[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff.
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff.
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff.
No Greek System jokes please.
Good joke. Much like your pretense to math and evidence.
[Now, a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found a way to measure that decay. It does so by coming up with a simple, mathematical definition of the American Dream as represented by social mobility defined as "the probability that a child born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution makes the leap all the way to the top fifth of the income distribution."]
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff.
No Greek System jokes please.
Good joke. Much like your pretense to math and evidence.
You’re free to argue it doesn’t mean anything, but the study is evidence.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
No system of government can help a morally deplorable populace.
If you meant, "sucking at life" economically, well then I would point out that free markets, devoid of government central planning, have consistently performed better for everyone in a populace than any social engineering has ever achieved.
The concept that free markets have ever "run wild" is built on an American idea that laissez faire capitalism was responsible for the guilded age, which is patently false. Most robber barons built their empires using imminent domain, lobbying, and government approved monopolies, not the free market.
Very few other countries have flirted with freedom the way the US has. Most that have are pretty high on the economic development scale.
* gilded age * Eminent domain
Trump didn’t pay any taxes in the 1980s (and who knows if ever). If free markets weren’t the reason for the fortunes of Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins and Crocker, they certainly were not for trump either.
Free markets, free trade, and free people are the goal. They are as unattainable and elusive today as ever.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.
That's because all of the policies you advocate align with your ideological beliefs. Of course you don't care what label they carry.
True. I am ideologically practicalretarded challenged.
Microsoft cockblocked my edit.
They’re a bunch of Nazis, which translates to socialists in Right Winglish.
All the same and all in the deaths of millions. HTH
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.
There's your Nanny-State Big Government Authoritarian tell, right there.
Comments
It's a lot easier to make a sigma jump when the standard deviation is much smaller. I'm sure you know that what with your strong background in math and numbers and stuff.
* Eminent domain
Trump didn’t pay any taxes in the 1980s (and who knows if ever). If free markets weren’t the reason for the fortunes of Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins and Crocker, they certainly were not for trump either.
Free markets, free trade, and free people are the goal. They are as unattainable and elusive today as ever.
What was I saying about teaching kids the system is rigged against them?
The USA is the last best hope. The proof is Canada and England wouldn't exist without us