You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

Fair enough. But I'll just repeat the fact that its clearly the Dem activists that don't have an open mind to anything that might put their own beliefs in doubt.

If someone offered this to me, I would take it every time because
A) I have my confidence in my own knowledge and ability to navigate a false assumption that placed in front of me
B) If I was actually wrong about something I would want to know. My allegiance is to the truth not my own party. Yet so many fail to grasp that concept.

If I were to participate in an "exercise" as you call it which wasn't going to have some sort of political bias in it then I would be all for it.

Not indulging your games doesn't mean I'm close minded, it just means I'm not stupid enough to play them

Nice try though   I'm sure it has worked before

[Wonkish1]

Europe has been an issue all throughout the early 2010s. Yet despite trouble in Europe, the stock market did really well in 2010, and continued to increase into 2011. Market turmoil started getting noticeably bad after the debt ceiling debate, and so did all the talk about another recession. Yes, Europe has always shadowed economic outlook here, but if you look at all the leading outlets out there, the overall pervading worry isn't nuts and bolts economic data (which is actually much better than you'd think), but a lack of confidence in the American political system. In other words, we are so polarized that we can't do the right things to fix these problems.

Markets move on feelings, and especially on confidence. When you have a confidence gap, you run into trouble.

The debt ceiling fiasco was the straw that broke that camels back.
 

Hey buddy you do realize your arguing with someone that does this for a career. The US markets recovered the losses caused by the news of the downgrade within 5 days. The reason for the downgrade wasn't political as much as the Dems tried to paint it as such. Again I actually read these documents and I understand how agencies rate debt. They downgraded because the US wasn't able to make enough progress on medium term debt reduction. But it still didn't matter because the market paired back its losses within a few days.

What you didn't know is the whole week of debt ceiling debate the European markets were extremely volatile and their sovereign credit markets were seizing up. CDS spreads were shooting through the roof in Greece, Italy and Portugal.

It was only a couple weeks after the debt ceiling debate that the first big run on the European sovereign debt started to happen. CDS spreads shot up and spread through out Europe first from Greece, to Italy, to Portugal, to Spain, to Ireland, and even spread right into the French markets causing a huge jump in French CDS vs. German CDS spreads. That was the first signal to the Europeans that contagion effect throughout all of Europe was very possible. At about that same time due to Greece's continual miss of deficit targets, the worsening of the situation, and the realization that debt service itself was becoming dangerously close to outstripping any capability of the Greeks to avoid default even with the help of the rest of Europe, investors priced in the fact that Greece would default...it was just a matter of time. About another week later Greece actually had its first mini default. Europe had convinced French and German banks to retroactively change the terms of its debt with Greece which is a default.

Since that time its just been a continuous cycle of larger and larger runs on the European sovereign credit markets and banking systems. Even recently Europe had to announce a TARP like program to save a bunch of their "middle tier" banks.

What has been happening in Europe over the last 4 months is very different than what was happening a year ago. Their system is in the process of collapsing.

And as of about a week and a half ago, China is now the new culprit further driving down global markets.

So yeah, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT!

[Wonkish1]

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

Fair enough. But I'll just repeat the fact that its clearly the Dem activists that don't have an open mind to anything that might put their own beliefs in doubt.

If someone offered this to me, I would take it every time because
A) I have my confidence in my own knowledge and ability to navigate a false assumption that placed in front of me
B) If I was actually wrong about something I would want to know. My allegiance is to the truth not my own party. Yet so many fail to grasp that concept.

If I were to participate in an "exercise" as you call it which wasn't going to have some sort of political bias in it then I would be all for it.

Not indulging your games doesn't mean I'm close minded, it just means I'm not stupid enough to play them

Nice try though   I'm sure it has worked before

Alright buddy, sure!!!

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

Fair enough. But I'll just repeat the fact that its clearly the Dem activists that don't have an open mind to anything that might put their own beliefs in doubt.

If someone offered this to me, I would take it every time because
A) I have my confidence in my own knowledge and ability to navigate a false assumption that placed in front of me
B) If I was actually wrong about something I would want to know. My allegiance is to the truth not my own party. Yet so many fail to grasp that concept.

If I were to participate in an "exercise" as you call it which wasn't going to have some sort of political bias in it then I would be all for it.

Not indulging your games doesn't mean I'm close minded, it just means I'm not stupid enough to play them

Nice try though   I'm sure it has worked before

Alright buddy, sure!!!

If you had a real point with your game you could have made it.  Not with a game, you could just say it straight up.  Having to hide it shows that it is nothing more than a blatantly partisan exercise. 

You were called out, tough luck. 

I'm all ears if you want to make your point, but don't hide it.

[President von Cat]

Wonkish, you're glossing over the debt ceiling debate, which is dishonest. It played a much bigger symbolic role than you are admitting. It wasn't just a blip on the radar.

This is a more articulate version of what I'm trying to say:

"While the global economy was struggling going into the third quarter, the inability to favorably resolve budget and debt problems in both Europe and the U.S. has seemed to erode consumer, business, and investor confidence. The Greek debt crisis remains in the news on a daily basis, currently without a solution. The failure of the U.S. Congress to address budget issues, the debacle over increasing the U.S. debt ceiling, and the downgrade of U.S. debt by Standard & Poor's all contributed to U.S. market’s steep decline. The problems in reaching an agreement on the debt ceiling highlighted the ineffectiveness of Congress in dealing with important economic issues. More so than in most time periods, the global economy is currently dependent on politicians and bureaucrats to act forcefully and intelligently. Policy decisions currently in the hands of government officials will have a significant impact on the global economy over the next year."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/297761-q3-2011-market-review-recessionary-fears-overwhelm-market

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish, you're glossing over the debt ceiling debate, which is dishonest. It played a much bigger symbolic role than you are admitting. It wasn't just a blip on the radar.

This is a more articulate version of what I'm trying to say:

"While the global economy was struggling going into the third quarter, the inability to favorably resolve budget and debt problems in both Europe and the U.S. has seemed to erode consumer, business, and investor confidence. The Greek debt crisis remains in the news on a daily basis, currently without a solution. The failure of the U.S. Congress to address budget issues, the debacle over increasing the U.S. debt ceiling, and the downgrade of U.S. debt by Standard & Poor's all contributed to U.S. market’s steep decline. The problems in reaching an agreement on the debt ceiling highlighted the ineffectiveness of Congress in dealing with important economic issues. More so than in most time periods, the global economy is currently dependent on politicians and bureaucrats to act forcefully and intelligently. Policy decisions currently in the hands of government officials will have a significant impact on the global economy over the next year."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/297761-q3-2011-market-review-recessionary-fears-overwhelm-market

Alright bryan you want to piss with the big dogs. In order for real damage to occur to an economy you have to deliver structural damage. Defaults increasing within a specific credit market for example would induce structural damage to the economy. Bank losses cause structural damage. Corporate earnings falling or corporate losses cause structural damage. Layoffs cause structural damage.

Tell me Bryan, what structural damage was done to the economy by the debt ceiling debates. Was there defaults caused by it? Did other countries cancel any orders with domestic exporters? Did sales numbers fall in any industry?

Come on Bryan tell me what happened because of the debt ceiling debate that actually affected our market fundamentals in any way. Equity prices are based on earnings and risk. A sovereign debt crisis on another continent that buys our goods and who's debt instruments are at least to a reasonable extent owned by our banks is real risk. A debt downgrade on the sovereign bond that is considered the worlds ultimate safe haven is NOT REAL RISK.

No damage to earnings, revenue, employment, etc. was done because of the debt downgrade and not 1 tiny bit of risk was added into the system.

So yeah knock yourself out and go find an article from a nobody on seekingalpha to support your claim, but the truth is neither he nor you could actually find real damage to anything in the market. Stock price declines in and of themselves don't actually cause any damage to anything.

[President von Cat]

Stock price declines in and of themselves don't actually cause any damage to anything.

But that just isn't true, Wonkish. Not to mention the fact that it is vastly understating what the stock market did immediately following the debt debate.

When stock prices plummet, and they did for several days following the debt cieling debacle (and before the downgrade even happened), that scares people and ruins confidence in the economy. It hurts retirement funds too, and that makes people not want to spend money, which hurts the economy too.

Furthermore, the debt debate did hurt employment, because people stopped hiring because they were unsure if the country was going to default on its debt. No jobs in August, after a gain of 100,000ish in July? Not just a coincidence. And such a miserable jobs report feeds back into second-guessing the economy as well. Its just a nonstop loop of unfortunate consequences.

It created a massive, unnecessary cloud of uncertainty over everyone's lives.

[Link]

Hey buddy you do realize your arguing with someone that does this for a career. The US markets recovered the losses caused by the news of the downgrade within 5 days. The reason for the downgrade wasn't political as much as the Dems tried to paint it as such. Again I actually read these documents and I understand how agencies rate debt. They downgraded because the US wasn't able to make enough progress on medium term debt reduction. But it still didn't matter because the market paired back its losses within a few days.

There were no losses in the markets the agency was "rating" ie US government debt.  The hack ratings agency downgraded US debt and the market rebuked them and debt rallied to historic highs.  In short they have no idea what they are doing.

[Wonkish1]

See I think one of the things people don't realize is that by themselves stock market losses don't destroy wealth and stock market gains don't create wealth. You see it written up all of the time in news articles by halfwit journalists("the US markets lost $200 billion this week"), but they just fundamentally do not understand the basic functioning of markets.

There is an easy to illustrate this:

Lets say I and Bryan here are going to engage in stock trade.

I want to sell ABC company. Well I can't just sell it into thin air(even though many idiots in this country think you can). In order for me to sell ABC someone else, in this case Bryan has to simultaneously decide he wants to buy ABC.

At the beginning of the trade I have stock, but want cash. Bryan has cash, but wants stock. When I trade my stock for his cash the same amount of stock and cash exists after the trade as before the trade.

That is why stock values don't "store money". Now you may ask then how prices for stock go up or down. Well if I want out of my stock more than others want in than I may have to lower the asking price for the stock in order to sell it. If that is what happens essentially on a very, very, very tiny level I have decreased the value of the stock and I've slightly increased the value of cash relative to each other. And in the opposite case if there are a bunch of people trying to get into the stock and only a few people that are willing to sell at the current price than the price of the stock must fluctuate up in order find additional sellers willing to sell to this bunch of people. In that case on a very tiny level the stock has gone up in value and cash has in a tiny, tiny, tiny way gone down relative to each other.

Why is this important? It illustrates that stock prices are not stored money. You don't buy stock and have your money converted in this asset known as stock(its easy to forget this with online trading these days, but just remember 100 years ago this was obvious because the trade had to physically change hands). So when the stock market crashes essentially what happens(assuming no structural damage, losses, and monetary contraction) is that the perceived value of stock has gone down and the perceived value of something else cash, gold, bonds, etc. has gone up relative to each other.

The only time this isn't true is when actual losses take place. A default(a bank loss) is monetary destruction based on how our fractional reserve banking system operates. So once losses start occurring the pool of available money shrinks and therefore a larger spread in the value between cash and other assets(like stock grows) so the market naturally corrects through a sell off to increase the value of smaller supply money(to account for all of the assets in the country) and decrease the value of the larger supply of assets.

[Wonkish1]

Stock price declines in and of themselves don't actually cause any damage to anything.

But that just isn't true, Wonkish. Not to mention the fact that it is vastly understating what the stock market did immediately following the debt debate.

When stock prices plummet, and they did for several days following the debt cieling debacle (and before the downgrade even happened), that scares people and ruins confidence in the economy. It hurts retirement funds too, and that makes people not want to spend money, which hurts the economy too.

Furthermore, the debt debate did hurt employment, because people stopped hiring because they were unsure if the country was going to default on its debt. No jobs in August, after a gain of 100,000ish in July? Not just a coincidence. And such a miserable jobs report feeds back into second-guessing the economy as well. Its just a nonstop loop of unfortunate consequences.

It created a massive, unnecessary cloud of uncertainty over everyone's lives.

You know I do find it hilarious when people try to act like they know how to do my job better than I do.

Do you know that consumer confidence is one of the best contrarian indicators in the market? When consumer confidence is very low its usually a sign to buy because public have overplayed the fundamentals.

Stock market declines do not cause bad economic outcomes. Bad economic outcomes cause stock market declines. This is finance 101, here. You're just flat wrong!!

You also don't fundamentally understand consumer buying behavior.

Businesses didn't stop hiring because of the debt crisis, please! That is absolute BS. Hiring was decreasing each month up until that point. August is a traditionally slow hiring month. Look businesses are cutting back because credit is cutting back. Bank write offs are on the rise. And because buyers of our export goods Europe and China are buying less. It has nothing to do with a bad week in the markets and businesses weren't scared that the Federal government was going to default.

That is a joke.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The lesson here... don't try to challenge Wonkish... he'll out-write you, because his knowledge-base here is without comparison... apparently.

[Wonkish1]

The lesson here... don't try to challenge Wonkish... he'll out-write you, because his knowledge-base here is without comparison... apparently.

Well I mean who challenges someone who does something as career? I mean I would never walk up to a doctor and challenge them on the practice of medicine nor would I do it to lawyer or anybody else.

Lets say I was going to get into a discussion with a health liability PC guy about Tort reform, I would just shut up, listen, and ask questions that's it. Same for a school principal on a conversation about student discipline or even a climate scientist talking about global warming. In each case, shut up, listen, and ask questions.


The moment this country's voters became more concerned with maintaining their ideology vs. learning everything they could about how our world and country works is the moment this country really started developing problems. Nobody wants to learn anymore.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not being difficult - but I'm curious as someone whose career is public policy development and implementation - because you work in finance... we should sit quietly to you and just listen?

I'm sure that's not your point, but it does sound like that.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not being difficult - but I'm curious as someone whose career is public policy development and implementation - because you work in finance... we should sit quietly to you and just listen?

I'm sure that's not your point, but it does sound like that.

Nope but to be quite honest with you since you first mentioned was your career a few days ago I've been secretely waiting for you to weigh in on something in that arena so I could start firing off questions to you. Its not right though for me to just start throwing random questions at you until you initiate something.

I guess that would be the sort of example I meant by what I said above.

[milhouse24]

I would not be surprised if he gave up and decided not to seek the Democratic nomination, he's a realist after all, no need to waste all that money in a losing effort. 

[Wonkish1]

If you had a real point with your game you could have made it.  Not with a game, you could just say it straight up.  Having to hide it shows that it is nothing more than a blatantly partisan exercise. 

You were called out, tough luck. 

I'm all ears if you want to make your point, but don't hide it.

Alright TXMichael I missed this post before. I'll just run ahead with it. Again its quite simple.

First, I'm going to operate under the assumption(I was going to ask you this first before) that you are in fact a supporter of government expenditure to boost jobs(stimulus). If you are in fact not a supporter of this then feel free to let me know and this thing becomes a mute point.

But question number 1:

Given the choice between the government spending 100% of the cost of hiring a worker for beneficial project

vs.

It spending 80% of the cost and a private investor kicked in 20% of the cost for the same project because they agreed with it being done

Which would you choose?

In the first case if it was a job paying $50k the government paid out all of the $50k. In the 2nd case the government would save $10k because of the investors money and us taxpayers would only have to shoulder the $40k.

So which one would you prefer?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you had a real point with your game you could have made it.  Not with a game, you could just say it straight up.  Having to hide it shows that it is nothing more than a blatantly partisan exercise. 

You were called out, tough luck. 

I'm all ears if you want to make your point, but don't hide it.

Alright TXMichael I missed this post before. I'll just run ahead with it. Again its quite simple.

First, I'm going to operate under the assumption(I was going to ask you this first before) that you are in fact a supporter of government expenditure to boost jobs(stimulus). If you are in fact not a supporter of this then feel free to let me know and this thing becomes a mute point.

But question number 1:

Given the choice between the government spending 100% of the cost of hiring a worker for beneficial project

vs.

It spending 80% of the cost and a private investor kicked in 20% of the cost for the same project because they agreed with it being done

Which would you choose?

In the first case if it was a job paying $50k the government paid out all of the $50k. In the 2nd case the government would save $10k because of the investors money and us taxpayers would only have to shoulder the $40k.

So which one would you prefer?

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

[Wonkish1]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k? Why not?

And what do you mean by PPP?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist. 

[Wonkish1]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist. 

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

That same money would have be out of the tax payers hands either way, the money doesn't to the business to pay their share of the new hire by magic

Since you are not stating your point, I'm out.  If you want to make it then either post it next or send it to me in a private message because I don't play these ridiculous games.  

[Wonkish1]

Since you are not stating your point, I'm out.  If you want to make it then either post it next or send it to me in a private message because I don't play these ridiculous games.  

The point is in how you arrive at a particular answer. If I just told you it then you would just go, "I  don't agree with how you arrived at your conclusion, I disagree" So if I can't walk you through how one would arrive at a certain conclusion then the point is meaningless. That is how economics works.

Or did you think it was just a bunch of people that got up 1 day and decided these are the policies that sound good to me and nothing else matters?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Then message the two paths if that's the point.

Like I said, if you didn't post it I would be out.  So you can private message me your paths where the government gets Bill O'Reilly angry because it raised taxes to afford the additional $10,000 and the alternative where everything is great because in the conservative less government spending is always better.

[Wonkish1]

Then message the two paths if that's the point.

Like I said, if you didn't post it I would be out.  So you can private message me your paths where the government gets Bill O'Reilly angry because it raised taxes to afford the additional $10,000 and the alternative where everything is great because in the conservative less government spending is always better.

Not even close! I'm actually quite surprised that you would be okay with a government telling an investor to get lost for kicking in 20% of the cost of a project thereby saving the government money. Since I wasn't expecting you to take such an odd position there is no way I could continue this unless you actually realized that its pretty stupid for the government to pay the whole thing when someone else was offering to pay some.

And FYI an investor already has a pile of earned capital. His capital doesn't come from tax payers.

[pbrower2a]

The lesson here... don't try to challenge Wonkish... he'll out-write you, because his knowledge-base here is without comparison... apparently.

Well I mean who challenges someone who does something as career? I mean I would never walk up to a doctor and challenge them on the practice of medicine nor would I do it to lawyer or anybody else.

Lets say I was going to get into a discussion with a health liability PC guy about Tort reform, I would just shut up, listen, and ask questions that's it. Same for a school principal on a conversation about student discipline or even a climate scientist talking about global warming. In each case, shut up, listen, and ask questions.


The moment this country's voters became more concerned with maintaining their ideology vs. learning everything they could about how our world and country works is the moment this country really started developing problems. Nobody wants to learn anymore.

The basic facts are almost never subject to controversy except at the edge of knowledge. Were I to seek to know how to slice up a side of beef, then I would go to someone who knows how to slice up a side of beef. That would not be an attorney. If you are discussing history, then some facts are beyond question -- such as that Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of the UK during the Blitz and that he spoke of the performance of the RAF against the Luftwaffe as "the finest hour". Good science ordinarily has enough qualifiers that until recently any good chemist could say that "within the available measurements bismuth-209 is stable" -- until measurements now available show that the isotope has a half-life of one billion times the estimated age of the universe. Both statements have been true, the first one now refuted only because the measurements have gotten better.   

Even something so loaded with value judgments as economics has points of undeniable reality -- such as the content of John Maynard Keynes wrote in his General Theory.  One can disagree with Keynes, but one cannot deny what he wrote.

When people get into positions of advocacy, then their credibility as experts vanishes. Advocacy positions almost always have personal values behind them, and those personal values are beyond proof. Look at it this way: much of my idea of how human nature operates results from what I observed as an infant -- such as whether people are trustworthy, whether one can eventually get what one wants and how, whether strangers (and which ones) are acceptable or to be shoved aside, whether one can be confident or must wallow in fear, and whether what one person gets implies a complete loss for someone else. There is a huge difference between being brought up as a Reform Jew and being brought up as a Pentecostal, between having drunken philanderers as parents or having  attentive parents,  whether "curiosity killed the cat" or a little curiosity is a nice thing, and between having been  brought up rich or poor.  Basic values are beyond proof.

One cannot prove that an extreme position of economic inequality is a good thing or it is a great horror.  One can't prove that the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade, or Stalin's forced collectivization was wrong. Extremely offensive and disgusting to someone who believes that life is precious and worthy of legal protection? Sure -- that is a consequence of what I believe due to values that someone inculcated in me even when I was nursing from a bottle. I have a large vocabulary of pejorative words appropriate for harsh judgment. "Bad" is just too vague.

Sure, there is specific learning to any trade or profession. Some professions require a vast store of knowledge not available elsewhere. For good reason, beauticians can start working on hair when eighteen or so; physicians are about 28 before they do serious medicine.

But know the limitations. If a physician appears on an advertisement for a non-prescription poll for headaches or sinus congestion, then his objectivity is gone. If an economist says "Vote for Smith", then he likely says more about what he believes in than about economics. If a climate scientist is in the employ of a large oil or coal company, then watch out.