The Economics Party

[kombayn]

Well I can sit here and refute to you that CNN & MSNBC had some of the highest rated debates of both parties of all time, according to Nielsen's and other sources. People who watched Jerry Springer was for shock value and he peaked in ratings over 10 years ago. Maury a stable to day-time talk shows doesn't get high ratings but hits the demographics it needs to sell advertisements and US Weekly, chicks read that shit.

Chicks are not interested in politics, if you want to say Girls are becoming more shallow or getting stupider, I'd say sure, but I have to admit their interests lies in other places. Most women want the men to worry about these things and trust me I don't know a lot of men that watch Jerry Springer, Maury Povich or read US Weekly.

I understand what you're trying to say that more people should care about world changing subjects and the majority actually do, but claiming they're dumb I think isn't exceptionally right or pinning it down to one culture such as America. These type of programs are on all over the country.

A question to you though? What would you find more suitable for the America Culture? I still know tons of literary works that sell, Wikipedia has taken the World by Storm and YouTube has allowed people all over the world (along with Skype) to interact with each other. I know people that play pool, poker, chess, checkers, weird pokemon-type card games, etc. People are interested in what they like. Let them have that freedom without your claims of society being really stupid (even though you have 100% the right to say it). Ya feel me a bit? Nah... It's all good, I try.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I don't think you're quite seeing what I'm saying.

Forty years ago, people would gather to listen to political debates on the radio. They would huddle around the TV to watch LBJ and Nixon address the nation on Vietnam or Watergate. They watched the CBS Evening News, every night. Read the morning newspaper and had a collection of books in the living room or study--a combination of great literary works, history, and popular fiction. People enjoyed a good debate about politics or getting together with friends to play Bridge or Pinochle.

People just don't do that kind of shit anymore. Now we watch Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, and read US Weekly. Tell me that isn't a dumbing-down of the American people.

There is a large anti-intellectual movement in this country and it's sad.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Chicks are not interested in politics, if you want to say Girls are becoming more shallow or getting stupider, I'd say sure, but I have to admit their interests lies in other places. Most women want the men to worry about these things and trust me I don't know a lot of men that watch Jerry Springer, Maury Povich or read US Weekly.

Perhaps you have a case study you could link us to about girls getting stupider?

And "Most women want the men to worry about these things"....Did you read that in a textbook from the '40's or something? That's a ridiculous statement.

[kombayn]

What? The majority of women don't follow politics, it's true and a majority of women (we're not talking Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. And I'll let you know my mom takes care of herself.) want the men to take care of the bills and listen to them for advice. I'm not stating anything out of the obvious, if it comes off sexist... I'm sorry but ask a complete stranger who is female and ask what she likes to do or what are her interests. Politics usually will not be one of them.

Come to Los Angeles and I can introduce you to thousands of dumb women who love US Weekly, watch reality TV shows and don't give a flying fuck about politics. Plus, we consider some of them "gold-diggers". These type of things he stated earlier Jerry Springer, Maury, US Weekly are part of a certain women demographic, if he wants to call them dumb, I agree. I'm just saying calling America dumb-downed and using those examples are not accurate, while it's generalizing a whole nation of people.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Scrum

There is a large anti-intellectual movement in this country and it's sad.

I'm sick of hearing about how well-educated people are "out of touch with reality" and that "we need to start listening to the ideas of your average Joe American."

Last time I checked, really smart people (particularly those in positions of wealth and influence) are there for a reason, and Joe American is just some ordinary guy for a reason also. I don't really care what the Animal Control guy has to say when it comes to US Tax and International Trade Policy. But do I care what the Princeton economist or the VP at Goldman thinks? You better be damn sure I do.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by kombayn

What? The majority of women don't follow politics, it's true and a majority of women (we're not talking Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. And I'll let you know my mom takes care of herself.) want the men to take care of the bills and listen to them for advice. I'm not stating anything out of the obvious, if it comes off sexist... I'm sorry but ask a complete stranger who is female and ask what she likes to do or what are her interests. Politics usually will not be one of them.

Come to Los Angeles and I can introduce you to thousands of dumb women who love US Weekly, watch reality TV shows and don't give a flying fuck about politics. Plus, we consider some of them "gold-diggers". These type of things he stated earlier Jerry Springer, Maury, US Weekly are part of a certain women demographic, if he wants to call them dumb, I agree. I'm just saying calling America dumb-downed and using those examples are not accurate, while it's generalizing a whole nation of people.

And I could come up with male-angled ones as well. The WWE, Maxim, Howard Stern....the list goes on and on. It's not like this is confined to one particular demographic.

[kombayn]

HA! You got me with the WWE one. Maxim... Who doesn't like looking at hot women? And that's still geared towards a younger demographic. Howard Stern is funny, and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

What about people that read the Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, Time, Newsweek, Business Now, MacAddict, PC Magazine, Popular Science, National Geographic and informative information websites?

I agree people can't listen to much on the Radio. It's pretty polluted with bad songs and extreme party-wing AM talk shows. I just feel the statement isn't as cut and dry as you're trying to make it. I do know what you're saying, I'm just trying to throw an extra cent into the subject. Because as we've progressed as a society we've accomplished some truly great wonderful things and extremely outlandish horrible things in our current generation.

I hope you're wrong and we don't end up like this... Idiocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Change the channel. You can't blame people for what they watch, and when they watch shows like that I don't think they watch them agreeing with everything they see on reality tv or mainstream media news. DIRECTV and the Internet have just allowed to see more dumb people in the world, but I'm sure they know a craft you don't and can own you on it. Like maybe, fixing a car or plumbing or... etc. We all have a special talent, just because you may have more knowledge than a person doesn't make them stupid.

Wait, I can too blame them for what they watch. If you don't want to be stupid, don't numb your mind with E! channel idiocy or watch WWE or whatever. Intelligence is innate, but you can 'catch teh stupid' if you don't exercise that intelligence

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

So having a conversation which is over the head of uneducated people sets off bullshit meters?

It's stuff like this that really annoys me about America these days. We're fast becoming a nation of morons.

This is because many policy discussions start with a set of assumptions that are not realistic. That sets of the bullshit meter for many people.

Remeber the real world is not a textbook.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kombayn

What? The majority of women don't follow politics, it's true and a majority of women (we're not talking Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. And I'll let you know my mom takes care of herself.) want the men to take care of the bills and listen to them for advice. I'm not stating anything out of the obvious, if it comes off sexist... I'm sorry but ask a complete stranger who is female and ask what she likes to do or what are her interests. Politics usually will not be one of them.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't very impressive.
You're making a huge claim and you need something other than the small circle of people you know to back it up.

I know more women who are into politics than men. Does my evidence cancel yours out?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This is because many policy discussions start with a set of assumptions that are not realistic. That sets of the bullshit meter for many people.

Remeber the real world is not a textbook.

The real world is not a pair of trousers either.

What happened to the days of the great minds? It seems they are all in the past now. We had Milton Friedman, the father of modern economics. Clearly he was an ivory tower academic eliteist. Einstein. Oppenhiemer, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, etc. Who do we have today? Someone like Friedman would be lambasted by Bill O'Riley as an ivory tower elitest not in touch with the common man. I gaurantee you.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The real world is not a pair of trousers either.

What happened to the days of the great minds? It seems they are all in the past now. We had Milton Friedman, the father of modern economics. Clearly he was an ivory tower academic eliteist. Einstein. Oppenhiemer, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, etc. Who do we have today? Someone like Friedman would be lambasted by Bill O'Riley as an ivory tower elitest not in touch with the common man. I gaurantee you.

YouTube Video

I doubt O'Reilly would call Friedman an ivory league elitist, he probably would have appeared on his show.

Academics realize that there standing in public policy debates is much smaller than it used to be. There are several reasons for that, if you are interested I could copy/paste a paper written by liberal professors that are upset because their stature has diminished.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

YouTube Video

I doubt O'Reilly would call Friedman an ivory league elitist, he probably would have appeared on his show.

Academics realize that there standing in public policy debates is much smaller than it used to be. There are several reasons for that, if you are interested I could copy/paste a paper written by liberal professors that are upset because their stature has diminished.

I wonder if that's why we have so many bad policies. We are ignoring the advice of the smarted and most highly educated and taking advice from idiots with populist appeal instead

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I wonder if that's why we have so many bad policies. We are ignoring the advice of the smarted and most highly educated and taking advice from idiots with populist appeal instead

Some academics have a populist appeal.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Some academics have a populist appeal.

Yea, ones that never get tenure anywhere because they aren't intelligent enough.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Yea, ones that never get tenure anywhere because they aren't intelligent enough.

maybe if they were economic professors, but with other social sciences they would fit right in.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I wonder if that's why we have so many bad policies. We are ignoring the advice of the smarted and most highly educated and taking advice from idiots with populist appeal instead

We ignoring them because of good ole lobbying - money speaks louder than academics