Why Professors are Predominantly ‘leftist.’

[Oddball]

Monopolies depend upon outside aggression (most often from politicians and bureaucrats) in an otherwise free market.

I think we're in a Chicken and Egg argument here. Monopolies often form because the company that eventually forms the monopoly had the best product at the best price. They then have financial resources they can turn into political power which they use to protect their advantage. Monopolies do depend on outside factors that often they bring into the game.

There are exceptions (government mandated monopolies), but often a monopoly forms under free market competition, and perpetuates their advantage by sabotaging the Free Market the first chance they get.

That's why Free Markets are the unicorns of Finance. To have one, you have to have a mechanism to protect competition. Once you have that, it isn't a Free Market anymore. At best its a hybrid.

Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why Professors are Predominantly ‘leftist.’

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Big Fitz]

You know what's even worse? Ignorant elitists Those that are completely misinformed, uneducated and ignorant that think they are smarter than others when in fact they are vastly inferior.

Educated or not, most people don't like arrogant assholes that think they are better than everybody else, of any kind.

And the majority of college professors and PhDs in general are really modest and nice people.

You really shouldn't post while looking in the mirror "Dr.".

and you wonder why people complain about elitists when they think responses like this are intelligent responses THey know they are lacking in intelligence and are jealous

Right... jealous of a self aggrandized global disaster cargo cultist leftwing nutter.

What's not to love? Do you have to check your ego with your luggage when you travel or is it better to ship it by rail because it's too heavy to fly?

Note, I'm not the one with an inferiority complex claiming to be a doctor.

 

[Dr Gregg]

You really shouldn't post while looking in the mirror "Dr.".

and you wonder why people complain about elitists when they think responses like this are intelligent responses THey know they are lacking in intelligence and are jealous

Right... jealous of a self aggrandized global disaster cargo cultist leftwing nutter.

What's not to love? Do you have to check your ego with your luggage when you travel or is it better to ship it by rail because it's too heavy to fly?

Note, I'm not the one claiming to be a doctor.

and he digs himself deeper into the idiocy

No need to claim anything, my transcripts do it for me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.

I can only interpret this comment as either naivete or dishonesty, and I'll let you decide which it is.

From "The Death of Feminism," by Chesler:

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

 

[Truthmatters]

Education is good for all people.

Hating on people for being educated is an idiots persuit

 

[Big Fitz]

and you wonder why people complain about elitists when they think responses like this are intelligent responses THey know they are lacking in intelligence and are jealous

Right... jealous of a self aggrandized global disaster cargo cultist leftwing nutter.

What's not to love? Do you have to check your ego with your luggage when you travel or is it better to ship it by rail because it's too heavy to fly?

Note, I'm not the one claiming to be a doctor.

and he digs himself deeper into the idiocy

No need to claim anything, my transcripts do it for me.

Why yes... yes they do.

 

[Oddball]

Education is good for all people.

Hating on people for being educated is an idiots persuit

Nobody is hating on anyone, dingbat.

Unless, of course, you consider pointing out the blatant and obvious collectivist leftist bias in academe as "hate".

 

[Dr Gregg]

Education is good for all people.

Hating on people for being educated is an idiots persuit

Nobody is hating on anyone, dingbat.

Unless, of course, you consider pointing out the blatant and obvious collectivist leftist bias in academe as "hate".

ACtually more like you guys hating on the fact that facts often don't support your stances and beliefs, hence why you try to demonize those that are well educated and aware of the facts

 

[Oddball]

Of course, socialist authoritarian useful idiot goobers like you don't mind monopolies when laying claim to having the "facts".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are professors progressive?
For the same reason Journalists are primarily a bit left of center, both professors and journalists have IQ's generally 120 and above.

Yup, journalist report the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias". Universities teach the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias"

Let's just see how your post computes in the real world...

I heard the original interview and found this excerpt on the net. Here is one of your journalists, or, as I like to call them, stenographers, 'reporting the facts.'

"November 11, 2008
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Quote:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

You can find the full audio on the show here. WTKK - Imus In The Morning, 96.9 WTKK, Boston*-*Imus in the Morning guest: Michael Beschloss 11/10/08

You have to fast forward to about 13 minutes in to get the good stuff. So I’m thinking that I would like to know the historian’s IQ. I’m thinking that it’s somewhere around catatonic or idiot. Too much Kool-Aid. How can someone claim that an IQ is off the charts when they don’t even know what that person’s IQ is and for that matter, where the hell are Obama’s school records period? Did he even have good grades? Did he have good grades when he was snorting cocaine? He’s hiding all his transcripts in his bid to be transparent, so we’ll never know. And what is even more laughable - does this Beschloss guy even know the IQs of any of the presidents. You know that Reagan sure was an idiot. And how about that Jefferson guy, all he could do was write a Declaration of Independence.

Washington sure was stupid, he was just a military genius. And Madison, don’t even get me started. Obama hasn’t done a damn thing yet and he is already a genius and I heard some poll today that has a 60%+ approval rating for him. Never mind that he only got 52% of the vote."

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[
Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.

Ok, I follow where you're coming from. Let's assume you're correct. Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same. the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free. That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market." It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.

 

[Truthmatters]

Educated people are not a HAZARD to a country.

Science is good.

Any sane person would look at the fact that most well educated people trend liberal as an indication that liberalism is based firmly in science and facts.

These fools all scramble to say this fact means Education is bad.

 

[Oddball]

[
Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.

Ok, I follow where you're coming from. Let's assume you're correct. Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same. the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free. That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market." It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.

Care to provide some real world examples of that flight of fancy?

 

[Bfgrn]

No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.

I can only interpret this comment as either naivete or dishonesty, and I'll let you decide which it is.

From "The Death of Feminism," by Chesler:

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

Wow, 2 for the price of one...autobiographies of Thomas C. Reeves and now PoliticalChic

 

[Truthmatters]

[
Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.

Ok, I follow where you're coming from. Let's assume you're correct. Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same. the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free. That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market." It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.

Care to provide some real world examples of that flight of fancy?

Care to show us some examples of where the free market ever produced the "Magic" you claim it will?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Thirdly,

wtf?

I was wondering the same thing.

Then I remembered that this is one of Political Chic's signature copy and paste threads, and she just screwed up with the numbering.

Ah, Toxic, tell me, what is the appropriate greeting for one of your educational background, is it 'mooooooo,' or 'baaaaaaa'?

Whenever I 'cut and paste' it is to document a premise: never because of a lack of articulation.

Having gone to an actual college, not farm school, we were taught how to write and document, footnote, etc.

As for the 'thirdly," none of the OP is my writing. Had you availed yourself of the link that I provided, you would find the article is intact, if abbreviated. Try the twelth paragraph.

I believe an apology is in order.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, I follow where you're coming from. Let's assume you're correct. Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same. the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free. That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market." It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.

Care to provide some real world examples of that flight of fancy?

Care to show us some examples of where the free market ever produced the "Magic" you claim it will?

I already gave two!

Having trouble reading for comprehension, dingbat?

 

[Truthmatters]

You can not provide any evidence that your free market ideas will work as you claim they will huh dude?

 

[Oddball]

Either read and comprehend the examples I already gave or go play out on the freeway, dingbat.