Re: Hillary Clinton Thread

Apr 18, '16, 5:02 pm

DeniseNY Senior Member Prayer Warrior   Join Date: November 30, 2011 Posts: 8,071 Religion: Byzantine Catholic ☦

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Vouthon $250k isn't that much? When the average salary in the U.S. is $32,140 for those age 25 or above? One must really be minted and living in a bubble to be able to say what you just said with a straight face. I agree with Ridge that it doesn't qualify as inordinately "rich" in the sense of, say, a real estate mogul or a Russian oligarch - but "not that much"!? Or living in their own bubble to not understand that ithus can absolutely be true

#1967   Apr 18, '16, 5:04 pm

sallybutler Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: July 3, 2011 Posts: 3,705 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly "rich". So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don't think the Church says that. If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids' college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car? If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don't have homes? You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different. But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man's wealth requires another man's poverty, when that's not true. The better question is why the other fellow can't get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it's something else entirely. We shouldn't buy into it. But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people's stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions. However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable. I will admit that I don't know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won't exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon. __________________ 'Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.' James 1:26

#1968   Apr 18, '16, 5:09 pm

Vouthon Senior Member   Join Date: November 1, 2010 Posts: 7,140 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by sallybutler But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people's stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions. However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable. I will admit that I don't know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won't exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon. Benedict XVI was referring to social democrats, whom he distinguished from anti-Christian Marxist socialists: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...ts-discontents Quote: EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS by Pope Benedict XVI January 2006 But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, [b]socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness. He was referring specifically to the British Labour Party, which is the traditional party of UK Catholics. Sanders does adhere to this same tradition. __________________ With insight into the futility of narrow nationalistic politics, the countries of Europe which have agreed to delegate sovereignty to a supranational organism have embarked on a salutary way - Pope Pius XII (1957)

#1969   Apr 18, '16, 5:10 pm

Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by sallybutler But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people's stock or take away jobs from others. In other words, there are no easy solutions. However, I just read something that said Pope Benedict said that Democratic Socialism was closer to what the Church believes in than Anglo Saxon capitalism. So, yes, some redistribution is reasonable. I will admit that I don't know what that level is. But I am pretty sure that the U.S. won't exceed that level(or even reach it) anytime soon. I think I would have to see a reputable source saying "Democratic socialism" (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don't think you'll find one, but you can try. By "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn't capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century? And socialism, of its nature, is not "democratic". It's totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no.

#1970   Apr 18, '16, 5:13 pm

Vouthon Senior Member   Join Date: November 1, 2010 Posts: 7,140 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner I think I would have to see a reputable source saying "Democratic socialism" (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don't think you'll find one, but you can try. By "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn't capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century? And socialism, of its nature, is not "democratic". It's totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no. See the quote above. He was referring to social democracy - often incorrectly called democratic socialism. It still operates within a market economy, so no - he isn't referring to state ownership of the means of production or the abolition of private property. He's referring to the UK Labour Party under Clement Attlee in 1945 and the Nordic countries. He did not say it was superior to Anglo-Saxon capitalism (I don't recall him referring to this at all), merely that it has many affinities with and is very close to Catholic Social Doctrine for which reason UK Catholics, among others in Europe, came to adhere too it as their own political philosophy and party. He clearly approves of it __________________ With insight into the futility of narrow nationalistic politics, the countries of Europe which have agreed to delegate sovereignty to a supranational organism have embarked on a salutary way - Pope Pius XII (1957)

#1971   Apr 18, '16, 5:16 pm

Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by sallybutler But if you give people decent jobs, then you may decrease the value of people's stock or take away jobs from others. . It's actually the opposite. Capital (e.g. stock) has more value when unemployment is low, and less when it's high. That's because there has always been a 1-3 ratio between income going to capital versus that of labor. Or at least it has been true since 1929 when the government started keeping records on it. As employment reaches its highest, capital is more utilized than when it's low, though the greater gain is in worker income than it is in capital income. Think of it this way. Let's say an entrepreneur has a $500,000 machine. If employment is low, wages are low and people can't afford to keep his machine productively operated more than, say, 70% of the time. But if employment is high and people can afford his product, perhaps his machine is productively used 95% of the time. Now, the marginal utility of the labor decreases the higher his production gets to the maximum. But he's still making money on each labor increment, so he hires.

#1972   Apr 18, '16, 5:25 pm

sallybutler Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: July 3, 2011 Posts: 3,705 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner I think I would have to see a reputable source saying "Democratic socialism" (not to be identified with the American Democratic party) is better than "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", whatever that is, according to the Pope. I don't think you'll find one, but you can try. By "Anglo Saxon Capitalism", did he mean the relatively more socialistic system in Canada or the relatively less socialistic system in the U.S? Did he mean the kind of capitalism (which really wasn't capitalism) in Britain in the early 19th Century? And socialism, of its nature, is not "democratic". It's totalitarian, and has to be, because people do not voluntarily adopt outright socialism. Aspects of it, yes, but the whole thing, no. I am currently reading Bad Religion: How we Became a nation of heretics by Russ Douthat, a book that someone on these forums recommended. It is a very interesting look at how religion in America has changed since the 1950's. He touches on many issues. I am currently reading the chapter that is discussing how many popular preachers and denominations have reconciled the need for more things with the Christian life. Obviously, the prosperity gospel is the overt example of this, but there are other subtle variations on the theme being taught in our churches. He mentioned this opinion of Pope Benedict and gave this as the source. I will have to read it next. Pope Benedict XVI, “Europe and Its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006. __________________ 'Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.' James 1:26

#1973   Apr 18, '16, 5:30 pm

Vouthon Senior Member   Join Date: November 1, 2010 Posts: 7,140 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by sallybutler I am currently reading Bad Religion: How we Became a nation of heretics by Russ Douthat, a book that someone on these forums recommended. It is a very interesting look at how religion in America has changed since the 1950's. He touches on many issues. I am currently reading the chapter that is discussing how many popular preachers and denominations have reconciled the need for more things with the Christian life. Obviously, the prosperity gospel is the overt example of this, but there are other subtle variations on the theme being taught in our churches. He mentioned this opinion of Pope Benedict and gave this as the source. I will have to read it next. Pope Benedict XVI, “Europe and Its Discontents,” First Things, January 2006. I provided the actual quote a few posts above __________________ With insight into the futility of narrow nationalistic politics, the countries of Europe which have agreed to delegate sovereignty to a supranational organism have embarked on a salutary way - Pope Pius XII (1957)

#1974   Apr 18, '16, 5:38 pm

Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Vouthon See the quote above. He was referring to social democracy - often incorrectly called democratic socialism. It still operates within a market economy, so no - he isn't referring to state ownership of the means of production or the abolition of private property. He's referring to the UK Labour Party under Clement Attlee in 1945 and the Nordic countries. He did not say it was superior to Anglo-Saxon capitalism (I don't recall him referring to this at all), merely that it has many affinities with and is very close to Catholic Social Doctrine for which reason UK Catholics, among others in Europe, came to adhere too it as their own political philosophy and party. He clearly approves of it I do not have a problem with CAtholic Social Doctrine as enunciated by Pope Leo XIII, then by just about every Pope thereafter, in different ways. It its most shortened form, it calls for the widespread individual and family ownership of productive, inheritable assets. I go along with that 100%. I also accept the notion that too-great reliance on either government or big business is detrimental to a populace because both tend to influence the beliefs of the populace. And both encourage excessive consumerism. So, for example, American industries very largely adopted the Japanese model of "just in time" inventorying. Sounds good and saves money. But it "upstreams" costs to small producers who can't afford it. Along with that (according to me) they seem to have adopted no small amount of corporate "Bushido"; the glorification of the corporate warrior who cuts down all around him and goes down in a bloodbath in the face of a better warrior. In a society as dominated by big corporations and government that is monstrously powerful and allied to big business, it seems to me we have departed a great deal from the papal ideals of Social Justice. Across the pond, that might make me a Social Democrat. Over here, it makes me a conservative near-Republican. (but not quite)

#1975   Apr 18, '16, 5:42 pm

sallybutler Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: July 3, 2011 Posts: 3,705 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Vouthon I provided the actual quote a few posts above Thank you. Here is a link to it http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...ts-discontents This is the paragraph Mr. Douthat may have been referring to. But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness. __________________ 'Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.' James 1:26

#1976   Apr 18, '16, 5:49 pm

sallybutler Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: July 3, 2011 Posts: 3,705 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly "rich". So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don't think the Church says that. If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids' college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car? If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don't have homes? You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different. But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man's wealth requires another man's poverty, when that's not true. The better question is why the other fellow can't get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it's something else entirely. We shouldn't buy into it. Perhaps you could offer to drive your neighbor to and from work or help fix his car. As for the equipment, perhaps the business owner could finance part of it and then give his 10 employees a share of the increased profits that came from the increased productivity. Think outside the box. There are almost always multiple solutions to problems and not all of them scary and doomsdayie. __________________ 'Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.' James 1:26

#1977   Apr 18, '16, 5:54 pm

Vouthon Senior Member   Join Date: November 1, 2010 Posts: 7,140 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by DeniseNY Or living in their own bubble to not understand that ithus can absolutely be true I would love to know where $250k would be considered "not that much". Monaco, maybe? In 2014 it was noted about 30% of the population was made up of millionaires. Geneva? Hollywood, California? Otherwise I can't think of anywhere. __________________ With insight into the futility of narrow nationalistic politics, the countries of Europe which have agreed to delegate sovereignty to a supranational organism have embarked on a salutary way - Pope Pius XII (1957)

#1978   Apr 18, '16, 6:03 pm

Lily Bernans   Join Date: June 9, 2015 Posts: 6,603 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Vouthon I would love to know where $250k would be considered "not that much". Monaco, maybe? In 2014 it was noted about 30% of the population was made up of millionaires. Geneva? Hollywood, California? Otherwise I can't think of anywhere. I've lived in Monaco, Switzerland, and near Hollywood. Lots of homeless in Hollywood, Zuerich is the most expensive city in Switzerland, and $250,000 would still be good there. It's not a lot for Monaco, though.

#1979   Apr 18, '16, 6:25 pm

Expatreprocedit Regular Member   Join Date: February 24, 2014 Posts: 1,158 Religion: Orthodox

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner You are presenting a false choice, at least as far as this country is concerned. Compared to the average person in Haiti, a welfare recipient in this country is incredibly "rich". So, is that welfare recipient morally obliged to send his money to Haiti? I don't think the Church says that. If a person has $100,000.00 and his neighbor needs a new car, but the $100,000 is his kids' college fund, does he have the obligation to deprive his kids of an education and buy the neighbor a car? If a person has a machine shop and the current technology requires that he obtain a CNC machine for $250,000.00, and he has that sum. Is he required to go out of business to put a down payment on houses for 10 others who don't have homes? You are putting this in terms of absolutes when the situation of each person on both ends of the spectrum is different. But the biggest error in it is the evident belief that one man's wealth requires another man's poverty, when that's not true. The better question is why the other fellow can't get a job that pays a decent wage. Instead of worrying about redistributing wealth, this country ought to be concerned about the loss of decent jobs. All the redistributionist talk is just a diversion to make us think some rich fellow is the cause of poverty when, indeed, it's something else entirely. We shouldn't buy into it. It's a simple question, and it's not a false dilemma. The facts are: there are very rich people in this country, and in the world, and there are people without food, shelter and basic medical care in the world and in this country. The question is is that a morally acceptable state of affairs? I think Pope Francis I has given his answer to it. But the fact is that extremes of wealth are socially destructive. If you want to talk economic policy, it has been shown that money spent by the middle or lower classes has a much more productive long term effect on the economy than money spent on luxury goods by the rich. This is known as the "multiplier effect".

#1980   Apr 18, '16, 8:16 pm

JimG Forum Elder   Join Date: May 23, 2004 Posts: 28,250 Religion: Catholic

Re: Hillary Clinton Thread I wonder. If an entrepreneur such as the founder of Facebook, or Google, or Apple becomes a billionaire in one day by taking his company public, does that mean that millions of other people suddenly become poor because of it? If someone wins millions of dollars in a lottery, is he obligated to immediately redistribute his unearned wealth to the poor? What about a man who works his whole life to accumulate the same amount of wealth? (I've heard that 70% of big lottery winners go bankrupt within a few years. I think this is because they treat their winnings as spendable income, rather than as investment assets to be used to generate income.)          Apr 19, '16, 6:15 am Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by zz912 They go bankrupt because they've never handled large amounts of money before, and don't know how to control it or themselves. They don't know how to say "no" to all the sycophants, they don't know how to handle the pressure and stress of that much responsibility. A person walking into a gym for the first time doesn't put 300lbs on a bar and try to bench press it. They have to slowly work out with smaller weights to get strong enough to control the weight and handle it. It is the same with money. If you suddenly have a huge sum of money fall into your lap, you will most likely be crushed by it. It takes a lot of training to handle such large sums of money. One has to wonder at least a bit about this. It's pretty well established that wealth generation is fundamentally premised on living below one's means over a significant period of time. Some do that, and some don't. The question is why. As mentioned previously, there is no particular correlation between income and wealth accumulation. Many who make the "big bucks" spend them all and more on consumer goods of one kind or another. Some who make modest incomes surprise everyone at death when their estates are discovered to be a million dollars or more. I do think "practice" matters in all of that; good habits of life. But isn't "practice" at anything dependent on one's state of mind and his character?   #1997   Apr 19, '16, 6:16 am Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by zz912 No one needs to be reminded of Bill being in the White House. I wonder if Hillary is going to feel comfortable sitting at THAT desk. I think she will be VERY comfortable at that desk. She has had a lot of experience selling influence for money, and the Oval Office will give her opportunities much larger than she has had in the past. She's good at it.   #1998   Apr 19, '16, 6:49 am estesbob Prayer Warrior Forum Supporter   Join Date: May 8, 2005 Posts: 48,606 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner I think she will be VERY comfortable at that desk. She has had a lot of experience selling influence for money, and the Oval Office will give her opportunities much larger than she has had in the past. She's good at it. She might even let Bill continue to use the Butler's pantry   #1999   Apr 19, '16, 6:54 am Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by estesbob She might even let Bill continue to use the Butler's pantry Ewwwww.   #2000   Apr 19, '16, 6:59 am stinkcat_14 Veteran Member   Join Date: June 26, 2005 Posts: 10,534 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner One has to wonder at least a bit about this. It's pretty well established that wealth generation is fundamentally premised on living below one's means over a significant period of time. Some do that, and some don't. The question is why. As mentioned previously, there is no particular correlation between income and wealth accumulation. Many who make the "big bucks" spend them all and more on consumer goods of one kind or another. Some who make modest incomes surprise everyone at death when their estates are discovered to be a million dollars or more. I do think "practice" matters in all of that; good habits of life. But isn't "practice" at anything dependent on one's state of mind and his character? Living below one's means can be a way of wealth generation, but it is not the only way of wealth generation. I am not sure that Bill Gates became wealthy because of steady habits of spending less than they earned. Mainly they took big risks and hit it big. In that aspect, they are not that different from lottery winners. In addition, nobody has established that there is no correlation between income and wealth. You have speculated that there is no correlation, but nobody has presented any data one way or another. Part of the problem is the question of how does one define income.   #2001   Apr 19, '16, 7:31 am Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by stinkcat_14 Living below one's means can be a way of wealth generation, but it is not the only way of wealth generation. I am not sure that Bill Gates became wealthy because of steady habits of spending less than they earned. Mainly they took big risks and hit it big. In that aspect, they are not that different from lottery winners. In addition, nobody has established that there is no correlation between income and wealth. You have speculated that there is no correlation, but nobody has presented any data one way or another. Part of the problem is the question of how does one define income. It wasn't speculation, though the information would be considered outdated at this point. I believe I first read it in "The Millionaire Next Door". That work has been critiqued, not because the critics doubt the accuracy of it at the time it was written, but because critics assert that times have changed and it's no longer possible to start new businesses, underconsume, get the returns, etc. But there is no shortage of those who counsel patient small investing over a long period in order to generate considerable wealth. Necessarily that requires underconsumption, and consuming all or more of one's income, however high, will never get a person there. I will also admit that much of my thinking has been influenced by the dreaded "anecdotal evidence". I see hundreds of loan applications annually, and there really is no correlation between income and wealth in them. I see plenty of people making $100,000 and more annually who don't own anything other than some expensive toys and a pretty significant house. I also see people with much lower annual incomes who have accumulated a surprising amount of wealth, relatively speaking. Some of those are young people. I think the difference between most wealth accumulators and garden variety big spenders is fundamentally psychological. There are certainly exceptions; people whose wealth accumulation has been explosive because of real business genius or a combination of moderate business genius and remarkable opportunity. I see those too, and know enough of them personally to understand how they did what they did. But outliers like them, or like Gates, do not make a rule.   #2002   Apr 19, '16, 8:07 am stinkcat_14 Veteran Member   Join Date: June 26, 2005 Posts: 10,534 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner It wasn't speculation, though the information would be considered outdated at this point. I believe I first read it in "The Millionaire Next Door". That work has been critiqued, not because the critics doubt the accuracy of it at the time it was written, but because critics assert that times have changed and it's no longer possible to start new businesses, underconsume, get the returns, etc. Actually, the problem with their methodology is the sample they use. They use more of a convenience sample it is not really representative of the population as a whole, so it is dangerous to generalize to the entire population from their work. Quote: But there is no shortage of those who counsel patient small investing over a long period in order to generate considerable wealth. Necessarily that requires underconsumption, and consuming all or more of one's income, however high, will never get a person there. Certainly it can be a path to wealth, but it is not the only path to wealth. Quote: I will also admit that much of my thinking has been influenced by the dreaded "anecdotal evidence". I see hundreds of loan applications annually, and there really is no correlation between income and wealth in them. I see plenty of people making $100,000 and more annually who don't own anything other than some expensive toys and a pretty significant house. I also see people with much lower annual incomes who have accumulated a surprising amount of wealth, relatively speaking. Some of those are young people. I agree with you that we need to be very skeptical about generalizing from anecdotal evidence. And of course, the big problem is how do we define income. Quote: I think the difference between most wealth accumulators and garden variety big spenders is fundamentally psychological. There are certainly exceptions; people whose wealth accumulation has been explosive because of real business genius or a combination of moderate business genius and remarkable opportunity. I see those too, and know enough of them personally to understand how they did what they did. But outliers like them, or like Gates, do not make a rule. Income is affected by two main factors. Decisions of the individual and others and then the second component is pure luck. Oftentimes we conflate the two, since it can be difficult to differentiate the two.   #2003   Apr 19, '16, 8:40 am Ridgerunner Forum Elder   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 36,704 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by stinkcat_14 Certainly it can be a path to wealth, but it is not the only path to wealth. I agree with you that we need to be very skeptical about generalizing from anecdotal evidence. And of course, the big problem is how do we define income. Income is affected by two main factors. Decisions of the individual and others and then the second component is pure luck. Oftentimes we conflate the two, since it can be difficult to differentiate the two. No publication is ever without its critics. I never claimed that living below one's means is the only path to wealth. At a point, anecdotal evidence becomes pretty persuasive. I have seen thousands upon thousands of loan applications during my lifetime, and there is no observable correlation between income and wealth. An exception can be made, though not necessarily, for high earners who have "forced savings" plans like 401Ks that they leave alone and do not cash out or borrow against. But I have also seen a lot of borrowing against those. As between decisions of the individual and sheer luck, it is difficult to attribute a whole lot of success to the latter unless one takes a very wide view of "luck", e.g. the country one is born in, the mores of one's parents, their educational level, that of the subject, the influences on his/her life, recognizing an opportunity of a fairly ordinary sort that others can see but do not take advantage of, etc, etc.   #2004   Apr 19, '16, 8:43 am Sy Noe Senior Member   Join Date: October 7, 2013 Posts: 8,022 Religion: Non practicing Roman Catholic with mainline Christian faith Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Lily Bernans Clinton and Trump are expected to win in New York today: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...victories.html No surprise there. No surprise at all, Lily. I won't exactly be surprised though if it's closer than most polls suggest. Given the massive crowds Bernie has turned out although as I will get to in a minute, not everyone in those crowds are necessarily able to vote today, and the polls meant nothing in MI. But NY is a closed primary state where only registered party members can vote in the primary and previously registered voters had to switch their registration to Democratic or Republican by last Oct. That should help Hillary since unless they are first time voters, anyone voting today in either party's primary today had to be registered as a member of the party 6 mos ago or they can't vote. Just ask Ivanka and Eric Trump why they aren't voting for their father. Apparently they were either independents or Democrats and didn't switch by last Oct. Only first time voters had until last month to register and declare. Everyone else had to have their house in order 6 mos ago. __________________ "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage... it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." "The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong." (Pope Francis)   #2005   Apr 19, '16, 9:00 am stinkcat_14 Veteran Member   Join Date: June 26, 2005 Posts: 10,534 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Ridgerunner No publication is ever without its critics. When people use bad methodology it is appropriate to point that out. The danger is when people use bad methodology to get to a result that confirms people's biases and then people the flawed results to suggest that there is some generalization that can be made. It really reflects a lack of critical thinking. Quote: I never claimed that living below one's means is the only path to wealth. True. You did claim that there is no correlation between income and wealth. But as you admit, you have no good data to back that up. You just have anecdotal data, which you admit is flawed. Quote: At a point, anecdotal evidence becomes pretty persuasive. I have seen thousands upon thousands of loan applications during my lifetime, and there is no observable correlation between income and wealth. An exception can be made, though not necessarily, for high earners who have "forced savings" plans like 401Ks that they leave alone and do not cash out or borrow against. But I have also seen a lot of borrowing against those. In my profession we prefer hard data. I am sure we could get the answer if we looked at the Panel Study on Income Dynamics and traced households over a couple of decades. I would be very surprised if the PSID showed zero or negative correlation between income and wealth. But I will admit, in the absence of data we cannot say anything one way or another. Quote: As between decisions of the individual and sheer luck, it is difficult to attribute a whole lot of success to the latter unless one takes a very wide view of "luck", e.g. the country one is born in, the mores of one's parents, their educational level, that of the subject, the influences on his/her life, recognizing an opportunity of a fairly ordinary sort that others can see but do not take advantage of, etc, etc. Where one is born can have a big impact on economic outcomes. That is certainly not deterministic, but random. If you are born to parents who went to Harvard, you probably have more educational opportunities than someone whose parents can read. Those are definitely luck factors. That does not mean that one cannot rise above bad circumstances, many indeed do. It is probably better to be a lucky Harvard legacy than an honor student at a directional state school.   #2006   Apr 19, '16, 9:12 am Lily Bernans   Join Date: June 9, 2015 Posts: 6,603 Religion: Roman Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Sy Noe No surprise at all, Lily. I won't exactly be surprised though if it's closer than most polls suggest. Given the massive crowds Bernie has turned out although as I will get to in a minute, not everyone in those crowds are necessarily able to vote today, and the polls meant nothing in MI. But NY is a closed primary state where only registered party members can vote in the primary and previously registered voters had to switch their registration to Democratic or Republican by last Oct. That should help Hillary since unless they are first time voters, anyone voting today in either party's primary today had to be registered as a member of the party 6 mos ago or they can't vote. Just ask Ivanka and Eric Trump why they aren't voting for their father. Apparently they were either independents or Democrats and didn't switch by last Oct. Only first time voters had until last month to register and declare. Everyone else had to have their house in order 6 mos ago. I expect Trump to win big, Sy, but I expect the numbers for Hillary and Bernie to be fairly close. If she'd win by a double-digit margin, that would be a surprise.   #2007   Apr 19, '16, 12:40 pm Robert Bay Moderator   Join Date: June 26, 2005 Posts: 32,561 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread MODERATOR NOTE This thread is wandering. Please stay on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. __________________ Robert Bay, Moderator Forum Rules Never let evil talk pass your lips; say only the good things men need to hear, things that will really help them. (Ephesians 4:29) Moderator direction can be appealed by sending an email to: forumadmin@catholic.com   #2008   Apr 19, '16, 7:03 pm Lily Bernans   Join Date: June 9, 2015 Posts: 6,603 Religion: Roman Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread A huge win for Hillary Clinton in New York tonight, too. Bigger than even she thought it would be. About 60/40 for both Clinton and Trump.   #2009   Apr 19, '16, 8:30 pm Sy Noe Senior Member   Join Date: October 7, 2013 Posts: 8,022 Religion: Non practicing Roman Catholic with mainline Christian faith Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Lily Bernans A huge win for Hillary Clinton in New York tonight, too. Bigger than even she thought it would be. About 60/40 for both Clinton and Trump. I thought a great speech by her as well following her huge win. As a Sanders supporter, I liked how she spoke about there being more uniting the two camps than there is dividing us against Trump or Cruz. She definitely gave us insight as to how she intends to campaign against Trump or Cruz and win a general election. And I liked it when she spoke about Erica Smegielski, the daughter of the Sandy Hook Elem School principal, and Erica's efforts towards reasonable common sense gun laws. __________________ "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage... it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." "The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong." (Pope Francis)   #2010   Apr 19, '16, 8:39 pm gracepoole Senior Member   Join Date: June 25, 2011 Posts: 7,038 Religion: Catholic Re: Hillary Clinton Thread Quote: Originally Posted by Sy Noe I thought a great speech by her as well following her huge win. As a Sanders supporter, I liked how she spoke about there being more uniting the two camps than there is dividing us against Trump or Cruz. She definitely gave us insight as to how she intends to campaign against Trump or Cruz and win a general election. And I liked it when she spoke about Erica Smegielski, the daughter of the Sandy Hook Elem School principal, and Erica's efforts towards reasonable common sense gun laws. Agreed. I voted for Bernie today but I appreciated her speech.