OOT Departed - Roll Call

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Nath,

My feelings on the issue are essetially that the person in question is probably agressive, but incorrectly so, resulting in a confusing and less than awesome experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of what I suspect is the case. Not aggressive in an "I can't get enough of you" way but in a "What are you doing?! YOU'RE DOING IT ALL WRONG!!" way.

[CallMeIshmael]

ok, not on topic, blah blah blah... but, wow


OK, this is from her blog, first post is RJ discussing elaine's economics, then is her reply:


***RJ's Post***


Elaine,

I was discussing with my good friend Evan what you meant when you said “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” I certainly get where youre going with this statement, I mean almost everyday we see an article in the newspaper like this:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...p;in_page_id=2

This article in its headline states that the gap between the rich and poor is growing. Now, it is correct to say that the gap is growing, but you are inferring far too much from this. Why does a growing gap between the rich and the poor imply that the poor are somehow getting “more poor”?

It doesn’t.

In the following article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The author says:
“Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation”…

“The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.”

Are you still convinced that the poor are worse off than they used to be? For what its worth, these improvements in lifestyle have come from improvements in technology. While you discredited Evan saying that an Oil Well gave us a net gain, you cannot discredit that a transistor or a capacitor is cheaper now as a result of improved technology, because of this, televisions, automobiles, anything electronic we use is cheaper, with cheaper goods we have more expendable income, which means we can buy more, which in the end, means we are better off.

I hope I cited evidence as much as you would like and I would certainly be glad to continue this discussion. I studied Politics and Economics in college and my Senior Thesis was done on poverty, so naturally I felt compelled to respond when you argued how much more widespread poverty is now. The very first thing that came to my mind when you said the poor were getting more poor were contrasting two scenarios: 1) sharecroppers in the south who were too poor to buy food, much less own their own home. 2) The “poor” families at this point who “only” have one car and who “can only afford fast food”. Arent these improvements over 100 years ago?




***Elaine's reply***


Ryan,

How much money would you sell your health for? Your safety? Your civil rights?
Economics doesn’t measure the things that matter.
More stuff doesn’t mean higher quality of life. Having a dishwasher won’t console people who lose the lives of their loved ones when climate change tears their cities apart. Having a car won’t mean much to someone who gets cancer from pollution. Owning a television doesn’t make my asthma better.
I would not say having a car, eating fast food, and owning a television are improvements. In fact, I would say those three things in particular are impairments to a high quality of life.

[Anacardo]

Wow. RJ can really put together a devastating argument when he's not spazzing out.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. RJ can really put together a devastating argument when he's not spazzing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah surprising he can argue circles around Elaine. She's got an entire year of law school under her belt.


Most people mentioned in this thread sucked, btw

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
She's got an entire year of law school under her belt.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not too hard to figure out why she stopped at one though.

[skunkworks]

Hollywood Upstairs Law School ftw

[mrkilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. RJ can really put together a devastating argument when he's not spazzing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he learned to hold his tongue sometimes he is one of the better posters on the forum.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] RJ

[Dids]

The concept of a lucid RJ will do a lot of injury to my world view, so I refuse to read that.

I do enjoy failed law student Elaine's attempts to debate this stuff with Evan, a graduate of what I understand is one of the better business schools out there, and RJ, who is apparently an evil genius and an econ major.