[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2013-July-30, 13:45, said:

Mike,

Rich and poor alike automatically have skin in the game by virtue of live birth - and everyone is equally free to theorize.

We agree, If you are going to live your theory I agree, OTOH if you are going to opt out or game the system as Ken suggests with others skin and force it on others then you don't accept the downside risk.

In fact this happens frequently, hence the problem.

One tiny example are the bankers cited above another is the IRS and unions trying to opt out of Obama care.

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 17:37, said:

I am sure Weiner wishes he had no personal exposure.

But seriously, including academics? Never would have considered academia a field rife with people making a quick buck at the expense of others.

Every field has its leaches and bad apples but when I think of a field that such people flock to, academics not so much.

I get that you have a thing against educated people.

I even get why.

personal attack..sigh


first you make claims that I did not then you insult me.

You seem to be unaware of how academics can be paid for stuff such as offering an opinion on risk, and when they are wrong not suffer the downside of being wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble of them.

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2013-July-31, 17:49, said:

personal attack..sigh

You care to defend your inclusion of academics among the non risk takers exploiters of the general public?

Typical income as compared to how hard they worked(effort)

Ratio of successful academics vs unsuccessful ones(risk)

Contribution to society.

For persons equally qualified, their typical income in Academia vs the private sector.

The absurdity of their inclusion is such that I can't help but feel that you are in fact biased against them.

[Cyberyeti]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 17:59, said:

You care to defend your inclusion of academics among the non risk takers exploiters of the general public?

Typical income as compared to how hard they worked(effort)

Ratio of successful academics vs unsuccessful ones(risk)

Contribution to society.

For persons equally qualified, their typical income in Academia vs the private sector.

The absurdity of their inclusion is such that I can't help but feel that you are in fact biased against them.

Actually read what he said.

He said that academics assert control over society, not that they exploit the public or make much money out of it.

This is true in many areas, climate change being one obvious one (and I actually believe man does have an effect on climate change, I'm not making this point just to push my own agenda).

[mike777]

Anyw

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 17:59, said:

You care to defend your inclusion of academics among the non risk takers exploiters of the general public?

Typical income as compared to how hard they worked(effort)

Ratio of successful academics vs unsuccessful ones(risk)

Contribution to society.

For persons equally qualified, their typical income in Academia vs the private sector.

The absurdity of their inclusion is such that I can't help but feel that you are in fact biased against them.

I agree with your points but none of them have anything to do with what I said.

again you make up stuff that I don't say then insult me.

I include those academics with too much power and no real downside and accountability.
I gave you examples.

If you don't think they exist in some important numbers then we disagree but why insult me.

If you think that their number is something close to zero...ok we disagree.

[dwar0123]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-31, 18:03, said:

Actually read what he said.

He said that academics assert control over society, not that they exploit the public or make much money out of it.

This is true in many areas, climate change being one obvious one (and I actually believe man does have an effect on climate change, I'm not making this point just to push my own agenda).

If they are not exploiting the public, why is he objecting to their control over society?

Don't buy into his nonsense. What control over society are they suppose to have, given their near unanimity on the subject of climate change, how is there so little political will to do something about it? About their only power is to publish an endless stream of papers on the subject and watch as the politicians do nothing about it.

No risk, the careers of those caught committing fraud in their research is seriously damaged and many academics fail to ever get their research funded, it is a very tough field, hardly risk free.

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 18:24, said:

If they are not exploiting the public, why is he objecting to their control over society?

Don't buy into his nonsense. What control over society are they suppose to have, given their near unanimity on the subject of climate change, how is there so little political will to do something about it? About their only power is to publish an endless stream of papers on the subject and watch as the politicians do nothing about it.

No risk, the careers of those caught committing fraud in their research is seriously damaged and many academics fail to ever get their research funded, it is a very tough field, hardly risk free.

again not what I am talking about sigh..forget it...please read what I said.

Just stop making up stuff.

If you are so biased as to think academics only have such limited power...forget it...Bernanke for example.

Ieven gave you examples then you make up stuff.

In any event it seems we agree on my most important point...that people people accept the downside if they want to gain from the upside as you give examples of people who do suffer the downside.

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2013-July-31, 18:25, said:

again not what I am talking about sigh..forget it...please read what I said.

Just stop making up stuff.

If you are so biased as to think academics only have such limited power...forget it...

Ieven gave you examples then you make up stuff.

What examples?

And btw, communication is a two way process. I try to be very careful in my reading of peoples post and respond with integrity and honesty to their intended point. If I am misreading your intent, the problem does not necessarily lie with me, you may need to be more clear.

If all you mean is that you object to people with to much power.

Fine, that is a tautology, a meaningless thing to say, how could anyone ever disagree.

Whatever.

Edit: "Bernanke for example"

Pretty sure Bernanke isn't an academic.

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 18:37, said:

What examples?

And btw, communication is a two way process. I try to be very careful in my reading of peoples post and respond with integrity and honesty to their intended point. If I am misreading your intent, the problem does not necessarily lie with me, you may need to be more clear.

If all you mean is that you object to people with to much power.

Fine, that is a tautology, a meaningless thing to say, how could anyone ever disagree.

Whatever.

Edit: "Bernanke for example"

Pretty sure Bernanke isn't an academic.

If you don't think Bernanke is an academic an academic with great power....then that pretty much ends the discussion. If we cannot at least agree that banking, wall street. govt and medicine is full of working academics....then that will end the discussion.

If you prefer another example then Stiglitz is another example with great power.

when I went back to school I was surprised to find that teaching and publishing papers were for the most only a small part how my profs earn a living.
------------

My examples are in post#302

---------------------------

----------


btw completely off topic...I happen to work for a pension company that handles the pensions for most univ and colleges in the usa and some across the pond.

My job is basically talking and working with univ profs/dept heads/and staff all day long. I have great respect for them and the job they do.

A great part of the job is flying around the country and visiting colleges and meeeting with people with all kinds of interesting ideas.

[blackshoe]

From wikipedia: "Before becoming Federal Reserve chairman, Bernanke was a tenured professor at Princeton University and chaired the department of economics there from 1996 to September 2002, when he went on public service leave".

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2013-July-31, 18:48, said:

If you don't think Bernanke is an academic an academic with great power....then that pretty much ends the discussion. If we cannot at least agree that banking, wall street. govt and medicine is full of working academics....then that will end the discussion.

In the context of a current question:

1. Is Larry Summers an academic?
2. If so, is this a mark against him as Obama considers nominating him to take over from Bernanke?

With regard to 1. the Wik tells us:

Quote

Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is the 1993 recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for his work in several fields of economics.

But, of course, he has done a great many other things.

With regard to 2., I regard his accomplishments in the academic realm as a plus, not a minus.


We have, perhaps, come back to the original thread topic of inequality. The next Fed Chair will, just as they all do, make decisions that critically impact the very guts of our economic system.

There is a column today about Summers at
http://www.washingto...-larry-summers/


One part:

Quote

Summers rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But the part of Summers that rubs people the wrong way — or at least one part of Summers that rubs people the wrong way — is exactly what his admirers love about him. The experience of taking an idea to Summers, they say, is the experience of having the smartest person you’ve ever met focus intensely and seriously on what you just told them and then give you 10 reasons you never thought of for why it’s idiotic or won’t work or needs revision. And those 10 points are good points. And if you absorb them, and integrate them, you end up with something much better. The people who enjoy that process quickly come to rely on it as a necessary step in their work. Some people hate the Summers experience. But those who don’t find it exhilarating, even addicting. It breeds a loyalty far stronger than what’s typical in government. Summers’s supporters don’t just like him. They think he’s special, a once-in-a-generation mind that makes the minds around him better.

Are these the traits of an academic? Perhaps. But academics do not always have such traits, and non-academics, some of them, do have them.

A person comes as a package. Experience in academia may be part of the package. Being, at least in part, an academic is not a disease.


Or to put it differently: I am not at all sure whether Larry Summers should or should not be the next Chair of the Federal Reserve, but when I consider the pluses and minuses, I certainly don't regard his Professorship at Harvard as a minus.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-01, 07:25, said:

A person comes as a package. Experience in academia may be part of the package. Being, at least in part, an academic is not a disease.

Or to put it differently: I am not at all sure whether Larry Summers should or should not be the next Chair of the Federal Reserve, but when I consider the pluses and minuses, I certainly don't regard his Professorship at Harvard as a minus.

Nor I.

How can in-depth knowledge of the matter before you ever be a bad thing? I just don't get that.

And thanks for the link. Good article on Summers -- sounds to me like a great person to work with.

[blackshoe]

I think the phrase people have been missing here is "ivory tower academic", referring to someone whose life has been spent in the "ivory tower" of academia and whose knowledge therefore is theoretical, and not at all tempered by experience. Such people's opinions often run counter to what actually works in the real word.

From the look of things, Summers is not an "ivory tower academic". Bernanke, on the other hand, may be. His experience seems to be in one of two areas: either as an academic, or as a Governor and later Chairman of the Fed. He's chaired the Fed for a while, so maybe he's learned something from it.

Note: Bernanke, as I think I posted before, went on "public service leave" from his position at Princeton in 2002. He resigned that position in 2005. So he's had 11 years working at the Fed to go along with his previous 23 years or so in academia.

[kenberg]

I have been a Mathematical Academic. When I was in grad school I worked some in the summer for industry and found working with "practical folks" both comfortable and enjoyable. I believe I was useful, and I have reason to believe that my work was appreciated. I believe much the same could be said of most but of course not all Mathematical Academics that I have known. In some cases, they are very very useful when they step out among the practicals. Sure, some have no interest in practical matters. I presume no one would hire them in a practical setting, nor would they seek it, so this is no problem. In the other direction, we have at times lost faculty to industry and they do fine.

I really think that this "Ivory Tower Academic" line of thought is not very productive. Some lawyers are useful, some not. Some financial adviseers are useful, some not. Some auto mechanics are useful, some not. Some economists are useful, some not. And even this is misleading. "Useful" requires that we ask, "Useful for what?"

I certainly agree that having a lot of letters after your name, Ph.D, or M.D, or what have you, does not at all guarantee expertise. Some sort of decent competence yes, but genuflection should not be expected.

Anyway, Larry Summers has always struck me as an interesting cat. Perhaps we will find out just how interesting.

[blackshoe]

You're a smart guy, Ken, and I respect your opinions. In fact I agree with what you say above. I was just trying to point out that an aversion to "academics" in general is not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps even an aversion to "ivory tower academics" in general is not a good thing. I suppose one should base one's aversion to a person, academic or otherwise, on what he says and does, and not on where he does it.

Apropos of nothing, there's an old joke, the details of which I don't remember, which starts something like "a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are sharing a room. The mathematician wakes up to discover the window curtains are on fire…" As I recall, both the mathematician and the physicist woke up, observed the fire, perhaps did some calculations, then went back to sleep. The engineer, when he woke up, put out the fire. I admit to some fondness for this little tale, perhaps because I am by training and temperament an engineer.

[kenberg]

There are many such jokes. One of my favorites: Two guys in a balloon have drifted seriously off-course. As they float over wherever they call down to a guy on the ground "Where are we?". "What did you say?" " I said where are we?" The guy on the ground thinks for a while and replies "You are in a balloon".


The balloonist turns to his fellow balloonist and remarks "He must be a mathematician"

"Why do you say that?"

"Well, he was very careful. He asked to have the question repeated and he thought carefully before answering. His answer was 100% correct." "And totally useless."



Generally a joke such as this works because there is some truth to it. But in my experience the truth is exaggerated. I believe my own life in mathematics has given me a healthy respect for the limitations of logic. Put simply, mathematics can help you get from A to B. Whether or not you want to go there is another issue entirely.

[Cyberyeti]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-31, 18:24, said:

If they are not exploiting the public, why is he objecting to their control over society?

Don't buy into his nonsense. What control over society are they suppose to have, given their near unanimity on the subject of climate change, how is there so little political will to do something about it? About their only power is to publish an endless stream of papers on the subject and watch as the politicians do nothing about it.

No risk, the careers of those caught committing fraud in their research is seriously damaged and many academics fail to ever get their research funded, it is a very tough field, hardly risk free.

Actually fraud in academia is rife.

How many times have you seen a study funded by a particular interest produce results that back up that interest's position while studies not funded by that interest don't ?

It just seems to be accepted.

On climate change that may be true in America but is less so in Europe. The problem is with the alternative energy sources, if you rely on solar/wind power you still need the power stations in case the wind/sun don't comply, and nuclear is unpopular for obvious reasons, so the politicians agree something needs to be done but can't work out what.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 21:28, said:

You're a smart guy, Ken, and I respect your opinions. In fact I agree with what you say above. I was just trying to point out that an aversion to "academics" in general is not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps even an aversion to "ivory tower academics" in general is not a good thing. I suppose one should base one's aversion to a person, academic or otherwise, on what he says and does, and not on where he does it.

Apropos of nothing, there's an old joke, the details of which I don't remember, which starts something like "a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are sharing a room. The mathematician wakes up to discover the window curtains are on fire…" As I recall, both the mathematician and the physicist woke up, observed the fire, perhaps did some calculations, then went back to sleep. The engineer, when he woke up, put out the fire. I admit to some fondness for this little tale, perhaps because I am by training and temperament an engineer.

Perhaps you will like this: An optimist says, the glass is half-full; a pessimist says, the glass is half-empty; an engineer says, the glass is too big!

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-02, 04:34, said:

Actually fraud in academia is rife.

How many times have you seen a study funded by a particular interest produce results that back up that interest's position while studies not funded by that interest don't ?

It just seems to be accepted.

On climate change that may be true in America but is less so in Europe. The problem is with the alternative energy sources, if you rely on solar/wind power you still need the power stations in case the wind/sun don't comply, and nuclear is unpopular for obvious reasons, so the politicians agree something needs to be done but can't work out what.

I think "rife" is way over the top. Does it happen? Sure. But it is the minority position. What you are talking about is not research but propaganda, and it is produced in large part by "the usual suspects", a rather small group whose research hunt begins with an ideologically-based conclusion.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2013-August-02, 07:37, said:

Perhaps you will like this: An optimist says, the glass is half-full; a pessimist says, the glass is half-empty; an engineer says, the glass is too big!

Indeed I do like it, and I had never heard it before.