On 10/30/2007 17:40:42 "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:

Right now we have _one and only one_ distribution out of the jillions
found in Nature that is unique in that the median value is meaningful but
the ave. mean value is meaningless.
Interesting. I wonder if there isn't at least one more such case. Let's
see.... race and jail terms. There's one. No?

I think the disparity in the U.S.A. in sentencing between those smoking
crack and those snorting powder cocaine is an evil. And given the race
and class of those likely to be found doing either - this is shown
in statistics - this relationship between race and jail terms does
not support those who don't seem to think the U.S.A. can be
improved. There have even been prison riots on this point.

I'm fairly convinced there are other issues about race and jail terms
that those leaning left would be quite willing to discuss.

But this all seems a distraction from Bret's point.

--
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue,
are found in proportion to the power or wealth of a man is
a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming to
reasonable and free men in search of the truth.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

On Oct 30, 4:19 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 30, 3:11 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode,
1193771663.616889.244...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner
Countdown: 447 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

What would "normal" income distribution look like?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a statistical term -- the "normal" distribution is a standard
curve. Income doesn't fit it very well.

Ok, thanks (and thanks tg for the explanatory link).

So what conclusions would you draw from that?

But the point is, most rich
people don't want income distribution analyzed at all. It makes them
look greedy.

So you think wealthy people are ashamed of their wealth?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.
Where do carbon fibers and airplane wings occur in nature? And what

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:
Income distribution.
Why not? I see it discussed lots. Have you had a bad experience with

If you so much as even make a peep about ave. _mean_ income then
they'll start screaming that you are "just like Hitler, Stalin, Ross
Perot, David Duke and Chinghis Khan all rolled up into one!"
Where have you ever seen that? Some right wing nutcase forum? I think

It's curious. If you run a reliability analysis on a structure you
are OK, even useful to society.

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
This is really strange. Tell us about your experience that has caused

And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.
Nor even have a very good explanation of what is giving you this

In our last episode,
1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.

And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

But the entire thing rests on an assumption that's so crazy...

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193773299.686012.101980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Bret is, I think, referring to analyzing income distribution in any
way, shape or form. Mean, median, standard deviation, plots, curves
etc. The rich hate this. It makes them look, well, kinda greedy.
Like they have just a little too big a piece of the pie, for the good
of the rest of us. Gee, I wonder why.

I know some millionaires and they don't mind such data. Not one bit.

In our last episode, <hNSdne5xLKn_BLranZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>, the
lovely and talented sinister broadcast on alt.politics:

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:

Income distribution.

IMHO it's much more interesting to discuss the distribution of _wealth_.

Modern economic doctrine is that wealth is used to produce income, so
largely the distribution of wealth and the distribution of income are merely
two ways of looking at the same thing. Indeed, the distributions are very
similar

and so skewed that is difficult to work with them at all except on
logrithmic scales. See pareto distribution.

On Oct 30, 8:12 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

But the entire thing rests on an assumption that's so crazy...

Your argument rests on the fallacious Marxist assumption that the rich
are exploiting the rest of us.

In fact we are the ones who *choose* of our own free will to make them
rich by purchasing the products/ services they provide.

Most honest people realize that they do not create the wealth at the level
of the rich because they are probably unable to.

In other cases they just may not want to. It does in fact take a lot of
hard work, perseverance, creativity, and most especially a willingness to
take risks to achieve great wealth.

Relatively few of us have either the intelligence or drive to do it.

Fortunately there are those who do.

Instead of looting from them, we should be grateful for their efforts.

Without them our standard of living would be significantly lower than
it is.

The communists thought that if they got rid of the rich that it
would create a worker's paradise.

All that exploitation would be gone and the wealth would go to the
supposedly true producers - the workers. Well, we saw what actually
happened. Clearly there are a lot of you still engaged in a kind of
self-induced blindness in regard to the issue.

No fallacy about it. Socialists contribute nothing and maintain their
useless existence by armed force.

In our last episode, <hNSdne5xLKn_BLranZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>, the
lovely and talented sinister broadcast on alt.politics:

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193771663.616889.244250@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
It's perfectly OK to discuss some types of distributions found in
nature. These include, say, the strength of a lot of carbon fibers or
the time loading on an airplane wing.

There's another distribution, however, that you cannot discuss:

Income distribution.

IMHO it's much more interesting to discuss the distribution of _wealth_.

Modern economic doctrine is that wealth is used to produce income, so

largely the distribution of wealth and the distribution of income are
merely
two ways of looking at the same thing. Indeed, the distributions are very
similar and so skewed that is difficult to work with them at all except on
logrithmic scales. See pareto distribution.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/
http://myspace.com/larseighner
Countdown: 447 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193773299.686012.101980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Bret is, I think, referring to analyzing income distribution in any
way, shape or form. Mean, median, standard deviation, plots, curves
etc. The rich hate this. It makes them look, well, kinda greedy.
Like they have just a little too big a piece of the pie, for the good
of the rest of us. Gee, I wonder why.

I know some millionaires and they don't mind such data. Not one bit.

Either way, mean or median,

Your argument

In our last episode, <1193809510.192574.302...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Fred Weiss broadcast on alt.politics:

On Oct 30, 8:12 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
But the entire thing rests on an assumption that's so crazy...
Your argument rests on the fallacious Marxist assumption that the rich
are exploiting the rest of us.

No fallacy about it. Rich people contribute nothing and maintain their
useless existence by armed force.

In fact we are the ones who *choose* of our own free will to make them
rich by purchasing the products/ services they provide.

That, of course, is not how rich people get rich. Exploitation occurs at
the punch-in clock, not at the cash register.

There have never been any communists.

What we saw was that it is impossible to transform feudalism into industrial
democracy in one generation.

If you are making below $60/hr it's either because you are either
dumber or lazier than average.

Or you are getting ripped off.

Now which one is it?

On Oct 30, 5:06 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:



On Oct 30, 4:19 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:11 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:

On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode,
1193771663.616889.244...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bret Cahill broadcast on alt.politics:

But if you so much as say "mean income" life on earth as we know it
will come to a horrific end.
And the most curious part of it all is no one can explain why.

Here's why: unlike many variables (strength of carbon fibers, for example),
income is *not* normally distributed. The mean is a useless (yes,
meaningless) statistic.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner
Countdown: 447 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

What would "normal" income distribution look like?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a statistical term -- the "normal" distribution is a standard
curve. Income doesn't fit it very well.

Ok, thanks (and thanks tg for the explanatory link).

So what conclusions would you draw from that?

But the point is, most rich
people don't want income distribution analyzed at all. It makes them
look greedy.

So you think wealthy people are ashamed of their wealth?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not the the rich are ashamed. They are afraid. Or, if they
aren't, it's possible they should be. When Revolutions occur, the
rich tend to get strung up. And, in any case, they certainly make the
best targets for robbery. No matter how well armed they might be.