@no1marauder said"How to Lie With Statistics" Daryll Huff
Here's some fascinating data:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
[And then laissez faire capitalism became the predomina ...[text shortened]... ecessary data. "
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/unequal-gains-american-growth-and-inequality-1700
From No.1s post:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
Today people are much better off than they were in colonial days, No.1 has made a deal out of posting interesting titbit indicators from that age.
Therefore people are better off when,"the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
All No.1's research and posting of stats comes crumbling down when it's so easily turned around.
It's a common "How to Lie With Statistics" ploy.
345d
@wajoma saidIt's more common that ignorant people like yourself simply don't understand statistics.
"How to Lie With Statistics" Daryll Huff
From No.1s post:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
Today people are much ...[text shortened]... rumbling down when it's so easily turned around.
It's a common "How to Lie With Statistics" ploy.
It's amusing you continue to rely on a book written 70 years ago by an author with no training in statistics who was paid to write the book by tobacco companies to attempt to refute any link between cigarette smoking and disease. Needless to say, his arguments haven't aged well except to the statistically illiterate like Wajoma.
345d
@wajoma saidGuess when the US hit its highest rate of inequality?:
"How to Lie With Statistics" Daryll Huff
From No.1s post:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
Today people are much ...[text shortened]... rumbling down when it's so easily turned around.
It's a common "How to Lie With Statistics" ploy.
"In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/
Without income and wealth being spread to consumers, rather than concentrated in the hands of a relative few, a capitalist economy cannot be prosperous in the long run.
@no1marauder saidWe saw it when No1 tried to attach his mask wearing control freak regulation with a downturn in wuflu stats, but then in other places the mask wearing control freak regulation could be coincided with increasing wuflu stats, oh dear.
It's more common that ignorant people like yourself simply don't understand statistics.
It's amusing you continue to rely on a book written 70 years ago by an author with no training in statistics who was paid to write the book by tobacco companies to attempt to refute any link between cigarette smoking and disease. Needless to say, his arguments haven't aged well except to the statistically illiterate like Wajoma.
It costs time and money to compile stats, there's always an agenda, and when the stats don't match the agenda they're abandoned, in 83.54% of cases.
The book "How to Lie with Statistics" is essential in deciphering the statistical trickeries they still try to pull 70 years later and into the future.
@no1marauder said"A hilarious exploration of mathematical mendacity... Every time you pick it up, what happens? Bang goes another illusion!" -- The New York Times "In one short take after another, Huff picks apart the ways in which marketers and No1 use statistics, charts, graphics and other ways of presenting numbers to baffle and trick the public. The chapter "How to Talk Back to a Statistic" is a brilliant step-by-step guide to figuring out how someone is trying to deceive you with data." -- Wall Street Journal "A great introduction to the use of statistics, and a great refresher for anyone who's already well versed in it." -- Bill Gates "Mr. Huff's lively, human-interest treatment of the dry-as-bones subject of statistics is a timely tonic...This book needed to be written, and makes its points in an entertaining, highly readable manner." -- Management Review "Illustrator and author pool their considerable talents to provide light lively reading and cartoon far which will entertain, really inform, and take the wind out of many an overblown statistical sail." -- Library Journal "A pleasantly subversive little book, guaranteed to undermine your faith in the almighty statistic." -- Atlantic
It's more common that ignorant people like yourself simply don't understand statistics.
It's amusing you continue to rely on a book written 70 years ago by an author with no training in statistics who was paid to write the book by tobacco companies to attempt to refute any link between cigarette smoking and disease. Needless to say, his arguments haven't aged well except to the statistically illiterate like Wajoma.
344d
@no1marauder saidFor its time, yes. Be reasonable. It is almost like you are saying,,,,you are saying, that for some reason indoor plumbing and a car were craved, when in fact they had just come out of the dark ages, so to speak, and were glad to have wooden floors.!!! What plumbing, what car? Your logic is that I Should have a yacht today!! And yes, it was commonplace that teens did not feel the need for school to get ahead In The Way That People Got Ahead. Hey, apprenticeships were like graduate school.....they were craftsmen, and seem to have gotten through it all OK ....without a car!!
It's useless talking to someone as stupid as you. You think that because a hand full of rich men had a stranglehold over the economy the country was "prosperous"? Here's a reality check:
"The United States in 1900 Previous Next
Digital History ID 3175
Life expectancy for white Americans was just 48 years and just 33 years for African Americans--about the same as ...[text shortened]... %3B%20instead%2C%20they%20labored%20in%20factories%20or%20fields.
That's what you call "success"?
Everyone was equal, i would think you would have loved that.
You are really off the page, silly stuff. Golly, they got along with iphones.
344d
@no1marauder saidWait.....are you saying that it was a bad thing, for income gaps to widen?
Here's some fascinating data:
"Colonial America was the most income-egalitarian rich place on the planet. Among all Americans – slaves included – the richest 1% got only 8.5% of total income in 1774. Among free Americans, the top 1% got only 7.6%. Today, the top 1% in the US gets more than 20% of total income."
[And then laissez faire capitalism became the predomina ...[text shortened]... ecessary data. "
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/unequal-gains-american-growth-and-inequality-1700
I would like for you to tell us what the alternative would have been.
Let me not complicate this question . Please answer straight out.
What, would the alternative have been???
344d
@no1marauder saidHmmmmmm....how long is your 'run' before we all go to hell? 240 years seem short to you? Long?
Guess when the US hit its highest rate of inequality?:
"In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would rem ...[text shortened]... centrated in the hands of a relative few, a capitalist economy cannot be prosperous in the long run.
You are a piece of work.
@AverageJoe1
That is 2 questions.
What would have been the alternative of their NOT having been 'income gaps to widen'???
How much longer, after 240 years, can we 'run' before prosperity is impossible?
I am going to skip my daughter's wedding awaiting your answers. ...to these 2 questions. Just these. 🙂
344d
@averagejoe1 said"Mind the gap, mind the gap" shrieks old No.1, and the gap is his reason for putting his stinking thieving hands on other peoples property.
Wait.....are you saying that it was a bad thing, for income gaps to widen?
I would like for you to tell us what the alternative would have been.
Let me not complicate this question . Please answer straight out.
What, would the alternative have been???
Hears how the gap works.
A poor man doubles his wealth from 50k to 100k.
Over the same period a rich man doubles his wealth 50 million to 100 million. The poor man is twice as well off as he was but the gap has grown. How to lie with stats.
344d
@wajoma saidReasoned common sense. A thumb from Joe.
"Mind the gap, mind the gap" shrieks old No.1, and the gap is his reason for putting his stinking thieving hands on other peoples property.
Hears how the gap works.
A poor man doubles his wealth from 50k to 100k.
Over the same period a rich man doubles his wealth 50 million to 100 million. The poor man is twice as well off as he was but the gap has grown. How to lie with stats.
Factoid: You make that so clear, but Libs find fault with it because you leave out Marauder-like phrases like 'Policies promoting social equity'.
I am not being a smarty, Marauder. Am I not correct that you have a need to always included other people and government when talking about juist 2 people?
@wajoma saidLMAO! Actually if every percentile group doubled its wealth, the percentage of the total going to each would remain the same.
"Mind the gap, mind the gap" shrieks old No.1, and the gap is his reason for putting his stinking thieving hands on other peoples property.
Hears how the gap works.
A poor man doubles his wealth from 50k to 100k.
Over the same period a rich man doubles his wealth 50 million to 100 million. The poor man is twice as well off as he was but the gap has grown. How to lie with stats.
344d
@no1marauder
Forum Observation: Did Mr. Marauder overlook the two pertinent questions put to him, just preceding the above exchange? Maybe he is digging into Lexisnexis.
344d
@averagejoe1 saidMaybe, unlike you, I have other things to do besides chatting on internet boards. Like working for instance.
@no1marauder
Forum Observation: Did Mr. Marauder overlook the two pertinent questions put to him, just preceding the above exchange? Maybe he is digging into Lexisnexis.