If liberals are smart and highly educated ---- why this

I understand them. You are the one who doesn't. You clearly have no clue how much misinformation an average can portray.

BTW....another brilliant deflection, you really have a gift.

 

They hide nothing

 

Yea, you really know nothing about statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/when-numbers-mislead.html

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/personal-finance-101-how-averages-lie/

Seriously, stop posting about this topic, you really don't have a clue.

Those are just 2 links, there's plenty more if you want to learn why averages can be misleading and not portray the true nature of the data they represent.

I'm sure you'll choose to remain ignorant as it will keep you feeling better about our conversation, but at least you now know that you lack knowledge, whether you admit it or not.

 

An average means some are above and some below that's all. You are off in the bushes.

 

Let me suggest something. Instead of counting how many posters have noticed the fact that you don't know what socialism is, why don't you find out what it is?

 

Gun laws are among the most useless. They conflict with the constitution.
We have got to the point where Democrats regulate speech. From them we get the gift of hate speech.

As progress is made, of course laws also grow whiskers and or mold and need removal.

 

As Dr. Lindzen agreed with me, averages in practical terms have little value.

Take the case of average heat reported over this planet.

Use this analogy. Say you have 100 homes. Say 10 percent of the occupants hate heated homes and live in comfort at 45 degrees, 10 percent at 55 degrees and so forth. The hottest home may be over 100 degrees. The point is, the 100 degree home melts icecubes at a rapid rate, much faster than the coldest home. Averaged out, it is meaningless.

 

The point here is that college graduates make more money than those that have not graduated from college

 

Possibly because that's true?

 

See?

You haven't interacted with me on the topic at all, yet you assume that I don't know what it is.

That's because you don't care my opinion of what it is; you WANT to say that I don't know what it is.

My family lived it. Firsthand. I know it as well as anyone can.

 

Yeah?

Who knows what it is, then? You? What makes you correct on what it is, and - yet - no one with whom you politically disagree?

 

A purely socialist system of governance is as fanciful as a purely libertarian one. Absolutist ideological utopias are the airy-fairy stuff of fiction.

In reality, the all most successful nations are democratic, regulate capitalism, and establish institutions that serve all the people, the pragmatic consensus that has been achieved via actual experience.

 

And when your 'preferred fire fighting corp' is impacted by economic downturn, and has laid off staff and sold on a couple of appliances, or has had to start hiring under-qualified immigrant 'professionals' because they work cheaper - or when the CEO has started paying himself more because he needs another yacht ... and service quality deteriorates as a result ..... you'll be okay with that?

 

As I scan postings here I find many contributors are under the illusion that socialism is simply a form of communism that doesn't allow capitalism to function where it rules. I've tried to point out that socialism is more like capitalism than it is like communism, simply because it DOES allow and embrace capitalism as an integral part of its system. However, unlike capitalism, it provides for the welfare of its own citizens who are socially or economically disadvantaged or simply not mentally oriented toward wealth accumulation. Socialism is capitalism with a heart. Neither capitalism or communism have a heart. Your post above actually demonstrates part of what I've been trying to illustrate--that socialism DOES allow individuals to become rich. Many American conservative and alt-rightists are convinced this is not true. I've just been trying to illustrate that socialism is NOT communism. Your post demonstrates that under socialism no one is prevented from pursuing wealth--even extreme wealth. Socialism is the best overall economic system invented so far by man, and Democratic Socialism is the most fair, most responsive and most democratic political system developed by man so far--though I don't presume that it couldn't also be improved.

 

Well, given I spend next to no time on that particular issue, I do have some anecdotal stories that show that a very high degree at times curtails chances to get a job.

 

That's scarey.

 

It is.. but I think its pretty typical...

 

Yes I know people that never finished high school and are advanced systems administrator making really high incomes, exceptions to the rule are just that exceptions to the rule

 

if they weren't greedy they'd never fall for socialism.

 

I have a son that finished high school, but that ended it for him. He has long earned much more than an engineer I know of that has long had his Ph. d. Degree. Once upon a time, the Ph. d. had a job paying more than his job for a utility company paid him. Of course government regulated the utility.

 

No, it actually doesn't mean that. Not in the way you said it.

It means at least 1 is above and at least 1 is below....not some.

You lack of knowledge here is on full display....care to keep going (and deflecting like crazy)?

 

I didn't assume anything. You said that people were telling you that you didn't know what socialism was, when I was responding to a question from another poster. So I suggested you find out what it is. No conspiracy here.

Well, now I have interacted enough with you to understand what you don't know. (With all due respect to what you and your family experienced) . What you might not know is that "Socialism" is a broad concept that describes numerous political systems.

You might have experienced one form or another of Marxist Socialism (Cuba, Romania, Yugoslavia, North Korea, etc). But that brand of Socialism is basically dead (or dying). It was a failure. The "Socialism" that we are referring to is "Democratic Socialism". Social Democrats, more specifically, propose something very different which has had plenty of success. In other countries and in the U.S.

However, when the right says the word "Socialism" they want to mislead people into thinking that we mean "Marxist Socialism". There is absolutely nobody of any consequence in this country seeking to bring Marxist Socialism. But they use the misconception to undermine a real serious political stance.

 

Two bills currently in process in the Congress come immediately to mind. The new Republican health care bill that's to replace the Affordable Care Act of Obama, which would disenfranchise 23 million Americans of lower income status from having access to health care, and also raise the cost of health care to older Americans who need it the most. And all this so they can take the money saved in the process and transfer it into a gigantic tax break for millionaires and billionaires. The second bill is that new tax reduction bill, which robs the middle and poorer classes to give more to the ultra-rich to the tunes of billions. This is only two examples. There are many more.

 

Deflecting from what you just keep showing that you don't know anything. Classic trumpster deplorable

 

I've proven my knowledge of statistics far exceeds yours, not only in this thread but in many others.

You've continually spouted out things that are incorrect and have done nothing but hurl insults instead of responding to my posts.

You are wrong and you know it. But in typical lefty fashion, you have this need to be right and place yourself above others (by attempting to tear them down).

Enjoy your life of ignorance, you clearly don't want to improve upon your knowledge base and that's fine with me.