Page 4 of 46 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 680
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    An excellent 5-part National Review Online interview with Thomas Sowell, based on his new book Economic Facts and Fallacies:

    Part 1: The conventional wisdom instructs that the rise of women in corporate America in the latter half of the 20th century was due to the implementation of anti-discrimination laws championed by the feminist movement. In reality, a greater proportion of American women held high-level occupations in the first half of the 20th century. Thomas Sowell sets the record straight on this and other male–female employment fallacies.

    Part 2: It has been reported that the incomes of most American households have remained flat in recent decades. But Sowell says this is a misleading statistic, since “households” are a moving target — varying over time in size, among population groups, and from one income level to another. Says Sowell, “Whenever I see somebody quoting household income, he's trying to make things look bad.” The mainstream media, it turns out, works overtime to make most income data look bad.

    Part 3: Sowell discusses the outrage that is faculty tenure. Tenured faculty members, he says, run universities for their own best interests — not the interests of students. They schedule classes on their own time, not students’ time. They wield tremendous influence, in particular into areas where they have no expertise. Why, asks Sowell, should someone who teaches French literature decide whether ROTC should be allowed on campus? The trouble with tenure extends far and wide.

    Part 4: We’re programmed to think that if we want to make it big in life we need to attend the crème de la crème of colleges. Thomas Sowell says that’s not true at all. Higher-ed institutions also spread the notion that the price of tuition — though astronomically high — doesn’t even cover the full cost of educating each student. Another misleading statement, says Sowell. How can one separate higher-ed truth from fiction? Sowell has the answers.

    Part 5: Fallacies about race run rampant through our culture. For instance, racial discrimination is often listed as a root cause of criminality among blacks, but Sowell points out that black crime was declining prior to the 1960s and the civil-rights and anti-poverty laws that emerged during that decade. What then is the source of black criminality in the post-1960s? Simple, says Sowell: “They stopped punishing criminals.”
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  2. #47
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    An excellent 5-part National Review Online interview with Thomas Sowell, based on his new book Economic Facts and Fallacies:

    Part 1: The conventional wisdom instructs that the rise of women in corporate America in the latter half of the 20th century was due to the implementation of anti-discrimination laws championed by the feminist movement. In reality, a greater proportion of American women held high-level occupations in the first half of the 20th century. Thomas Sowell sets the record straight on this and other male–female employment fallacies.
    I think Sowell is a little out of touch with the modern business world he still concerned with the idea of some sort of glass ceiling; an idea that has long since been dismissed by all but the die-hard feminists. What is recognised by businesses (via research) is that boards or executive management teams gain an advantage by having gender diversity. That is, research shows that a similarly skilled gender diverse team is likely to perform better than a team consisting of a single gender. Business leaders are aware of the conflicts that can arise between domestic and professional role for females, that causes them exit the work workforce or take on lesser roles during key points in their careers. This not only affects the gender diversity of top management teams but also can represent a large cost in lost knowledge capital for the organisation. These are some of the reaons why it is important for organisations to find ways to reduce the conflict between domestic and professional roles for women, such as work from home arrangements, flexible working hours, child care facilities etc.

    Sowell is about 5-10 years behind the game.

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    I think Sowell is a little out of touch with the modern business world he still concerned with the idea of some sort of glass ceiling; an idea that has long since been dismissed by all but the die-hard feminists. What is recognised by businesses (via research) is that boards or executive management teams gain an advantage by having gender diversity. That is, research shows that a similarly skilled gender diverse team is likely to perform better than a team consisting of a single gender. Business leaders are aware of the conflicts that can arise between domestic and professional role for females, that causes them exit the work workforce or take on lesser roles during key points in their careers. This not only affects the gender diversity of top management teams but also can represent a large cost in lost knowledge capital for the organisation. These are some of the reaons why it is important for organisations to find ways to reduce the conflict between domestic and professional roles for women, such as work from home arrangements, flexible working hours, child care facilities etc.
    If so, then no laws are needed, because the market would encourage "gender diversity" anyway!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Sowell is about 5–10 years behind the game.
    Then what does it say about Comrade Obama, whose official White House site still spruiks forth the "women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes" crap.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #49
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    If so, then no laws are needed, because the market would encourage "gender diversity" anyway!.
    Anti-discrimination laws are required fr a wide range of reasons. Many countries still have huge discrimination against women, such laws are a welcome protection, even if rarely used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Then what does it say about Comrade Obama, whose official White House site still spruiks forth the "women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes" crap.
    It says nothing that is probably a valid statistic, as Sowell pointed in many cases the domestic role played by women interferes with there ability to earn an income. As Sowell also pointed out this is largley to do with gender roles rather physiological differences between the sexes.

    By ensuring that women receive an equal income over their careers means resolving these conflicts. Doing so means greater productivity out of the female workforce which is good for the econonmy and should be strived for at all levels including government.

    Also while discrimination against women in the workplace may not be widespread enough to justifiy the concept of a glass ceiling, that doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at all, I have no problem with the concept of equal pay for equal work espused by Obama, do you? If so what? I tend to think that labour market/business forces often address this issue faster than laws, however where discrimination can be established it can be discouraged through law.

    In the next few days I'll post something on Sowell's take on meritocracy, his analysis is flawed because of a number of false assumptions.
    Last edited by TheJoker; 26-01-2009 at 09:28 PM.

  5. #50
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    If so, then no laws are needed, because the market would encourage "gender diversity" anyway!
    I don't think the assumption that the market automatically knows best is in very pretty condition at this moment.

  6. #51
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Anti-discrimination laws are required fr a wide range of reasons. Many countries still have huge discrimination against women, such laws are a welcome protection, even if rarely used.
    But not America or Australia. Such laws just created bloated bureaucracies with little Hitlers interfering in the workplace. They often hurt the people they are ostensibly meant to help, except for those in that group who are already best off.

    Why even bother trying to tell me that alleged research showing the benefits of gender-mixed companies if you want to use government force to enforce this mix.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    It says nothing that is probably a valid statistic, as Sowell pointed in many cases the domestic role played by women interferes with there ability to earn an income. As Sowell also pointed out this is largley to do with gender roles rather physiological differences between the sexes.
    Right, not to discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    By ensuring that women receive an equal income over their careers means resolving these conflicts.
    Why? Women make these choices freely. Lefty feminists don't really believe in free choice for women.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Doing so means greater productivity out of the female workforce which is good for the econonmy and should be strived for at all levels including government.
    The market is the best place to decide this, because it means that people are freely voting with their own money.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Also while discrimination against women in the workplace may not be widespread enough to justifiy the concept of a glass ceiling, that doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at all,
    Then prove it. The lefy Anointed argue that mere disparity in numbers is proof of discrimination, since it allows them to expand government power over the private workplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    I have no problem with the concept of equal pay for equal work espused by Obama, do you?
    Did you listen to what Dr Sowell said about that? The 77 c/$ is crap because the work is NOT equal. When allowances are made for number of hours and years worked, avoidance of dangerous jobs (by far the most workplace deaths are men), time off for child raring, there is no discrimination, which would be insane if Obamov's feminazi-parroting claim were true.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    If so what? I tend to think that labour market/business forces often address this issue faster than laws,
    Yes, Sowell has documented how private businesses resisted Jim Crow laws (see Rosa Parks and history). It's governments and non-profits where discrimination was most widespread, not businesses in the free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    however where discrimination can be established it can be discouraged through law.
    Good, then you'd better oppose affirmative action for women and blacks then, because this is discriminatory sexism and racism.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    In the next few days I'll post something on Sowell's take on meritocracy, his analysis is flawed because of a number of false assumptions.
    As if you'd know.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I don't think the assumption that the market automatically knows best is in very pretty condition at this moment.
    It should be better than it is, because the present crisis was largely due to government sticking its fat beak into the market. Look at KRudd ruining non-bank lenders with his bank guarantee, and of course Dems protecting Fannie and Freddie from proper scrutiny.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #53
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It should be better than it is, because the present crisis was largely due to government sticking its fat beak into the market.
    To the extent this is so, the market has known the government was doing so all along and has failed to foresee the seriousness of the consequences.

  9. #54
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But not America or Australia. Such laws just created bloated bureaucracies with little Hitlers interfering in the workplace. They often hurt the people they are ostensibly meant to help, except for those in that group who are already best off.
    Evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Why even bother trying to tell me that alleged research showing the benefits of gender-mixed companies if you want to use government force to enforce this mix.
    Strawman. I said i support anti-discriminatin laws, this has nothing to do with gender diversity. It seems you are having a troube understanding that they are two separate concepts, which is crucial is you're going undestand the arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Right, not to discrimination.
    In the wider context probably not, but this does rule out isolated cases of discriminatation that need to be addressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Why? Women make these choices freely. Lefty feminists don't really believe in free choice for women.
    It's about expanding choices, again it looks the argument has gone over your head. It about facilitating the option for women to both fulfil the domestic and professional roles mutually. This will help the loss in productivty created when women exit the workforce or reduce their role capacity due to family responsibilities. It also save the organisations the cost associated with the loss of knowledge capital and recruitment costs. Strategies such as work from home as a good example of such productive intiatives.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The market is the best place to decide this, because it means that people are freely voting with their own money.
    Government can facilitate by provding incentives.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Then prove it. The lefy Anointed argue that mere disparity in numbers is proof of discrimination, since it allows them to expand government power over the private workplace.
    Simply look at the many court cases that involve discrimination against women, you will find it has often been proved time and time again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Did you listen to what Dr Sowell said about that? The 77 c/$ is crap because the work is NOT equal. When allowances are made for number of hours and years worked, avoidance of dangerous jobs (by far the most workplace deaths are men), time off for child raring, there is no discrimination, which would be insane if Obamov's feminazi-parroting claim were true.
    Did you listen to what I said, obviously not, I said there are isolated cases of discrimination (well documented), laws need protect against these cases.

    It is also in the governments interest to facilitate programs that assist in the reuction of the facotrs mentioned by Sowell for causing the disparity, particularly the time spent out of the labour force, as the could potentially contribute to increased productivity and GDP.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's governments and non-profits where discrimination was most widespread, not businesses in the free market..
    Typical moronic minarchist statement, the real point is that discrimination exits primarily where there is little or no consequence, these situations occur just as frequently in private enterprise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Good, then you'd better oppose affirmative action for women and blacks then, because this is discriminatory sexism and racism.
    Dont really have an opinion on this since I have little or no experience with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    As if you'd know.
    It's not hard when there are some fundamental flaws in hi argument that are immediately apparent to anybody with a remote idea about labour process in the modern business organistation.

  10. #55
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It should be better than it is, because the present crisis was largely due to government sticking its fat beak into the market.
    This is not true. It was largley due to incomplete information. The transfer of risk to third parties through mortage securtisation and the fact that this risk was incorrectly priced due to incomplete information in the transactions is regarded as the primary cause.

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356

    Sowell on the real purpose of the "stimulus": increased government power in our lives

    What Are They Buying?
    by Thomas Sowell
    27 Jan 2009

    ...

    The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don't want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation. But the latest statistics shows that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

    Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather roundabout way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an "emergency" measure.

    Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate, and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications, before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.

    Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

    Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.

    If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

    If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

    None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

    No matter how many times President Barack Obama tells us that these "extraordinary times" call for "swift action," the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

    If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

    One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

    This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin. Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.

    That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.

    What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending? They are buying what politicians are most interested in-- power.

    ...
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Evidence?
    We have discussed affirmative action before, and this included evidence for the above. In Malaysia, their apartheid bumi-putra laws have increased the inequality between rich Malays and poor ones.

    Strawman. I said i support anti-discriminatin laws, this has nothing to do with gender diversity.
    And as I've documented, the market is the best cure for discrimination. Where the cost of discrimination doesn't matter, e.g. in government and non-profits, there is the greatest discrimination. Sowell points this out with both women and blacks, where the greatest gains were in the decades before equal pay and civil rights laws laws were enacted.

    It's about expanding choices, again it looks the argument has gone over your head.[/QUOTE]
    Nothing you say is capable of that. But the Anointed like to argue by dismissal, as Sowell documents.

    It about facilitating the option for women to both fulfil the domestic and professional roles mutually. [/QUOTE]
    Famous feminazi Simone de Beauvoir argued that women should not be given a choice between work and home because “too many women would make the choice to stay at home and care for their children.”

    Government can facilitate by provding incentives. [/QUOTE]
    Government incentives usually have adverse unintended consequences.

    Simply look at the many court cases that involve discrimination against women, you will find it has often been proved time and time again. [/QUOTE]
    What is the standard of proof? Often that there is a smaller percentage of women.

    Did you listen to what I said, obviously not, I said there are isolated cases of discrimination (well documented), laws need protect against these cases. [/QUOTE]
    Hard cases make bad law. They have done far more harm than good. One case is alleged discrimination against blacks in aptitude tests. Now employers just insist on a uni degree, which fewer blacks obtain, making it even harder. And if employers have to pay women for a year when she's not working and raising her child, they are more likely to find an excuse not to hire yuong women in the first place.

    Typical moronic minarchist statement, the real point is that discrimination exits primarily where there is little or no consequence, these situations occur just as frequently in private enterprise. [/QUOTE]
    Typical moronic Anointed statement. It stands to reason that if behaviour is costly, there is likely to be less of it.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 27-01-2009 at 06:44 PM. Reason: fix quote tag
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    ...If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

    If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster...
    Or better stiill, follow the Australian example and stimulate spending even faster by giving direct cash grants to the populace

  14. #59
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    We have discussed affirmative action before, and this included evidence for the above. In Malaysia, their apartheid bumi-putra laws have increased the inequality between rich Malays and poor ones.
    Affirmative action has nothing to do with anti-discrimination. In fact it is a form of discrimination. You said that anti-discrimination laws are bad I asked for evidence you provided none.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And as I've documented, the market is the best cure for discrimination. Where the cost of discrimination doesn't matter... there is the greatest discrimination.
    That is true but you fail to realise that discrimination in private organisations often occurs because they do not pay the cost of that discrimination or the cost is not significant enough to deter the behaviour.

    For example a retail outlet sacks a worker when they find out she is a muslim, the drop in sales or loss of customers may be insignificant. However the action is morally wrong and should be discouraged by law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Nothing you say is capable of that.
    Many things make expand this capability like flex-time, child care at workplace etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Famous feminazi Simone de Beauvoir argued that women should not be given a choice between work and home because “too many women would make the choice to stay at home and care for their children.”.
    Well she was an idiot. There correct thing is women shouldn't have to chose between the two because there is no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive in this day and age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Government can facilitate by provding incentives.
    Government incentives usually have adverse unintended consequences.

    Possibly they also often have positive intended consequences

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What is the standard of proof? Often that there is a smaller percentage of women.
    I dont know of any such cases, it usually involves harrasment, employment decisions that go against merit etc. I know of no anti-discrimination laws that impose quotas on anybody. This would not be anti-discrimination, it would be affirmative action a totally separate and distinct concept.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Hard cases make bad law. They have done far more harm than good. One case is alleged discrimination against blacks in aptitude tests.
    Never seen any anti-discrimnation laws that would enforce such garbadge. If such a case has been made I would that is stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And if employers have to pay women for a year when she's not working and raising her child, they are more likely to find an excuse not to hire yuong women in the first place.
    Again this has nothing to do with discrimination, and such measures should be adopted by the business voluntarily. However government can provide incentives if its in the national interest such as to combat the ageing population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Typical moronic Anointed statement. It stands to reason that if behaviour is costly, there is likely to be less of it.
    Exactly, but it often costs just as little in private enterprise as public.

  15. #60
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    Or better stiill, follow the Australian example and stimulate spending even faster by giving direct cash grants to the populace
    No, only to selected parts of the populace as a one-off vote bribe, rather than tax cuts to all (all those who pay tax anyway) which have both immediate and long-term effect. The targeted bribe was oh-so-well used: pokies were the largest beneficiary.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge
    By Spiny Norman in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 11:03 PM
  2. meta-debate from clocks thread
    By Mischa in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 22-01-2007, 07:54 PM
  3. ACCF Gems
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 06:16 PM
  4. Rules of thread splitting- basic rights
    By firegoat7 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 23-02-2005, 08:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •