“‘In 1970, the top 1% of households held roughly 9% of our nation’s income. In 2005, they held 22%, the highest level since 1929.’ [quoting Senator Hillary Clinton, speaking at a technical school in Manchester, New Hampshire on 29 May 2007]” (Michael Novak. "Economic Reds: A Diagnosis," National Review, 9 July 2007, Vol. LIX, No. 12. p. 40).Poor Michael Novak! Not only does he fall for Hillary’s faulty economic argument, but he makes the mistake of trying to respond to it. Her fundamental argument is silly. It makes little sense to respond to that silliness by trying to argue about exact numbers and percentages in order to arrive at a more palatable position. The exact numbers and percentages make little difference to an argument that’s faulty on a more fundamental basis.
Once again, for those of you of a moronic bent, the top 1 percent of households do not hold any percent of “our nation’s income.” There is no such thing as “our nation’s income.” The expression, “the top 1 percent of households,” is a statistical abstraction without any practical reference to anything existing in the real world. One could also say that the expression, “our nation’s income,” is also a statistical abstraction without any practical reference to anything existing in the real world as well. When we reduce these arguments to their simplest terms, we say “a statistical abstraction” (i. e., “the top 1 percent of households”) holds x-percent of the “statistical abstraction” (i.e., “the nation’s income”). “Statistical abstractions” holding x-percent of “statistical abstractions.” Yeah, like that qualifies as an argument worthy of response. One could make as much sense by saying “the top 1 percent of households” holds x-percent of the Web-Footed Polynomial's Dufus.
No comments:
Post a Comment