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.

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

That's right. No individual can honestly produce the amounts that rich
people rip off.

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.

Nonsense. All it takes is the will to exploit others.

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

Relatively few of us are unscrupulous bastards.

Fortunately there are those who do.

No, it is not fortunate. It is tragic that the bloodsuckers manage to
enrich themselves at the expense of those who do the real work and take the
real risks.

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

Bullshit. The rich contribute nothing.

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

Nonsense. Without the bloodsuckers, most of us would live well.

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

There have never been any communists.

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.

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

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

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?

None of the above?

I also have no idea where you are getting this $60hr. anyway.

And there are any number of reasons why someone may have a lower net
worth or earn a lower wage which has absolutely nothing to do with
being dumb or lazy - or being ripped off.

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

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

Ummm...yes. This whole ridiculous discussion.

Either way, mean or median, the income - and the standard of living it
provides - is fantastic in this country by any objective, absolute,
historical standard. The middle class in this country - and for that
matter in most of the industrial world - lives in many respects better
than the aristocracy of a mere 100 or so years ago.

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.

Fred Weiss

On Oct 30, 7:56 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:





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.

So what objective evidence would you use to support your claimed
insight into the thoughts and feelings of wealthy people?

Also, you didn't answer my other question: what conclusions would you
draw from the fact that wealth in the USA is unevenly distributed?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Also, you didn't answer my other question: what conclusions would you
draw from the fact that wealth in the USA is unevenly distributed?

"pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote in message
news:13if87r7ma4jdda@news.supernews.com...

"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.

Funny, then, how government statistical bureaus in the US often "top code"
their data so this information is hidden.

On 10/30/2007 15:35:46 Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote:

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.

No. The ratio of the mean to the median is one indicator of how skewed
to the rich that distribution is.

(There are other statistics for testing for non-normal distribution.
I happen to have the privilege of being among the first few to
implement the Ozturk's statistic in computer code.)

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.

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?

On Oct 31, 6:41 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
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.

Sorry, your credibility just flew out the window with hyperbolic
comments like this. Here is a short list of things that rich people
contribute:

-- hospitals
-- schools
-- jobs
-- useful products
-- technological innovation
-- capital that allows for technological innovation
-- charitable contributions
-- etc. etc.

And all possessions, whether by rich or poor, are maintained by the
threat of 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.

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

That's right. No individual can honestly produce the amounts that rich
people rip off.

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.

Nonsense. All it takes is the will to exploit others.

So everyone is a victim, eh? The unfortunate thing is that the victim
mentality does not good for the "victim".

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

Relatively few of us are unscrupulous bastards.

(laugh) So everyone who has ever achieved wealth has done so by
unscrupulous means? So unscrupulous behaviour is a necessary condition
for obtaining wealth?

Wow, you have drunk the kool-aid and gone back for seconds and
thirds.

Fortunately there are those who do.

No, it is not fortunate. It is tragic that the bloodsuckers manage to
enrich themselves at the expense of those who do the real work and take the
real risks.

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

Bullshit. The rich contribute nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5115920.stm

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

Nonsense. Without the bloodsuckers, most of us would live well.

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

There have never been any communists.

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.

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

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

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:49:11 -0700, ta wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:41 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
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.

Sorry, your credibility just flew out the window with hyperbolic
comments like this. Here is a short list of things that rich people
contribute:

-- hospitals
-- schools
-- jobs
-- useful products
-- technological innovation
-- capital that allows for technological innovation
-- charitable contributions
-- etc. etc.

In actual fact, none of these things are contributed by rich people. Such
things may, indeed, be _produced_ or _supplied_ by _SOME_ people who are
attempting to become rich or by people as they attempt to remain rich.
But being rich contributes NOTHING in and of itself.

And all possessions, whether by rich or poor, are maintained by the
threat of force.

That also is a lie. For the most part, the existence of private
ownership in earned property is a moral principal that is universally
recognized by the American people. For the most part the enforcement
of such recognized "rights" by force or the threat of force is
unnecessary. Only when the distribution of ownership in UNEARNED wealth
becomes extreme is the use of or threat of force needed at all.

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.

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

That's right. No individual can honestly produce the amounts that rich
people rip off.

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.

Nonsense. All it takes is the will to exploit others.

So everyone is a victim, eh? The unfortunate thing is that the victim
mentality does not good for the "victim".

Not until that victimization can be defined and illustrated as it is by
Henry George. Not until it is recognized that natural resources are
naturally occurring thus unearned and separate and distinct from the
earned "capital" means of production is it possible to illustrate the rip
off in very clear terms. The distinction between "earned" and "unearned"
is difficult. But it is not impossible and it lies at the heart of
economic justice and thence at the heart of justice et al. The argument
is not based on altruism or even on utilitarianism (though the latter
would suffice). It is based very easily on simple justice.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/

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

Relatively few of us are unscrupulous bastards.

(laugh) So everyone who has ever achieved wealth has done so by
unscrupulous means? So unscrupulous behaviour is a necessary condition
for obtaining wealth?

Of course not. That is the moonbat position.

Wow, you have drunk the kool-aid and gone back for seconds and
thirds.

Agreed! That is the moonbat koolaid. But let us not close our eyes to
the rightard koolaid (that rashly assumes that all wealth is earned or
awarded by the luck of the draw) either.

Fortunately there are those who do.

No, it is not fortunate. It is tragic that the bloodsuckers manage to
enrich themselves at the expense of those who do the real work and take the
real risks.

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

Bullshit. The rich contribute nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5115920.stm

Every now and then we see this sort of stuff and it is good.

But how does
his _BEING_ rich in and of itself do anything? What if all of his dough
was distributed differently? What proof is there that the dough would not
end up doing something as good or better?.

I am speaking economics here,
not religion, or altruism. Why does the disparity exist in the first
place?

Are we to believe that Mr. Buffett actually earned and paid taxes
on his accumulated wealth?

If we assume that Mr. Buffett would have paid
a lot more in taxes then must we also assume that Mr. Bush or some other
prancing authoritarian pig would have just created more wars?

Do we fall
in the trap of assuming that it is better for the world that Mr. Bush and
Mr. Buffet are around doing the things they do? While Mr. Buffett may set
a fine example, that does not lead me away from the pursuit of simple
justice or from the knowing that too much power in the hands of a few
individuals is a threat to the existence of freedom and liberty for the
many. Nowhere is there a better example of this rent in the fabric of
justice than in latter day America.

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

Nonsense. Without the bloodsuckers, most of us would live well.

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

There have never been any communists.

Oh, that's not true, and there still are some. But then, there are all
sorts of people. Not good to let too much more be vested in just a few of
them.

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.

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

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

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On Oct 31, 1:28 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:



On Oct 30, 7:56 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

So what objective evidence would you use to support your claimed
insight into the thoughts and feelings of wealthy people?

Also, you didn't answer my other question: what conclusions would you
draw from the fact that wealth in the USA is unevenly distributed?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, that's a pretty good question: "what conclusions can we draw
from the fact that wealth is very, very unevenly distributed in the
United States:

specifically: 71% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the
population. More or Less. And somewhere between 20% and 40% of the
wealth is controlled by just 1% of the population.

Well, they could all be smarter and harder working than everyone
else. Possibly.

But is Bill Gates really a million times smarter than the average
American? Or does he work a million times harder? I don't think
that's possible.

There's luck. They might be lucky. Probably, they are, to some
extent.

Wealth is often inherited. I think this is a critical point.

A
wealthy background gives access to the best schools, and resources to
start business enterprises.

It takes money to make money.

I think if inheriting money were made illegal, a better case could be
made for "merit" based wealth. But how many rich people give all
their money to charity in their wills? They want their children to
have an advantage, don't they?

I have argued that the rich are greedier than most. They just want
money more. Is this good, or bad? That depends on what they do to
get it, I suppose!

"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:BeudnWohUPtS5LXanZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com...

"pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote in message
news:13if87r7ma4jdda@news.supernews.com...

"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.

Funny, then, how government statistical bureaus in the US often "top
code" their data so this information is hidden.

Where can I find examples of this?

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.

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!"

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.

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

Bret Cahill

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.

Bret Cahill