What do you all think of the Tea Party?
As far as I can see, the liberals in the Democrat Party, and the spineless progressives in the Republican Party are leading this country down the economic road to oblivion. That being said, I am open to a new party that more closely matches my philosophy and desires, and will promote policies that will serve society rather than enslave it.
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Suffice it to say your attitude and unwillingness to see what is actually being said make you one of the funnier folks I have debated in a while.
As for finding "even ONE article that contradicts what [you've] been saying," what I found is that none of the *AGREED* with you -- and it was *YOU* who said I would.
None of them discussed how women are economic morons. One (from USA Today, like *that* is a resource *anyone* would use to prove *anything*) had a few anecdotes and used unfounded references -- so it was not any help to your cause.
I did not realize you meant only to say, "In my little corner of the universe, which has no relevancy to the discussion at hand, there is a purely localized and limited exception to the general rule: I know a handful of women who may not meet the National trend and may be smarter than the males in my personal social group regarding economics".
I accept responsibility for mistakenly believing that you had some intention to be relevant.
In this study, done for the National Council on Economic Education, the purpose was to determine what young people and adults knew about economics. The results in the Major Findings section speak for themselves.
1) http://www.ncee.net/cel/WhatAmericansKno...
"What American Teens & Adults Know About Economics"
(Prepared for:The National Council on Economic Education)
Major Findings
"Males are more likely than females to get an “A” or “B” (adults: 51% vs. 17%; students: 12% vs. 6%)"
"Females are more likely to get an “F” than males (adults: 42% vs. 15%; students: 67% vs. 54%)"
Get that? Men are 3 times more likely to score an "A" or a "B". The women are 3 times more likely to score an "F".
Here's a graphic: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006...
Note, this isn't a "fluff" piece. It's not an opinion piece. They're not some guy saying, "I know a bunch of women who are stupid about economics." The NCEE study is a, "nationwide sample of 3,512 U.S. adults aged 18+ and 2,242 U.S. students in grades 9-12". This significantly trumps your sample of "some women I know" and your methodology of "I think they are smart about economics."
Not to belabor the point, but you asked:
2) http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/AMAE/Vo...
Behavioral Biases in Economic and Financial Knowledge:
Are They the Same for Men and Women?
Andrey Kudryavtsev1 and Gil Cohen
"[W]omen are more strongly affected by...hindsight and anchoring bias" regarding economic and financial knowledge.
3)https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/67721/1/732597579.pdf
What do people know about the economy? A test of minimal economic knowledge in Germany
"We found a gender effect, revealing that women had less economic knowledge than men. However, the magnitude of the difference is nevertheless surprising, given that women participate in the economy today much more than in past decades." (Note: This deals with the deficient economic knowledge of women in GERMANY, so you may choose to disregard it as inapplicable to AMERICAN women's knowledge. But since cites have been made to the Weimar Republic for the proposition that men are equally stupid, I thought I'd include it.)
4) "The Gender Gap of Economics:
Why Do Men Think More Like Economists?
Evidence from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy"
This isn't actually a different study, but rather is an attempt to explain the woefully deficient knowledge of women regarding economics as revealed in the NCEC study (#1 above)
In relative part:
"Male adults are more interested than female adults, who are more interested than male students, who are more interested than female students. These differences are highly statistically significant: ... groups' interest in and knowledge of economics line up: Male adults score higher than female adults, who score higher than male students, who score higher than female students.
But why would differences in interests lead to an interaction effect between gender and education rather than a simple level effect? There is a logical explanation. The longer a student stays in school, at any level, the more opportunities he or she has to learn. Some learning opportunities come through formal classroom instruction; others are a byproduct of social interaction. In both cases, though, the probability that a person takes advantage of opportunities to learn about a particular subject depends on how interesting he or she finds the subject. Since men find economics more interesting than women do, the longer they stay in school, the greater the disparity in their knowledge becomes."
5) You've already cited the study saying that female knowledge of politics is deficient compared to men: (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013...). I'll only point out the economic policy is indeed political in nature.
Your turn.
In this study, done for the National Council on Economic Education, the purpose was to determine what young people and adults knew about economics. The results in the Major Findings section speak for themselves.
1) http://www.ncee.net/cel/WhatAmericansKno...
"What American Teens & Adults Know About Economics"
(Prepared for:The National Council on Economic Education)
Major Findings
"Males are more likely than females to get an “A” or “B” (adults: 51% vs. 17%; students: 12% vs. 6%)"
"Females are more likely to get an “F” than males (adults: 42% vs. 15%; students: 67% vs. 54%)"
Get that? Men are 3 times more likely to score an "A" or a "B". The women are 3 times more likely to score an "F".
Here's a graphic: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006...
Note, this isn't a "fluff" piece. It's not an opinion piece. They're not some guy saying, "I know a bunch of women who are stupid about economics." The NCEE study is a, "nationwide sample of 3,512 U.S. adults aged 18+ and 2,242 U.S. students in grades 9-12". This significantly trumps your sample of "some women I know" and your methodology of "I think they are smart about economics."
Not to belabor the point, but you asked:
2) http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/AMAE/Vo...
Behavioral Biases in Economic and Financial Knowledge:
Are They the Same for Men and Women?
Andrey Kudryavtsev1 and Gil Cohen
"[W]omen are more strongly affected by...hindsight and anchoring bias" regarding economic and financial knowledge.
3)https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/67721/1/732597579.pdf
What do people know about the economy? A test of minimal economic knowledge in Germany
"We found a gender effect, revealing that women had less economic knowledge than men. However, the magnitude of the difference is nevertheless surprising, given that women participate in the economy today much more than in past decades." (Note: This deals with the deficient economic knowledge of women in GERMANY, so you may choose to disregard it as inapplicable to AMERICAN women's knowledge. But since cites have been made to the Weimar Republic for the proposition that men are equally stupid, I thought I'd include it.)
4) "The Gender Gap of Economics:
Why Do Men Think More Like Economists?
Evidence from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy"
This isn't actually a different study, but rather is an attempt to explain the woefully deficient knowledge of women regarding economics as revealed in the NCEC study (#1 above)
In relative part:
"Male adults are more interested than female adults, who are more interested than male students, who are more interested than female students. These differences are highly statistically significant: ... groups' interest in and knowledge of economics line up: Male adults score higher than female adults, who score higher than male students, who score higher than female students.
But why would differences in interests lead to an interaction effect between gender and education rather than a simple level effect? There is a logical explanation. The longer a student stays in school, at any level, the more opportunities he or she has to learn. Some learning opportunities come through formal classroom instruction; others are a byproduct of social interaction. In both cases, though, the probability that a person takes advantage of opportunities to learn about a particular subject depends on how interesting he or she finds the subject. Since men find economics more interesting than women do, the longer they stay in school, the greater the disparity in their knowledge becomes."
5) You've already cited the study saying that female knowledge of politics is deficient compared to men: (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013...). I'll only point out the economic policy is indeed political in nature.
Your turn.
I wonder why anyone who believed the institutionalized theft system as devised by women was okay would even be on this web site? If anything, Rand railed quite specifically against the sort of socialism women have constructed and which you (apparently) endorse... or at least do not condemn.
If you want to be a sucker twice, that's fine - as long as you're not doing it with someone else's resources. Perhaps you are just more forgiving than I. Personally, if someone is stealing from me, and then is disadvantaged because of the method of theft, I feel NO obligation to help them in any way. Some might even call it "karma".
As for the tests: It's the trend that is important. That trend (a sample of millions of college-bound students) has been uniformly downward for 4 decades... a solid indication that whatever enables a person to do well on the test (knowledge, intelligence... luck?) has been in uniform decline for 40 years. You're free to ascribe the decline to a drop in luck... but I would disagree. In addition, the research that indicates a drop in intelligence, is actually a separate study which did not reference the SAT. It is my own conclusion, with which people are free to disagree, that the drop in SAT scores is due to something other than "bad luck". One contributing factor is almost certainly that there are more stupid people going to college, thus more stupid people taking the test, and consequently, the scores have gone down. But I don't believe it accounts for all of the 40 year trend.
and I object to "Repel..". Late is late, not a reflection of one's morality, intelligence or character . Fransisco is late - indeed, absent - from a breakfast that he, John and Ragnar have had together every year for 12 years. Does that mean that the door should be shut in his face when he shows up?
Blanket judgements are [almost] always wrong.
2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10 are apparently irrelevant (by your own admission). If you believe any of these articles contain data that tends to prove or disprove the statement "Women in America have inferior knowledge of economics compared to men in America", I will be happy to revisit them.
Articles 1 and 5 tend to support my assertion, the former with statements such as, "Women are gaining financial independence to an unprecedented degree — they now make up the majority of college graduates, are nearly half of the labor force and are becoming the primary earners in many households. Yet most remain uneasy or uninvolved when it comes to talking about and managing money.
The repercussions of their lack of knowledge are ones everyone, not just women, will have to bear the burden of, personal finance experts say."
Number 5 does refer to the WORLDWIDE disparity in knowledge between men and women in poitics. The last time I checked, the USA was part of the world, and the lack of economic knowledge I've been speaking of is as applied to political decisions. Unclear whether this directly supports the thesis.
Where are the articles that say women are on the same level in economic knowledge as men? Were you unable to find even ONE article that contradicts what I've been saying?
Here is what I noticed. The "proof" is based on the fact that for every right triangle (meaning one of the angles is 90-degrees), the equation A^2 + B^2 = C^2, where A and B are the lengths of the two legs, and C is the length of the hypotenuse. It works out rather nicely.
But they *assumed* that A^n + B^n = C^n would also work with a right triangle. Pourquoi?
Why the assumption? That was not explained in the proof, so I am looking into it.
Strip Women's Suffrage!
(or, I guess, just "strip women" -- it all depends on your point of view)
I have always had a hard time with blatant generalizations. "All women are..." kinds of lines just make me wonder what is going on in the head of the one saying it.
1) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/per... -- A few anecdotes, some opinion, and few studies which added ancillary information. Their conclusion is mixed -- more women say they are inexperienced with investments, but a lot more are looking into retirement options. Lots of quotes by "generic people," like "personal financial experts say" -- with no reference to who they are. It is what you would expect from USA Today.
2) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/1... -- Pew Research is a reputable organization. The executive summary really doesn't say that women are financial morons.
3) http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/opport... -- nothing about how financially moronic women are.
4) http://www.citelighter.com/business/econ... -- nothing about how financially moronic women are.
5) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2... -- this is "worldwide" and not "in America," plus it is political acumen, not economic.
6) http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACJ748.p... -- A fluff-based international report, but nothing on how financially moronic women are.
7) http://www.unfpa.org/gender/empowerment2... -- this is fluff about how educating girls is more important than educating boys, so we need to get with the program.
8) http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/foc... -- this is a discussion about how women are oppressed and in order to have freedom, they need to have more control over the economic decisions.
9) http://gstudies.asp.radford.edu/sources/... -- a keynote address at a women's conference in New Zealand.
10) http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration... -- a report from the fed on women in America. The link to the PDF is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...
The closest the 97 page report came to calling women economic morons is the frequent references to how women, and "especially women of color" live in poverty.
So, BambiB, I'm not going to keep going for the next 40. Suffice it to say, my comment about using Google to try to do "real research" is not a valid direction stands. Zero of the first 10 items talked about how women are economic morons. Many of them actually made positive comments about women's economic situation and understanding.
That you refuse to accept my own empirical evidence based on my life's experiences is your issue. Basically what you are saying is that unless YOU have REAL RESEARCH to back up what YOU say, then it is worthless. You should be judged by the rules you use to judge others.
In presenting my opinions based on my own experience, I *AM* presenting my "actual data." Everyone seems to understand that but you.
Incorrect. While it may be true that research RESULTS in opinions, I have yet to see a study that contained NO DATA, and consisted purely of an opinion. (Can you cite a single study of any kind, in any field, conducted at any time for any purpose that contained no data?) "
I never said they had no data -- in fact, I specifically said they DID have data, and that the opinion was based on the numbers they had.
Just to help you, here is what I said: "But in the final analysis, someone looked at numbers and formed an opinion based on them."
So you are arguing what I said, even though your own reply shows you agree with it. Are you kidding me? Are you so bent on arguing that you will even take a point where we seem to agree, and argue both sides of it, just for the sake of argument??????
My comments were my opinions based on the peer group I am in. Since my peer group is NOT reflective of your preconceived ideas and attitudes, which seem to be loosely based on someone else's research of some variety, I tossed that in.
Your inability to accept that someone else might have a valid experience that is contradictory to your prejudices and attitudes is your problem, not mine. Deal with it.
Load more comments...