The fact that you welcome back Michale, and act as though he hasn't lied, insulted, and slandered people on your page, sickens me.

As opposed to ya'all who have lied insulted and slandered and attacked me on a daily basis??

I'm sorry you've been depressed, but as long as you allow people to spread propaganda, lies, and insults in these comments,

He lets you do it.. Why ya whining?? :D

Have fun.

You too, Mary Sunshine.. :D

The fact that you welcome back Michale, and act as though he hasn't lied, insulted, and slandered people on your page, sickens me.

I'm sorry you've been depressed, but as long as you allow people to spread propaganda, lies, and insults in these comments, no amount of friendly banter on your part is going to fix it.

Have fun.

We need a vacation! :)

To filter out Michale and myself as well, try replacing it with something like:

Filter you out!? Are you bonkers?
You're a good man, Charlie Brown.
Nice to "see" you. Come back more often. :)

Why would anyone wish to participate in this blog and want to block an author?

Perhaps a little growing up is in order ...

Don't let TS fool you.. He doesn't want to ignore me.. He just needs a Safe Space from which he can attack me and insult me and then be free from any consequences of his immaturity...

What he doesn't understand is that ya'all pay the price for his childishness and immaturity...

If you don't, you won't see the funny picture. :D

https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2017/11/Screen-Shot-2017-11-26-at-11.48.53-PM.png

Liz, what IS in yer water up there??? :D

290 comments!?!

Two hundred and ninety??!?

Sorry... I am a little rusty.. I'll get those numbers up.. :D

Oh, I do. I also tried to consider the people who lived through (for them) 8 years of Hell because Obama was in the White House. Understanding the other side is crucial to either converting them or defeating them, I've always known that!

With respect, there seems to be a dearth of commentaries that address the concerns of Trump supporters.. And the comments are nothing but attacks on the "deplorable" Trump supporters..

Fun Arthur C. Clarke trivia: where did HAL's name come from? Move it all one letter forward in the alphabet and the answer is clear...

I'll see your ACC trivia and raise you a DEEP SPACE NINE fun fact..

In the episode TRIALS AND TRIBBLE-LATIONS, when the Defiant crew goes back in time and interacts with Kirk and Spock, Bashir and O'Brien had just gotten chewed out by Kirk and stepped into the corridor outside the Transporter Room.. They noticed a tribble and then peered around a corner and saw a whole mass of tribbles.. There was a gray-haired Red Shirt, petting one of the tribbles... That Red Shirt was none other than David Gerrold, the author of the original TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES screenplay.. :D

OK, what's your take on The Orville? I watched the first episode, and couldn't decide if it was bad comedy masquerading as sci-fi or bad sci-fi masquerading as comedy. Haven't watched it since. But then, I have never been a Seth McFarland fan, and don't watch Family Guy, so maybe I'm the wrong audience. But I'd be interested in your take on it...

Give it a couple more episodes.. I guarantee you will like it.. Some of the episodes are incredible. There is one episode where they are making First Contact with an Earth like society where their system of justice is based TOTALLY on Upvotes and Downvotes... It's mind-blowing.. :D

I consider ORVILLE to be Sci-Com.... I too went in expecting GALAXY QUEST- THE SERIES and was left VERY confused..

I even Disqus Authored a discussion about The Orville if you ever get any free time to read it.. It's a fascinating conversation that has absolutely NO politics... OK OK.. very minimal politics because it strays into Discovery..

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-scifi/the_orvile_sci_fi_or_comedy/

OK, you're out of practice. Rusty. I understand.

Otherwise the obvious "Frak it!" quote from Battlestar Galactica would have appeared, right?

Frak me!!!

"Pluck my life!!"
-Red, ANGRY BIRDS

I *AM* rusty!! I can't believe I missed that!!

Senator Al FrakIt

"Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think??"
-Vannilope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

:D

OK, that was funny about "ST:D" I have to admit. Although I could make the same comment you made about Obama, except about W. Bush's first idea for the Iraq invasion ("Operation Iraq Liberation") being a face-palm-worthy acronym... heh...

I was actually searching for a Right Wing example, but couldn't remember any.. Thanx for your contribution to my mental archives.. :D It's getting crowded in there...

"I'm worried, Ray. It's getting crowded in there and all my data points to something big on the horizon."
-Egon, GHOSTBUSTERS

I only saw the first episode before it retreated to premium channels, but my impression wasn't that good. It was kinda boring, I thought.

I gets REAL better REAL fast... Let me know if you want the rest of the mid-season..

But didn't the recent movies toss out the continutiy line? The whole "young Kirk and Spock" thing? Didn't that introduce a whole different timeline? I admit I haven't been keeping up on these things as I should, but hasn't the continuity already been shattered by the new movie line?

Yea, but that's for the movies. What I call STAR TREK 90210... The movies have been established as the "Kelvin Universe"... Discovery producers have made it clear that Discovery takes place in the "real" universe, not the Kelvin Universe...

So, canon is still in effect..

As for Indy being Han's dreams in carbonite, well, I'll have to think about that one. Would it have been a dream or a nightmare? Remember, Han had probably never heard of Earth, or Nazis, or any of it...

And, of course, it only holds true for the first 3 INDIANA JONES movies.. Because, after LAST CRUSADE, Han had been free'ed from the carbonite..

But it's a pretty kewl theory if you don't dig too deep.. :D

OK, let's just turn that back on itself: what has Trump done (tangible things, not just "everyone thinks he's great in the whole world" nonsense) that he promised you during the campaign? What does that list include?

Making America Great Again...

American pride is up, American confidence is up.. My business is up... Illegal immigration is way WAY down...

But the first three are what makes me happiest...

Don't know where this came from, exactly, but it is precisely the scenario I have been worried about whenever anyone brings up "self-driving vehicles."

I read an article about what could happen if an auto-car meets a KOBYASHI MARU scenario..

I can dig it up if you want to read it..

What I learned: bug-free software DOES NOT EXIST. If there is a fatal accident with a self-driving car, who gets sued? The software engineers who wrote the code, or what?

All important questions...

And most important question, in my mind, is how do we program the car??

When it comes to safety and preserving life, is the car's priority it's owner? It's passengers?? Society???

And, as you point out, who is responsible when the car fraks up and kills someone??

Perhaps... But as I have always pointed it, I just go where other people lead me....

But kudos to the play on words.. That was excellent. :D

I single you out only because if you took my advice, this would be a much better place, regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do ..

That's a compliment, by the way. :)

Yes it is and I thank you..

But did you ever stop to consider how *I* would feel about being everyone's punching bag and not being allowed to respond in kind???

Blaming me for what goes on in here is like blaming the nerds on the playground because the bullies are being assholes...

Then why do you bother with us? Why spend any of your time here?

Seriously. I just don't get it ...

"I never run out on a friend.."
-Sean Penn, TAPS

It's Fund Raising time... Why should CW suffer because most people here are...... not very nice..

Do you find happiness in being part of the problem?

No...

But neither is being alone in being part of the solution...

At least when I am part of the problem, I have a LOT of company.. :D

You want to join me in being part of the solution?? Then start speaking out against those who are part of the problem instead of just singling me out... :D

-CW

Don't know where this came from, exactly, but it is precisely the scenario I have been worried about whenever anyone brings up "self-driving vehicles."

My test-case scenario: you're driving south through Big Sur on Highway 1. To your left is a lane of the road and then a sheer cliff, climbing upwards. To your left is a short berm and a steep cliff, dropping down a few hundred feet to the Pacific Ocean. You come around a curve (the road is constant curves, as it winds around the shoulder of the cliff) and a pregnant woman pushing a baby stroller is in your lane.

Your car can steer into the sheer cliff on your left, but there's a good chance you'll broadside the woman anyway. It can continue in your lane, which would definitely hit the woman, but might leave you OK. Or it can steer itself off the cliff, killing you but saving the woman illegally crossing the road.

Software programmers have to make these decisions, before the fact. They have to program such scenarios into the car.

So what should they choose? And how much control over that should the owner of the car have?

Should there be settings where you can choose how extreme the circumstances are which protect the passengers of the car, or should that be some sort of pre-existing standard?

These are all very heavy questions, steeped in law, software programming, morality, and several other disciplines.

But they're probably going to be answered without any sort of adequate debate about their consequences. We'll all likely have to wait for a giant test case when something goes horribly wrong.

That's a pretty heavy thing to consider. Full disclosure: I worked for many years, in another lifetime, as a software quality assurance engineer (and manager), in Silicon Valley. Which is a glorified name for "bug-hunter."

What I learned: bug-free software DOES NOT EXIST. If there is a fatal accident with a self-driving car, who gets sued? The software engineers who wrote the code, or what?

All important questions...

-CW

Let's face it, 45 makes angry Americans feel good because he irritates the people they hate. That is basically the sum of his achievements.

That seems to be about the sum total of Trump's "achievements" that I can see, too.

As for the rest of it, that may be a brutal summation, but it also may be the spark which fires the Democratic wave next year (and yes I know that's an awfully mixed metaphor, spark and wave cancelling each other out as it were, but even so...).

-CW

OK, let's just turn that back on itself: what has Trump done (tangible things, not just "everyone thinks he's great in the whole world" nonsense) that he promised you during the campaign? What does that list include?

-CW

Dang, that's a relevant link!

Last year's pledge drive -- and kittens galore!

Heh... seemed relevant to the article we're all commenting on somehow...

:-)

-CW

Fixed your close tag. You're welcome!

:-)

-CW

OK, that was funny about "ST:D" I have to admit. Although I could make the same comment you made about Obama, except about W. Bush's first idea for the Iraq invasion ("Operation Iraq Liberation") being a face-palm-worthy acronym... heh...

I only saw the first episode before it retreated to premium channels, but my impression wasn't that good. It was kinda boring, I thought.

OK, so far I'm with you. I thought the whole "different style Klingons" thing was way too wonky, but you are right, it provided continuity between the series (serieses?). Much better, I thought, was the tie-in between "The Tholian Web" and the alternate-universe "Mirror, Mirror" at the end of the Enterprise run. Especially the re-done opening credits, which were freakin' awesome! Starships strafing cites? What's not to love? Heh.

But didn't the recent movies toss out the continutiy line? The whole "young Kirk and Spock" thing? Didn't that introduce a whole different timeline? I admit I haven't been keeping up on these things as I should, but hasn't the continuity already been shattered by the new movie line?

OK, if Harcourt Fenton Mudd is involved, I think I'll probably have to binge-watch it at some point. Even a HFM homicidal maniac... I always saw him as more of a Lando Calrissian than a Han Solo, but I do agree with the word "scoundrel." I equated him to the guy who originally introduced the tribbles onto the space station, a harmlessly-intending disaster-waiting-to-happen. So we do agree there.

As for Indy being Han's dreams in carbonite, well, I'll have to think about that one. Would it have been a dream or a nightmare? Remember, Han had probably never heard of Earth, or Nazis, or any of it...

:-)

-CW

OK, you're out of practice. Rusty. I understand.

Otherwise the obvious "Frak it!" quote from Battlestar Galactica would have appeared, right?

:-)

-CW

OK, what's your take on The Orville? I watched the first episode, and couldn't decide if it was bad comedy masquerading as sci-fi or bad sci-fi masquerading as comedy. Haven't watched it since. But then, I have never been a Seth McFarland fan, and don't watch Family Guy, so maybe I'm the wrong audience. But I'd be interested in your take on it...

-CW

Oh, I do. I also tried to consider the people who lived through (for them) 8 years of Hell because Obama was in the White House. Understanding the other side is crucial to either converting them or defeating them, I've always known that!

:-)

[39] -

See, this is why I've really missed you -- pithy movie quotes! While you were gone, several people tried trolling you to answer by quoting movies, because we've all become accustomed to it by now.

My favorite, which was not only quoted in an ancient Apple software manual but also seems to sum up my attitude towards you (at times):

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL!"
"I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that."
- 2001, A Space Odyssey

Fun Arthur C. Clarke trivia: where did HAL's name come from? Move it all one letter forward in the alphabet and the answer is clear...

:-)

-CW

Two hundred and ninety??!?

Wow. This is going to take awhile...

-CW

By the way Liz, you are a model of succinct prose...any Lacedaemonian in your family tree? :)

Well, I didn't start out that way. Ahem.

Then why do you bother with us? Why spend any of your time here?

Seriously. I just don't get it ...

I single you out only because if you took my advice, this would be a much better place, regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do ..

That's a compliment, by the way. :)

But if there is one thing I learned in my hiatus, it's that debating with one hand tied behind my back is no fun.. :D

What you are doing here hasn't much to do with debating ... debasing, maybe but, not debating ...

What you are doing here hasn't much to do with debating ... debasing, maybe but, not debating ...

Liz, I deal with mean-spirited comments on a daily, sometimes HOURLY basis...I just follow suit.. :D

That makes you a big part of the problem.

Do you find happiness in being part of the problem?

Ahh, good ol' line 26!

To filter out Michale and myself as well, try replacing it with something like:

if (['Michale','chaszzzbrown'].indexOf(liElm.find('cite').text()) >=0) {

Explanation: The ['Michale','chaszzzbrown'] is an array of strings (note square brackets and quotes); the indexOf part determines if it can find the user's name in that list (which will be case sensitive now) and returns -1 if it is NOT in the list, otherwise returns a number >=0.

Hope that helps!

Cheers - Chas

But almost all countries subsidize their agriculture industries, for various reasons, and you are correct, the U.S. sugar tariff actually results in HIGHER consumer prices.

It turns out the the CBO thinks the earth isn't flat ;)

Based on their assessment of TrainWreckCare, the CBO has absolutely NO credibility with me...

Then we will have to wait until 2027 and do the accounting :)

My understanding is based on personal financial planning, and the CBO office is only one analysis I've used - all point to bad news for income earners below $75K and good news for high income earners with large investments.

But then, you probably don't give me much credibility either ;)

Agriculture is going through a major change in their business model at the moment. I spend a week hiking in the Alps with a friend who lived in Switzerland for many years and started learning about the farming system over there. It is incredibly subsidized - basically, as best I understand, there is a "culture tax" that supports small farmers whose style of farming is hopelessly uneconomical. It makes for lovely pastures with beautiful cows, with cowbells etc.

When we think of farmers in the U.S. many people seem to have a similar "House on the Prairie" view. It isn't like that at all. Small holdings are part of a larger supply chain and for many their practices are dictated to them by the large distributes that they sell to. But even these farms are disappearing as conglomerates move in. These businesses are large enough that they should be able to effectively self insure and not require government subsidies to support them. In effect these subsidies result in lower food prices, but I'm not really a fan of this type of behavior for reasons we both probably agree on.

For genuine small holding and multi-generational family farms the traditional ag insurance run by the government is a good model, but I'd contend that most of the large sugar industry companies are not really in this category. Especially as the import restrictions actually increase the costs to consumers.

I would have thought so, but I started reading up on it after one of my friends daughters married the family of a large dealership and was surprised to see the hidden rent that the dealership monopoly imposes.

Businesses have a multitude of free rides - and the current tax system is riddled with them. One of the disappointments with the current tax bill is that, unlike Reagan's in the 1980's it isn't trying to eliminate the hidden breaks and leveling the playing field for everybody.

There are always differences in ability, etc. that cause inequalities. There are also differences in luck, etc. and nobody is calling for equal outcomes.

If you are advocating raw capitalism, just come out and say it. I'm OK with that. But if you believe that society should help those that through no fault of their own are not as fortunate as others, then we need to talk about how much and in what manner we balance things. You might claim that today's poor have things they don't deserve, like TVs and cell phones, but is Dickensian England your model for America in the 21st Century?

What should disqualify a person from any help? And how do we make laws that isolate them from assistance while helping the truly needy?

I have a lot of family that have never had a job in their life and live lifestyles that few could dream of. There is and never has been any sweat on their brows, and good luck to them, I begrudge them nothing and frankly I'm happier than most of them because I earned what I have. Where do they fit in to your model?

[266] Which "causes of the increasing inequality" is it that we are seeing? Is it inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, inequality of productivity, inequality of income, inequality of wealth, or all of the above?

Re "However, I believe that we can do better as a society and distribute the wealth more fairly." Again the old "Manna from Heaven" attitude. Actual wealth (goods and services, NOT money!) is not "distributed", it is PRODUCED, by the sweat of somebody's brow, even if in the modern world, most brows don't actually sweat. Only after it has been produced by means of allegorical sweat, can it be RE-distributed to somebody whose brow did not even allegorically sweat.

[272] What's your point about the dealership franchise monopoly costs for cars? We consumers have to rely on competition to prevent being screwed by monopolies. I'm guessing that the multitude of brands and dealerships where we can buy a new car in every city probably holds that monopoly cost to a bare minimum.

The tariff protection for the U.S. sugar industry definitely represents a rent expense for consumers, (meaning a redistribution of income). The gov't justifies it a a necessary subsidy for farmers. I'm against it in principle, but see no way to avoid it, except by putting a lot of farmers out of business, which could create another set of perhaps worse problems.

This is why ya'all who are fighting against Moore are fighting a losing battle....

Ya'all have absolutely ZERO credibility...

Based on their assessment of TrainWreckCare, the CBO has absolutely NO credibility with me...

The rows are impact by income group. The columns are the cumulative impact by the year at the top. For example, if you earn $75K-100K your total savings by 2019 will be $21,500 - good news.

The bad news is that by 2027 you have paid more in taxes and your now you are only $1,390 ahead - i.e. you have paid back about $20,000 to the government in higher taxes over the intervening years.

The real losers however are those earning less than $75K/year. By 2027, if you earn on average $30K-$40K/year your tax bill has gone up and you are now $7,600 worse off in total.

Now the higher earners will do OK (hey, they pay for the Republicans, so you'd expect their employees to do their bidding), but they will really make out on the increase in dividends and/or stock market increases from the lower corporate taxes.

https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CDVMGQOGHI7VJOBWRYJL3XB2CM.jpg

Did you know that the car dealership monopoly costs $1950 on average for each new car?

This was the surprising analysis I read from the (very conservative) Heritage Foundation's "Daily Signal" a couple of years ago.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/30/removing-dealership-monopolies-could-save-you-1950-on-a-new-car/

You might also look at the money being spent on the military-industrial complex. The sugar industry is also worth some analysis.

Free corporate rents far exceed what we do as a society for the needy.

At least not against the Left Wingery, eh?? :D

Liz, I deal with mean-spirited comments on a daily, sometimes HOURLY basis...

I just follow suit.. :D

... at the very least, they should cost a lot more than regular comments.

If the charges are applied equally, I will be more than happy to do so.. :D

But if there is one thing I learned in my hiatus, it's that debating with one hand tied behind my back is no fun.. :D

Have you read Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" - a sorta sequel to "The Bell Curve"?

Side note: Murray is misunderstood in my opinion, and is not the racist monster he is portrayed.

In "Coming Apart" he examines the impact of the last few decades on different social groups. The solution he proposes isn't only money, but without money path to a better America is impossible.

"Your economist's definition of 'productivity' for most usages at least, would be FAR better served by being described as 'efficiency' instead."

Sorry to break this to you CRS, but those egg headed economists have already defined "efficiency" to suit their purposes:

"the situation where some people cannot be made better-off by reallocating the resources or goods, without making others worse-off. It indicates that a balance between benefit and loss has been achieved. Also called allocative efficiency."

- businessdictionary.com

As in "efficient markets."

I thought you had graciously stepped into CW.com to educate us, the ignorant natives? You don't even speak the Eco lingo...you remind me of Peggy Hill teaching Spanish. I'm not a economist - but at least I can understand what the the pros are saying.

C'mon Michale, we are friends, not "friends" - offer of the BBQ is still open if you come over and I hope you enjoy the next Star Wars movie.

If you disagree with somebody, then you decide they are xxx ignorant - can you drop this please, it makes you look completely ignorant.

You guys look at what's been happening in the economy for the last 40 yrs or so, and erroneously conclude that what you call the "concentration of wealth" results from the rich stealing from the poor.

Why are you putting things in inflammatory terms? It isn't "stealing", it is mostly concentration of wealth due to market forces. If there is anything nefarious going on it is hiding wealth in offshore tax havens and buying politicians to tilt the playing field in favor of capital over labor.

As we have stated many times, the causes of the increasing inequality we are seeing are multifold, but there is little argument we are seeing it.

Also the "Poor in America today are far richer than the richest of 100 years ago" argument does not address inequality, it just tells the poor to be happy with what they have.

If you want to support raw capitalism with extreme winners and extreme losers, just come out and say so. However I believe we can do better as a society and distribute the wealth more fairly. I also believe that the circulation of money increases total wealth and that an efficient and fair way to increase circulation is to give money to the people who will spend it while at the same time increasing the total happiness in the country.

If somebody worth millions inherits $100K it will make little difference to their lives, but if somebody is worth $50K and is earning $30K inherits the same amount it can significantly improve their lives.

If you are arguing for a non-progressive tax system, let me know - we are then in a different territory.

And that's just horseshit.

That's an impressive chip on yer shoulder.. :D I especially like the part about my "rich friends"..

Neil is the "richest" "friend" I have.. :D

The fact is, the DEMOCRAT Party is the FREE RIDE Party..

And THAT is why they were voted out of office..

Because patriotic Americans are sick and tired of paying for other people's laziness..

Uh-huh. But the reality is that most folks have jobs and chores and occupations and callings and responsibilities and projects and enterprises and contractual obligations and appointments and opportunities to attend to. Nobody has the time to sit on their asses much anymore, and even those who can usually don't. Look at the number of folks who retire and immediately buy a Winnebago for a spin round the interstate system, or rich folk who bury themselves in charity work. I remember hearing of a study conducted in the '70's (so this is rumour,ok?) that found that, far from being idle, many drug dealers had longer days and made more decisions than corporate executives. Could you not say the same for a busy suburban mother of six? Or of a single mother holding down two part time jobs?

Your economic construct then, is just polite snobbery. You and your rich friends are better than everyone else because your work is more productive or more meaningful than theirs.

And that's just horseshit.

The facts support it...

Look how the food stamp rolls explosively expanded under Obama and the Democrats..

That's untrue, not to mention very mean-spirited.

Only to those with a partisan agenda.. :D

Like the way that Trump has already lapped Obama on number of holes played in Golf.

You have no moral authority to complain about Trump's golf...

and that's at least two to three hours a week, I can tell you

Oh sure.. You can TELL me...

But can you support that with facts?? Of course you can't...

Hard work or lucky birth...does it matter?

Hard work never hurts..

But Dumbocrats would prefer to just live off the system and let Government take care of them...

That gets lost when you start throwing around dog-whistle terms like "lazy", y'know.

Like the way that Trump has already lapped Obama on number of holes played in Golf. You and I know that while Donald is lining up his putts, he's thinkin' 'bout stuff - maybe important stuff, but all we see is an overweight septuagenarian with silly hair trying to be Jack Nicklaus.

Or take the Mara family, who own the NY Giants, or the Brown family who own the Cincinnati Bengals. They work hard to hold onto the immense wealth that they inherited, at least as much as any fantasy football team owner, and that's at least two to three hours a week, I can tell you. At least if Republicans have their way, they won't have to worry about estate taxes when they pass all that down to the next generation. Hard work or lucky birth...does it matter?

But "productive" takes on many forms... Some even which doesn't fit in your ideological slavery...

And you want to change the subject to "actual labor" because you can't argue the facts..

Sitting at a desk and figuring shit out is as much "work" as anything else...

So I gather that you're in favor of raising the Capital Gains tax, as that favors the lazy whose money does all the work, as opposed to those whose actual labor is responsible for their paychecks.

Your economist's definition of 'productivity' for most usages at least, would be FAR better served by being described as 'efficiency' instead.

The single source of the most misunderstandings/miscomprehensions in the study and understanding of the science of economics is money. The economically ignorant tend to conflate money with real wealth (goods and services that can be consumed to raise our standard of living). Money is only the medium of exchange which facilitates trade by expressing apples and widgets in a common denomination. It cannot be consumed to sustain life. So, bottom line, no, the poor are not poor because they don't earn much money, they are poor because their contribution toward physical output (if there is a contribution) is valued low by the marketplace.

Your worker productivity chart expresses productivity across all aspects of the economy, without differentiating between the contributions of the engineers and the burger flippers. When you average everybody in together, it distorts the results.

As I attempted to convey above, the marvels of electronic data processing have zero effect on the output of the burger flipper or the lug bolt tightener, but they contribute massively to the outputs of the engineers and managers.

Mea culpa, I choose to use the correct definition in a given domain. With regards to economics, productivity is a measure of efficiency, a ratio of input to output.

As Investopedia phrases it-

"Productivity is an economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other gross domestic product (GDP) components such as business inventories."

As the chart I posted shows, worker productivity has increased, not decreased, yet their wages during the same interval have remained stagnant. Generalizing, the proverbial burger flipper is flippin' more burgers per hr but is being paid the same adjusted wage.

Your argument seems to always boil down to: the poor are poor because they don't make any money. That is a circular argument...Begging the Question...Propaganda...Alternative facts.

Little help?

Help me CB!!! Help me!!!!!

FACTS and REALITY are breaking thru my Safe Space and I can't handle them!!!!!!!

WAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:D hehehehehehehehe

Gods, it must really suck to be so afraid of facts and reality that you can't survive them without a Safe Space... :D

Productivity has multiple definitions. You choose to use the technical one that measures the ratio/relation of outputs to inputs.

There is also the most basic definition, that of relating to actually creating/producing things vs. not producing things, right? your "underlying logic" seems evasive at best, ridiculous at worst.

Line 26

I haven't had much luck modifying this to simultaneously counter multiple targets in one pass. I'm not much of a coder, especially when it comes to modifying somebody else's code. Syntactically challenged.

Little help?

:D

'splain this:

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/1-arerobotstak.jpg

Productivity is a measure efficiency. You conflate it with income and wealth. Your underlying logic seems circular.

In the real world, the productive are always going to benefit the most from their efforts, 'unfair' or not.

FINALLY!!!!

Someone around here who gets it!!

Someone who gets that those who are lazy should not benefit as much as those who actually go out and WORK and EARN what they get...

Maybe the drop in football viewership is due to the inherent problem of nothing happening most of the time.

That's a logical possibility.

Well, except for the fact that the fans who are not watching are saying it's because of the whiny millionaire bitches.. :D

But good effort...

You guys look at what's been happening in the economy for the last 40 yrs or so, and erroneously conclude that what you call the "concentration of wealth" results from the rich stealing from the poor.

The reality of the situation is that the wondrous things that have happened (high-tech, robotics, and globalization) that have raised the living standards of the developed world to the highest level in all of history, have combined to massively increase the productivity of the productive (i.e., the talented, the skilled and the ambitious), but have done very little to increase the productivity of the less productive/unproductive.

The less productive/unproductive actually HAVE benefited enormously, through lower prices of goods and through income redistribution, but you guys bitterly resent the fact that they have not benefited in full proportion.

OK, that's simply your personal feelings, opinions and value judgments (most likely based on your personal experiences), but it's simply not a realistic opinion.

In the real world, the productive are always going to benefit the most from their efforts, 'unfair' or not.

Maybe the drop in football viewership is due to the inherent problem of nothing happening most of the time. Aggravated by commercial content, but the game is mostly just people standing around and hearing other people talk about it. Watching people stand around on a TV screen is inherently boring. Watching people march around a field is boring. Even if you are drunk, or on the way to being drunk. No amount of camera work, slo-mo replay or CGI painting of the field can compensate. Even baseball has pitching to break up the tedium! Older football fans are habituated to the show, but dying off. Younger viewers aren't.

Letterman had some interesting football fixes. Put more balls in the game. Allow the entire team on the field in the last 5 minutes.

Translation: I need my safe space because reality is just too much to handle...

:D

"Why would anyone wish to participate in this blog and want to block an author?

It doesn't make a lot of sense."

Reading some correspondents just wastes my time....and I know who they are. Scrolling around them is tedious - I like to skip the bad berry patches...which is why I favor custom blocking capabilities.

In egregious cases black listing seems the appropriate course to me. CW is a benevolent despot.

By the way Liz, you are a model of succinct prose...any Lacedaemonian in your family tree? :)

So many facts, so little factual rebuttal..

Allow me to throw ya'all a bone... :D

Is A Big, Blue Wave Forming Off The Political Coast?
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/24/566127268/is-a-big-blue-wave-forming-off-the-political-coast

Have a ball...

I like my meat fresh and fighting, not sullen and demoralized.. :D heh

Thanks for the link to the Stan Sorscher article.

I agree with your take home " raw capitalism inevitably moves from a win-win to a zero sum game as power and wealth get concentrated and rents get created." Very well put...especially your "rents get created" phrase. This is often overlooked.

Interestingly enough, the topic of working class capital accumulation versus working class renter shows up in the Christmas Movie Fixture "It's a Wonderful Life" - which will soon be playing 24 hrs a day on certain cable channels.

Another powerful trend since 1970 is, for my lack of a better term, the economic nomad, who must chance jobs - and often locations, multiple times during his/her working life (which seems to be getting longer). This plays into the rent equation. Likely a factor in divorce rates, which rocketed during the 70's 80's

http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg

In real life, Old Man Potter won.

You see, this is EXACTLY ya'all's problem..

You simply CANNOT see past your own Party ideology...

Pelosi's MTP session was a total and complete bomb and confirmed EVERYTHING bad about how the Democrat Party handles sexual harassments and sexual assaults when Democrats commit them..

But you just HAVE to spin it as a GOOD thing..

No one here can concede, "Yea, Pelosi frak'ed up. My gods, that was abysmal..."

It well and truly is PARTY UBER ALLES

This is exactly why it simply is impossible to treat ANYTHING ya'all say as viable or well thought out..

There were a few that had promise, but they seem to have either gone Dark Side or just gone dark...

TRANSLATION: There are a LOT more accusations coming...

Democrats, the DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO Party.... :^/

Yea.. They are only fellow Americans but they voted for Trump.. So frak 'em.. If they don't think like you do, just write them up. They all are a bunch of delorables after all..

Ya know, it's AMAZING you Democrats can't win elections.. :D

The political pendulum swings one way then the other.

And it hadn't swung THAT far in over a hundred years..

If it had swung like that Left ward, ya would be screaming to the high heavens how significant it is.. Look at when it swung ever so slightly Left.. Ya are treating it as life altering..

Yer so predictable. :D

We'll see, but you might be too smug for your own good -

Yea.. That's what ya'all kept telling me in the run up to the 2016 election.. :D We know what happened next.. :D

Have you day of gloating, but prepare for a winter of discontent, grasshopper.

Lemme know if it ever gets here.. :D

It looks most like #2 from a brief investigation.

By all means.. Show your facts... :D

But, as things stand now, it's because whiny millionaires bitches are shitting on this country, it's military and flag and anthem because they hate the country..

I was trying to find out if this was:

1. Only impacting the NFL
2. Part of a systematic drop in interest in football in general
3. Part of a systematic drop in interest in live sports

It looks most like #2 from a brief investigation.

The political pendulum swings one way then the other. The ire on the right has defined the last 10-20 years, and that anger peaked in 2016, but the pendulum will swing back as it always does, and most people think it has already started.

We'll see, but you might be too smug for your own good - and smugness is a symptom I see in the markets just before they cyclically turn as well.

Have you day of gloating, but prepare for a winter of discontent, grasshopper.

Wow.. That's quite an admission...

I've given up hope for places like Alabama. This is like an addiction - at some point you say: OK, you're obviously not going to learn until you hit the bottom of the barrel, but at least your example can be a lesson for the rest of us.

Facts to support???

Maybe when your college foists you with debt that you can't pay off and then sics debt collectors on you, you lose interest in supporting them?

Maybe.. But what does that have to do with the No Fans Left ???

Wow, that is some impressive spin.. :D

Josh Barro is obviously right: “My theory: After her MTP interview landed so badly, Pelosi told Conyers he was going to step aside, and that it could be his choice or hers.” Pelosi messed up badly this morning and needed some a sacrifice from Conyers to rebuild some of her “zero tolerance” credibility, as ridiculous as that is. She can’t make him quit Congress but she can make him quit as ranking member of the Judiciary committee. It was purely a question of whether he’d lose that status the hard way or the easy way.

Now, when does he resign?
https://hotair.com/archives...

Of course, reality is much MUCH different..

What the right wing are ignoring is the lesson from the suburbs in the recent Virginia election -

BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

You mean like Dumbocrats ignored the totality of their decimation on 8 Nov 2016??

You funny... You ignore the lesson when Dumbocrats lost over 1000 elected seats, but think that a handful of wins that were pre-ordained is something with life-altering meaning..

You funny.. :D

I'm hoping for Moore win

So, you are hoping (what you claim is) a pedophile wins the Senate race??

Wow.. That's quite an admission...

Pelosi obviously hasn't and she wants her gavel back.

And Pelosi wanted Hillary to be POTUS..

"You can't always get what you want...
You can't always get what you want...
You can't always get what you want....
But ya get what ya need...."
-Mick Jagger

:D

The repeated meme in the different reports I read covering both the NFL and colleges is that this is the millennials' "fault". They just aren't as interested in watching football as prior generations.

Maybe when your college foists you with debt that you can't pay off and then sics debt collectors on you, you lose interest in supporting them?

The more the Fox News types attack Conyers the bigger the backlash against 45 - who is far more stained than Conyers and makes Franken look like an angel.

What the right wing are ignoring is the lesson from the suburbs in the recent Virginia election - Pelosi obviously hasn't and she wants her gavel back.

I'm hoping for Moore win to consolidate the impact outside of the deep South - it will be hay making time with both 45 and Moore mouthing off - the ads write themselves - the party of grabbers and child molesters is going to have an even more uphill battle, especially after the recent CBO report on the tax plan showing that everybody earning under $75K is getting hosed in the long term.

neontaster ????
@neontaster
Nancy Pelosi, who called the Title IX rollback "a shocking attack on women," citing due process in her defense of Conyers is some a-grade high octane chutzpah.
11:00 AM - Nov 26, 2017
43 43 Replies 1,201 1,201 Retweets 3,199 3,199 likes

No standards like DOUBLE standards, eh?? :^/

The Democrat Party is toast in 2018....

But the Conyers claims represent a serious abuse of power—one that required a legal settlement—and Pelosi doesn't see them as a firing offense.

And the NFL slide into oblivion continues...

Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. :D

The fact is, Merkel is faced with 2 very unpalatable choices...

She can plunge ahead with a minority government which will make it very difficult to govern Germany and IMPOSSIBLE to fulfill her EU duties...

Or she can call for new elections which offers the very real likely hood that she will be replaced..

No matter how you spin it, it's very bad for Merkel..

Oh, I doubt it.

Yea.. And you "doubted" that Trump would be President.. You "doubted" that Brexit would pass..

You really need to learn that wishful thinking does NOT reality make...

You deny reality because it never appears on Fox News.

Says the guy who quotes FoxNews when it says what he wants to here..

I can assure you of one thing that is completely and utterly factual...

YOU watch more Fox News than I do...

That's a fact...

'Merkel groups', as you put it, didn't do as well as many would have liked, but she beat back an insurgency from her right, and that cost her and her coalition partners some votes and support on the left. That was a loss for Putin and the euro alt-right, and a win for the political center.

The question in their upcoming meeting on Thursday is, will the demands of young leftists be enough to make the SPD back out of a grand coalition in which it will share 50% power?

Oh, I doubt it.

you deny reality because you can't handle reality

You deny reality because it never appears on Fox News.

Not according to the groups that Merkel wants to negotiate with...

No more so than your insistence that the most savvy and experienced politician in Europe is about to spit up a fur ball.

The fact that Merkel groups had their asses handed to them in the last election PROVES my "insistence" that the most experienced politician in Europe spit up a furball..

Once again, you deny reality because you can't handle reality..

Merkel only wants an immigration cap, which runs right down the middle. It's negotiable.

How many times do ya have to be burned before you concede that WISHFUL THINKING doesn't make it so?

No more so than your insistence that the most savvy and experienced politician in Europe is about to spit up a fur ball.

And so far, they have blatantly stated that Merkel's position on open immigration is a deal breaker...

It'll be about as pretty as Platypus sex, but it'll get done.

Yea.. And Hillary was going to win the election.

How many times do ya have to be burned before you concede that WISHFUL THINKING doesn't make it so???

Whatever you want to call it, pressure is building for both the CDU and SPD to join in coalition. It'll be about as pretty as Platypus sex, but it'll get done. My every confidence is in the German national impulse toward order.

And so it begins...

And as I pointed out, Merkel CAN'T reconstitute a majority government..

And she can't rule effectively with a minority government..

And no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that...