Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's a citation not a link. I want a link to an online source.
Alternatively, assuming you've actually read the book, you can summarize the authors' arguments. If that's not possible, which I suspect, you can give me a link to the page where you copied your citation.
You have to understand. PC can not read much. Just enough to support her copy and paste duties. She is always out there looking for stuff from right wing nut cases. In this case, a book byMichael W. Cox, an outspoken libertarian and conservative nut case. OOPS. I forgot. Libertarian and nut case is a real case of repeating yourself. He is a favorite of the CATO institute, which is the Koch brothers founded and run organization that professes to be libertarian, and is known to pay supportive economists big bucks.
The other author of the book PC is pushing is Richard Alm. Alm can best be defined as mini me to Cox. He is also now a professor at smu, and a supporter of CATO. And SMU is among colleges one of the most bought and paid for universities around. Corporate owned SMU. A perfect place for the two.
Another impartial source by PC. Why look for impartial sources when you can find a good libertarian pair to use. So, if you are going to get an economist to push your nut case right wing agenda, you would use this book and these authors. Which makes you wonder: Why bother to read the drivel of a con tool like PC. Just more of her copy and paste. And what more can you expect. She is a true con tool, bought and paid for.
That's absurd.
Give me a link.
"Give me a link."
Judging by your clueless condition, you must mean "Give me a clue."
Clean off your specs.....it was right there:
Cox and Alm, The Myths of Rich and Poor, p.21
Myths Of Rich And Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think Paperback
by Michael W. Cox (Author) , Richard Alm (Author)
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Of-Rich-And-Poor/dp/0465047831/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377694193&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Cox+and+Alm%2C+%E2%80%9CThe+Myths+of+Rich+and+Poor%2C%E2%80%9D+p.21]Amazon.com: Myths Of Rich And Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think (9780465047833): Michael W. Cox, Richard Alm: Books[/ame]
Maybe an adult will help you get a library card.
That's a citation not a link. I want a link to an online source.
Alternatively, assuming you've actually read the book, you can summarize the authors' arguments. If that's not possible, which I suspect, you can give me a link to the page where you copied your citation.
That's a citation not a link. I want a link to an online source.
Alternatively, assuming you've actually read the book, you can summarize the authors' arguments. If that's not possible, which I suspect, you can give me a link to the page where you copied your citation.
Deal with the quote, dunce.
You may want to use a smaller word. PC has difficulty with more complex words, like absurd.That's a citation not a link. I want a link to an online source.
Alternatively, assuming you've actually read the book, you can summarize the authors' arguments. If that's not possible, which I suspect, you can give me a link to the page where you copied your citation.
Deal with the quote, dunce.
I already said it was absurd.
Thanks for that perspective. I had my suspicions about Cox and Alm but wanted to keep an open mind. Strange things can happen. They might actually have been credible commentators.
As for our co-participant, I was hoping for more than copy and paste. The claim she made was so bizarre, I really wanted to see what was behind it.
What???
Another 'Oh, yeah...' post??
Now you're abusing the privilege.
By responding in kind?
I don't think so.
Now....get ready for a real post:
1. There are those who have been mislead into believing that American workers incomes have not risen in recent times.
a. Like this:
In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after accounting for inflation.
That's right. Real income was stagnant for the typical worker.
Now that's just bullshit. I graduated college got married and entered the work force full time in 1980. I was making $900 per month anf thought I was living like a king. Since that time, between my wife and I, our income increased by a factor of 15. Now it went stagnant about 5 or 6 years ago and then my wife lost her job of 22 years at one of those "large evil banks", so things are much tighter now than when Obama took office, but to say that real income was stagnant from 1980 to 2004 is bullshit.....even for simpletons flipping burgers.
That's a citation not a link. I want a link to an online source.
Alternatively, assuming you've actually read the book, you can summarize the authors' arguments. If that's not possible, which I suspect, you can give me a link to the page where you copied your citation.
Deal with the quote, dunce.
I already said it was absurd.
That's right. Real income was stagnant for the typical worker.
Now that's just bullshit. I graduated college got married and entered the work force full time in 1980. I was making $900 per month anf thought I was living like a king. Since that time, between my wife and I, our income increased by a factor of 15. Now it went stagnant about 5 or 6 years ago and then my wife lost her job of 22 years at one of those "large evil banks", so things are much tighter now than when Obama took office, but to say that real income was stagnant from 1980 to 2004 is bullshit.....even for simpletons flipping burgers.
Thanks for that perspective. I had my suspicions about Cox and Alm but wanted to keep an open mind. Strange things can happen. They might actually have been credible commentators.
As for our co-participant, I was hoping for more than copy and paste. The claim she made was so bizarre, I really wanted to see what was behind it.
This is one of those cases where there is no "there" there. I read the reviews of the book on the Amazon site, and it's pretty clear that knowledgeable reviewers have pretty well panned it. PC is uncritical of sources she uses and gets her information for blogs without EVER checking the statistics with where they originate. Since most of the sites she uses are highly ideological, the information on them is often directly contrary to what the blog represents the source is saying. And PC's favorite reference is the unattributed "the government says" with no attribution at all.
If you are truly interested in economic issues and have not done so already, I suggest becoming familiar with the data sources yourself. The are mostly easy to access and free. If you need, I can repost my list.
I already said it was absurd.
Absurd?
I suppose that simply means that it destroys your view?
I would like something to support Cox and Alm's contention. Do you have anything?
I would like something to support Cox and Alm's contention. Do you have anything?
You can read the reviews on Amazon.com, I recommend you read them. Cox & Alm did a fluff job, ignoring all facts and analysis that disagreed with them. Their data ends just before the dot com bust and is 15 years out of date. These points are made even buy reviewers who gave them five stars. I know of no valid support for their "Panglossian and Polyannish" gloss.
I already said it was absurd.
Absurd?
I suppose that simply means that it destroys your view?
That remains to be seen. You haven't given me any numbers. Show me the numbers. Show me the effect of adding benefits to money income and we'll see how my view holds-up.
That remains to be seen. You haven't given me any numbers. Show me the numbers. Show me the effect of adding benefits to money income and we'll see how my view holds-up.
You've proved that you are simply a doctrinaire Liberal, and facts mean nothing to you.
Your premise, i.e., most folks incomes were stagnant or declined....when government figures show a 74% increase in consumption....
The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...ate&JavaBox=no
You and the other Reagan haters, chew on that.
That remains to be seen. You haven't given me any numbers. Show me the numbers. Show me the effect of adding benefits to money income and we'll see how my view holds-up.
You've proved that you are simply a doctrinaire Liberal, and facts mean nothing to you.
Where are your numbers? Maybe you're correct. Just show me the numbers.
Your premise, i.e., most folks incomes were stagnant or declined....when government figures show a 74% increase in consumption....
The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...ate&JavaBox=no
You and the other Reagan haters, chew on that.
As I recall, Cox and Alm say consumption increased because the typical worker was able to liquidate assets. That's hardly the basis of a sound economy. Certainly you're not suggesting we promote the tactic, are you?
