HowTheWorldDistortsData

[JustBusiness17]

I know it's not uncommon to catch Lee Doren (aka HowTheWorldWorks) spinning distortions to support his pro-business agenda which he hides in a libertarian disguise. In the process of searching for info on the recent VidCon event, I saw one by Doren and decided to watch it for the lulz. It was basically him drooling over the celebrities he got to meet while sounding a little bummed out that nobody cared who he was...

Anyways, I figured I might as well see what he's been lying about recently and found he did a critique of one of those PSA white board videos. Here's what I'm talking about:



So, beyond addressing all his clever misdirection (he is a marketing communications graduate after all) I figured I would focus in on the crux of his argument. At 4:49, Doren cuts away from the main video to go over some census data in order to set up the idea that David Harvey (the "narrator") is lying with statistics. He says that even though household income has been decreasing, real per capita income has doubled over the period (since 1967) that Harvey is referring to. Doren tries to bolster this point by explaining that people per household has been decreasing which explains the smaller income...

Ironically, while Doren implies Harvey is lying with statistics, it's actually Doren that is being deceptive. Despite shows like 'John and Kate plus 8' and 'Octomom' making headlines in recent years, I would speculate that the family unit has shrunk slightly in the last 40 years. Obviously children don't produce income so an increase or decrease doesn't change much other than disposable income. But lets assume for arguments sake that these are income earners who are leaving the households and how that ties in with the video...

The point that Harvey was making is that the US has shifted to an artificial credit market built primarily around home loans. In other words, people who couldn't afford homes were lent the money to do so which effectively reduces the average number of people per household (in addition to crashing the world economy, but I digress). So, how can both David Harvey and Lee Doren be correct at the same time? The answer is that they're not... Only Harvey is!

So how can Lee Doren be wrong when the statistics were right in front of our eyes? Well, the deception was so simple, I would be surprised if anyone fell for it, but he does pander to Tea Party activists and Libertarians, so it's worth pointing out :arrow: Yes, 'per capita' income has increased dramatically, however, 'per capita' isn't talking about the same thing that Harvey is. Rather than rambling further, here's what the New York Times has to say on the subject:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

So isn't this exactly what Harvey was elucidating in his video? It seems to me his entire point was that labour wages (which excludes the filthy rich) have been relatively stagnant in a growing economy. But wait, there's more...

... He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending. The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928. A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy.

Cuts to benefits? Didn't I hear Doren imply that benefits packages had gone up?

As you can see by these final paragraphs, Doren's elaborate point falls flat on its face. 'Per capita' income may have doubled since 1967, but only 55% of that went to the bottom 90% of the population. Almost certainly, the majority of that 55% is concentrated in the top 10% of those remaining with progressively less trickling down to the remainder of the population.

====

In the end, we can chalk this up as just another effort by Lee Doren to propagate capitalist sentiments in order to earn his own salary from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and probably a host of other radical right wing organizations...

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I know it's not uncommon to catch Lee Doren (aka HowTheWorldWorks) spinning distortions to support his pro-business agenda which he hides in a libertarian disguise. In the process of searching for info on the recent VidCon event, I saw one by Doren and decided to watch it for the lulz. It was basically him drooling over the celebrities he got to meet while sounding a little bummed out that nobody cared who he was...

Anyways, I figured I might as well see what he's been lying about recently and found he did a critique of one of those PSA white board videos. Here's what I'm talking about:



So, beyond addressing all his clever misdirection (he is a marketing communications graduate after all) I figured I would focus in on the crux of his argument. At 4:49, Doren cuts away from the main video to go over some census data in order to set up the idea that David Harvey (the "narrator") is lying with statistics. He says that even though household income has been decreasing, real per capita income has doubled over the period (since 1967) that Harvey is referring to. Doren tries to bolster this point by explaining that people per household has been decreasing which explains the smaller income...

Ironically, while Doren implies Harvey is lying with statistics, it's actually Doren that is being deceptive. Despite shows like 'John and Kate plus 8' and 'Octomom' making headlines in recent years, I would speculate that the family unit has shrunk slightly in the last 40 years. Obviously children don't produce income so an increase or decrease doesn't change much other than disposable income. But lets assume for arguments sake that these are income earners who are leaving the households and how that ties in with the video...

The point that Harvey was making is that the US has shifted to an artificial credit market built primarily around home loans. In other words, people who couldn't afford homes were lent the money to do so which effectively reduces the average number of people per household (in addition to crashing the world economy, but I digress). So, how can both David Harvey and Lee Doren be correct at the same time? The answer is that they're not... Only Harvey is!

So how can Lee Doren be wrong when the statistics were right in front of our eyes? Well, the deception was so simple, I would be surprised if anyone fell for it, but he does pander to Tea Party activists and Libertarians, so it's worth pointing out :arrow: Yes, 'per capita' income has increased dramatically, however, 'per capita' isn't talking about the same thing that Harvey is. Rather than rambling further, here's what the New York Times has to say on the subject:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

So isn't this exactly what Harvey was elucidating in his video? It seems to me his entire point was that labour wages (which excludes the filthy rich) have been relatively stagnant in a growing economy. But wait, there's more...

... He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending. The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928. A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy.

Cuts to benefits? Didn't I hear Doren imply that benefits packages had gone up?

As you can see by these final paragraphs, Doren's elaborate point falls flat on its face. 'Per capita' income may have doubled since 1967, but only 55% of that went to the bottom 90% of the population. Almost certainly, the majority of that 55% is concentrated in the top 10% of those remaining with progressively less trickling down to the remainder of the population.

====

In the end, we can chalk this up as just another effort by Lee Doren to propagate capitalist sentiments in order to earn his own salary from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and probably a host of other radical right wing organizations...

if you are one of those who make videos, you should turn this into a video response. If not, you should send him a PM pointing this critique out. I would like to hear his response

 

[JustBusiness17]

if you are one of those who make videos, you should turn this into a video response. If not, you should send him a PM pointing this critique out. I would like to hear his response

Maybe... Doren and his chronies aren't exactly at the top of my list for people I want to argue with. If I can't even get through to ArthurW, there's no way that I'll ever make a dent in HTWW's stupidity. Besides, he's a Youtube partner and makes money off of controversy...

These forums are Google indexed and seem to rank pretty high in search rankings. If people are searching for information (ie potential critical thinkers), then they should be able to find this thread. Other than that, I don't see the point in stirring up the hornets nest...


----
BTW, I forgot to source that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-income.4.5075504.html

 

[DepricatedZero]

Dude make a video reply. That was an awesome read.

And this Lee Doran guy is a douchebag. Leaving it as a comment or PM will just get it deleted or ignored. He's all about censorship and avoiding anything that makes him think he might be wrong. He's as one-sided and narow as an Ayn Rand villain.

 

[Nemesiah]

I understand how people cling to capitalism, it's a nice fantasy, everyone is happy, the self regulating markets, Adam Smith's invisible hand distributing the wealth, wealth tricling down, its great on paper.

What amazes me is that people fail to see that when the entire world goes to hell its taking them along for the ride; soon enough will afluent nations start to feel the need to barricade themselves from the hellholes they have created, then freedoms will start to wane in this paradise islands of the world; eventually no army will be enough in an ever deteriorating envirnment to keep reality at bay; then what? Why are they so opposed to seek new options? Even more, hasn't history taught them anything? the fall of Rome, the fall of Greece, the fall of the europen empires?

Militaristic comunism may not be the answer,but that doesn,´t mean that social policies, and market regualtions are flat out wrong.The workers need the protection of the government in order to thrive, coorporations need to be acountable for their wrongdoings, the obscenly rich need to be obscenly taxed all around the world; the economic worth of prime matrials needs to be recalculated to account for the real impact that their exploitation has on the environment; the media has to become free of political and comercial interests; advertising has to be regulated, etc...

We are running out of time.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Dude make a video reply. That was an awesome read.

And this Lee Doran guy is a douchebag. Leaving it as a comment or PM will just get it deleted or ignored. He's all about censorship and avoiding anything that makes him think he might be wrong. He's as one-sided and narow as an Ayn Rand villain.

Thanks and I'll consider it. I'm in the middle of planning a move right now so a project like that would have to wait until after everything had settles down. I would have to put in a little more research to present a rock solid case that would be hard for him to distort.

If I was inclined to make a video featuring Lee Doren, I would probably just splice clips of him with clips from this video:



Obfuscation is Doren's goal, not elucidation...

 

[borrofburi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvNNtEVkckc

Is that... real? Would you recommend that documentary?

 

[Nemesiah]

Dude make a video reply. That was an awesome read.

And this Lee Doran guy is a douchebag. Leaving it as a comment or PM will just get it deleted or ignored. He's all about censorship and avoiding anything that makes him think he might be wrong. He's as one-sided and narow as an Ayn Rand villain.

Thanks and I'll consider it. I'm in the middle of planning a move right now so a project like that would have to wait until after everything had settles down. I would have to put in a little more research to present a rock solid case that would be hard for him to distort.

If I was inclined to make a video featuring Lee Doren, I would probably just splice clips of him with clips from this video:



Obfuscation is Doren's goal, not elucidation...

Please excuse my ignorance, I'm from Mexico and when I went to school debating was not part of the curriculum (I think its starting to catch on though...)

Is there people who find this way of speaking inteligible? It may be that English is not my mother thongue but while I understand what they were saying I was far too distracted by their whiny voices, demented breath pauses, and overall offputting manner; do people win debates in this fashin in the USA? Is this practice common in the Uk, or Europe? Canada? Australia? Japan?

Thanks

 

[DepricatedZero]

Please excuse my ignorance, I'm from Mexico and when I went to school debating was not part of the curriculum (I think its starting to catch on though...)

Is there people who find this way of speaking inteligible? It may be that English is not my mother thongue but while I understand what they were saying I was far too distracted by their whiny voices, demented breath pauses, and overall offputting manner; do people win debates in this fashin in the USA? Is this practice common in the Uk, or Europe? Canada? Australia? Japan?

Thanks

I've never encountered this form of "debate" nor would I consider anyone who practices it worth debating. I learned to debate in college, and was taught to find weak spots in arguments. This appears to be more about talking fast than about debating, and anyone who felt that their argument stood on so little that the only way to try to win is to fluster me, isn't worth engaging. Real debate points are clear and well wrought, not spat as fast as possible.

So no, this isn't how people win debates in the US or anywhere else. This is how people look silly on Youtube.

 

[borrofburi]

It is apparently real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate

 

[JustBusiness17]

I understand how people cling to capitalism, it's a nice fantasy, everyone is happy, the self regulating markets, Adam Smith's invisible hand distributing the wealth, wealth tricling down, its great on paper.

I know this is about the same as atheists and theists fighting over famous intellectuals, but Adam Smith was not a capitalist and actually had strong reservations about an unregulated system. He may have been the first person to describe free markets, but thats only half the story. It's kinda like Einstein and the confusion created by his "Sponoza's god" comments...

What amazes me is that people fail to see that when the entire world goes to hell its taking them along for the ride; soon enough will afluent nations start to feel the need to barricade themselves from the hellholes they have created, then freedoms will start to wane in this paradise islands of the world; eventually no army will be enough in an ever deteriorating envirnment to keep reality at bay; then what? Why are they so opposed to seek new options? Even more, hasn't history taught them anything? the fall of Rome, the fall of Greece, the fall of the europen empires?

While I see where you're coming from, it's a little short sighted. The upper class need the lower classes and as the NYTimes article points out, it seems like the breaking point for Capitalism is somewhere between 40 and 50% of net income. I would be perfectly happy if Capitalists, Libertarians, etc etc all isolated themselves, but their system can't survive in isolation. They need resources (including human resources) in order to keep the expenditure cycle spinning... War and/or global colonization is the only option to keep the system alive! But even colonization relies on a highly ignorant population as the byproducts of Capitalism are difficult to ignore.

Militaristic comunism may not be the answer,but that doesn,´t mean that social policies, and market regualtions are flat out wrong.The workers need the protection of the government in order to thrive, coorporations need to be acountable for their wrongdoings, the obscenly rich need to be obscenly taxed all around the world; the economic worth of prime matrials needs to be recalculated to account for the real impact that their exploitation has on the environment; the media has to become free of political and comercial interests; advertising has to be regulated, etc...

The obscenely rich need to be robbed like Nottingham... Nearly all of their capital accumulation can be attributed to a blind eye on externalities. There are a million and one unpaid costs from capitalism and nobody seems to want to pay for it. Its at the point where innovating our way out of global warming is probably the only way to save the planet because big business doesn't want to disrupt their profits in the least.

I have to say thank you for bringing up a point that can't be brought up enough. The whole "Capitalism or GTFO" attitude that we hear from the right is one of the most dangerous false dichotomies facing the planet. The debate has been painted as a 'black and white' portrait while it's actually much more subtle than that. My own personal grievance is with the "wild wild west" brand of cowboy capitalism that stains right wing political rhetoric.

Over the last 100 years, there have been 2 severe market crashes related to an overly simplistic approach to market regulation. If we were talking about Communist Russia, the right would point furiously at those failures and refuse to ever consider it again. But for some reason, when it happens in a capitalist system, everyone is supposed to just regard it as a part of the process.

Ideally, the world will eventually find a happy middle ground between Command and Free Market economies. But for that type of thing to ever happen requires an enormous upheaval of power from the wealthy. 10% of the country has around 80% control of the government and 99% of the influence on the media. Those 10% are so insulated from the struggles facing the lower classes that they see no problem with the system that suits them best. Its ignorance and selfishness that allow them to declare "let them eat cake" before jumping into their 200 foot yacht for a mid day siesta...


/rant

 

[JustBusiness17]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvNNtEVkckc

Is that... real? Would you recommend that documentary?

Well, I watched the entire rough cut on their website (can't find the link ). It was over 2 hours long with some strange editing notes spliced in, but I found it interesting. Not sure it's everyone's cup of tea, but most of us here are interested in debate as a pass time - It all depends on how much that interest translates over to debate as a subject....

 

[Nelson]

I've seen the documentary as well. Apparently, the most popular tactic in high school debate is the Gish Gallop. While the tactic differs in that they may very well be making factual and verifiable claims (instead of a slew of fallacies which is the case with Gish), the general idea still seems to be the intention to drown your opponent in so much information that they can not possibly respond to it all in a rebuttal. The interesting thing about the film is that it actually spends a good bit of time following a couple of students who, rather than arguing for or against the official positions of their debates, spend most of their time arguing for why this is a terrible style for debating. Meta-debating if you will.

 

[Amerist]

I've seen the documentary as well. Apparently, the most popular tactic in high school debate is the Gish Gallop. While the tactic differs in that they may very well be making factual and verifiable claims (instead of a slew of fallacies which is the case with Gish), the general idea still seems to be the intention to drown your opponent in so much information that they can not possibly respond to it all in a rebuttal. The interesting thing about the film is that it actually spends a good bit of time following a couple of students who, rather than arguing for or against the official positions of their debates, spend most of their time arguing for why this is a terrible style for debating. Meta-debating if you will.

On Mill Ave, one of the Resistance members warned that if a debate would ever be struck up they would need some sort of ground rules. The Preachers from Mill Ave are well known for this sort of "shotgun" approach to any sort of debate; they tend to ignore the subject and then just spew out an almost-paragraph of non-sequiturs and then claim victory.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Gish Gallop.

Nice find. Here's a section that describes Lee Doren perfectly:

Use by bloggers
A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts.

 

[Prolescum]

Dude make a video reply. That was an awesome read.

Agreed.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Dude make a video reply. That was an awesome read.

Agreed.

Wouldn't it be more effective to go after the methods of deception rather than the deceptions themselves? It's the whole "give a man a fish" parable. Plus, I highly doubt any 100 view video is going to even be noticed by Doren or his minions.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Wouldn't it be more effective to go after the methods of deception rather than the deceptions themselves? It's the whole "give a man a fish" parable. Plus, I highly doubt any 100 view video is going to even be noticed by Doren or his minions.

Mmm, I want to use the meme but I don't want to fall into the trap Unwardil did...

Do it, (stereotypical insulting noun)!

 

[JustBusiness17]

Wouldn't it be more effective to go after the methods of deception rather than the deceptions themselves? It's the whole "give a man a fish" parable. Plus, I highly doubt any 100 view video is going to even be noticed by Doren or his minions.

Mmm, I want to use the meme but I don't want to fall into the trap Unwardil did...

Do it, (stereotypical insulting noun)!

Sorry, I'm missing something here... What are you implying?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Do it, (stereotypical insulting noun)!

Sorry, I'm missing something here... What are you implying?

Did I ever tell you that you're bad at keeping track of the flow of a conversation?

You should make the video response. It would be very interesting, I'm sure.