I submit that what's good on paper or in a book doesn't mean a damn thing to all those pepole working their tails off and still not making ends meet.

 

You may like the book I recommended. He shows why all the rhetoric about living wage and raising the minimum wage does not work in real life. There is lots of data to show what happens when the minimum is raised by the government and not market causes. All those people working real hard ought to stop and ask why we find ourselves in the position we are. Much of it is predictable based on policy decisions made in the past.

 

A lifetime of it, from what I heard tonight.

 

You refer to "change-maker. Yep, that is exactly the point he was making. I thought he hit it out of the park last night. NO, I am not suddenly a Hillary supporter, there is an easy follow up to this for the GOP. There is much more to the story, especially recent history. You could make a case that we should not elevate her beyond her competency, using the story Bill wove. But then I am not a strategist.

 

Any way, I really enjoyed the story he wove (or is it weaved?). I heard some feminists were upset with the "Hillary rose on Bill's coattails" implication, but that is NOT what he said. He honored the work of his wife. He made her seem human, and caring, and a servant to the little people. This is everything he wanted to do. I think for the average person who does not read the ad infinitum discussions on BGP and so is less informed, he helped them like Hillary and believe she is trying to make things better for them. I would love to see a study on the reaction to his speech by ordinary people. I'll bet they loved it. Chelsea sure seemed to. Bill was always good at communicating on TV.

 

Thank you for pointing out these two economists so that I now have a clearer idea of where you are coming from.

 

They both appear to have polarizing out-of-the-box characters and perspectives that I can somewhat respect, and I'd hesitate to too quickly dismiss, all the while my gut is feeling way uneasy with them.

 

There's a plethora of online information related to them, and while I've spent the better part of the evening delving into studying these two men, at every turn I'm having a hard time separating their message from the sound of their entitled arrogance, and the sense that they're out of touch with reality.

 

As I go deeper I uncover Sowell's love for Rush Limbaugh.

 

Seriously?

 

That's a little hard for me to get past.

 

I won't go as far as saying that I'm now an expert on them, but I know that I'm not willing to study them much further. They certainly seem to be impressed with themselves, and I won't deny their intellect, but I can't quickly deem them as know all indisputable gods of economy, or that they hold the keys to what is best for our culture. Their angle seems worthy of being heard to balance perspective, but I seriously doubt that I could ever sell my soul to them.

 

Sorry man, don't think so.

 

B-B-Fan, you have said in the past that you don't read much and you don't take human opinions. How do you learn? Those responses are the responses of a person who is close-minded. I often read your posts and think you are kind and open-minded, then I read other things and you seem to be quite close-minded.

 

Sowell was a Marxist when he started out--much closer to Bernie than a conservative. He went to work in the government believing Marxist principles were best. But then he saw how life actually works and how ineffective Marxism is and actually harmful. He looked at the facts and changed his mind.

 

Economics is a subject where you have polarizing opinions among scholars. Sowell looks at claims that are made and does the research. He wades through the myriad statistics so that you can compare apples to apples instead of oranges to oranges. One example would be that young male doctors make more money per year on average than young female doctors. This is true and has been tauted as evidence that women are underpaid. However, when you also notice that young male doctors also worked, on average, 500 more hours per year, than their female counterparts, the differences disappeared. The difference in yearly pay was due to hours worked not sex.

 

I find that Sowell and Williams back up what they say with research and common sense, coupled with real-life experience. If you don't like their demeanor on camera, then read the book. You don't get whatever clues come through in their tone and body language that way. In their defense, they are always put on the defensive because they are conservative and African American. They work in the realm of academics where the majority of people come from a liberal perspective, so they have to defend every point they make. I would also recommend you check out their biographies, where they came from. They wind up where they are based on conviction. They do not take a likely path. Neither came from an ivory tower nor are they out of touch with reality. That is only what people say about them because they can't refute their facts. So they resort to ad hominem attacks. Sowell grew up in Harlem and Williams in North Philly.

 

You can suit yourself, but you are closing yourself off from a perspective that has a lot to say to today's issues.

 

Sell your soul ? Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist. He is respected by most . He is a protégé of the greatest economist of the last 100 years in Milton Friedman.

 

Using out of the box for an economist who had proven science behind his theories seems odd.

 

It is interesting that though Sowell studied under Friedman, he remained a Marxist throughout his education until he went to work and began to run into facts that contradicted his Marxist theory.

 

It's sorta hard to follow a conversation on this matter when none of the "impressed with themselves" panel members, for or against, won't allow each other to ever finish a complete sentence or point.

 

What is plain to see is that just as there is now, they then could not come to a solid agreement on this topic.

 

Not being an economist, I admittedly can't say that I know for certain what is exactly best regarding the issue.

 

If these intellectuals could separate their self absorbed smugness from the message they are trying to make people might be more inclined to absorb what they are saying.

 

It's apparent to me that the men that you are championing here, no matter how smart or reveled they are in their field of expertise, are more interested in self-serving their own egos than to serve what is best for the common citizen.

 

There very well might be merit to what they are saying, but it would resonate a whole lot louder if they could first get over themselves before delivering it.

 

Friedman, especially has a tone of smugness but notice how against him the audience is in the clips where he is doing Q&A. The crowd wants him to fail. He takes questions from hostile liberal academic types and students who try to pitch him the hardest case scenario. He receives the question and using good humor and factual evidence and common sense begins to win the audience over--except for those who are ideologues and will never change their minds (yes, that was an overstatement on my part).

 

Economic data is easy to use in ways that hide the truth. Sowell and Williams uncover the hidden data, the stuff that allows you to compare apples to apples. This is what I like.

Edited July 27, 201610 yr by oldgrappler

It's sorta hard to follow a conversation on this matter when none of the "impressed with themselves" panel members, for or against, won't allow each other to ever finish a complete sentence or point.

 

What is plain to see is that just as there is now, they then could not come to a solid agreement on this topic.

 

Not being an economist, I admittedly can't say that I know for certain what is exactly best regarding the issue.

 

If these intellectuals could separate their self absorbed smugness from the message they are trying to make people might be more inclined to absorb what they are saying.

 

It's apparent to me that the men that you are championing here, no matter how smart or reveled they are in their field of expertise, are more interested in self-serving their own egos than to serve what is best for the common citizen.

 

There very well might be merit to what they are saying, but it would resonate a whole lot louder if they could first get over themselves before delivering it.

 

I will say you judge them too harshly. They actually tell the truth. They want people to know the truth behind what economic policies produce. They speak to the issues that are holding down impoverished people and they tell the truth, not what they want to hear. You should google what Williams has to say about education for minorities and why things are so bad in urban schools. He wants them to succeed. He is not self-serving. He will not be liked for what he says. I think you are wrong about their character.

 

What is self-serving is tell someone what they want to hear so they will elect you to office so that you may wield power. That is not Sowell and Williams.

seemingly win at all costs mentality

 

Kind of ironic men are revered for this same characteristic. Her opponent has this in his pro column.

 

I'm a Hillary supporter and last night did a lot for me as far as humanizing her. I compare it to my feelings of George W after he left office. He seemed less of a cartoon and a real person in his actions and speech.

 

The right has done a really good job of smearing Hillary, but she hasn't done a whole lot paint a softer picture of herself, which has made her task of becoming the first woman president extremely difficult.

Yes, Bill's speech humanized her. She is often not seen as very sympathetic but cold and calculating. Bill helped her.

 

(to let you in on a secret. As she has no doubt done a lot of good things for people, I think she is also cold and calculating--Benghazi, Email scandal, and some other things also reveal that side of her)

I saw parts of it and it seemed powerful. A ton of backlash on social media with Mike Brown's mom being there.

 

It is the nature of the game, but this is an element of politics that I do find disturbing. Using victim's families for exploitation is not good. And let's be honest what this scene was about. It is about jostling the emotions of African Americans with an emotionally charged issue because of the fear Clinton will not be able to get out the African American vote.

 

Absolutely. And according to my Facebook timeline it worked last night.

So a SWAT team was called in on the Bernie delegates at the media center? And they were detained by the SWAT team?

At the 3:35 mark here.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cwBp56Bzws

$50 bucks per night to help fill in seats. Not bad.

Does anyone know what time President Obama speaks tonight?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, I am being too lazy to look it up.

Does anyone know what time President Obama speaks tonight?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, I am being too lazy to look it up.

He's got the late shift. Sometime around 10 I believe.

He's got the late shift. Sometime around 10 I believe.

 

Sweet. I'm excited. Thank you, timbo!

WATCH: Here's The Anti-Hillary Ad The Clinton Campaign Is Trying To Get Taken Off TV | The Sean Hannity Show

 

For the working man?

I will say you judge them too harshly. They actually tell the truth. They want people to know the truth behind what economic policies produce. They speak to the issues that are holding down impoverished people and they tell the truth, not what they want to hear. You should google what Williams has to say about education for minorities and why things are so bad in urban schools. He wants them to succeed. He is not self-serving. He will not be liked for what he says. I think you are wrong about their character.

 

What is self-serving is tell someone what they want to hear so they will elect you to office so that you may wield power. That is not Sowell and Williams.

 

Let me be clear that I can't and am not refuting these economists' theories. I'm not equipped with the knowledgeable capacity to do so, and I'd be a fool to pretend that I could go to wits with men of their expertise, or possibly even you.

 

You are correct that by reading the book I would at least expose myself to his findings and concepts and get a more thorough understanding of the case that he presents.

 

I've already stated that with my lack of knowledge I can't say what is best regarding this, and that these guys may be entirely correct. What I've heard so far has made me think, but with my lack of expertise on the matter I struggle with being able to agree or disagree.

 

Knowing my tendencies, it's not likely that I will go as far as reading the book, but I appreciate the exposure that you are offering from this perspective, and it's not entirely impossible that without consuming it full throttle I can at least to some capacity entertain these concepts and to stay open to their possible merits.

 

You are correct that I am a bit troubled by their character so studying their ideas would only likely be more within my comfort zone by simply reading their ideas versus listening to them. I won't completely disregard either possibility, but I can't say that I'm terribly eager to be consumed by it all, but at least I'm now aware of them enough to delve in whenever I see fit.

 

Somehow the vibe that I'm picking up still, and perhaps this is just the way it will always be, is that there will always be the haves and the have nots, and that there's no easy solution for that, and though it might seem logical and fair that paying people adequately would be a good start, it's apparent that there are those who suggest that there are grave economic pitfalls to that.

timbo

 

:lol2::lol2:

Let me be clear that I can't and am not refuting these economists' theories. I'm not equipped with the knowledgeable capacity to do so, and I'd be a fool to pretend that I could go to wits with men of their expertise, or possibly even you.

 

You are correct that by reading the book I would at least expose myself to his findings and concepts and get a more thorough understanding of the case that he presents.

 

I've already stated that with my lack of knowledge I can't say what is best regarding this, and that these guys may be entirely correct. What I've heard so far has made me think, but with my lack of expertise on the matter I struggle with being able to agree or disagree.

 

Knowing my tendencies, it's not likely that I will go as far as reading the book, but I appreciate the exposure that you are offering from this perspective, and it's not entirely impossible that without consuming it full throttle I can at least to some capacity entertain these concepts and to stay open to their possible merits.

 

You are correct that I am a bit troubled by their character so studying their ideas would only likely be more within my comfort zone by simply reading their ideas versus listening to them. I won't completely disregard either possibility, but I can't say that I'm terribly eager to be consumed by it all, but at least I'm now aware of them enough to delve in whenever I see fit.

 

Somehow the vibe that I'm picking up still, and perhaps this is just the way it will always be, is that there will always be the haves and the have nots, and that there's no easy solution for that, and though it might seem logical and fair that paying people adequately would be a good start, it's apparent that there are those who suggest that there are grave economic pitfalls to that.

 

If you can stomach taking them in low doses here's a couple of links:

 

Thomas Sowell

 

Walter Williams

 

To your point in the bolded section. We all agree that people should receive a fair wage and an adequate wage. I think we disagree on who should determine what is fair and adequate. In my opinion, that should be agreed upon by the employee and employer, and no one else.

 

Thanks for the dialogue, B-B-Fan.