Lou Dobbs: The War On The Middle Class

[35Pete]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPZZ5GisyWE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPZZ5GisyWE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

More coming. Very interesting perspective.

[35Pete]

"The industries have controlled H1-B legislation and has been able to block any reforms attempts throughout the years"
Jim Miliano, Attorney.

[35Pete]

"Our first obligation is to the American workers". Sen Durbin.

"Why that could be deleterious to a lot of these so-called corporate policies that pose as legislation".

[jimmifli]

Lou Dobbs is an idiot.

[35Pete]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/myWKjtxE4p8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/myWKjtxE4p8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[35Pete]

Lou Dobbs is an idiot.

Not at all Jimmi. Watch the first two videos. I've heard a lot of words like yours come out of his mouth.

[jimmifli]

Not at all Jimmi. Watch the first two videos. I've heard a lot of words like yours come out of his mouth.
Not even close.

Dobbs panders to the advantaged who want to perceive themselves as victims. It's easy to sell a Boogey men.

[35Pete]

Not even close.

Dobbs panders to the advantaged who want to perceive themselves as victims. It's easy to sell a Boogey men.

Well I appreciate your sinisism (sp?) I really do. Shows me that you don't alway fall for stuf hook, line, and sinker. But, I am listening to the message. And his message is spot dead on. If he's secretly Vlad the Impaler re-incarnate it still does not detract from what he has said on these videos.

[ckg68]

Interesting 180 turn in his views,considering this is the same man who back in the day(when he hosted Moneyline)would have on CEOs and would all but fawn at their feet.

And I sense some hypocrisy...considering that on air he rails about illegal immigration,yet he's willing to turn a blind eye to it when the cameras aren't rolling.(His daughters are equestriennes-and pretty damned good ones....and take one guess what the showjumping industry uses for workers,in part.)

[35Pete]

Interesting 180 turn in his views,considering this is the same man who back in the day(when he hosted Moneyline)would have on CEOs and would all but fawn at their feet.

And I sense some hypocrisy...considering that on air he rails about illegal immigration,yet he's willing to turn a blind eye to it when the cameras aren't rolling.(His daughters are equestriennes-and pretty damned good ones....and take one guess what the showjumping industry uses for workers,in part.)

Well link on that last part if you don't mind.

And again. We all seem to want to skip the content and go right for the character. The message Carl. The message.

I'm not saying you Carl, but here is how most of the mindless approach an issue.

Pete postulates murder is wrong.
Someone googles murder, finds out that Charles Manson said murder is wrong.
Then we get a diatribe on the evils of Charles Manson with questioning of is murder wrong if a scumbag hypocrite like Manson said it was.

[35Pete]

Carl. Read these pages from his book. Music to your ears.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ESerpQhQ22wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Lou+Dobbs#PPA4,M1

[35Pete]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[35Pete]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[jimmifli]

Well I appreciate your sinisism (sp?) I really do. Shows me that you don't alway fall for stuf hook, line, and sinker. But, I am listening to the message. And his message is spot dead on. If he's secretly Vlad the Impaler re-incarnate it still does not detract from what he has said on these videos.
Pete:

The problems Dobbs talks about are real (mostly). The Damage it does to the country is real (mostly). His solutions are impossible and economic suicide.

When somebody appeals to your outrage your BS radar needs to go off. Every Lou Dobbs story is the equivalent of "Where's the outrage?"

[jimmifli]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zoDb3D7B2Zo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Everything those economists said is 100% true. I've said it many times about your immigration issues: It's a supply and demand problem. There is a large demand for cheap labour. There is no supply. Make legal immigration easier and you'd have a greater supply of labour. Trying to limit supply is futile. Trying to limit demand is inflationary.

Protectionism has a long history of failure.

[35Pete]

Pete:

The problems Dobbs talks about are real (mostly). The Damage it does to the country is real (mostly). His solutions are impossible and economic suicide.

When somebody appeals to your outrage your BS radar needs to go off. Every Lou Dobbs story is the equivalent of "Where's the outrage?"

In theory I'd agree but...

I don't know about Canada Jimmi but here in America we are composed of non-thinking dolts that don't really site around and read a paper on anything.

Why there's NBA basketball to watch!

So our society of dumbed down materialistic worker bots will only elicit a reaction when you appeal to their emotions. (I use it from time to time, it works really well).

Nevertheless you still have not mentioned a thing about his message. So far I have seen comment on his motives and his technique. Which compels me to throw a bull shit card.

Why am I surprised that someone hasn't gone and looked for dirt on him? Where's the expose that Lou is secretly a communist and hence.... end of discussion. Then we can all shove our heads back up our asses and never need to look at painful postulates which need further examination. No problem here. Everythings swell.

[anEinherjer]

Pete, please tell me you're not seriously listening to Dobbs... Populism is never the solution.

I'd rather trust economists who are trained in a field and study it exclusively than to trust a CNN anchor banging on his pulpit. Jimmi's already provided most of the best response: Dobbs' plans would make things worse by far.

[35Pete]

Pete, please tell me you're not seriously listening to Dobbs... Populism is never the solution.

I'd rather trust economists who are trained in a field and study it exclusively than to trust a CNN anchor banging on his pulpit. Jimmi's already provided most of the best response: Dobbs' plans would make things worse by far.

Nope. I'd like to know WHY things would be worse. Not a statement of fact but a discussion.

Again. You guys are doing everything here but discussing the issue.

[35Pete]

Pete, please tell me you're not seriously listening to Dobbs... Populism is never the solution.

I'd rather trust economists who are trained in a field and study it exclusively than to trust a CNN anchor banging on his pulpit. Jimmi's already provided most of the best response: Dobbs' plans would make things worse by far.

Classic appeal to authority logical fallacy that does zero to address the pros and cons of the issue. anEin. You should know better buddy. :)

[sukie]

I treat Uterine cancer and the women that present are morbidly obese... Every one of them... Obesity therefore causes uterine cancer!. I'm no expert but I think it would be wrong of me to logically consult researchers who are up on this type of study for information.

Where is the fallacy in my apeal to authority?

[35Pete]

I treat Uterine cancer and the women that present are morbidly obese... Every one of them... Obesity therefore causes uterine cancer!. I'm no expert but I think it would be wrong of me to logically consult researchers who are up on this type of study for information.

Where is the fallacy in my apeal to authority?

Apples and oranges.

Are you asserting that the consult is never wrong or that his word is good enough and therefore must be true?


An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable.

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

[sukie]

Cop out... second time in this thread.

[35Pete]

Cop out... second time in this thread.

It's not a copout. Quit acting stupid. Really. Quit it.

Making an inference that a bunch of economists are right (inferred that they are the experts) and Lou Dobbs is wrong because he's a populist blah blah blah does nothing to verify the validity of the claim made by the economists or address the claims made by Dobbs. The validity of the claim was never addressed. The economists are experts and therefore they are right is not a refutation of a claim. It's an appeal to authority. That's why I posted what I did. Because you don't know what it is so I thought I would educate you.

I have to tell you that your arguing skills kinda blow lately ;)

Basically boils down to minimal syllable statements of fact or question bombing.

You state "Cop out" but do zero to put any punch or substantiation behind the statement. Nothing to back your argument. Nothing, nada. Either you're being lazy or you don't know how to refute. I suspect the third option. You know I am right on this and can't refute. ;)

[sukie]

And me giving you an example of obesity and uterine Ca is the same thing. I have experience in the field yet I am NOT an expert on etiology in this regard.

You are batting for the cycle today...

For those at home keeping score we have in the PRS today...

Pete says "Stop playing stupid, cut it out!"
Pete uses "Logical Fallacy and Appeal to Authority" to attack an author of a post (anEin) without looking at the gist of what was said regarding attacking an author of an opinion (Dobbs) without looking at the gist of what he said. (again Dobbs)

(head spin)

We also had a Strawman pic in another thread...

All that is left is "Sophistry", " AdHominahiminahomina" and a pic of a guy with his head in the sand. That would be a superfecta in the PRS world.

[35Pete]

And me giving you an example of obesity and uterine Ca is the same thing. I have experience in the field yet I am NOT an expert on etiology in this regard.

You are batting for the cycle today...

For those at home keeping score we have in the PRS today...

Pete says "Stop playing stupid, cut it out!"
Pete uses "Logical Fallacy and Appeal to Authority" to attack an author of a post (anEin) without looking at the gist of what was said regarding attacking an author of an opinion (Dobbs) without looking at the gist of what he said. (again Dobbs)

(head spin)

We also had a Strawman pic in another thread...

All that is left is "Sophistry", " AdHominahiminahomina" and a pic of a guy with his head in the sand. That would be a superfecta in the PRS world.

OK, now sukie is attacking the poster instead of addressing the issue. Notice still how the original issue is not addressed.

For the record, I am not "attacking" anEinherjer. I did not question his motives, I did not call him a liar. I didn't accuse him of being a mudslinger or anything of that nature.

I questioned his logic. And for that you claim that I am "attacking" him. That's cute.
The rest of your statement you made regarding anEIn and Dobbs is utter nonsense. I claim that a statement of fact was made. That is indeed true. I also claim that no evidence was put forth to validate that statement. That is also true.

The "you know better buddy" (with a smile) is not an attack because he's usually pretty damn good with logical arguments. Go ahead, try to construe that as an attack.

Nehe is strawmanning the argument. It's a classic "I'll play on his words, discredit him by making him look stupid, and then claim victory". The argument over Huck following Paul's lead is completely bypassed.

Now, did I attack you? Well ( :D ). Everyone makes statements of fact around here. We all get lazy or just a bit brazen. But if you really want to engage in a debate then please don't nearly exclusively use short one-liner statements of "self-evident truth" or question bombing. It gets annoying. With that regard, I appologize for being rough. But it is annoying.

Now, about the War on the Middle Class?

[sukie]

So is my appeal to authority a logical fallacy in my Uterine CA example? anEin made a statement that he would trust the opinions from economists... you got beligerent and off the cuff dismissed his belief. NOW you are merely trying to type more than me... In that regard you win.

[35Pete]

So is my appeal to authority a logical fallacy in my Uterine CA example? anEin made a statement that he would trust the opinions from economists... you got beligerent and off the cuff dismissed his belief. NOW you are merely trying to type more than me... In that regard you win.

Black: No it is not. But you also looked past my apples and oranges comment. Just dismissed it as a copout. The Uterine CA diagnosis is a hard science observation. It is a fairly well established, well observed, researched and unfortunately common phenomena. The outsourcing of America on the scale that we now see is a new phenomena. It's like your doctor seeing a new disease for the first time, and with only one patient, making a statement or conclusion. Now, he may be right. But not nearly with the same confidence as he would be dealing with a more prevelant disease of uterine CA. Remember, it's a first observation of this new disease or even a new outgrowth of it (perhaps the disease existed before but now a new strain is more aggressive). That definitely introduces a very real and reasonable possibility that he could be wrong in his conclusions. In that event, to take his word for it because "he's an expert" and to cite that as a conclusion would be a wrongful appeal to authority.

I have no issue if anEin states that he believes the economists at face value. I'd say it's a dangerous approach but if he doesn't use their authority as proof then I am OK with it. But since nothing more than that statement was pro-offered then I have to assume that's the argument. Which would make it an appeal to authority.

And if you think I am merely trying to type more than you then show me where the fluff is ?

The people on this board that I know have done their homework on issues (anEin, Shiva, Me, JimKelly, Gil) often type lengthy arguments and in quite detail. That's just the way it is. Sure we all type quips and fast remarks. Not everything is going to be an essay. We all like to bust chops and have fun. But I fail to see why a long post of information is such a bad thing. Is it?

[jimmifli]

In theory I'd agree but...

I don't know about Canada Jimmi but here in America we are composed of non-thinking dolts that don't really site around and read a paper on anything.

Why there's NBA basketball to watch!

So our society of dumbed down materialistic worker bots will only elicit a reaction when you appeal to their emotions. (I use it from time to time, it works really well).

Nevertheless you still have not mentioned a thing about his message. So far I have seen comment on his motives and his technique. Which compels me to throw a bull shit card.

Why am I surprised that someone hasn't gone and looked for dirt on him? Where's the expose that Lou is secretly a communist and hence.... end of discussion. Then we can all shove our heads back up our asses and never need to look at painful postulates which need further examination. No problem here. Everythings swell.
Post a specific argument and I'll refute it.

[sukie]

The US economy macro and micro versions of it are also complex. I was Dobbs commenting on a medical phenom. No different.


(Imagine 5 more paragraphs... Make it Pink Floyd lyrics as filler)

[35Pete]

Post a specific argument and I'll refute it.

Fair enough. There are several so let me pick one that I would be particularly interested in, OK?

This first one is from personal observation, so I must disclaim that is it anecdotal, but here it is. My colleagues in their late 40's and up that have been laid off have had significant difficulties obtaining new employment or employment of a caliber that they were accustomed to thus resulting in a slash in their quality of living. Now you may argue that age discrimination is a factor here and I too believe that it is. But nevertheless, if the influx of new jobs caused by "increased global efficiency" meets or exceeds the outflux then these workers too would be in demand, especially given their high skill levels. Yet this seems not to be the case. This is not Lou's argument but mine from personal experience. If the influx is equal to or greater than the outflux then why is this displacement an issue. If the argument is too anecdotal then please say so and I'll offer you another argument. As you know, only uneducated boobs (not read as "no education") distill complex issues down to a single argument. So the option is yours.

And I must say that I am very impressed at how you know your going to be able to refute any argument before knowing what the argument is. That means that you've got this issue completely mastered. Because the only alternative is to prejudiciously declare the argument bull shit before you ever see it and then go seek evidence to "prove it" once you know the exact nature of the bull shit.

[anEinherjer]

Classic appeal to authority logical fallacy that does zero to address the pros and cons of the issue. anEin. You should know better buddy. :)

Sorry man, it's not an appeal to anything. I'm not telling you that the economists are right and Dobbs is wrong, just what I am personally doing about the issue. I was lazy in not pointing you to specific reasons, but that's PRS some times. :)

Cato has already put out reams of data refuting Dobbs' silliness. I'll trust what I've read from them, too. Just go there and type in "dobbs" in their search box, you'll get plenty. Then you can make up your mind, instead of just reading what Dobbs has tossed out there.

[35Pete]

Sorry man, it's not an appeal to anything. I'm not telling you that the economists are right and Dobbs is wrong, just what I am personally doing about the issue. I was lazy in not pointing you to specific reasons, but that's PRS some times. :)

Cato has already put out reams of data refuting Dobbs' silliness. I'll trust what I've read from them, too. Just go there and type in "dobbs" in their search box, you'll get plenty. Then you can make up your mind, instead of just reading what Dobbs has tossed out there.

Thanks bro. That's fair enough. I'll go to CATO and check it out.

I hope that I didn't break your fragile little heart with that vicious attack I did against you. ;)

[35Pete]

The US economy macro and micro versions of it are also complex. I was Dobbs commenting on a medical phenom. No different.


(Imagine 5 more paragraphs... Make it Pink Floyd lyrics as filler)

and?

:rofl:

[anEinherjer]

What about your buddies in the late 40's makes you think they should have no trouble finding the specific job they're expecting at the salary they want? They apparently are not indispensable. You mentioned pretty big salaries earlier; if these guys were making anywhere near that, why aren't they out starting their own businesses?

[anEinherjer]

Thanks bro. That's fair enough. I'll go to CATO and check it out.

I hope that I didn't break your fragile little heart with that vicious attack I did against you. ;)

Well, I did cry a little.... dick!

[sukie]

Nothing... You just took back your logical fallacy BS.

[35Pete]

What about your buddies in the late 40's makes you think they should have no trouble finding the specific job they're expecting at the salary they want? They apparently are not indispensable. You mentioned pretty big salaries earlier; if these guys were making anywhere near that, why aren't they out starting their own businesses?

A few just flat out retired. For others it's not so easy although I do know one guy that hit it bigtime with a software startup. It's a small gig (5 people) but all the power to him.

anEin. The business environment in the tech sector is not conducive in general for startups.
And not all those guys were making 160K.

[35Pete]

Well, I did cry a little.... dick!

Ohh, bless your little heart. Can I hand you a hankie?

[anEinherjer]

I guess my point is that to expect jobs to be around is kind of naive. Did they demand to stay in the same place (florida?)? Were they willing to go find the work, or take less to do what they wanted?

I'm getting the F out of DC in the next couple months and I'm going to take a 20% hit on my salary, but I've become useful enough that I can pick from a couple available jobs (while contemplating other fun stuff) even in that hell hole Buffalo. :)

I'm not complaining that other people are taking the tech jobs; I'm making myself more useful to make sure I can have a job, and working on my brain so I can strike it out on my own at some point - tech company or otherwise...

[jimmifli]

Fair enough. There are several so let me pick one that I would be particularly interested in, OK?

This first one is from personal observation, so I must disclaim that is it anecdotal, but here it is. My colleagues in their late 40's and up that have been laid off have had significant difficulties obtaining new employment or employment of a caliber that they were accustomed to thus resulting in a slash in their quality of living. Now you may argue that age discrimination is a factor here and I too believe that it is. But nevertheless, if the influx of new jobs caused by "increased global efficiency" meets or exceeds the outflux then these workers too would be in demand, especially given their high skill levels. Yet this seems not to be the case. This is not Lou's argument but mine from personal experience. If the influx is equal to or greater than the outflux then why is this displacement an issue. If the argument is too anecdotal then please say so and I'll offer you another argument. As you know, only uneducated boobs (not read as "no education") distill complex issues down to a single argument. So the option is yours.

And I must say that I am very impressed at how you know your going to be able to refute any argument before knowing what the argument is. That means that you've got this issue completely mastered. Because the only alternative is to prejudiciously declare the argument bull shit before you ever see it and then go seek evidence to "prove it" once you know the exact nature of the bull shit.
Lou Dobbs arguments aren't new. They're the standard appeal to emotion populist crap that has been used since economics started. Any of his points are easily refuted.

As for your anecdotal argument. It's a micro/macro issue. On the micro level a lot people get ****ed in the ass. Hard. Often. And for a long time. Sometimes entire industries get ****ed, for instance call centers last decade or IT industry more recently, or very recently engineering and design (even at a high level). So for your colleagues, it's likely a combination of age discrimination and industry. (They probably don't receive a net positive from free trade. In the short term a protectionist policy would greatly benefit them, longterm it would kill the country.)

Where Dobbs' arguments fall apart is on the macro level. On the macro level it's easy to empirically prove the benefit of free trade. It's been the main driver of your economy for a few centuries.

Policy deals with economic issues on macro level, it's important that when arguing about policy it's done at the macro level. Arguing on a micro level is just an appeal to emotion.

(I think the proof of benefit of free trade vs protectionism is outside the scope of this thread, I can send you some good links by PM or start a new thread if you'd like.)

[35Pete]

Lou Dobbs arguments aren't new. They're the standard appeal to emotion populist crap that has been used since economics started. Any of his points are easily refuted.

As for your anecdotal argument. It's a micro/macro issue. On the micro level a lot people get ****ed in the ass. Hard. Often. And for a long time. Sometimes entire industries get ****ed, for instance call centers last decade or IT industry more recently, or very recently engineering and design (even at a high level). So for your colleagues, it's likely a combination of age discrimination and industry. (They probably don't receive a net positive from free trade. In the short term a protectionist policy would greatly benefit them, longterm it would kill the country.)

Where Dobbs' arguments fall apart is on the macro level. On the macro level it's easy to empirically prove the benefit of free trade. It's been the main driver of your economy for a few centuries.

Policy deals with economic issues on macro level, it's important that when arguing about policy it's done at the macro level. Arguing on a micro level is just an appeal to emotion.

(I think the proof of benefit of free trade vs protectionism is outside the scope of this thread, I can send you some good links by PM or start a new thread if you'd like.)

Yes. PM me or post them. I would like to read them.

[comericatigers]

The unequal distribution of wealth is the same today as it was pre-Great Depression