “well technically that’s true but if you control for hours worked, marital status, and age, the gap vanishes to a statistically insignificant and trivial amount.”
Especially if we’re talking about quick hit-and-runs in Facebook posts, rather than an in-depth personal discussion with someone who is generally knowledgeable about economics and genuinely interested in the topic.
That’s my view, as well. I don’t think people are under the impression that free market economists think there is literally no wage gap in the aggregate from reading any of those articles. Well, DK, seems to indicate he believes they think the gap itself is a myth, but I haven’t come across other people who say things like that.
Stop being petulent!
Bob, it is a myth because the comparison to define a gap is spurious.
I win.
I.e., the gap between apples and oranges is 23 cents a pound.
See?
I win , let’s move on.
That’s a comparison between prices in terms of cents.
Welcome to Amerika:
the Democrat from Virginia said that, “I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid. I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”
http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-cussed-pay-raise-request-152006017.html
Board of director, singular monolithic corporation, oy vey…
As much as I generally hate Congress, he’s not especially wrong.
Virtually every member of Congress could easily walk out of there and into a high-level executive position at virtually any company. Whether they would “deserve” it or not isn’t really the point, the point is, they could. Similar executive positions would pay them a whole lot more.
Most people who run for Congress spend millions of dollars to procure a job that makes a few hundred grand a year. That math doesn’t add up. It suggests that they aren’t in it for the money, but in it for something else. So what’s the something else. Well some people might say “because they love their country and want to serve their fellow man!” I pity people who actually believe that one.
No, the something else is a lust for power and domination. They are seeking power, fame, control over other people, etc. This is not healthy. And since that is the main perk that being a Congressman offers, the job of legislator will essentially self-select, making the “lust for power” crowd the only people who would ever consider running in the first place.
Perhaps a “for-profit” Congress would be more efficient in the same way that for-profit corporations usually are. Imagine that a Congressman was paid $5 million a year or something crazy like that. All of a sudden, the ACTUAL best and brightest have a legitimate motivation to become one. The incompetent “lust for power” folks now have to face legitimate competition from people who are “only in it for the money” rather than “in it because I get a sick desire out of pretending that I’m really important.” Just a thought.
Yeah, but as a congressmen you have a lot more “stock options” than you do even as an executive.
Do you find a lot of people are willing to bite the hand that feeds them? And what if that hand fed them $5 million/year?
I’m not sure that congressmen would necessarily be good executives. They might make good lobbyists, but they probably wouldn’t be good executives. A good politican acquires wealth through non-productive means of manipulating the legal system. Executives can’t fully rely on this. Sure, they can hire lobbyists, but ultimately their company’s success depends on business decisions.
Once again, I’m not saying they’d be good ones. Just that they’d get hired, if only because of name recognition and because people are really impressed by “public service” work.
Maybe, but I’d be surprised if a company board or other executives were awed by “public service” work like the general public might be; especially when they are most concerned with making profits.
I guess they could be hired under a pseudo-executive position as a marketing ploy; somewhat like an honorary executive with no real power.
Of course, any individual could be both a good businessman and a politician, but I’d imagine that if a company was going to hire a former congressmen as an executive it would be due to their business acumen and not because of their political abilities.
You are not an executive if your customers are derived via gunpoint…
Also, I had a high school history teacher make almost the same point years ago. I’ll ask you what I asked him, “Would we really be better off if Bill Gates had become a politician instead?”
Maybe. I doubt we’d be much worse off. I mean, as it stands now, we’ve got Diane Feinstein…
I think you took that the wrong way. I’m saying Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. were able to make people’s lives better by creating jobs and delivering amazing products. We want our greatest minds figuring out ways to make our lives better, not in charge of a destructive force like the State.
Gates the politician > Feinstein
Gates the businessman > Gates the politician
Yeah, I realized that after I typed the message. You certainly have a point there. One could also argue that it would be best for society to put all of its worst and stupidest people in Congress where they won’t harm what’s really important, the private sector.
That said, even a high salary like $5 million wouldn’t make you among the richest people on Earth. The VERY best and brightest would still be able to earn more in the private sector. Tiger Woods wouldn’t take $5 million to be a Senator, nor would Tom Cruise, or presumably Bill Gates. After all, didn’t Gates drop out of Harvard? Plenty of highly lucrative careers would have been available to him if he stayed in, but he pursued a dream instead.
Presumably, the dreamers would still continue to do that. Bill Gates wasn’t lured away from doing something great for a career in Investment Banking. Presumably, he wouldn’t have become a Congressman for slightly more money either.
Maybe, but the majority of jobs are created by people making way less than $5 million/year. I bet a lot of people would forgo a chance to start their own business for that kind of money and power.
Maybe your current living expenses shold be paid for lenthg of term regardless of who you are and a gurantee return to your existing job.
This way anybody could serve their Country.
Lest us stop pretending/conflating government with business. The 2 are not the same, not even close and never will be…
Board of directors insinuates so much, salary aside.
First of all USA is a government, not a corporation. We are not voluntary customers, we are subjects.
Secondly, they are not suppose to be pulling the economy’s strings.
Third are we really nothing more than the worlds largest economic entity? Are we monolithic? Has the economy become totally centralized as be spoken of as singular entity?
This should scare every one of you to pieces…
It suggests to me that their remuneration includes something off the record. They make themselves immune to insider trading while at the same time having prime opportunity to take advantage of it.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/04/16/obama-signs-law-gutting-insider-trading-regulations-for-congress/
Shocked I tell you, shocked.
I couldn’t leave comments here for a while either. I’m not claiming it was because of Heartbleed and I would not claim Heartbleed is a government program.
I still think his point is being nitpicky, and see nothing wrong with the free market economists approach in this debate. There was no shortage of people talking about the pay gap on Facebook over the last couple weeks, and a large majority of the people believed that it proved discrimination against women.
DK wants to poo poo the misleading talk coming from politicians because it’s not how he views things, but that is who the free market economists are waging battle against. When the masses are getting their views on the wage gap from DK I’ll start worrying about whether free market economists are being nuanced enough in the way they frame this issue. But as long as the masses are listening to idiots like Obama, Biden, and Clinton on this issue, I see nothing wrong with the articles from people like Horowitz (who I really dislike even though we agree on most things). In fact, they serve a very valuable purpose, as I was able to convince multiple people that believing we need new discrimination laws to solve the wage gap was a terrible idea by using articles like the ones DK doesn’t like.
This is the trouble I have with economists from time to time. You have a mass of people believing something that makes no sense whatsoever from an economic perspective, then some economists come along and speak in clear terms that help convince people that that view is incorrect, and then you have other economists come in and chastise their colleagues who are making things clearer for the average guy on the street for not being nuanced enough. It’s effing baffling to me. Go critique scholarly journals for their nuance. These free market economists in question are busy trying to clear up a gross misunderstanding of the data being presented.
Normally, I’m with you Dr. Murphy on virtually all economic issues, but I think DK’s point here is extremely weak.
Alright, I just read a bunch of the comments in response to that WSJ article (which I try to avoid because comments on those sites tend to just depress me), and I didn’t come across a single one where the person thought they meant the wage gap, itself, was a myth. Every person disagreeing was pissed off because the article didn’t support their contention that discrimination was to blame for the gap.
So, as far as I can tell, there is a widespread belief that discrimination is responsible for the wage gap, those that believe that want laws to rectify the situation, the articles claiming the gap is a myth are not being misinterpreted by these same people, and these kind of articles also convince a lot of people that discrimination is not the cause of the gap. So, what’s the problem? Are we more concerned with whether the average Joe is understanding the point the writer is trying to make, or with the way the writer phrases his point?
Average Joe would be a 3 sigma improvement.
Level set:
The CIA is where you put stuff you want relatively secret. So their brazen open admission here means either nothing or something. It might just be a dumb attempt at image management but I would not assume that it means the CIA is simply curious and naive about the accusations and so stupid as to give conspiracy theorists ammo for no reason. I would not assume they want some post hoc cover and “welcome” the debate so to speak, because I try not to assume anything.
Come on, this is an easy one. It’s PR. Why else does anyone try to appear as though they want to “do something” about “climate change” anyway?
There is not so much a pay gap for women qua women, as a pay gap for skills, experience, job, and other factors.