Re: WARNING: Off Topic

["Laura Walker" <LJW6626@worldnet.att.net>]

Really, Greg --

When you bait people the way you do with your "libertarian" rhetoric -- and
let's face it, that's EXACTLY what it is -- you're asking to have people
dish it back to you, with OR without the facts!  I see no flaws, factual or
otherwise, in my statements.  I wouldn't have even raised the questions if I
hadn't had the information, facts/factoids available.

No, Greg, whenever you're unhappy with what's said -- whether it be from
experts or experience -- you end up turning things on their head, accusing
people of "attacking".  I'm just pointing out the obvious -- information,
statistics, reliable evidence (if you'd be more open to it) about market
theories.  I have NEVER said, in any of my postings, that I don't like the
"quantitative" view of things.  What I HAVE said, repeatedly, in numerous
ways is that success, economic well-being, prosperity, are NOT simply
quantitative matters -- nor have they, as I pointed out in today's post --
ever been.  I also added that the fact that qualitative factors (e.g.,
"people", touchy-feely aspects) that USED TO be included in economic
models -- as far back as Adam Smith's time, are no longer included, and pose
a serious threat to long-term economic stability.  If Heilbroner is saying
this (and there have been others beside him who are questioning and have
questioned the elimination of "human" factors into the economic
equations) -- a man who is, by all regards, a respected free-market
theorist, something ain't right!

Quality of life matters JUST AS MUCH, if not more than QUANTITY OF LIFE,
Greg.  I really thought that as a society, we'd evolved to the point of
recognizing and accepting that NOT EVERYBODY prospers or becomes successful
or shares in the fruit of our economic wealth; and any economic model that
does not recognize the qualitative, "touchy-feely" aspects of individuals'
lives cannot in any way create a long-term stable economic environment.  I
advise you to go back and re-read "The Worldly Philosophers", as I HAVE
done.

So, in response to your request to stop the "ad hominem" attacks, I would
say this: don't bait people with rhetorical symbolism, if you don't want to
get intelligent responses back.  Then, after somebody HAS responded and
stuck their neck out, twist, turn, rephrase, or play word games to make it
appear that this wasn't REALLY what you said!

Re: your 'challenge': I have a life other than this list, which is why I
haven't been posting comments recently.  I can't or won't agree to a
deadline unless I know I can meet it.  Frankly, right now, I'm involved in
several other projects that require most of my time and energy.  As always,
I am intrigued with your suggested reading material and will do my level
best to get to it in the next month so that I can respond.

With re: your comments about my NOT having replied to the fair tax or social
security reform issues, refer to the above.  When I am able to spare a
portion of my week and/or weekend, I will indeed get back to these issues,
although I think I already responded to the taxation question by saying I
believed in a form of a flat tax system, essentially one that would also tax
corporations and the upper 1/3 income brackets fairly, and eliminate the
loopholes and tax credits on some items.  If this is not a sufficient
response for you, oh well...

Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY <noprivacy@essential.org>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: WARNING: Off Topic


>Hi Laura;
>
>On Friday, February 12, 1999 2:11 PM, Laura Walker
>[SMTP:LJW6626@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
>> Aum to the High Priest Peisert...
>
>  How could I be a "priest"?  I'm an atheist. ;-)
>
>>
>> The only difference between the rhetoric you espouse (and print pages of
>for
>> the rest of us to swallow) is the party line you have chosen.  You are no
>> different from any Democrat, Republican or any other politically
>affiliated
>> individual, nor do your ideas smack of anything that even resembles NEW
>> solutions to our problems.  These are hackneyed, overused, simplistic
>> "intellectual" rhetoricisms that do nothing to solve the problems.  Your
>> "ideas" are just as grounded in tired phrases and worn-out mantras as
>many
>> of our current political leaders' are.
>
>  And what is your basis for that claim? You haven't addressed the
>specifics of the FairTax or the proposed privatization of the Social
>Security system based on the Chile model? I think those are new, fresh
>ideas. They are not worn out mantras.
>
>> How much do you know about how polling is conducted?  How polls must meet
>> external and internal validity tests before they are even used?
> Apparently
>> not a lot, otherwise you wouldn't insert your foot in your mouth and show
>> your ignorance on the topic.
>
>  I don't think I claimed anything about polls. Perhaps you inferred as
>much because I liked the Rockwell article and he mentioned the polling
>issue. That was probably his weakest point, and I do take issue with him on
>that, but it was a minor point, a nit, with respect to the overall scope of
>his speech. I liked his speech particularly for the historical perspective,
>although I didn't agree with _everything_ he said. Just with _most_ of what
>he said.
>
>  With respect to the polls, for example those giving Clinton a high
>"favorable job rating," my personal opinion is that they are pretty
>accurate. I agree that polls are scientific, and are often within their
>stated accuracy. Sometimes they prove to be wrong, and sometimes public
>opinion can change swiftly, but by and large, they're not too far off the
>mark. I've answered a few of them myself (oops...now you KNOW they're
>skewed!).
>
>  So, I believe the polls. They say that Americans, by a wide majority
>agree that:
>
>  a. Clinton is a slimeball whom they would not
>     want to leave alone with their daughter
>
>  b. That he is a chronic liar, a pathological liar,
>     who cannot even tell the truth when it is in
>     his interest to do so
>
>  c. That they can't believe what he tells them about
>     anything; you never know with Slick
>
>  d. That he lied to the American people blatantly,
>     wagging a finger in their face, that he lied in
>     his deposition, that he lied to a Grand Jury, that
>     he is sorry only that he got caught, and that he
>     has engaged in the biggest smear campaign since
>     Hoover ran the FBI. People know all that.
>
>  e. That what Feinstein et al put together as a censure
>     with respect to Clinton is all true. His behavior
>     is reprehensible, inexcusable, and he has brought
>     disgrace on himself and on the office, and that it
>     is "indefensible." Further that he lied ('misled'?)
>     the American people, lied before ('misled'?)
>     a grand jury, etc.
>
>  f. That every thinking Democrat in the Senate agrees with
>     Byrd when he said, "Who's kidding who here?" and the
>     people know what he meant and agree with him.
>
>  f. That Clinton is a laughingstock and that his
>     'legacy' is irreparably tarnished and linked
>     inextricably to 'that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'
>
>  g. And finally, that things are going reasonably well
>     and they'd rather have Clinton than Gore in there,
>     so they're willing to hold their noses
>     and let him live out his miserable term, hoping
>     he (i) doesn't do anything more that is utterly
>     reckless and stupid, and (ii) that he doesn't
>     mess up a good economy.
>
>>
>> BTW:  Robert Heilbroner, a well-respected market theory economist -- and
>one
>> of the 'classical' theorists -- has himself said that today's market
>> economists are a FAR different breed than envisioned by the "Worldy
>> Philosophers".  Early classical market economists knew that an "economy"
>was
>> comprised of all aspects of people and its culture -- not just the
>dollars
>> and cents, AND these factors were incorporated into "market economic"
>> theories.  Today's 'market economists' refuse to look at any factors
>other
>> than the measurable: income, wages, production, output, GNP.  In other
>> words, real people don't exist in these "market theory" economic models.
>> "Real" people and all the intricacies and mutlti-faceted aspects they
>bring
>> to the market have been eliminated.
>
>  Ah yes...the ever-present attempt to change the subject when the facts
>don't support the desired conclusions. By the MEASURES, you see, by the
>actual numbers, people at all levels of society are doing better than they
>ever have. By the NUMBERS the "growing gap between rich and poor" is a myth
>and does not exist. (I will be happy to relate those numbers to
>you...please challenge me on that point!)
>
>  So, we change the subject. We say, "Ah, but those NUMBERS don't tell us
>the REAL story of REAL people." Well, the polls tell you the real story of
>real people, and they are, by the gazillions, telling us that they are
>happy with the numbers. You ask where the "humanity" is in the numbers.
>Well, I think there's a hell of a LOT of humanity in opportunity, in
>economic prosperity, in upward mobility, in the fact that only 5% (FIVE
>PERCENT, LAURA) of those who were poor in 1971 are poor today, and nearly
>60 percent (SIXTY PERCENT, LAURA) of those who were in poverty in 1971 are
>now in the top two quintiles, the top 40%, of the economy. I think that is
>EXTREMELY important from a qualitative and humanitarian perspective. It
>speaks volumes.
>
>
>>
>> For all your flag-waving, philosophical waxing about the "true" free
>> market, you and your free market theory friends and proponents sure don't
>> seem to give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole, or an
>> entire culture/society.  All you seem to want is more, at the expense of
>> anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow view of a free market.  [I'll be
>> happy to provide you with the specifics on Heilbroner's comments, as well
>as
>> some other respected economists' views on why a pure free market TODAY
>> doesn't work (and never will work) any better than it did 200 years ago].
>> But, given your blinders, I imagine you will find ways to twist and
>pervert
>> this information into something to support YOUR rhetoric.
>
>  I'd like to see the evidence. Something other than anecdotal, Laura.
>People use "qualitative" evidence when they can't stand the facts. And
>again, like Margaret, it is amazing how you guys repeatedly fall back on ad
>hominem attack. You rail about what I do or don't care about, and as I told
>Margaret, you don't know two cents about me. Your moralistic judgments
>don't befit a competent journalist. (Since I assume you are a competent
>journalist, I assume you will cease and desist with the BS ad hominem
>attacks.)
>
>  -- Greg
>
>
>