Orton's Arm

Which is probably why you still haven't caught on to exactly how big a fool you made of yourself.

Your post has utterly humiliated me, and I stand in awe of your greater wisdom and insight. Pollution isn't a problem in this country at all. Neither is overcrowding. The idea that people often get stuck in traffic jams out in California, or wait in long lines for emergency care, or suffer from overcrowded schools--I must have imagined all that. I've also come to believe that we should neither be concerned with poverty in particular, nor with low living standards in general. Because my concerns about those three things are wholly illusionary, any effort to improve the environment, crowding situation, or level of per-person wealth would be utterly wasted. I'm sorry for having been foolish enough to request improvement in any of these three things.

There's a macroeconomic equation, which states the following: Output is a function of Labor * Capital * Technology P = L * K * T So if you increase the population, you increase the labor, while leaving capital and technology the same. This reduces production per person, and hence per-person wealth. In addition you have crowding costs. Take a city like Los Angeles. The way that city's road system is set up, it would be almost impossible to double its transportation capacity. If you double that city's population, you'll create even more traffic jams than already exist. The same can easily be said for most other major cities. There's the fact that a cheap labor supply (read: Third World immigrants) creates a strong disincentive to mechanize or automate anything. Mechanization and automation are keys to higher levels of per-person wealth; as people discovered when they went from hand-plows to animal-powered plows; and thence to tractors. From the point of view of a capital owner such as Bill Gates, the immigration invasion makes sense. You're increasing Labor, and therefore total production. You're keeping capital (and in particular his proportionate share of capital) the same. So he's presumably making more money per dollar of wealth. Good for him. But in this particular case, what's good for wealthy capitalists is bad for everyone else.

I see you're aiming your posts at those above your own intellectual level.

Wrong. Stephanopoulos did say there was a cover-up, which he advised be dropped. He at least claimed to believe the Clintons had done nothing wrong--nothing worth covering up. Hillary's response discredits that claim. The shrewish, privacy protecting Hillary--which you, not Stephanopoulos, have alleged--does not explain why people went to jail rather than testify what they knew about Whitewater.

Quite frankly, it doesn't make much difference whether you're in the "right" or "wrong" thread. Your posts make about as much sense, and contribute about as much, either way.

It's polluted, overcrowded, and poor enough now that I don't want to make those problems any worse. Do I really need to put numbers on these problems in order to say that I don't want them to worsen?

I've heard both the lack of intelligence accusation, and the senility accusation. Maybe senility did start to kick in a little toward the end. But the autobiography was written after his presidency ended. Even with mental powers slightly impaired by whatever senility he might have had, he was still able to write a much better book than most other people could have done.

Too bad you didn't figure out the need for the third G until after you'd created your username.

Does "GG" stand for goo goo gaga?

There are people serving time in jail rather than testify about their knowledge of Whitewater. Stephanopoulos's statement that there was a Whitewater coverup is true, and is not an embellishment. The book as a whole is written in an honest, sometimes self-effacing tone. I believe Hillary really did publicly humiliate him for suggesting the Whitewater coverup be dropped.

How much more polluted, overcrowded, and poor do you want this country to become before you open your eyes to the fact that we can no longer afford to absorb the Third World's population surplus?

I've read the book, and my description is accurate.

I'm basing it on the autobiography of a Clinton staffer. These were Stephanopoulos's own words. Stephanopoulos wrote a) that there was a Whitewater coverup, and b) that Hillary responded very emotionally when it was suggested the coverup be ended. If something like that doesn't convince you, nothing will.

And I'm saying that policies which made sense when this country was empty no longer make sense now that it's full.

An excellent post. I've read Reagan's autobiography An American Life and he writes with clarity and grace. It's a good read, if you're interested in politics and in Reagan's life. Reagan was an intelligent man who liked to communicate in simple ways. This simplicity gave his opponents an excuse to call him stupid; an accusation that was wholly undeserved.

Ahem, Simon, not to burst your bubble or anything, but, well, . . . you are a liberal Democrat.

An excellent post, and GG's response was inane.

Actually, the last thing we need is people commenting on my stats knowledge when they don't know the first thing about stats. Or maybe you think you do know something. Fair enough. Now it's time for you to prove it. Bungee Jumper and I spent about ten pages arguing about regression toward the mean. Suppose someone were to score 140 on an I.Q. test. This could be someone with an I.Q. of 140 who got the right score; it could be someone with an I.Q. of 150 who got unlucky, or an I.Q. of 130 who got lucky. It's more likely this person will be a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more people with 130 I.Q.s than there are with 150 I.Q.s. Should this person retake the test, their expected score the second time around is a little less than 140, because the chances are stronger that the 140 score implies a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150. Bungee Jumper disagrees with this, even though it's correct. But I'd like to hear why you disagree with it. If you're going to talk trash about my stats knowledge, you need to be able to back it up with a cogent explanation. If you're a little anxious about coming up with a convincing explanation, I suggest you go here. You won't find anything with which to refute me, but you'll learn a great deal about regression toward the mean. Maybe more than you wanted to know.

This post rings true, and I've heard that other states with massive immigration problems are experiencing similar hardships.

What part of not wanting to ruin Coli's thread didn't you understand?

I know you take a lot of grief for being a Pats fan on a Bills board, but this was a convincing and informative post. Thanks.

Somehow, I didn't expect you to understand my point. Cross country is a physically demanding experience. It takes self-discipline, self-denial, mental toughness. There is no trash talking before, during, or after a race. You wouldn't fit into that world. If I'm talking to a cross country runner, I know I'm talking to someone who (at least usually) will be self-selected for the traits I've described. That's just how we were. Maybe the bowler has those traits too, but bowling itself does not (at least in my eyes) demonstrate those traits.

I've spent a number of years in the South myself. Yes, there are white voters who'd prefer a white candidate to a black candidate. There are also black voters who, all else being equal, would rather vote for a black candidate than for a white one. Call this racism if you want, but I call it part of human nature. People trust those who have a lot in common with themselves. Take me for instance. I ran cross country in high school. If I hear someone else ran cross country, my instinct is to trust that person more than I would have had that person participated in, say, bowling or golf or something. Not that there's anything wrong with those "sports," but they don't build the common bond cross country does--at least not for me. For someone who played golf in high school, no doubt other golfers seem more trustworthy. Someone who immigrated from Italy is generally going to make friends with other Italians more readily than with others. The same is true of Polish, Irish, or whichever other ethnic group you care to look at. That's just the way people are.

They also brought in a lot of new talent right around the time he left. They realized they had to do something. Look, if I saw players fail under McNally only to succeed elsewhere, I'd be first in line to vote for firing him. I don't know of a single case where that's happened. Maybe someone else does. Take the Bills linemen of the mid to late '90s. One or two of them were released for poor performance, only to do substantially better with the NY Giants. Who was the Giants' line coach at the time? I could be wrong, but I think it was Jim McNally.