Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » California companies fleeing the Golden State (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: California companies fleeing the Golden State
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, imagine that CA probably has a high failure rate because it has a high start rate as well.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
an you show me a business owner who WANTS to pay 60% in taxes vs not doing that?
Given the profit level that you'd have to reach to face a tax rate that high, I imagine most would be happy to be raking in enough revenue to have a margin so large that some part of it might be hit at that rate.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
an you show me a business owner who WANTS to pay 60% in taxes vs not doing that?
Given the profit level that you'd have to reach to face a tax rate that high, I imagine most would be happy to be raking in enough revenue to have a margin so large that some part of it might be hit at that rate.
Can you answer the question I asked instead of answering a different question?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one wants to pay any taxes ever. But in some scenario where business entrepreneur Q is looking at Texas and looking at Cali, they're going to ask how much its going to cost to run the business versus how much they are likely to earn. The higher-tax state may still be a better deal if there is a better infrastructure in place (paid for by taxes). Whether its a better deal depends entirely on what kind of business you are running.

I'm not sure what the controversy here is. Cali has had a constitutionally mandated limit on taxes for decades, but I'm sure it's more regulated and more taxed than Texas. At this point in history, Texas may be an easier place for certain kinds of new business. So what? Does this mean that one is better and one is worse? Fortunes change. Cali will adjust if it has to -- as will Texas if it finds that the greater pull on its infrastructure eventually requires more spending and tax revenue.

Different states are different. Can we live with that? Does everything have to be a contest between red and blue for Whose Cuisine Reigns Supreme?

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what?
[LOL]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/development/start-up-ny-approves-tax-free-zones-for-ub-20140307

It DOES matter, quite a bit...

quote:
Does everything have to be a contest between red and blue
Who said anything about parties or colors? I just want low taxes everywhere to spur more economic growth.

[ April 11, 2014, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you show me a business owner who WANTS to pay 60% in taxes vs not doing that?
Well, duh, no one wants to pay taxes.

But some people want to live in California. [Smile]

And they want to have clean beaches. And free highways. And clean air to breath. (Believe me, I've tried the other kind, and it ain't good. [Smile] ) And low property taxes. And nice weather (even if we have no water to go with it [Frown] ). And...

You have trade-offs.

In your link, they talk about a guy who moved to New York from California. He said he lost money selling his house, but would make it up from the lower tax rate.

Wait until he sees the property tax on his new $2 million house. [LOL]

In CA, property taxes are held at 1.25%. Not so in New York.

Then there is the heating bill in NY. Travelling through the snow and ice.

Can you show me a business owner who WANTS to go through snow storms every year? Or hurricanes every few years? Or tornados every once in a while?

No place is perfect. You pay taxes wherever you go, one way or another. Business tax vs property tax.

And some places are nicer to live than others.

We all want our taxes to be as low as possible. But we don't always want to pay for those low taxes.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, did you read my entire post? Economic growth also requires city and state services. Low taxes work for initiating new development but the kinds of zones you refer to in NY are temporary pockets to reduce initial overhead. They expire. You have to pay the city and the state for the services it provides, sooner or later.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gosh, however do those lower tax locations EVER survive or even do better than CA?! [Eek!]

After all, without high, high, high taxes we can't have roads, clean water, clean beaches, etc.

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

You are in a silly mood today. The tax burden in NY state is just as high as in California -- according the think tank "Tax Foundation" it's actually the worst state in the country for taxes. Yet it's growth rate is somewhere up in the top 12 these days (actually a lot of the film industry is moving here from Cali).

These tax-free zones which your article refers to are just that -- zones. They are temporary, localized carve-outs to encourage development in certain areas. Obviously, those "tax free" zones are paid for by the tax dollars collected from the rest of the state not in a zone.

Now, as for Texas, please do consider that many of the biggest industries there -- oil, mining, agriculture -- enjoy massive federal subsidies.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did the Google free income graph took into account the cost of paying road tolls everywhere you go ?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does New York actually do with all those taxes they gather?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's revisit the Texas vs. California discussion, particularly in light of a major move (from my neighborhood, in fact) of Toyota from California to Texas. I believe the theme of the original thread was something like "Red States good, Blue states bad and will suffer".

quote:
The Public Policy Institute of California studied this phenomenon over a 15-year period, from 1992 to 2006. It found that less than 2% of jobs lost in California were due to companies leaving, and only 1% of jobs created were due to companies moving in.
Of course, offsetting the Toyota move, Boeing just announced bringing a few thousand jobs from out-of-state into Long Beach, about ten miles from where we live (Toyota is about 5 miles from here). And Texas had to pay $10,000 per job in tax breaks for Toyota.

quote:
In the big picture, Texas and California are seeing strong job growth. Since they bottomed out in the recession, both states have added about 1.2 million jobs.

Because Texas is smaller than California, the same number of jobs = 12% Texas growth, and only 8% California growth, so Texas jobs as a percentage of population were 50% greater than California

quote:
Average wages, adjusted for inflation, have fallen in both states since 2007. But they have fallen 3.8% in Texas, compared to 2.1% in California, according to Labor Department data
Wages in Texas (that started lower than those in California) fell 80% more than they fell in California; not great in either place, but worse in Texas.


link

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's another study of states that elected Governors of opposing parties who came into office in January 2011: California, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Minnesota. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Sam Brownback of Kansas implemented strongly Republican policies (anti-regulation, cut taxes on the wealthy, anti-union) and Jerry Brown of California and Mark Dayton of Minnesota moved their states strong in the direction of policies favored by Democrats.

We have all heard conservatives assert that their policies work better; this whole thread was founded on the premise that because California is dominated by Democrats, those policies will hurt job creation. Well, some economists compared job creation with the rankings how business-friendly the states were using a main standard used by Republicans, the ALEC-Laffer Economic Outlook Rankings. The results

quote:
"Kansas and Wisconsin, ranked 15th and 17th in terms of the ALEC-Laffer Economic Outlook Rankings, are doing equally badly relative to US employment growth. In contrast, Minnesota (ranked 46th) is outperforming the United States and those two states...What about California? It is ranked 47th by ALEC-Laffer, and yet is doing the best in terms of employment amongst the four states."
link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The author's addendum where he redoes the analysis with all 50 states and gets the same results.

econbrowser.com

quote:
While the proportion of correct predictions is quite low (the pseudo-R2 is 0.003), the coefficient on ALEC2013 is always negative regardless of specification. The interpretation of the impact of a higher ALEC-Laffer ranking on growth rank is ambiguous in general (and has to be calculated out numerically). However, for the top decile (using the “binned” data), it indicates a higher ALEC-Laffer ranking reduces the probability of being in the top decile. For the bottom decile, a higher score implies increases the probability moving into the lower decile.

Bottom line: If there is any evidence, it suggests that a higher ALEC-Laffer Economic Outlook score is associated with a worse economic performance, as measured by 2013M01-2014M03 growth using the Philadelphia Fed’s coincident indices.


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The latest on California vs. Texas - which will do better, the state with the Democratic Governor and Legislature or the state where Republicans are in charge

quote:
For years, business lobbyists complained about what they derided as "job killer" laws that drive employers out of California. Rival state governors, notably former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, made highly publicized visits to the Golden State in hopes of poaching jobs.

But new numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tell a different story. Total jobs created in the 12 months ending Jan. 31 show California leading other states. California gained 498,000 new jobs, almost 30% more than the Lone Star State's total of 392,900 for the same period.

How could this possibly be, because conservatives keep saying that government policies that provide better benefits for the poor and more spending on social services are at least justified because they help the economy do better. What if all of that were false?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When comparing states of different population it is better to compare things per capita. That puts Texas at about 14 jobs per thousand people and California at 13 jobs per thousand people.

Although things are about to get worse in Texas with oil prices so low.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that the per capita clarification is relevant, but note that roughly equivalent performance of the two states is in direct contradiction to conservative predictions.

If more spending on social services and more regulation of industry doesn't actually harm the economy, then it eliminates a major argument against such policies.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's good to pick dates selectively and "prove" something. With the decline in oil prices upon which the texas economy depends, I'm sure you'll claim it again soon.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're saying that conservative economic policies work only when oil prices are high?

That explains a lot... [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was actually running these calculations over time even though California has had droughts for most of this span (and agriculture is a huge California industry) and Texas has had the best windfall in energy prices in 35 years
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naturally, this is why studies are done academically, to factor out all kinds of other variables. You can't call everything else irrelevant, and look at a gross number like job growth on a statewide basis and use it to claim supremacy or to deny the efficacy of a policy.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Academic studies are only useful/done well when they agree with you.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In addition to Republicans today, this also is the mindset of totalitarians:
quote:
Academic studies are only useful/done well when they agree with you.
Note, I am not saying today's Republicans are totalitarian, because they very much are not - but both groups are similar in a need to demean intellectuals and academics because they cannot abide an independent sort of truth that is not subject to their faith or ideology. And if this sounds like an extreme claim, I offer the example of the Republican position on climate change over the past 20 years.

This is not to say that we must always agree with what any academic study says - but the legitimate response is to engage with the content of the study and the quality of the methodology and data.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
In addition to Republicans today, this also is the mindset of totalitarians:
quote:
Academic studies are only useful/done well when they agree with you.

I suspect he was being sarcastic, or is it ironic?
quote:
Note, I am not saying today's Republicans are totalitarian, because they very much are not - but both groups are similar in a need to demean intellectuals and academics because they cannot abide an independent sort of truth that is not subject to their faith or ideology.
I read an absolutely fascinating article in the NY Times today, about Larry Tribe and his decision to represent Peabody Coal in challenging the EPA on the grounds of executive overreach. I don't think any reasonable person could read that article and attached comments, about a long term champion of the left, and believe that what you just described here as a "Republican" and "Totalitarian" trait is not overwhelming present in the "Left". Any deviation from orthodoxy, opens the flood gates of character assassination regardless of the person or their history, or in this case their long term commitment to principal.
quote:
And if this sounds like an extreme claim, I offer the example of the Republican position on climate change over the past 20 years.
I have read far more reasoned challenges, some of them nonsensical granted, than any kind of rudeness on the right in the area of climate change. And an excess amount of insult and dismissiveness from the left on Climate change over the last 20 years. It's pretty much axiomatic on the left that anyone who doesn't agree with their assertions can't be a thinking person.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have read far more reasoned challenges, some of them nonsensical granted, than any kind of rudeness on the right in the area of climate change.
What rudeness? He's talking about presenting the biased promotional position of the fossil fuel industry funded experts as facts over academic studies that don't have a vested interest in preserving a given industry.

It's perfectly possible to present purely ideological and promotional material reasonably, that doesn't make it any more honest or grounded in the truth, despite a large portion of Republican politicians trying to sell it as such.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I have read far more reasoned challenges, some of them nonsensical granted, than any kind of rudeness on the right in the area of climate change.
What rudeness?
quote:
groups are similar in a need to demean intellectuals and academics because they cannot abide an independent sort of truth
Did your knee hit you in the face when it jerked that hard?

Unless you're asserting that a need to demean intellectuals should NOT be interpreted as rudeness?
quote:
He's talking about presenting the biased promotional position of the fossil fuel industry funded experts as facts over academic studies that don't have a vested interest in preserving a given industry.
Climate researchers, like any academics, have a vested interest in preserving the "industry" of performing climate research. Which if it's not a crisis will have its funding massively cut (and their jobs may go with it). Is it likely they are more altruistic than coal company shills? Sure.

And there are definitely crazies out there on both sides that make claims that exceed the science. It's however, ridiculous to be dismissive of the "other" side to the extent that happens on this topic, especially where most of the arguments on BOTH sides are faith based with scientific citations attached based on how much the support the cause rather than how good the research is.

I'm really bored with the continual ad hominem attacks on "republicans" that are tossed about on this forum. None of you actually provide evidence, you just throw vague charges up and let the orthodoxy of the mutual echo chamber be the "proof."

[ April 07, 2015, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless you're asserting that a need to demean intellectuals should NOT be interpreted as rudeness?
It can be done rudely, it can be done politely. The tone one uses when casting doubt on academic work from ideological reasons isn't relevant to it serving to demean researched, fact based positions.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The sky is Blue, Pyrtolin. Just want to see if it's instinctive for you.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Climate researchers, like any academics, have a vested interest in preserving the "industry" of performing climate research.
Something that exists independent of climate change issues, since understanding our climate critical to agriculture, construction, shipping and transit, and many other fields of endeavor. To the extent that there's an industry based on addressing climate change, it's almost completely independent of climatology, but rather outgrowths of all the industries that are affected by the climate as the respond to needs for change or work to adapt and improve technology to mitigate their contributions to it, but academic climatology doesn't profit from those innovations.

quote:
especially where most of the arguments on BOTH sides are faith based with scientific citations attached based on how much the support the cause rather than how good the research is.
IF that were true, it would be right. But that's actually a propagandistic lie being perpetuated to demean the actual fact based positions by implying that they're just as biased as the intentionally deceptive - a perfect example of demeaning academics without being rude, just a presentation of a deceptive false equivalence in order to make it seem like both positions are equally ideological.

Perfectly polite, but completely false, to cover up the fact the the fossil fuel industry's position is propaganda by implying the fact based position is less than fact based.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Climate researchers, like any academics, have a vested interest in preserving the "industry" of performing climate research.
Something that exists independent of climate change issues, since understanding our climate critical to agriculture, construction, shipping and transit, and many other fields of endeavor. To the extent that there's an industry based on addressing climate change, it's almost completely independent of climatology, but rather outgrowths of all the industries that are affected by the climate as the respond to needs for change or work to adapt and improve technology to mitigate their contributions to it, but academic climatology doesn't profit from those innovations.
The "industry" of performing climate research, is not "an industry based on climate change," which means your concern about their profit off its innovations is misplaced.
quote:
quote:
especially where most of the arguments on BOTH sides are faith based with scientific citations attached based on how much the support the cause rather than how good the research is.
IF that were true, it would be right. But that's actually a propagandistic lie being perpetuated to demean the actual fact based positions by implying that they're just as biased as the intentionally deceptive - a perfect example of demeaning academics without being rude, just a presentation of a deceptive false equivalence in order to make it seem like both positions are equally ideological.
IF that were true, you might have a point. Unfortunately, what I was referring to is not that the scientific arguments are faith based, but that the majority of arguments made by adherents on both sides are faith based. The actual comprehension of science by the average person with a strong opinion on climate change is abysmal.

Thus we get people arguing on the one side that the consensus can't be wrong, and on the other side that the earth can't be warming cause it's snowing outside.
quote:
Perfectly polite, but completely false, to cover up the fact the the fossil fuel industry's position is propaganda by implying the fact based position is less than fact based.
Which is bizarre and long way to go to pretend that demeaning someone is the same thing as polite disagreement. Is it really so hard to just admit you missed the reference?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's keep it friendly, everyone. [Smile]
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "industry" of performing climate research, is not "an industry based on climate change," which means your concern about their profit off its innovations is misplaced.
That's my point. the "industry" of climate research- specifically, the academic study of climate- is not affected at all by whether or not climate change is occurring. It is knowledge that is equally valuable across nearly all industries regardless of whether there human caused changes are occurring or not. If you were saying that research put forward by industries that have a stake in selling fossil fuel alternatives was suspect, I'd agree, but the academic research has no such stake in one industry or another, it's not even directly involved in engineering fields that may be using its results to direct research into clean and efficient technologies.

quote:
Thus we get people arguing on the one side that the consensus can't be wrong, and on the other side that the earth can't be warming cause it's snowing outside.
And again, an example of how a small misrepresentation can lead to a false equivalency. What we have is arguments on one side that a strong consensus represents our best current understanding of what's right, that are perhaps slightly misstated for emphasis being equated with attempts to present appeals to anecdotes born our of fundamental ignorance of the issues as equally valid to researched positions on the issue, as well as implicitly, the false suggestion that the meaningful debate is the one between people who may not always represent the position they're advocating quite right rather than between the academic experts in the field and the industry marketing departments that are seeding false information to undercut the facts in favor of better profit margins.

this again gets back the the point, not outright rudeness, but cuts at many levels that undermine the expertise of academic researchers in the field that, while not infallible, are more invested in understanding the actual facts in favor of creating false legitimacy for positions that have an active interest in misleading people and even themselves for profit.

quote:
Which is bizarre and long way to go to pretend that demeaning someone is the same thing as polite disagreement
Falsely framing a demeaning lie about someone as a polite disagreement is a very common political tactic used to lend legitimacy to the false claim. IT does not change the fact that the claim is false and that presenting as if it were reasonable actively serves to demean the valid position.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1