That Thing That Wasn’t Supposed to Happen

For years, the Left Wing has been agitating for hikes in the minimum wage. When conservative and libertarian critics have pointed out that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment, they respond that “studies” prove this not to be the case (said studies usually being deeply flawed and having little connection to reality). As I’ve said before: you’re going to have to go a long way to convince me that the law of supply and demand is magically suspended when it comes to wages.

Last year, Seattle raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour. How’s that working out?

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurants across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” Seattle Magazine,

According to the Washington Restaurant Association, restaurants currently spend 36% of their income on labor. This hike could send that as high as 47%. Very few businesses operate with that massive a profit margin. They either have to fire employees or raise prices to compensate.

Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” according to The Seattle Times and Seattle Eater magazine. As the Washington Policy Center points out, when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”

Right now, this “grand experiment” is producing panic. We’ll see how things look in a year. Keep in mind that increased prices will move many of the poor out of the city completely, which may dim the impact of this on paper. But even with that cushion, this is looking very bad.

Told ya so.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Of course it never would gave happened if wages had even remotely tracked with productivity. It’s a response to that. Expect more. It reflects the frustrations and anger that erupt when only one small sector of the economy sees economic progress. I’ve read that had the minimum wage kept the value it had in the late 1960s, it would be near $12 today; had it kept pace with worker’s productivity, it would be $22. The alternative is to pay more and more in Govt. assistance (subsidizing employers) and distort the market from that direction. Please know I’m not saying that raising the minimum wage IS the best answer.

    Thumb up 4

  2. Christopher

    One response to minimum wage that I have yet to hear an answer for from its defenders is: If the minimum wage is good for workers and businesses (or, at least, it doesn’t hurt businesses), then why don’t business owners raise wages voluntarily?  I’m not saying that this is absolute “proof” that minimum wage sucks (in general, I’m reluctant to use that word), but I have yet to hear an answer to that one.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Hal_10000 *

    ’ve read that had the minimum wage kept the value it had in the late 1960s, it would be near $12 today; had it kept pace with worker’s productivity, it would be $22.

    I’ve read that two and I’m not impressed for two reasons:

    1) Selecting 1968 as your reference point is cherry-picking the most optimal year.  That was the year when the minimum wage was at its relative peak.  It’s like using 1998 as your reference year to claim that global warming has stopped.  If you pick any other year, you get much lower minimum wages (in the $4-6 range, depending on the year).

    2) Most of the productivity gains have been in industries like manufacturing, which pay way more than the minimum wage.  Average wage should track average productivity (and does). I don’t see why the minimum wage should.

    Thumb up 3

  4. Iconoclast

    Of course it never would gave happened if wages had even remotely tracked with productivity. It’s a response to that. Expect more. It reflects the frustrations and anger that erupt when only one small sector of the economy sees economic progress.

    This whole line of argument is bogus, because it compares average productivity to the minimum wage, which is an inherently bogus comparison on its face.  We simply don’t compare averages to minimums and expect to have a valid analysis.

    In truth, minimum wage jobs tend to be unskilled jobs in specific industries such as food service, and these types of jobs simply haven’t seen productivity gains that can compare with the average.  You can only prepare and serve a burger so fast, cook fries with only so much “productivity”.

    Thumb up 2

  5. CM

    Good points. If that year has been cherry-picked then that is certainly misleading.

    It would be interesting to track the cost of producing a burger over time versus the retail cost of that burger. Has the margin stayed the same?

    Rightly or wrongly more and more people are getting a clear sense that the ‘gains’ are almost all going to the top. You can of course argue that they have no claim on any gains, and should be just happy to have a job at all, but human nature is human nature. Communism will never work because of human nature, but by the same token a system where rewards disproportionately go to a small section of society also creates foreseeable problems because of human nature.

    Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s the strong perception (and of course the ‘true’ test to people is what they can afford with what they get paid). Which is why there is much pressure for measures like this. I don’t have the answer. Raising the minimum wage doesn’t seem to be it. But neither does increasingly subsidising business via personal tax credits and other measures.

    Thumb up 1

  6. Iconoclast

    It would be interesting to track the cost of producing a burger over time versus the retail cost of that burger. Has the margin stayed the same?

    It would appear that some study has been done:

     Has Worker Compensation Tracked Productivity?

    In the actual world, the reason minimum wage workers do not earn much is that workers in those jobs have not become that much more productive over time. The data goes back to 1987, and if productivity in the fast food sector is examined, pay and productivity track almost one to one. Both have gone up about ten percent in inflation adjusted terms. If businesses have to pay employees $10 an hour when employees do not produce that value, they will spend a lot of time and money investing in labor-saving technologies and finding ways to make due with fewer workers.

    Almost Everything You Have Been Told About The Minimum Wage Is False

    The BLS data show that in 2011 labor productivity gains in the food service industry were nonexistent (that is, equal to 0 percent). In 2012, it was slightly worse; labor productivity in the food service sector dropped by 0.1 percent. In limited service restaurants, where minimum wage workers are likely to be concentrated, labor productivity fell by 2 percent in 2012 while business owners saw their unit labor costs rise by 2.8 percent. Over the past few years, these workers, as a group, not only have not earned a raise, but they are getting paid more for doing less.

     

    Taking a longer view, from 1987 to 2012 the same BLS data show that worker productivity in the food service sector rose by an average of 0.6 percent per year. In limited service restaurants, the gains were slightly lower, only averaging 0.5 percent per year. Meanwhile, unit labor costs have risen by an average of 3.6 percent. Over this period the minimum wage has risen from $3.35 to $7.25 per hour which is an average annual increase of 3.1 percent. In other words, at least in food service, the minimum wage has risen at a rate five or six times as fast as justified by the gains in worker productivity.

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    Thanks. Given past experience I have to consider ‘Heritage Foundation calculations’ with a significant amount of skepticism. They are extremely biased in everything I’ve seen, and in terms of climate change at least they will publish anything and everything regardless of its quality. That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be. But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Iconoclast

    But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.

    How convenient.  Regardless, there is the second article I cited, which has no affiliation whatsoever with the Heritage Foundation, although I suppose you could just simply dismiss Forbes altogether.

    Also, the first article, while authored by a Heritage Foundation analyst, was still published by the Manhattan Institute — shall we likewise dismiss them?  Shall we assume that they didn’t vet the article prior to publishing?

    Even if we manage to dismiss the idea that these restaurants closed because of the minimum wage hike, the argument that government shouldn’t be regulating wages is still valid.  I mean, why stop at the minimum wage?  In the name of “fairness”, why not let Big Brother regulate all wages and salaries?  Then all those evil corporate execs won’t be taking home those lavish salaries and bonuses, and that money could go to those with lower incomes.  Sounds great on paper, anyway…

    Thumb up 1

  9. Iconoclast

     Restaurateurs Weigh In on Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage

    I wish they would’ve done a little more research on how it would affect small businesses. I am all for people making more money, but I think it’s meant for larger corporations like McDonald’s, Target, Walmart to have this wage hike.

    I don’t think it’s a bad thing but for smaller businesses, only the super strong will survive.

     

    As a lifelong liberal I have always been angry when businesses and politicians decry the loss of jobs over a CPI $.40 minimum wage increase because that is ridiculous. This is different. We cannot survive if we continue doing business as usual. … It falls somewhere between feeling sad and feeling betrayed that this grenade has been dropped on us.

     

    Servers will be running their asses off, and from what I hear the public sentiment is shifting to “why tip? they already make $15 an hour.” Servers will be working harder for less money with less support; I wouldn’t expect service to improve around town. … The new math breaks the system. There seems to be a fallacy that instead of lining our richie-rich pockets, business owners will simply break off a little more for their employees. I barely get paid $15 an hour.

    Sure, you may be able to dismiss the idea that the restaurants in the original article closed because of the wage hike, but it clearly is having a negative impact on small businesses.  I thought liberal policies were all about the little guy.  I guess a proprietor simply doesn’t qualify…

    Thumb up 1

  10. Xetrov

    I guess a proprietor simply doesn’t qualify…

    “Business Owner” = “Rich” according to certain definitions used by politicians who make decisions such as $15 minimum wage rates.  This will hurt the job market, and those who say it wont are flat out idiots.  Between this and what’s going on with H-1B visas, the job market is doomed.

    Thumb up 1

  11. CM

    How convenient.

    That you dismiss my reasoning, and also the preceding sentence with this laziness.

    Regardless, there is the second article I cited, which has no affiliation whatsoever with the Heritage Foundation, although I suppose you could just simply dismiss Forbes altogether.

    Non-sequitur. I’ve never had an issue with Forbes. It’s very rare that I question a source. But with the Heritage Foundation I make an exception because in my experience they have absolutely no professional standards whatsoever, and will peddle any nonsense to support their strong ideological stance.

    Also, the first article, while authored by a Heritage Foundation analyst, was still published by the Manhattan Institute — shall we likewise dismiss them?

    For someone who constantly complains about reading comprehension you sure had a fail there. I never said it can/should be dismissed. I even said it could be correct. But are you suggesting that the Manhatten Institute is an impartial disinterested organisation? Because they’re clearly not, they very clearly say that they exist to “advance free enterprise”. Regardless it’s just another non-sequitur.

      Shall we assume that they didn’t vet the article prior to publishing?

    Another non-sequitur.

    Even if we manage to dismiss the idea that these restaurants closed because of the minimum wage hike

    Hahaha. You mean if you can “manage” to acknowledge that it looks like the original article was made up for ideological purposes?

    the argument that government shouldn’t be regulating wages is still valid. 

    Well I certainly never suggested that it wasn’t. I did say that continually subsidising (and to an increasing degree) companies by topping up low wages is hardly great and possibly no better. It’s a sticking-plaster solution to a significant and fundamental problem.

     I mean, why stop at the minimum wage?  In the name of “fairness”, why not let Big Brother regulate all wages and salaries?  Then all those evil corporate execs won’t be taking home those lavish salaries and bonuses, and that money could go to those with lower incomes.  Sounds great on paper, anyway…

    Nobody here is attempting to make any sort of argument. Not even close. To me it’s obvious that raising the minimum wage increases costs to business. It can’t not do so. The question is a matter of degree. But then I do clearly recall reading that they weighed that up when making the decision. I don’t recall them disputing that it would make any difference. The increase certainly isn’t overnight, and includes health insurance payments and tips.

    Sure, you may be able to dismiss the idea that the restaurants in the original article closed because of the wage hike

    You seem to have some strange resistance to acknowledging that the original piece looks like it was purely ideological rather than factual. Not sure why you feel the need to be so defensive. You didn’t write it. You didn’t even post it.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Iconoclast

     I never said it can/should be dismissed.

    What you said was:

    But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.

    That strongly suggests that it should be dismissed, even if you acknowledge that it could be correct.  You appear to be putting your money on its being incorrect, while hedging said bet with your acknowledgement.

    So, no fail on my part; I was merely responding to the obvious implication.  If you want to split semantic hairs, have at it.

    But are you suggesting that the Manhatten Institute is an impartial disinterested organisation? Because they’re clearly not, they very clearly say that they exist to “advance free enterprise”.

    They also claim to be nonpartisan, which suggests that their agenda is not politically driven, or at least not ideologically driven.  Regardless, the article is corroborated by the Forbes article, so I’m not sure why you had to be critical of it, given that your  reservations appear to stem from the AGW debate and not this one.  It appears to be a guilt-by-association broad-brush smear that has little to do with the substance of the article.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    That strongly suggests that it should be dismissed, even if you acknowledge that itcould be correct.  You appear to be putting your money on its being incorrect, while hedging said bet with your acknowledgement.
    So, no fail on my part; I was merely responding to the obvious implication.  If you want to split semantic hairs, have at it.

    FFS. What I said is what I meant. I’m not putting money on anything. You’re the one trying to make it mean something else. If you want to misinterpret it, that’s your choice and your business, but keep it to yourself. This is all extremely funny though, given that hedging your bets via qualifying language appears to be your whole MO.

    They also claim to be nonpartisan, which suggests that their agenda is not politically driven, or at least not ideologically driven.

    Well I don’t see how both can be true. Having a main goal as advancing free enterprise very clearly makes them partisan in discussions and assessments about capitalism. Who are they trying to kid?

    Regardless, the article is corroborated by the Forbes article, so I’m not sure why you had to be critical of it, given that your  reservations appear to stem from the AGW debate and not this one.

    My reservation is mainly about wasting a whole lot of time having to delve into the detail of something put together by the Heritage Foundation. I’ve wasted so much time on them already. Why would they apply standards when it comes to economic analysis but not apply them to climate change? Why should I assume they’d be any different?

    When I said “good points” earlier, I was including the points made about productivity gains in the service industry. I’ve already acknowledged the point. Without qualifications.

    It appears to be a guilt-by-association broad-brush smear that has little to do with the substance of the article.

    I agree, but again, I’m not dismissing anything. My first-hand experience at assessing what the Heritage Foundation indicates that they have no credibility. Again, I don’t see why they’d apply standards on one topic but completely leave them at the door when assessing another.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    From the Forbes link:

    Unfortunately, the government does not produce such a number. Luckily for the discussion at hand, the BLS does track labor productivity of food service workers. Because food service workers represent 44 percent of all minimum wage earners, this series is a pretty fair proxy for the productivity gains of minimum wage workers.

    Can anyone see how he came up with 44 percent? Doesn’t seem to come from his Bureau of Labor Statistics link. Seems very high given the distribution provided at that BLS link. For example “Food preparation and serving related occupations” is only 9% (6,971,000 out of the total of 75,276,000). Whereas the number in the “wholesale and retail trade” sector is nearly double that (12,430,000). Even if we go to “Leisure and hospitality” it’s only 9,821,000, but that will presumably include significantly more workers than just those involved in “food service”

     

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    This would obviously make a difference to the analysis because productivity gains have occurred in those sectors:

    In wholesale trade, labor productivity rose 2.3 percent as output grew 4.2 percent and hours increased 1.9 percent. Productivity grew 2.8 percent in durable goods wholesalers and 1.9 percent in nondurable goods wholesalers. Productivity increased in 12 of the 19 detailed wholesale trade industries, while output rose in 16 industries and hours grew in 14. Productivity increased most rapidly in farm product raw materials wholesalers, electric goods wholesalers, and machinery and supplies wholesalers, as output rose substantially in each. Unit labor costs declined in 16 wholesale trade industries.

    In retail trade, labor productivity grew 5.0 percent, while output rose 4.6 percent and hours fell 0.4 percent. Productivity increased in 22 of the 27 detailed retail trade industries in 2013, as output grew in 23 industries and hours rose in 17. The largest productivity increases were in used merchandise stores; jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores; clothing stores; and florists. In each of these industries output rose and hours fell. Unit labor costs fell in 19 retail trade industries.

    The other point that’s probably important is that an overall groundswell of sentiment (which puts increasing pressure on politicians to ‘act’) comes from cumulative individual circumstance. So even if productivity overall for food service workers hasn’t risen, there may be a lot of food service workers who have increased their productivity but have seen no reward. Again, I’m not advocating for a rise in the minimum wage as a solution to anything.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    OK I see my error – I was looking at the first column, which is the total workers in each sector, rather than than the second column (total number of workers at or below minimum wage).  Table 4 shows that 43.8% of those at or below minimum wage work in “Food preparation and serving related occupations”.

    Thumb up 0

  17. Iconoclast

    If you want to misinterpret it…

    This, coming from someone who apparently thinks the word “seems” really means “I accuse you of the following…”.

    …hedging your bets via qualifying language appears to be your whole MO.

    Not that it does any apparent good; I still get accused of “making accusations” when I’m really just making observations.  Regardless, what you said certainly has implications, that’s just how English works.  And again, I was responding to the implication.

    Well I don’t see how both can be true.

    It doesn’t matter.  They made both claims about themselves, so you either have to accept both or reject both; you cannot cherry pick just one or the other.

    Thumb up 1

  18. Iconoclast

    Why would they apply standards when it comes to economic analysis but not apply them to climate change? Why should I assume they’d be any different?

    Well, again, in this particular instance, the article was published by a third party, the Manhattan Institute, and the author is one person, not the whole Heritage Foundation staff.  Also, there is a second article from Forbes that corroborates the first article.  None of this “proves” anything, of course, but it should suggest that the article should at least be considered on its own terms rather than dismissed via association guilt.

    Again, I don’t see why they’d apply standards on one topic but completely leave them at the door when assessing another.

    You keep talking about “they” and “them”, but again, the article was written by one economy analyst, who, in all likelihood, never wrote anything about climate change in his entire career.  And again, this one article, written by one person, was published by a third party.  I think your criticisms would be more valid if the article were published on the Heritage Foundation website, and included at least one obviously questionable author.  As it stands, it is a guilt-by-association criticism.

    Thumb up 1

  19. Iconoclast

    One other thing:  “Climate Change” and Economics are fundamentally different fields of study.  And who’s to say that the “Climate Change” alarmists are holding to any kind of standard?

    With economics, we have actual historical data on how well various systems work, and how various policies play out.  Climate change doesn’t have that.  It only has “models” which allegedly predict what will happen decades from now, a rather tenuous basis for policy.  That these “models” are “the best science has to offer” is meaningless if they still suck.  And we cannot know whether they suck until their decades-from-now predictions either come to pass, or fail to do so.  Decades from now.

    Thumb up 1

  20. Iconoclast

    …there may be a lot of food service workers who have increased their productivity but have seen no reward…

    This is probably true in all walks of life, in all sectors of any capitalist economy.  I’m sure there are many people who are undervalued in their respective workplaces, regardless of industry and regardless of income level.  There is no reason to believe this is exclusive to minimum wage earners in the food service industry.  Therefore, there is no reason to place any emphasis on this, as the market solution is to seek employment elsewhere, where one’s skills/dedication/productivity are more highly valued.

    Thumb up 1

  21. CM

    Regardless, what you said certainly has implications, that’s just how English works.  And again, I was responding to the implication.

    Nonsense. I specifically worded it to ensure it didn’t give such an implication. This issue is yours.

    It doesn’t matter.  They made both claims about themselves, so you either have to accept both or reject both; you cannot cherry pick just one or the other.

    Of course it matters. If they’re making contradictory claims about themselves it calls into question their credibility from the outset. If they were non-partisan they’d hardly have a strong advocacy stance. The irony here of course is that the original article in this whole thing appears to have been a fraud. And yet…….tumbleweeds. That’s not great. Hal, your thoughts?

    Well, again, in this particular instance, the article was published by a third party, the Manhattan Institute, and the author is one person, not the whole Heritage Foundation staff. 

    Not sure how that’s meant to inspire any more confidence.

    None of this “proves” anything, of course, but it should suggest that the article should at least be considered on its own terms rather than dismissed via association guilt.

    I didn’t dismiss it. You sure seem ‘hellbent’ on going around and around in the same circle here.

    You keep talking about “they” and “them”, but again, the article was written byone economy analyst, who, in all likelihood, never wrote anything about climate change in his entire career.

    But he’s there for a specific advocacy purpose:

    Sherk’s fellowship is supported by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee. The foundation is “devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it.”

    http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/james_sherk.html

    I.e. realistically he’s NEVER going to publish anything that doesn’t 100% support that ideological position. Can you find ANYTHING he’s published that isn’t completely aligned to the foundation that supports his fellowship?

     As it stands, it is a guilt-by-association criticism.

    He’s funded to write in support of a particular ideology.

    One other thing:  “Climate Change” and Economics are fundamentally different fields of study.  And who’s to say that the “Climate Change” alarmists are holding to any kind of standard?

    The scientific method ensures it over time. Professional scientists are required to act professionally – they certainly should not be working as advocates to a particular ideology. You’re exactly right – and that’s the great thing about science. We wouldn’t have remotely the society we have today without peer-reviewed published research and follow-up critiques, and ongoing improvements.

    With economics, we have actual historical data on how well various systems work, and how various policies play out.  Climate change doesn’t have that.

    On the contrary there is significantly more historical data in climate change.

    It only has “models” which allegedly predict what will happen decades from now, a rather tenuous basis for policy. 

    Utter garbage. This is entry-level contrarian nonsense.

    That these “models” are “the best science has to offer” is meaningless if they still suck.

    Not only do we have more than just models, the models don’t actually suck. And they get better and better, because more information is available, improvements are made and errors are fixed.

    And we cannot know whether they suck until their decades-from-now predictions either come to pass, or fail to do so.  Decades from now.

    And yet we have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, else to explain what has happened in the past and what is happening now. It all actually fits and makes sense, and yet apparently it’s all because of something else (that nobody can even come close to explaining).

    This is probably true in all walks of life, in all sectors of any capitalist economy.  I’m sure there are many people who are undervalued in their respective workplaces, regardless of industry and regardless of income level.  There is no reason to believe this is exclusive to minimum wage earners in the food service industry.  Therefore, there is no reason to place any emphasis on this, as the market solution is to seek employment elsewhere, where one’s skills/dedication/productivity are more highly valued.

    I agree with that. It probably has greater effect and is more noticeable at the bottom though. Particularly when there is so much information available and it’s so noticeable about what’s going on at the top.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  22. Iconoclast

    Nonsense. I specifically worded it to ensure it didn’t give such an implication. This issue is yours.

    You use two clauses to acknowledge that it could be true, and four to explain why it should be discounted.  That has implications, whether you care to admit it or not.

     If they were non-partisan they’d hardly have a strong advocacy stance.

    So then, anytime anyone advocates anything strongly, they’re being partisan.  That would include you, your claims of neutrality notwithstanding.  And it would include AGW alarmists.

     Professional scientists are required to act professionally – they certainly should not be working as advocates to a particular ideology.

    And yet they often do.  There was the late Carl Sagan and his “Nuclear Winter” sermonizing, for example.  Richard Dawkins is rabidly anti-religious to the point of embarrassment (The God Delusion is profoundly unscholarly and sloppy), Steven Pinker advocates for policies that amount to eugenics, and so on.

    I keep repeating:  Science is just as prone to politicization as any other human endeavor.  Yeah, peer review yadda yadda yadda, scientists are still human and just as biased as us mere mortals, and just as corruptible.  I refuse to use “peer review” as some kind of magic incantation to elevate science or scientists beyond their flawed human condition.  Yes, science has given us some wonderful things, but science also gave us nuclear and chemical weapons, gas chambers, eugenics and other assorted horrors.

    I also keep repeating:  There are more dangerous things in the here-and-now than AGW, such as Islamism, terrorism, and power-hungry tyrants of various stripes.  AGW little more than a ticket for certain tyrants to seize power.  As long as countries such as China keep pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, I simply will not take the whole AGW thing seriously.

    Thumb up 2

  23. Iconoclast

    Not sure how that’s meant to inspire any more confidence.

    No surprise, there.

    I didn’t dismiss it.

    Not completely, but you certainly did your level best to discount the source.  “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  You can deny that such a statement constitutes “dismissal”, but it’s damned close.  Again, you acknowledge that it “could be true” but then go on and on about how it is’t likely.  You emphasize the latter, and appear to be paying mere lip service to the former, as a pretense to “balance” and “neutrality”.

    But he’s there for a specific advocacy purpose:

    So?  Lot’s of people are paid to advocate.  You think your sources are any different?  Please.  Enough with the pretense.

    I.e. realistically he’s NEVER going to publish anything that doesn’t 100% support that ideological position.

    Unless you can show that he’s not using actual facts to substantiate his arguments, unless you can show some level of misrepresentation on his part, you’re simply pissing into the wind and trying to pretend it means something.

    Like I said, the Forbes article corroborates his argument.  Why you’re spending to much time beating on this is a mystery.  Either he’s right or he’s wrong.  Unless you can actually show that he’s wrong, go piss up a rope.

     

    Thumb up 3

  24. CM

    You use two clauses to acknowledge that it could be true, and four to explain why it should be discounted.  That has implications, whether you care to admit it or not.

    I did not suggest that it should be discounted. I made sure I worded it carefully to make it clear that I wasn’t just dismissing one of your sources out of hand, and I explained why. You can undertake whatever linguistic gymnastics you feel is required, but it’s there in black and white (as is your laughable attempt to make it into something entirely different).

    However if this is your standard then I sure hope you’ll be applying it to your qualifiers (that you rely so heavily on) from now on. You’ll need to completely change how you’ve been doing it so far.

    So then, anytime anyone advocates anything strongly, they’re being partisan.

    Not what I said. But yeah they are if they publish the fact that they have a strong ideological or partisan leaning or stance to what they are writing about. If they already have a position formed and published.

    Not sure why you’re being obtuse about this. It’s not complicated.

     That would include you, your claims of neutrality notwithstanding.

    I’m not here publishing anything as a professional. Nobody is ever going to use what I write as anything to rely on. And where have I said or implied that everything I write is based on an ideological position?

    And it would include AGW alarmists.

    Sure, if they start with ideological partisan positions. It doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong (much like analysis coming from the Heritage Foundation, who are alarmists of a different stripe), but it doesn’t rightfully make people skeptical (and I’m using skeptical as it’s mean to be used, not how AGW ‘skeptics’ misuse it).

    And yet they often do.

    Sure. Much more often they are just accused of it by people on the internet.

    Yeah, peer review yadda yadda yadda, scientists are still human and just as biased as us mere mortals, and just as corruptible.  I refuse to use “peer review” as some kind of magic incantation to elevate science or scientists beyond their flawed human condition.

    It’s much more than just peer review. Once it passes peer review t’s open to all other scientists to question. That is how science progresses. Sometimes things stand the test of time/further enquiry, sometimes they don’t.

    Based on your own new standards, why are you just dismissing science?

    I also keep repeating:  There are more dangerous things in the here-and-now than AGW, such as Islamism, terrorism, and power-hungry tyrants of various stripes.  AGW little more than a ticket for certain tyrants to seize power.  As long as countries such as China keep pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, I simply will not take the whole AGW thing seriously.

    A whole series of non-sequitors and fallacies there.

    Not completely, but you certainly did your level best to discount the source.

    Again, this is nonsense. I explained myself. Not sure why you’re making this into such a big deal.

    You can deny that such a statement constitutes “dismissal”, but it’s damned close.

    Is it actually possible to find a more partisan source? An economic analysis by a group who’s whole existence is founded on a particular economic ideology.

    Again, you acknowledge that it “could be true” but then go on and on about how it is’t likely.  You emphasize the latter, and appear to be paying mere lip service to the former, as a pretense to “balance” and “neutrality”.

    This is just more gymnastics. You are such a massive hypocrite. Stop acting like a twat.

    So?  Lot’s of people are paid to advocate.  You think your sources are any different?  Please.  Enough with the pretense.

    Which sources? Provide some examples.

    Like I said, the Forbes article corroborates his argument.  Why you’re spending to much time beating on this is a mystery.

    You’re the one beating on it, I’m merely defending what I said. I never argued that the Forbes piece said anything different, or didn’t support it.

    Unless you can actually show that he’s wrong

    What about showing that the article this whole thread is based on is wrong? And I never the Forbes piece was right. I even assessed and confirmed what the Forbes piece was relying on. For fuck’s sake.

    go piss up a rope.

    That about sums it all up. You could have saved time by just writing that. It’s all you seem to have here. The rest of it seems to be just making shit up for the sake of it.

     

    Thumb up 0

  25. Iconoclast

    I did not suggest that it should be discounted.

    Knee-jerk denial noted.  And dismissed.

    You can undertake whatever linguistic gymnastics you feel is required…

    Which would be none…

    …but it’s there in black and white…

    Yes it is, which makes your knee-jerk denial quite puzzling.

    You’ll need to completely change how you’ve been doing it so far.

    It’s amusing to watch you try and dictate terms.

    Not what I said.

    Another knee-jerk denial to note and dismiss.

    But yeah they are if they publish…

    Now you’re moving goal posts — you didn’t mention anything about “publishing” in your original claim:

    If they were non-partisan they’d hardly have a strong advocacy stance.

    Clearly you’re equating “strong advocacy” with partisanship.  It’s right there in black and white, so why the knee-jerk denials?

    Not sure why you’re being obtuse about this.

    You’re pegging the irony meter, chief.

    Based on your own new standards, why are you just dismissing science?

    Do you even comprehend what you write?  Even if I were “dismissing” peer review, you just got through explaining that science is “much more than just peer review.”  Your exact words.  So even if I were “dismissing” peer review, that simply ain’t the same as “dismissing science”.

    Perhaps you should take a bonehead English course at your local adult school.

    The rest of your nonsense is ignored form the flotsam it is.

    Thumb up 1

  26. Iconoclast

    For the record, you still haven’t shown Sherk’s article to be wrong.

    YOU were the one who was wondering if any kind of study had been done:

    It would be interesting to track the cost of producing a burger over time versus the retail cost of that burger.   Has the margin stayed the same?

    CM March 18, 2015 4:25 pm

    I provided two sources, and you bellyache about how “partisan” one of the sources is.  Well, I have some news for you:  This whole issue is partisan.  Most of the issues discussed here are partisan.  Lefties always seem to advocate for government control and wealth redistribution, and the Right always tends to advocate for the opposite, less government meddling and letting earners keep more of what they earn.  A bottom-rung burger-flipper simply doesn’t earn 15 bucks an hour, even if government forces his employer to pay him that much.

    Your incessant harping on partisanship is just deflection.  It wouldn’t be so irritating if it wasn’t for your hollow pretenses toward not being partisan yourself, but you seem to align with the left-wing perspective quite consistently, while pretending to not be left wing.

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    Knee-jerk denial noted.  And dismissed.

    Ah back to that old stand-by non-sequtior.

    It’s amusing to watch you try and dictate terms.

    You’re the one doing that through this whole thread, failing miserably to twist I what I said (presumably in order to deflect from the fact that the original piece is clearly just a made-up partisan hit-piece).

    Clearly you’re equating “strong advocacy” with partisanship.

    I meant advocacy up-front. As a stated position.

    Do you even comprehend what you write?

    Absolutely.

    Even if I were “dismissing” peer review, you just got through explaining that science is “much more than just peer review.”  Your exact words.  So even if I were “dismissing” peer review, that simply ain’t the same as “dismissing science”.

    That’s the distinct impression you gave, following your own standards/rules. Do you even comprehend what you write?

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  28. Iconoclast

    You’re the one doing that through this whole thread, failing miserably to twist I what I said…

    No “twisting” needed.  Like I said, you are the one who moved goal posts, and you are the one who spent twice as much ink trying to discredit the cite as you did acknowledging that it “could be” correct.  All I am saying is evaluate the article on its own terms, but you appear to be stubbornly refusing to do so, harping on the “partisanship” of the source(s) instead.

    …presumably in order to deflect from the fact that the original piece is clearly just a made-up partisan hit-piece…

    You’re free to presume anything you like, but in other threads I have seen you assert that discussions “evolve” beyond the initial topic, just as this one has done. I have already conceded that the original article may not be up to snuff.  Like I said, you are the one who was asking about tracking stuff.  All I am doing right now is defending my source.

    I meant advocacy up-front. As a stated position.

    Well, that clearly isn’t what you stated up-front.  More goal post moving.

    Absolutely.

    You certainly don’t act like it.

    That’s the distinct impression you gave, following your own standards/rules.

    Utter nonsense.  You’re obviously grasping at straws at this point.  And continuing to demonstrate reading comprehension problems.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Iconoclast

    To clarify:  Refusing to deify science is not the same thing as “dismissing” it.

    And only a complete asshat dipstick would imply that they are the same.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    Like I said, you are the one who moved goal posts.

    I moved nothing. I certainly did not say that anytime anyone advocates anything strongly, they’re being partisan. That’s just nonsense.

    and you are the one who spent twice as much ink trying to discredit the cite as you did acknowledging that it “could be” correct.

    You are only basing your whole argument on ‘ink’ because when you look at what I actually said your argument fails.

    All I am saying is evaluate the article on its own terms, but you appear to be stubbornly refusing to do so, harping on the “partisanship” of the source(s) instead.

    There is no need to to so, as you say yourself – the Forbes one is sufficient to support what I already acknowledged was a good point.

    You’re free to presume anything you like

    Gee thanks. What a guy.

    but in other threads

    What about evaluating things on their own terms, which is what you just lectured me about? Hypocrite.

    I have already conceded that the original article may not be up to snuff

    I acknowledged the point about productivity in the sector at the every beginning.

    Like I said, you are the one who was asking about tracking stuff.  All I am doing right now is defending my source.

    Nonsense, you’ve been firm on the attack since near the start. For no reason, and about nothing.

    Well, that clearly isn’t what you stated up-front.  More goal post moving.

    How does anything else possibly make any sense? I was emphasising something I’d already described. Again, you seem far more interested in playing games and scoring points in some game you’ve got going on.

    Utter nonsense.  You’re obviously grasping at straws at this point.  And continuing to demonstrate reading comprehension problems.

    To clarify:  Refusing to deify science is not the same thing as “dismissing” it.

    Apparently it’s all about an ‘ink count’ score. The detail apparently doesn’t matter. This is your bullshit standard. We must conclude based on all your comments that you dismiss science.

    And only a complete asshat dipstick would imply that they are the same.

    Good old “invective and ad hominem”.

    http://right-thinking.com/2015/03/03/hottest-ticket-in-town/

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    Nobody is suggesting that anyone “deify” anything. Only a complete asshat dipstick would suggest so. Just as only a complete asshat dipstick would be trying to allocate and add up points to downplay or deflect from the fact that I said the Heritage Foundation could be right, and that I was simply skeptical of that as a source for good reason.

    No wonder you end up screeching about ‘liberal fucks’, if someone being entirely reasonable gets you so wound up and for so long.

    Thumb up 0

  32. Iconoclast

    I certainly did not say that.

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?  I never stated that you explicitly said, “anytime anyone advocates anything strongly, they’re being partisan”.  But your claim certainly implied as much, your forthcoming knee-jerk denials notwithstanding.

    That’s just nonsense.

    You’re right it is.  Thanks for admitting it.

    You are only basing your whole argument on ‘ink’ because when you look at what I actually said your argument fails.

    Oh, in your mind, I’m sure it does, but then, in your mind, Iran’s sponsoring of worldwide terrorism is “rational”.  Tells me all I need to know.

    There is no need to to so…

    Then there is likewise no need to continue whining about how “partisan” it allegedly is, either.  You could have simply ignored that particular article if it did sit well with your delicate sensibilities, rather than bellyache about it.

    Nonsense, you’ve been firm on the attack since near the start. For no reason, and about nothing.

    Nonsense.  My first post simply pointed out that comparing minimums to averages is a bogus argument.  My second post provided the tracking you yourself asked for. Your response then attacked one of my sources, and yes, I am defending that source against your unreasonable, guilt-by-association attacks.

    We must conclude based on all your comments that you dismiss science.

    Only if you are an asshat dipstick.

     Only a complete asshat dipstick would suggest so. Just as only a complete asshat dipstick would be trying to allocate and add up points to downplay or deflect from the fact that I said the Heritage Foundation could be right, and that I was simply skeptical of that as a source for good reason.

    You’re “I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I” responses are just too clever for me to keep up.  Regardless, when your final comment on the matter is, “but the source of the analysis could hardly be worse”,  it does strongly suggest dismissal, your forthcoming whines to the contrary notwithstanding.  If you had concluded with, ” That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be.”  your “argument” would manage to actually hold water.  As it currently stands, it doesn’t.  Conclusive remarks indicate conclusion.

    The mechanics of English have certain effects, that’s just the way it is.

    No wonder you end up screeching about ‘liberal fucks’, if someone being entirely reasonable gets you so wound up and for so long.

    That you consider yourself “entirely reasonable” is a laugh.  Like I said, you consider it “rational” for Iran to be a sponsor of terrorism.  You defend Obama and his administration incessantly, giving him every benefit of the doubt, even when such benefit is unwarranted.  Obama and his “liberal fucks” Administration have been lying to us about, well, just about everything.  Obamacare? Lies and more lies.  Benghazi?  The same.  Yet you defend him and his policies.  And then pretend to be the “reasonable” one.

    Absurd on its face.

    If Liberals Are The Good Guys, Why Do They Lie So Much?

    Thumb up 0

  33. Iconoclast

    In The President and ISIL thread, you corrected a mistake I made:

    They’ve been operating since 1999, just under a different name (in 2006 they were ‘Islamic State of Iraq’, in April 2013 they took their current name ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’).

    (BTW I’m not disputing your contention that they probably wouldn’t have gotten so powerful if the US still had a massive military presence in the area)

    But notice how you concluded the correction, by stating that you were not disputing another point I had made.  Since you concluded it thus, I simply thanked you for the correction, and offered a possible re-wording of my (corrected) claim.

    Likewise, if you had simply left off the “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.” conclusive statement, I may have very well let the matter drop right then and there.  After all, the initial, anecdotal statements were not offensive, being that they were based on your experience and were about the AGW topic as opposed to economics.  In other words, if I had seen:

    Thanks. Given past experience I have to consider ‘Heritage Foundation calculations’ with a significant amount of skepticism. They are extremely biased in everything I’ve seen, and in terms of climate change at least they will publish anything and everything regardless of its quality. That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be.

    Again, I probably would have let the matter drop.  But no, you had to conclude with “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  So I felt that I had to defend it.  We can go ’round and ’round on this until the universe burns out if you want.  It won’t change anything.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Iconoclast

    If you go back to my March 19, 2015 8:44 AM posting, you will see that I am, in fact, responding to the specific assertion, “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  If you had left that off, I would have effectively had nothing to respond to in the first place, and the discussion may very well have ended then and there.

    Thumb up 0

  35. CM

     But your claim certainly implied as much, your forthcoming knee-jerk denials notwithstanding.

    Read it in context. The guy is there on a partisan basis. You’re deflecting by concentrating on this instead.

    You’re right it is.  Thanks for admitting it.

    Wow, you’re 6 years old.

    Then there is likewise no need to continue whining about how “partisan” it allegedly is, either. 

    I don’t believe you’re that stupid.

    Oh, in your mind, I’m sure it does, but then, in your mind, Iran’s sponsoring of worldwide terrorism is “rational”.  Tells me all I need to know.

    I only noted my skepticism. Blatant misrepresentation again.

    You could have simply ignored that particular article if it did sit well with your delicate sensibilities,

    You’re deflecting your emotional response. Nothing to do with ‘delicate sensibilities’ – yet again, I stated why I was skeptical of that particular source. Not sure you think you’ll get anyway clearly trying to misrepresent the situation. Why resort to blatant lying? Is it really that important?

    rather than bellyache about it

    And again.

    Nonsense.  My first post simply pointed out that comparing minimums to averages is a bogus argument.  My second post provided the tracking you yourself asked for. Your response then attacked one of my sources, and yes, I am defending that source against your unreasonable, guilt-by-association attacks.

    Except it wasn’t unreasonable, it was perfectly reasonable for the reason I initially outlined, and then even more reasonable when I noted that the source is inherently strongly partisan. And yet the attacks continue, as weak and unsupported by anything other than misrepresentation as they are.

    Only if you are an asshat dipstick.

    Just holding up a mirror.

    You’re “I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I” responses are just too clever for me to keep up.

    Keep making shit up and misrepresenting then. Why stop now?

    Regardless, when your final comment on the matter is, “but the source of the analysis could hardly be worse”,  it does strongly suggest dismissal, your forthcoming whines to the contrary notwithstanding.  If you had concluded with, ” That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be.”  your “argument” would manage to actually hold water.  As it currently stands, it doesn’t.  Conclusive remarks indicate conclusion.

    Sure, but they don’t allow you to ignore everything that’s inconvenient. Again I could employ this tactic with you and show how your qualifiers earn fewer points than the rest of what you said, but that would be juvenile and pointless.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  36. Iconoclast

    Read it in context.

    Read what in context?  Your comments? Or the cited article?

    The guy is there on a partisan basis.

    And…?

    Wow, you’re 6 years old.

    You are the one who made an implication, then admitted how silly the implication was.  Hardly my fault, but if childish taunts make you feel better about yourself, have at it.

    I don’t believe you’re that stupid.

    Well, I’m obviously stupid enough to continue this “discussion”, so there you go.

    I only noted my skepticism.

    No, you did more than that, your refusal to acknowledge as much notwithstanding.  Like I said, if you didn’t conclude with “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.” we probably wouldn’t even be having this argument.  The source of the analysis was Sherk, who never wrote a single thing about AGW as far as either one of us knows.  If you can show that his analysis is wrong, have at it.  But you’re simply saying he’s a terrible source without backing it up with anything factual, only your own anecdotal claims about the Heritage Foundation in general, based primarily on what they allegedly write about AGW.  But this is economics.

    Unless you actually read his article, you did indeed dismiss it based on your own biases, no matter how well-founded you think those biases may be.

    I stated why I was skeptical of that particular source.

    And like I already said, if you left it at “That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be.” this discussion likely wouldn’t be happening.  But, for whatever reason, you had to conclude with “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  That was your final thought on the matter, and it was a universal, sweeping claim.

    Except it wasn’t unreasonable, it was perfectly reasonable for the reason I initially outlined, and then even more reasonable when I noted that the source is inherently strongly partisan.

    There you go again with the “strongly partisan” nonsense.  Either the article is right or it’s wrong.  It doesn’t matter how “partisan” you claim it to be.  That’s the point you insist on not getting.  Has nothing to do with my allegedly “misrepresenting” you.

    The rest of your nonsense is ignored.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    That you consider yourself “entirely reasonable” is a laugh.

    I don’t doubt that you believe so. But then you don’t seem to consider reasonable things to be reasonable. This thread is a good example. I explicitly responded to Hal and your initial response by noting that you’d made good points. All I did was express skepticism about ONE of your sources, for good reason, but without dismissing what was actually argued by the author, and yet here we are.

     Like I said, you consider it “rational” for Iran to be a sponsor of terrorism.

    I’m sorry that you don’t understand. I find it extremely difficult to believe that you don’t, but you seem to be repeating the misrepresentation. But I’m not sure how you think that works either (clue: it doesn’t).

    You defend Obama and his administration incessantly, giving him every benefit of the doubt, even when such benefit is unwarranted.

    Actually more often than not I either am ambivalent or I can see both sides of the argument, or I agree, and so I don’t comment. Very occasionally I’ll agree with the criticism. Sometimes I’ll pick up on some criticism and comment on it (questioning it). To suggest that I ONLY do the latter is ridiculous. As for ‘benefit of the doubt’ – yeah I’m skeptical of definitive calls supported entirely by simply having a different opinion and no facts.

    The last example of this is when you were saying that Obama lost the entire Iraq War because he didn’t interfere in their democratic constitutional argument and determine the outcome of the election for them, aligned with what’s best for the US. And yet I’ll bet that does down in the ‘giving him every benefit of the doubt, even when such benefit is unwarranted’ column, even though it’s nothing of the kind.

     Obama and his “liberal fucks” Administration have been lying to us about, well, just about everything.  Obamacare? Lies and more lies.  Benghazi?  The same.  Yet you defend him and his policies.  And then pretend to be the “reasonable” one.

    It’s reasonable to disagree with unreasonable statements. Like all the ridiculous things said about Michelle’s birthday party. But go on – where have I defended Obama on Obamacare, to choose your first example. You are making accusations, and you’ve cited an example, now back it up with some evidence. As far as I can remember, I’ve only said that it seems like a complete clusterfuck. He certainly lied with the whole ‘if you like it, you can keep it’ claim.

    Anyway, I don’t claim “to be the reasonable one”. I think it’s important to be reasonable. Which is hardly……unreasonable.

    Absurd on its face.

    It would be to keep misrepresenting. Why on earth do you think it will get you anywhere?

    If Liberals Are The Good Guys, Why Do They Lie So Much?

    Posted by a guy who doesn’t seem to have any issues with ongoing misrepresentation. Brilliant.

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    Again, I probably would have let the matter drop.  But no, you had to conclude with “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  So I felt that I had to defend it.  We can go ’round and ’round on this until the universe burns out if you want.  It won’t change anything.

    Really? This is comes down to confirming that “the source of the analysis could hardly be worse” relates specifically to what was said directly before it? I would have thought it was obvious and it didn’t require additional wording to make it clear. There are usually more than enough words already.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Iconoclast

    I’m sorry that you don’t understand.

    Don’t be.  Sponsoring the wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents is something I will never understand, and I will never see it as “rational”.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    Read what in context?  Your comments? Or the cited article?

    You inferred incorrectly because you didn’t read what I said in context. The context being that the author is being paid to write stuff that supports a particular ideology. He’s no neutral. Obviously the best sources are non-partisan ones.

    It’s pretty sad that you won’t accept an explanation without pre-emptively dismissing it as ‘knee-jerk’. It’s the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly so you don’t have to hear what the adults are telling you. You know that, right?

    And…?

    Already explained, ad nauseum.

    You are the one who made an implication, then admitted how silly the implication was.  Hardly my fault, but if childish taunts make you feel better about yourself, have at it.

    You’re the one who misunderstood, and when it was explained you decided to continue with it. And so now it’s misrepresentation.

    The source of the analysis was Sherk, who never wrote a single thing about AGW as far as either one of us knows. 

    The point was/is that neither Sherk nor the Heritage Foundation are disinterested non-partisan parties. I gave AGW as an example of how I’ve found the Heritage Foundation to be completely lacking in standards – they clearly don’t care about standards, they’re only interested in advancing their cause. So I’m not sure why they’d be any different on any other topic. Whether that particular author has written anything about AGW is irrelevant and so is just deflecting/avoiding.

    If you can show that his analysis is wrong, have at it. 

    And around and around we go. Asked and answered.

    But you’re simply saying he’s a terrible source without backing it up with anything factual, only your own anecdotal claims about the Heritage Foundation in general, based primarily on what they allegedly write about AGW.  But this is economics.

    So they’re likely to be LESS partisan? Huh?! Partisan sources (people/organisations who are explicitly there to advance a particular cause) are hardly ever going to be great sources to put up are they? In fact they are the opposite, for obvious reasons.

    Unless you actually read his article, you did indeed dismiss it based on your own biases, no matter how well-founded you think those biases may be.

    I did not ‘dismiss’ his article. Almost everything posted from a liberal site here is dismissed immediately as being inherently biased nonsense, and nobody raises so much as an eyebrow. And yet I carefully explained why I was skeptical of that source, and yet this is what happens. Brilliant.

    You put up another one, which was good, so I didn’t need to risk wasting my time on that one.

    And like I already said, if you left it at “That’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be.” this discussion likely wouldn’t be happening.  But, for whatever reason, you had to conclude with “But the source of the analysis could hardly be worse.”  That was your final thought on the matter, and it was a universal, sweeping claim.

    Which should not be separated from what was immediately before it.

    Nevertheless, it stands both as a conclusion of my thoughts on that source (as intended), and also as universal claim. You can hardly pick a worse source than one which is inherently partisan. On anything. At any time.

    There you go again with the “strongly partisan” nonsense. 

    Oh. My God.

    It is written by a guy being paid by an organisation set up in order to further a particular ideology.

    Either the article is right or it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter how “partisan” you claim it to be.  That’s the point you insist on not getting.  Has nothing to do with my allegedly “misrepresenting” you.

    That’s the point I made immediately and why I made it clear that I wasn’t dismissing it. I did not want to risk wasting my time reading something at a place I’ve spent many many hours reading utter nonsense dressed up as something reputable. They do their own science ‘publishing’ because what they publish would never pass peer-review because it’s just junk.

    ‘Allegedly’, LMAO. Who do you think you are kidding? Someone else that might be reading? Bizarre.

    The rest of your nonsense is ignored.

    The whole point-scoring ink-count thing…yeah, good idea. The best one you’ve had yet in this discussion.

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    Don’t be.  Sponsoring the wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents is something I will never understand, and I will never see it as “rational”.

    You’re right, I’m not sorry. I’m actually confident that you know exactly what I mean. I’ve no idea why you’ve pretending to play dumb on this one. But then I don’t understand much of your behaviour.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    From your link:

    If you listen to liberals, you’d believe that conservatives are hateful, racist, cruel, selfish dishonest, mean-spirited fascists while liberals are compassionate, caring, open-minded, honest and giving saints who want the best for everyone.

    I operate on the basis of giving those with different opinions from myself the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are not those things but simply view things differently and are basing their thoughts on different information and different experiences. Unless they demonstrate otherwise. But even then, that will apply to that particular person. I also operate on the basis that people hold their beliefs genuinely and not as a result of being “hateful, racist, cruel, selfish dishonest, mean-spirited fascists”, unless they demonstrate otherwise.

    So I don’t believe those liberals that say that. Likewise I don’t believe the conservatives/libertarians who do exactly the equivalent, despite some of them residing here.

    Liberal lies should be exposed just as any other lies are.

    If you’re a liar, maybe you’re actually not such a great person. If you feel like you need to lie in order to get people to adopt your ideas, maybe they’re not such great ideas. If you have to lie about your “evil” enemies to get people to dislike them, then maybe YOU’RE THE ONE WHO’S THE BAD GUY.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Thumb up 0

  43. Iconoclast

    All I did was express skepticism about ONE of your sources…

    Yes, you poor victim.

    …but without dismissing what was actually argued by the author…

    So you claim, but your initial words suggested you did indeed dismiss it.  It’s easy to deny things, you need to substantiate your denial by indicating that you actually read it.

    I’m not sorry. I’m actually confident that you know exactly what I mean.

    Unless you mean what your words are telling me, I haven’t the faintest clue.

    I’ve no idea why you’ve pretending to play dumb on this one.

    No pretense at all; I’m admittedly dumber than a pile of dog shit.  You claimed that Iran has done “nothing irrational”.  So I point out that they sponsor terrorism.  You then reply that doing so isn’t irrational.  That tells me that you don’t consider their sponsoring of the wholesale murder of innocents to be irrational.  Remove the double negative and it tells me that you do consider their sponsoring of the wholesale murder of innocents to be rational.  But somehow I “don’t understand”, and I am somehow “misrepresenting” what you clearly wrote.  So yeah, I guess I am a dumb shit.

    The last example of this is when you were saying that Obama lost the entire Iraq War because he didn’t interfere in their democratic constitutional argument and determine the outcome of the election for them, aligned with what’s best for the US.

    Now there’s a splendid example of misrepresentation.  I pointed out that there were alternative methods of working around the immunity issue, thereby keeping troops stationed in Iraq.  The point being that, if Obama were truly interested in keeping troops in Iraq, there were means of doing so.  But he wasn’t all that interested, as the articles I cited pointed out.  He was more interested in just getting out of Iraq, consequences be damned, so he could claim to have fulfilled a campaign promise.  There is simply no rational reason to believe he would actively work against that.

    And yet I’ll bet that does down in the ‘giving him every benefit of the doubt, even when such benefit is unwarranted’ column…

    And you would win that wager, for the reasons I just gave.

    I don’t claim “to be the reasonable one”.

     

    …if someone being entirely reasonable gets you so wound up and for so long…
    CM — March 31, 2015 5:34 PM

    You weren’t referring to yourself then?

    Posted by a guy who doesn’t seem to have any issues with ongoing misrepresentation. Brilliant.

    Another knee-jerk dismissal.  Brilliant.
    I note that you don’t bother to explain how Hawkins actually misrepresented anything, but just give him the overall hand-wave dismissal instead.

    Really? This is comes down to confirming that “the source of the analysis could hardly be worse” relates specifically to what was said directly before it?

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?  I never made any such suggestion.

    It’s pretty sad that you won’t accept an explanation without pre-emptively dismissing it as ‘knee-jerk’.

    Love the irony of your incessantly accusing me of “misrepresentation”…

    So I’m not sure why they’d be any different on any other topic.

    Exactly, guilt by association.
    By the same token, given how Obama and his Administration lie about virtually everything, and seem to do everything they can to undermine America, I don’t see why they’d be any different on any other topic.

    And around and around we go. Asked and answered.

    Where, allegedly?

    You put up another one, which was good, so I didn’t need to risk wasting my time on that one.

    Which is an admission that you didn’t read it.  Which means you dismissed it.  Unless you can actually show otherwise.

    ‘Allegedly’, LMAO. Who do you think you are kidding?

    “Kidding” is irrelevant.  You are the one making the accusation.  Unless you can back it up, it’s just an allegation.  That’s just how it works.  That you think it’s funny speaks volumes.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Iconoclast

    Liberal lies should be exposed just as any other lies are.

    But all-too-often they simply aren’t.  Or they are, but only on “extreme” “partisan” websites like Town Hall or Heritage Foundation, you know, sites that don’t have any “standards”.

    As if the New York Times or Vox or MSNBC did have them…

    Thumb up 1

  45. CM

    Yes, you poor victim.

    Deflection fail.

    So you claim, but your initial words suggested you did indeed dismiss it. 

    Only because you’re cherry-picking. Regardless, you misinterpreted, I corrected, you continued with it (dismissing my correction, as you usually do, because you know best what people mean) and then it become misrepresentation.

    It’s easy to deny things, you need to substantiate your denial by indicating that you actually read it.

    It’s easy to make accusations, but you seemingly find it impossible to ever back away from them when they fail. I briefly read through it (which is why I knew they used Heritage analysis). But, as I keep saying and for which I provide an immediate reason, I did not feel like taking the significant risk of wasting my time on it. Particularly as you’d provided another source, which clearly I looked at because I delved into the detail (and ended up answering my own question).

    Unless you mean what your words are telling me, I haven’t the faintest clue.

    So if I don’t mean those words, you do have a clue?

    Maybe read some of the search results and see if it assists.

    https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=iran%20acting%20rationally

    E.g. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7963

    DEMPSEY: That is a great question. And I’ll tell you that I’ve been confronting that question since I commanded Central Command in 2008. And we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. And it’s for that reason, I think, that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent at this point.

    So you’re telling me that you believe Central Command believes that the wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents is rational?

    Now there’s a splendid example of misrepresentation. 

    Not at all, that’s how the discussion concluded.

    I pointed out that there were alternative methods of working around the immunity issue, thereby keeping troops stationed in Iraq.  The point being that, if Obama were truly interested in keeping troops in Iraq, there were means of doing so.  But he wasn’t all that interested, as the articles I cited pointed out.  He was more interested in just getting out of Iraq, consequences be damned, so he could claim to have fulfilled a campaign promise.  There is simply no rational reason to believe he would actively work against that.

    And essentially your arguments just came down to “if he wanted to, he could” when there was no evidence that that was the case (if that was the case, why didn’t Bush force it instead of failing to secure it?). Which led to you suggesting that Obama needed to get rid of Allawi to do so and that he had an opportunity when there was a constitutional dispute over who was permitted to make the next government.

    And you would win that wager, for the reasons I just gave.

    Which would be a giant pile of arse, because your reasons are nonsense. There is every doubt to give, because you’re having to rely on fantasy in order to construct yet another Obama-failed narrative. If you kept the list of Obama failures to the ones which are hard to argue against (even if someone wanted to, I certainly don’t always) then you’d probably have much greater credibility on the issue of measuring his performance. Just as nutjobs on the left lost all ability to judge Bush’s performance because everything was just BUSHITLER.

    You weren’t referring to yourself then?

    I think it’s important to be reasonable. Anyway, above I was describing behavior (“being”), not a person (“am). This is like when I said you were acting like a dick, and you later said that I said you were a dick.

    Another knee-jerk dismissal.  Brilliant.

    All of your similar responses could be dismissed as such (and there are a lot of them), so what is the point? It comes across as a meaningless place-holder response when you’ve got nothing else.

    I note that you don’t bother to explain how Hawkins actually misrepresented anything, but just give him the overall hand-wave dismissal instead.

    You’ll note that I said nothing at all about the actual article. But that’s interesting that I can say nothing and it’s also considered a dismissal. What another intriguing little system you’ve got going on.

    Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?  I never made any such suggestion.

    You’re cherry-picking my response. I made specific statements which make it clear that I’m not dismissing the content. You are dismissing all those statements and so have misinterpreted me. I’m happy to yet again confirm that I was not dismissing it. Of course you can keep ignoring that if you like.

    Love the irony of your incessantly accusing me of “misrepresentation”…

    That would suggest that you don’t know what irony means.

    But yes, ‘dismissal’ is exactly what you are doing when you use that tactic. It’s even worse because you’re doing it pre-emptively. As I said, it’s no different from sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly when you’ve finished your turn.

    Exactly, guilt by association.

    I agree. As I did when you initially said that. When I said “I agree”.

    By the same token, given how Obama and his Administration lie about virtually everything, and seem to do everything they can to undermine America, I don’t see why they’d be any different on any other topic.

    That you have that opinion and accordingly make that determination would follow, yes.

    Where, allegedly?

    I only noted my skepticism.

    Which is an admission that you didn’t read it.  Which means you dismissed it.  Unless you can actually show otherwise.

    I explicitly stated that I didn’t read it, and gave the reasons why (not sure why you’re trying to ‘prove’ something that’s clearly not in dispute). And I specifically stated that despite the partisan nature of source, “that’s not to say that what is stated isn’t correct. It may very well be”. So I made sure to acknowledge that what was argued/shown in the article could well be correct.

    I guess that could mean some narrow definition of ‘dismissal’, but none that I have encountered online in this respect. My comments did not preclude the possibility that what was argued was right. Which makes what I said inconsistent with a dismissal. Importantly it’s also highly relevant to note that the wider context was that I’d already noted that you and Hal had a made good points. There was no actual disagreement to that stage on the arguments made. Which makes it even more bizarre that you’ve gone down this road and have been so adversarial and stubborn.

    Unless you can back it up, it’s just an allegation. That’s just how it works.

    Which is why I always explain why. Still waiting on your evidence that I’ve been defending Obama with respect to Obamacare, one of the specific examples you provided. Apparently I’ve been defending those policies while at the same time “pretending” to be “the reasonable one”.

    But all-too-often they simply aren’t.  Or they are, but only on “extreme” “partisan” websites like Town Hall or Heritage Foundation, you know, sites that don’t have any “standards”.

    That they sometimes pick up on legitimate issues doesn’t mean they have standards. They could just as easily make shit up, because they don’t have to adhere to any journalistic standards. Personally, I certainly apply a lot more skepticism when sources don’t have any need to adhere to professional standards. Which is why I’d place more weight in what actual climate scientists say and what they publish, as opposed to what analysis and accusation I read on right-wing political blogs which pretend to be about science, and anything “published” (as though it means something) by the Heritage Foundation.

    As if the New York Times or Vox or MSNBC did have them…

    Well Vox is just a blog isn’t it, so I don’t imagine they’re operating under any. Professional news organisiations on the other hand do usually operate under a set of standards, and their journalists often belong to professional institutes or bodies which have standards as well.

    E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Journalists

    Which is presumably why FOX News has so many ‘non-news’ programmes – if they called them ‘news’ they’d need to adhere to the news standards they and their journalists have agreed to.

    As I assume you’ll see that as binary, I’ll note that I’m NOT saying that one is to be dismissed and one is to be blindly believed. Absolutely not. But in terms of choosing sources to back up arguments, it’s clearly going to be less contentious to pick a source which has signed up to certain standards. They may fail to meet the standards, but at least they have a professional obligation to try and avoid failing.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    I note that you don’t bother to explain how Hawkins actually misrepresented anything, but just give him the overall hand-wave dismissal instead.

    You’ll note that I said nothing at all about the actual article.

    When I wrote that I forgot that I actually did when I responded yesterday. Regardless, I certainly didn’t “give him the overall hand-wave dismissal instead”. Instead, I explained why his description of what liberals apparently always do doesn’t apply to me specifically.

    So you’re wrongly accused me again.

    But anyway I’m not sure how advancing something so mindlessly (and ironically) tribal assists in any argument you’re trying to make. Are you trying to say that you are proud to be blindly partisan and unreasonable?

    It does actually fit in really well with the one I linked to earlier, which discusses how tribal mentality trumps everything else for some people.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

    Thumb up 0

  47. Iconoclast

    Deflection fail.

    If that were true, you would have simply ignored it.

    Regardless, you misinterpreted, I corrected, you continued with it (dismissing my correction, as you usually do, because you know best what people mean) and then it become misrepresentation.

    Denial isn’t “correction”.  And I have no idea what people “mean” — I only see what their actual words say.  I can’t help it if the two aren’t in sync.

    It’s easy to make accusations, but you seemingly find it impossible to ever back away from them when they fail.

    I have backed away, when failure has actually been demonstrated.

    So if I don’t mean those words, you do have a clue?

    Wow, how utterly Orwellian.  Yes, black is white, night is day, war is peace, freedom is slavery.

    If you could actually comprehend written English, you would understand that the words I chose convey the concept that when you “don’t mean those words”, “I haven’t the faintest clue”.  Do you understand words like “unless”?  Is English your native tongue?

    So you’re telling me that you believe Central Command believes that the wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents is rational?

    If they consider an actor (Iran) to be rational, and since Iran does indeed sponsor “wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents”, then yes, Central Command apparently believes that sponsoring “wholesale, widespread cold-blooded murder of innocents” is rational.  Unless their assessment of Iran as an actor deliberately leaves out the fact of their terrorism sponsorship for some reason.  But I confronted you specifically about terrorism sponsorship, and you maintained that Iran was “rational”.

    Oops, I used the word “unless” again — I hope that doesn’t monumentally fuck up your ability to grasp what I am saying, although I am confident that it will.

    …there was no evidence that that was the case…

    None that you were willing to entertain, anyway.

    Anyway, above I was describing behavior (“being”), not a person (“am”).

    Yeah, more Orwellian words-really-don’t-mean-what-they-mean hair-split attempts.  “Am” is a conjugation of the English verb “to be”, you hopeless twit.

    You’ll note that I said nothing at all about the actual article.

    Yet you were able to level the accusation of “misrepresentation” anyway. That was the whole point I was making, chief.

    But that’s interesting that I can say nothing and it’s also considered a dismissal.

    But you didn’t “say nothing”, you accused the article of “misrepresentation”.

    What another intriguing little system you’ve got going on.

    Yeah, where I respond to what words actually mean, in spite of your repeated attempts to disengage common meaning from those words.

    That would suggest that you don’t know what irony means.

    And again you peg the irony meter.  But I am confident that you think it means something other than what I think it means.  That seems to be a common thread.  (Hell, I had to bust a four-by-four over your cranium over what “seems” means.)

    That they sometimes pick up on legitimate issues doesn’t mean they have standards.

    And just because you have personal problems with them doesn’t mean they don’t.

    They may fail to meet the standards, but at least they have a professional obligation to try and avoid failing.

    Well, that’s just pure naiveté.  The MSM have all ostensibly signed on to those “standards”, but they fail to live up to them as a matter of course.  That’s why the Fox News channel is so highly rated in spite of people like you looking down your purism nose at them, because they are perceived as an alternative to the hopelessly biased MSM.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Iconoclast

    When I wrote that I forgot that I actually did when I responded yesterday. Regardless, I certainly didn’t “give him the overall hand-wave dismissal instead”. Instead, I explained why his description of what liberals apparently always do doesn’t apply to me specifically.

    Nope.  Wrong.  The entirety of your bloviating was as follows:

    Posted by a guy who doesn’t seem to have any issues with ongoing misrepresentation. Brilliant.

    You can deny that to be an “overall hand-wave dismissal” until the universe burns out, if you wish, but again, the actual words you wrote certainly suggest to me that it’s a had-wave dismissal.  And you are correct, initially you did indeed say nothing at all about the article.  Which is precisely why I dismissed your hand-wave dismissal.  Nothing “pre-emptive” or “cherry-picked” or “wrongly accused” about it, you pathetic twit.

    So you’re wrongly accused me again.

    Oh, woe is me again.  And you’re simply wrong.

    Again.

    Are you trying to say that you are proud to be blindly partisan and unreasonable?

    Well, you do have a gift for assigning alternative meanings to words and disengaging commonly-held meanings from them, so sure, yeah, whatever Orwellian fantasy your fertile imagination conjures up should be fine for you.

    Thumb up 0

  49. Iconoclast

    Nope.  Wrong.  The entirety of your bloviating was as follows:

    Now, yes, subsequently you did go on about how Hawkins’  descriptions didn’t apply to you, but I wasn’t talking about your subsequent post, only your initial one.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Iconoclast

    But anyway I’m not sure how advancing something so mindlessly (and ironically) tribal assists in any argument you’re trying to make.

    Yeah, you talk big with your accusations (“mindlessly tribal”) but utterly fail to back up anyting you bloviate.  But, to answer your inability to comprehend…

    Liberalism is choking our nation, killing it.  And it’s based on lies upon lies.  Since you are a liberal, I see you as my personal enemy, someone who wants to forcibly alter my life style and life choices.  That’s why I have zero respect for you, no matter how much pretense of respect you send my way.  You continually prance into this venue on your high horse, telling us how “partisan” and “extreme” and “hard right” and “unreasonable” we are, while defending Obama and his policies.  Sure, you may not defend Obamacare because that is so obviously a cluster fuck that even you have to admit it.  But if there is a sliver of doubt about Obama’s nefarious agenda, you cling to it with white-knuckle abandon, demanding evidence to support the notion that Obama is anti-American when his policies clearly are.  Illegal alien amnesty, Obamacare, his economic policies in general, his foreign policy, trading a worthless deserter for 5 high-ranking enemy Taliban officers, letting an Ambassador be killed (so much for the “we leave no one behind” drivel) practically everything he does puts the citizens under his charge in more harm and more hardship.  And you defend him.

    Sure, you claim that you don’t lie, that you are “reasonable”, that the various trappings of what appears to be main stream liberalism don’t apply to you.  But you still think like a liberal.  You still think government action is necessary on the AGW front, for example, even though HAL10000 has posted where market forces here in the US have done more good on that front than all of the European government action combined.  Yet, you just cannot see how market forces can be enough.  And you still consider the right to be “extreme” and “partisan” while apparently ignoring the fact that the MSM is itself extremely partisan.  Maybe we sometimes have to be somewhat “extreme” to counter the tidal-waves of liberal thought washing over us and our nation.  And yet you again prance around on your high horse, defending Obama and liberal views, telling us that we’re being “unreasonable” while we watch our once-great nation wither and die, thanks to liberal policies.

    Thumb up 1