Upper class people more likely to cheat: study

The seven-part study by psychologists analyzed people's behavior through a series of experiments
People from wealthy, upper classes are more likely than poorer folks to break laws while driving, take candy from children and lie for financial gain, said a US study.

The upper class has a higher propensity for unethical behavior, being more likely to believe – as did Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street" – that "greed is good," according to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley.

"The increased unethical tendencies of upper-class individuals are driven, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed," said Paul Piff, a doctoral student in psychology at UC Berkeley and lead author of the paper published today (Monday, Feb. 27) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Piff's study is the latest in a series of UC Berkeley scholarly investigations into the relationship between socio-economic class and prosocial and antisocial emotions and behaviors, revealing new information about class differences during a time of rising economic tension.

"As these issues come to the fore, our research – and that by others – helps shed light on the role of inequality in shaping patterns of ethical conduct and selfish behavior, and points to certain ways in which these patterns might also be changed," Piff said.

To investigate how class relates to ethical conduct, the researchers surveyed the ethical tendencies of more than 1,000 individuals of lower-, middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Volunteers reported their social class using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status and filled out surveys revealing their attitudes about unprincipled behaviors and greed. They also took part in tasks designed to measure their actual unethical behavior.

In two field studies on driving behavior, upper-class motorists were found to be four times more likely than the other drivers to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection and three times more likely to cut off a pedestrian waiting to enter a crosswalk. Another study found that upper-class participants presented with scenarios of unscrupulous behavior were more likely than the individuals in the other socio-economic classes to report replicating this type of behavior themselves.

Participants in the fourth study were assigned tasks in a laboratory where a jar of candy, reserved for visiting children, was on hand, and were invited to take a candy or two. Upper-class participants helped themselves to twice as much candy as did their counterparts in other classes.

In the fifth study, participants each were assigned the role of an employer negotiating a salary with a job candidate seeking long-term employment. Among other things, they were told that the job would soon be eliminated, and that they were free to convey that information to the candidate. Upper-class participants were more likely to deceive job candidates by withholding this information, the study found.

In the sixth study, participants played a computerized dice game, with each player getting five rolls of the dice and then reporting his or her scores. The player with the highest score would receive a cash prize. The players did not know that the game was rigged so that each player would receive no more than 12 points for the five rolls. Upper-class participants were more likely to report higher scores than would be possible, indicating a higher rate of cheating, according to the study.

The last study found attitudes about greed to be the most significant predictor of unethical behavior. Participants were primed to think about the advantages of greed and then presented with bad behavior-in-the-workplace scenarios, such as stealing cash, accepting bribes and overcharging customers. It turned out that even those participants not in the upper class were just as likely to report a willingness to engage in unethical behavior as the upper-class cohort once they had been primed to see the benefits of greed, researchers said.

"These findings have very clear implications for how increased wealth and status in society shapes patterns of ethical behavior, and suggest that the different social values among the haves and the have-nots help drive these tendencies," Piff said of the cumulative findings.


Explore further

Upper-class people have trouble recognizing others' emotions

More information: “High social class predicts increased unethical behavior,” by Paul K. Piff, Daniel M. Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner, PNAS (2012).
Provided by University of California - Berkeley
Citation: Upper class people more likely to cheat: study (2012, February 27) retrieved 16 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-02-upper-class-people.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 27, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 27, 2012
Might I direct attention to the story of the "Rich Young Ruler" in the Bible. Jesus was right.

Something is wrong with a civilization which gives the majority of profits of collective work to one person, who then pats himself on the back and thinks they've "earned" it.

Bad enough that the rich now make 10 times more money relative to the poor than was the case a few decades ago, but now they hypocritically believe they are "entitled" to two or three times as much.

While there is nothing wrong with accepting a gift or freebie, a person who already has more than enough should be more likely to turn down such excesses, or take less than normal people.

This is the pharisee arrogance, greed, power, "entitlement," and hypocrisy.

It's like a police officer who runs a red light, because they know they can get away with it, since nobody else has the "power" to stop them and write a ticket.

Feb 27, 2012
Reminds me of an incident years ago, back in high school, when two girls who were what I'd call "upper-middle class" were arrested for shop-lifting at Dillards.

I don't remember all the details, but they probably had the money in their purses for whatever they stole, or could have got it from parents at any time.

There was another case in which the male seniors had a scavenger hunt which involved stealing several items of progressive value, and if I remember right, one of the guys involved in it is now a lawyer! Figures.

Feb 27, 2012
Study after study shows the same thing, the 1% are not your friend. I remember this study where they had a box of donuts in an office and people could take donuts and donate whatever they want. Researchers secretly kept track of who took donuts and how much they donated. The CEO/upper management invariably took the most donuts without donating anything, while the lower paid employees donated a fair value for whatever they took. I think part of this effect is due to the high earners knowing that they are overpaid, so they must construct a persona where they are more deserving than other people, so that justifies their excessive compensation. They're entitled to take whatever they want because they're just so darn valuable. Similar to another study that showed that giving bonuses often made people LESS productive, because most people generally feel they aren't doing 100%, so when you get a bonus you are like "oh, expectations are really much lower than I thought, I can slack off."

210
Feb 27, 2012
Money, perceived value of material things IN another person's life, is like an enormous magnetic magnifying glass. It is as if someone turned the Hubble Space telescope toward your life and it followed you EVERYWHERE! People who do NOT know you, have never seen you, can tell U R in that magnifiers glare.For the good person, and, or the Loving person, money makes U more able 2 support & care 4 those you so treasure. The price? It also makes U a bigger target for those who would defile that affection and target U for harm and disaster. Love? We ALL need and want it. Money...we ALL need and WANT IT, HENCE we are built with an inherent vulnerability fearing deeply being hurt because a 'thing' has made us the focus of 'the unloving.' You see this in yur parents lives, friends, & relations. The entire human race glorifies your struggle WAITING 4 the day U split your pants or your skirt flies up in public. everyone U know, is so afraid they missed something because of 'money' cheat=rebellion

Feb 27, 2012
As a critical thinker I am disappointed this is presented not as a fundamental character of human psychology but as some kind of failing on the parts of individuals.

Human psychology is long known for its study of the egocentric nature of people. Indeed natural selection probably weeds out "successful" individuals that feel undeserving or are less effective leveraging "success" into favoritism for their offspring.

I would also like to see a decent comparison against relative value judgements. if you really wanted to compare apples to apples, the rich and poor need to be tested against penalties of equal *proportionality*. Meaning a $150 dollar ticket doesn't have the same weight between the two.

And maybe even a psychology comparison between consumers of different kinds of cars and their performance. And the age range of who buys what kinds of cars.

*That* would be "science"!

350
Feb 27, 2012
Lol what "groundbreaking" research. What new research will they come up with next to tell us things we already know?

210
Feb 27, 2012
Is anyone surprised?

You will find, when you make your fortune, and that may have already happened but if not, I pray it will, because it can be very good...and bad...sadly. But, the 'new money people' have/get a case of Amnesia from HELL! They do NOT remember their lonely nights...they forget that one guy or gal who could not 'come-over-to-see-you' because you/they slept in a car! They forget relatives who tried to find them for years not being able to write because your 'car' had no street address - forget those relatives for sure!! They become 'cheaters' like the rest of us, but they rebel against the image of themselves as they were fighting and struggling for the wealth: They HATE THEMSELVES because the price they paid was ignoring all the wonderful little things that they truly admired and loved...and the people, oh God, there WERE people who did NOT give a damn about how much money you made or had and you missed them! Now, you cant tell who 2 trust. Real PAIN!
word-

210
Feb 27, 2012
Reminds me of an incident years ago, back in high school, when two girls who were what I'd call "upper-middle class" were arrested for shop-lifting at Dillards.

I know you have seen it in the movies...darn...I cannot think of a movie! But, anyway, too often wealthy parents are M. I. Friggin -A. TRULY! They throw money and tutors at the kid(s) and when crap like what you wrote happens they just throw lawyers at the judges and money at the lawyers. TRUST ME! Parents are human, BUT, try having a money-printing-press for a parent!!!! You will quickly learn to hate money and wish Hitler was your daddy... I am saying... by terse analogy, The young hunger for the approval or rebuke of someone who loves them deeply and truly...I kid you NOT!!!

word-from-ya-muthas

Feb 27, 2012
I bet if you'd take 100 of the guys driving cheaper cars and have them completely switch lives with 100 of the guys driving more expensive cars, you'd find that the outcome of said experiment would be pretty much the same, i.e. the guys with expensive cars (prev. cheap cars) would cheat.
We cheat because we are given the opportunity to do so. Not because we are "fundamentally" good or bad people. Being wealthy means you can afford getting a ticket, which in turn means you can afford to take the risk (opportunity).

This is how they (at least partially) solve this problem in Scandinavia, though it's not used for speeding as far as I know: http://en.wikiped...Day-fine

Feb 27, 2012
Anyone read the latest story of the John Kennedy 19 year old intern at the pool?

Feb 27, 2012
There is no cheating in the ruling class. Sheep wonder why they're treated like sheep. They go about acquiring THINGS while their masters realized the most valuable thing you can own is another person. To get rich one must acquire people as they have by far the largest return. http://www.youtub...6umQT58A

Feb 27, 2012
At the political rallies, they cheer each other on. They praise each other. They succumb to whatever instant gratification including offers from corporate lobbyists. They help each other get away with things as long it benefits them. A better title for this article might be: "Upper class people more likely to cheat - and get away with it."

Dug
Feb 27, 2012
Psycho-babble - not science. There's a reason they call sociology a "soft science" - because real scientist don't consider it a science.

Feb 27, 2012
Hehe, this is a UC Berkeley study. Maybe some bias. Maybe it is true anyway, but there is also maybe some bias.

Feb 27, 2012
This starts in high schoool. I witnessed mostly honors students cheating during exams. Teachers don't do enough to punish cheating at an early age, and as a result this continues into college and in the corporate world.

Feb 27, 2012
Freeman Dyosn: "As I was about to go back to Princeton, I thought I would have a little talk with her and play the heavy father. So I said, "You know, I am paying tuition for you. And I find it a little bit surprising that you don't seem to do any studying."

She told me, "Oh, no, Daddy, you don't understand. You don't come to Harvard to study. You come to Harvard to get to know the right people.""
http://www.wired....p;topic=
It's not what you know it's who.
Wonder why we haven't seen Obama's Columbia transcript.

Feb 27, 2012
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Matthew 19:23-24

Feb 27, 2012
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Matthew 19:23-24

So a socialist govt should take all his money to make the formerly rich moral?
Ever hear of Chuck Feeney? http://www.atlant...-founder
I would submit 'rich' and 'upper class' are not the same. Those who created wealth from nothing are usually not permitted into the upper class club.
Molly Brown is a classic example.
I suggest 'upper class' are those who seek power to control others.

Feb 28, 2012
I suggest 'upper class' are those who seek power to control others.
You do realize that by saying everything, you wind up signifying nothing?

Feb 28, 2012
How did those fair folk at Berkeley round up so easily those ten percenters and above to waste and while away their time so that they themselves might be hoisted by their own petard as an inexpert anarchist in dark suit with bomb in hand might detonate prematurely to startle only the King's horses?

Feb 28, 2012
Among politicians, businessmen and others who are quite "successful" by most standards you see quite a lot of unethical behaviour even though you would assume they have more to loose if they are exposed.
-Apparently there is a psychological mechanism that encourages people to think "go ahead, you deserve it" if they are successful...
And if their conduct hurt others, so what? Those people don't count anyway. So go ahead and dump toxic waste outside a school, or acquire favourable deals for your campaign donors.

Feb 28, 2012
First, there are no classes in America, so the study is flawed from the outset.

Secondly, we have rich people saying rich people are less moral than other people. I doubt that is true in general, but it appears to be true for the study designers.

Feb 28, 2012
Is anyone surprised?

Not really. As a first approximation people think others act like themslves. Those who have, in the past, gamed the system to get rich will assume other's can/will do that, too. So there's no real reason why they should, all of a sudden, become noble people.

It's just good to have it finally as more than a vague feeling.

And maybe even a psychology comparison between consumers of different kinds of cars and their performance. And the age range of who buys what kinds of cars.

You're demanding mulivariate studies. Those require an ENORMOUSLY larger amount of data. A study like the one presented is a first step. Finding an effect there can justify going for a more in depth study. It's just prudent to first use limited resources to see whether using a lot orfresources is evenmerited.

First, there are no classes in America

What planet do you live on?

Feb 28, 2012
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Matthew 19:23-24
That gets misinterpreted in translation and sounds like there is some mystical paradise that you go to when you die. Not so. This was Jesus explaining to the rabble that all the money in the world wasn't going to send them to space because they didn't have the capacity to didn't understand the science and technologies required to get there. It wasn't a moral lesson.

Feb 28, 2012
antialias,
First, there are no classes in America


What planet do you live on?


Earth, Solar System. You live on the same planet.

There is a distribution of wealth in America as there is anywhere else. But there are no classes.

Britain and India are examples of class societies. There are no such boundaries in America.

Feb 28, 2012
The tests were supposedly for determining greed for a 'class' of people. I just don't see the person who took some extra candy as lusting after the candy. I think what they should call it is a test of one's morals and ethics. The method used to determine the participants class may also be skewed. It allows the participant to decide what class they are in. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the results because of this.

Feb 28, 2012
The 'occupiers' must consider themselves 'upper class' as they believe they are entitled to cheat the system: steal, commit fraud, etc.

Feb 28, 2012
There is a distribution of wealth in America as there is anywhere else. But there are no classes.

Britain and India are examples of class societies.

The US has about the same social mobility as the UK (47% vs. 50% chance of ending up in the same socioeconomic group that your parents were in)
Whether you call it classes or not doesn't really matter - they're a reality. (and they have found their way into the lingo for a long time: middle class, upper class, working class, class warfare, the 99% .. these aren't concepts that are unheard of in the US)

Feb 28, 2012
I would agree it is a matter of entitlement. One doesn't take extra candy or cut other people off because they are unethical, they just think they are the shit and do as they please. I don't think ethics deal with such petty actions, however, considering cheating has also been studied here and is correlated to the other actions they may be related.

Feb 28, 2012
I would submit 'rich' and 'upper class' are not the same.

Maybe, maybe not. But the mediating factor turned out to be greed. If the lower class was induced to think about the benefits of greed, the class differences disappeared.

Would you expect the rich to have a generally more positive attitude towards greed?

From dogbert:
First, there are no classes in America, so the study is flawed from the outset.

From what I read, the US has quite low social mobility. Does your definition of class have nothing to do with that?

Feb 28, 2012
I'll bet this study is BS. This is a new discovery in "science" which must be validated by others. Funny how we've never heard of this branch of inquiry and this result previously. Funny how it fits nicely with the Marxist class warfare theme of our socialist president.

Feb 28, 2012
First, there are no classes in America...
Wow, that's really the most deluded thing I've read this year.

Feb 28, 2012
Have the authors showed causation rather than merely correlation? The study is titled "High social class predicts increased unethical behavior", but have the authors considered that unethical behavior may predict high social class? Which causes which?

I'd like to see a study in which kids of the same socio-economic class are tested for ethical behavior and then followed until middle age. Will the unethical kids grow to be more or less wealthy than their ethical mates? That would be an interesting experiment!

Feb 28, 2012
The above 'study' is idiotic and a fraud from a left wing dolt. Only an imbecile would draw such conclusions from the above study.

More class warfare propaganda designed for left-wing mush-head Obama voters. Obama will be using such tactics soon in the 2012 campaign, and every dolt propagandist is laying the foundation in preparation.

http://www.thebla...be-fake/

Feb 28, 2012
Does unethical behavior produce welfare cases or does welfare cases produce unethical behavior? The amount of fraud in such government entitlement programs is staggering. Candies in a jar? Even a 3rd grader knows that the vast majority of crime comes from the lower classes.

The subjective term "greed" will play big in the novelty presidents reelection campaign.

99% of every citizen wants more and more for themselves and their families. The upper class are simply used to being less inhibited wrt getting what they want, and the idiotic "study" above is simply gauging that momentum. Meaningless.

Feb 28, 2012
"Have the authors showed causation rather than merely correlation?" - Ferky

No. They have shown correlation.

Does unethical behavior produce wealth or wealth produce unethical behavior?

It's probably a two way street.

From my own observations, I see little ethical difference between the wealthy and the poor.

However I do see a lack of ethics in corporate actions.


For the most part your above post is surprisingly coherent. Except that corporations are not morale beings; they are cold inanimate machines engineered to manufacture wealth,... and so, are not subject to "ethics", just the law.

Feb 28, 2012
"Except that corporations are not morale beings." - NoumenTard

But legally people. So they are legally immoral people.

Hence the grand failure of America. - F'k-Tard


You didn't make any sense, dingus. Corporations are not people, they're things. It makes as much sense to apply ethics in a corporation as it does to my lawn mower.

The people who operate a corporation are expected to maximize profit, not to do less in order to "do the right thing to impress emotionally driven liberal bed-wetters".

Also, moron; The USA is and remains the greatest economic success in recorded history, and all came about because of a egotistical desire to better ones standard of living,... or as some class baiters on the left would phrase it, "greed".

Feb 28, 2012
i wonder how many of the people that disagreed with this study are upper class people living in denial about their own short comings
"i really do deserve more than my fellow man, i really am a better person, really i am... really! and if you wont give me what i deserve im just going to take it!

Feb 28, 2012
,... and the reason you're typing your "radical" non-sense on capitalistic developed computer, and not a Russian computer, proves that "greed" is the motive force behind all that is great in terms of improving human condition, and is quite natural in mam and correlates perfectly with freedom.

Envy is weakness.

Feb 28, 2012
NumenTard is going to soil his underpants in hate filled protest when Obama is re-elected.

I already detect the spittle violently ejecting from his mouth at the thought. - Venereal_Disease

"More class warfare propaganda designed for left-wing mush-head Obama voters." - Noumenon


Unlike your irrational hatred of the right and GW Bush, I have no such hatred toward Obama. I think Obama is intelligent and is a patriot for serving his country, and wants what's best for the country and therefore is a good American. I just fundamentally disagree with his "progressive" liberal mentality, his gov imposed "fairness" mentality, and his envisioned increasing role for the government in everyone's lives.

Didn't you get your self into some trouble with your threats against Bush? Talk about hatred.

Feb 29, 2012
"The upper class is more likely to believe as did Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street" that "greed is good," according to a new study from the University of California, Berkeley."

The problem with so much of our popular culture being generated by the left wing is they create lasting images of those that they hate that endure for a long time. Gordon Gekko was a left wing fantasy of the right wing that they pray for. He wasn't real, he never existed and "studies" run by liberals about those they hate are not to be trusted. For every fictitious Gordon Gekko there is a real Andrew Carnegie. I never got a job from a poor man, and almost all of my employers in my long life have been wonderful people.

Feb 29, 2012
Commenters:

Please Google "Scott Nudds" and "Vendicar Decarian" before you engage that person in a discussion.

Feb 29, 2012
Couldn't have said it better RichieGuy.

Feb 29, 2012
True you couldn't.

It was wrong but you believe President Dumbass was competent so you clearly don't have a clue about political reality.

Bush was one of our worst presidents and lying about things won't change that.

Ethelred

Feb 29, 2012
This computer was assembled by me from components largely manufactured in Socialist China, and utilizes a CPU designed mostly outside of the U.S.


Do you know the difference between product development and assembly?

Feb 29, 2012
True you couldn't.

It was wrong but you believe President Dumbass was competent so you clearly don't have a clue about political reality.

Bush was one of our worst presidents and lying about things won't change that.

Ethelred


Where did I say Bush was great? He was far from an ideal conservative.

Feb 29, 2012
. What can be called greed is necessary for survival, but there are varying levels of greed as well as the amount of material wealth desired.

Adam Smith called it 'self interest'.
wants what's best for the country and therefore is a good American.

Were Lenin and Stalin good Russians for wanting what was best for the country?

Feb 29, 2012
. What can be called greed is necessary for survival, but there are varying levels of greed as well as the amount of material wealth desired.

Adam Smith called it 'self interest'.
wants what's best for the country and therefore is a good American.

Were Lenin and Stalin good Russians for wanting what was best for the country?


Not a fair comparison.

Feb 29, 2012
"Where did I say Bush was great?" - NumenTard

Your continual defense of the Murderous War Criminal and congenital liar gives us a clue.

"Nobody anticipated that the levees would be breached." - George Bush Jr.


I'm surprised that you are not a 911 truther with your way over the top manner of speaking.

GWBush was no more a "war criminal" than the vast majority of democrats who voted for that legitimate war in Iraq.

No president can possibly micro manage every f'ing levee in the country, you bonehead. Bush was blamed for that hurricane like he was the scal goat for everything. I recall seeing a hundred school buses siting in water while the dolt Nagin ignored Bush's repeated warning.

Feb 29, 2012
But the war crimes were the illegal invasions themselves, and the fact that mass murder for political gain was the order given by your War Criminal President.


Acording to what body was that war illegal? Iraq? The UN specifically stated it would NOT admonish the USA if it invaded Iraq.

The same will occur with Iran. Everyone suspects they're developing nuclear weapons, but no one knows for absolute certainty outside Iran. What matters is what the majority suspects, because access to certainty is not available.

Feb 29, 2012
Wow! Some people just have no basis in reality. Obama is the most moderate democrat president since WWII based on voting record.

http://voteview.c...g/?p=317

Obama is really a republican from 20 years ago. The republicans just moved so far to the radical right that now a democrat has to be a moderate republican to get elected.

Feb 29, 2012
The invasion of another nation without cause is illegal under international law.


Again, did the United Nations declare that action illegal? Answer, No. It was not illegal. There was justified cause, just not in your opinion.

"The same will occur with Iran." - NumenTard

Excellent. The death of America will only be accelerated by that action.


Really, by what force, ... the cavemen rag-heads? Israel can handle several of those countries at once with little direct help from the USA. Again, what country are you from originally? Do you reside in the USA but are middle-eastern? Your wanna-be radicalism and over-the-top-absurdity tells me you're Intellectually immature.

@EverythingsJustATheory,.. the exact opposite of everything you said is the truth. Obama was rated the most liberal senator.

Feb 29, 2012
No u a Tard,

I have backed up my claim with a study that has actually examined the voting records, whereas you have just stated your opinion. I wonder then, who should be taken more seriously?

Feb 29, 2012
What's so hilarious about republicans is that the states that scream the most about federal spending are the ones who receive the most federal aid. Blue states subsidize the red states with federal money, so if anything it should be the democrats complaining.

Feb 29, 2012
states that scream the most about federal spending are the ones who receive the most federal aid.

Which ones?

Feb 29, 2012
The same will occur with Iran. Everyone suspects they're developing nuclear weapons, but no one knows for absolute certainty outside Iran. What matters is what the majority suspects, because access to certainty is not available.
What dirt do zionists have on you, Noumenon? In any case, you're full of b.s. as usual: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Agree: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

"Despite the repeated statements made by United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta which have clearly indicated that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and the analysis of the American intelligence community, the heated anti-Iranian rhetoric never seems to let up.

Indeed, it has even been reported by none other than the New York Times that intelligence analysts in America have yet to find any hard evidence indicating that Iran has even decided to construct a nuclear bomb. contd

Feb 29, 2012
contd:
American intelligence assessments have continued to be congruent with the 2007 intelligence report which clearly concluded that Iran had in fact completely abandoned their nuclear program years before (scroll to the bottom of the article to read the embedded report).

According to anonymous U.S. officials, this assessment was reinforced by the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate and it remains the consensus view of Americas 16 intelligence agencies."

@Noumenon... and the reason you're typing your "radical" non-sense on capitalistic developed computer, and not a Russian computer
We develop our own computers in Russia, including the microchips. Are you claiming otherwise?

Feb 29, 2012
"The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%
"http://bigthink.c...as/21343
Now the claim that 'red' states have more federal funds could be related to the fact the federal govt owns much of the land in western states. In a city like Tucson, the federal govt has several major organizations but pays no property taxes to the local schools. However, the federal govt does reimburse for some of that property tax loss.

Feb 29, 2012
Vendicar, I've changed my opinion of you since you started posting here...my opinion of you is, of course, totally irrelevant. You at least stand up for what you believe in and you do it consistently.

Your only "problem" AFAICS is that you're a party man...like Rush, Keith, and a host of others. America's problems are not tied to one man, one policy, or one political party. They are an amalgamation of idiocy by many ideologies.

A wise man once said "The problem is never the problem". This is applicable to us. Our "problem" is that while the "good" decisions and legislation tend to persist, so do the "bad". Unintended consequences rule the day. You can't run a MODERN country from the top down, you can't plan a terribly complex thing like modern economy...basically you can't CONTROL people. Good thing too, otherwise we'd still be living under Egyptian pharaonic rule, the Romans, Persians, or you name it.

Feb 29, 2012
America's problems are not tied to one man, one policy, or one political party. They are an amalgamation of idiocy by many ideologies.

Yes, they are tied to one policy. It is called 'progressivism' or socialism. Or the failure of the state to limit its authority to protecting private property, which leads to intended and unintended consequences.
Bastiat distills this quite well in The Law.

Feb 29, 2012
America's problems are not tied to one man, one policy, or one political party. They are an amalgamation of idiocy by many ideologies.

Yes, they are tied to one policy. It is called 'progressivism' or socialism. Or the failure of the state to limit its authority to protecting private property, which leads to intended and unintended consequences.
Bastiat distills this quite well in The Law.


Wrong. Absolutist theories of private property are easily shown to be flawed. What if an asteroid was heading towards the Earth, and the only thing (let's say a huge laser satellite) that could keep the entire planet from being destroyed was held by a libertarian curmudgeon. He's made it quite clear he want's to die and doesn't care about the rest of the world. He's also made it clear he doesn't approve of anyone using his private property.

You willing to die and let all of humanity die because of an absolutist idiotic theory?

Feb 29, 2012
When you exist in a system that gives you 2 or 3 choices, the choice is to select the lesser of the two or three evils.

I support those who represent the lesser evil.

The fact that that party is principally Democrats is not relevant to my support.



I gave you a 2 for this post when I should have given it a 4. I was rating Ryg not you.

In essence you're correct. However I don't subscribe to the lesser of two evils. If I don't SIGNIFICANTLY agree with who I'm voting for I withhold my vote. If I did not I'd be pointing a gun at my fellow citizens and saying "I'm forcing you to agree with all this bullshit I don't agree with for the sake of some of it that I do"...I simply don't do that...though reasonable people can disagree on this point...

FTR: I agree with legalization of drugs, abortion, civil unions, and a HOST of other things not considered conservative...yet I constantly get the label. It pisses me off. I'm not a "conservative"...I'm not a label.

Feb 29, 2012
So he can't even be original in his ad hom attacks and uses "tard boy" in his epithets....*sigh*

FTR: Ronald Regan was a mostly good President. Jimmuh wasn't, he was IMVHO the worst President, and the worst Ex-President in modern times. Kennedy saved the world from nuclear annihilation, and were I president during the Cuban Missile Crisis I'd have turned the world into a pile of glowing rocks...not very impressive.

It is wise to consider ALL sides of any situation. Kennedy saved the entire world...Regan simply destroyed the Soviet Union. Regan's accomplishment is dubious considering the current political situation in Russia. Kennedy's is undeniable....

Feb 29, 2012
@Noumenon Again, what country are you from originally? Do you reside in the USA but are middle-eastern? Your wanna-be radicalism and over-the-top-absurdity tells me you're Intellectually immature.
Sounds like you have a new friend!
Demoncrats in the southern states, aka Dixiecrats were responsible for all the lynchings of Blacks and preventing Blacks from exercising their voting right.
Then voila when the coast was clear they flipped to the repubs, which they were ideologically all along.

Feb 29, 2012
Absolutist theories of private property are easily shown to be flawed.

Easily?
The US Constitution has the fifth amendment which limits the authority of the state (which I said should be done) to protect private property.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
'Progressive'/socialist don't like this part of the 5th amendment as the govt would have to compensate property owners when they enact regulations restricting private property rights.

Feb 29, 2012
Absolutist theories of private property are easily shown to be flawed.

Easily?
The US Constitution has the fifth amendment which limits the authority of the state (which I said should be done) to protect private property.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
'Progressive'/socialist don't like this part of the 5th amendment as the govt would have to compensate property owners when they enact regulations restricting private property rights.


You didn't answer the point I made...or if you did I missed it...

Feb 29, 2012
Absolutist theories of private property are easily shown to be flawed.

Easily?
The US Constitution has the fifth amendment which limits the authority of the state (which I said should be done) to protect private property.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
'Progressive'/socialist don't like this part of the 5th amendment as the govt would have to compensate property owners when they enact regulations restricting private property rights.


You didn't answer the point I made...or if you did I missed it...

You missed it.

Feb 29, 2012

Republicans on the other hand are wrong on virtually every issue, as their various campaigns of anti-science illustrate.


Oh they're not anti-science on military issues...as ominous as that sounds it is what it is. Martial problems and conflicts have significantly driven science forward historically. I'd like to see a different paradigm. Sad fact is that I don't.

I agree that Regan's defense spending sent us in a downward spiral, but don't discount the "benefits" that came out of it. Not having thousands of Russian nuclear tipped ICBMS pointed at us is significant IMO.

What you have to ask yourself honestly is has the rampant public spending after the housing collapse done us any good under the recent democratic control.

Feb 29, 2012
Absolutist theories of private property are easily shown to be flawed.

Easily?
The US Constitution has the fifth amendment which limits the authority of the state (which I said should be done) to protect private property.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
'Progressive'/socialist don't like this part of the 5th amendment as the govt would have to compensate property owners when they enact regulations restricting private property rights.


You didn't answer the point I made...or if you did I missed it...

You missed it.


Pray enlighten me...would you use the satellite against private property rules or not?

Feb 29, 2012
Oh they're not anti-science on military issues

Again, national defense (protecting private property) is a legitimate, limited function of the govt.
Regan's defense spending sent us in a downward spiral,

It sent the USSR and communism into a downward spiral.
Who is 'us' in your downward spiral?

Feb 29, 2012
Read what I wrote.
"Yes, they are tied to one policy. It is called 'progressivism' or socialism. Or the failure of the state to limit its authority to protecting private property, which leads to intended and unintended consequences.
Bastiat distills this quite well in The Law."

The US Constitution has the fifth amendment. Read it.

Feb 29, 2012
You mean Obama's crime of lifting America from the clutches of Bushie's decades long Grand Economic Depression?


I allude to my previous post. I don't think that any leader sits at the white house and twists their black mustache and says "How can I screw the country further"....

I think that the country gets there via their (mostly) honest worldview. The problem is that NO ONE has an infallible worldview, and even if they did they'd have to shift it minute to minute, second to second to accommodate the ACTUAL world...

RE Ryg: I don't want a bunch of idotbabble...a simple yes or no will suffice...

Do you agree the satellite should be used or not? Yes or no. Be honest for once...

Feb 29, 2012
Clearly it has kept America from entering a grand economic depression, with the resulting loss of tens of trillions of dollars in productivity.


Clearly? Keeping trillions out of the hands of private industry has done what exaclty?

Did the government invent electricity, flight, internal combustion, assembly lines? The government doesn't and shouldn't drive the economy. It should protect the conditions that allow innovation, it doesn't, shouldn't, and CAN'T be the prime mover of such.

Feb 29, 2012
I agree, and point out that the Republican world view with it's non-existent WMD, and it's anti-science views, and it's strong association with magical thinking (religion), puts it dramatically out of synch with reality.


First of all we have freedom of religion in this country, it's the reason we have this country. Are you suggesting we jail people for their religious beliefs? I doubt you're suggesting that, but your statement is so strong I have to ask for clarification. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

Secondly we KNOW Saddam had WMD...he used them on his own people. It's historical FACT. When he moved them or got rid of them is up for debate, as is the invasion of Iraq.

Moreover do you think that because someone disagrees with your view of reality they should be legislated out of existence or do you think we should allow for a diversity of beliefs, cultures, and creeds in society?

Feb 29, 2012
I'm not sure what you think you are referring to. But the exact opposite is the case of course. The FED printing trillions has provided trillions to corporations.


Printing money doesn't create wealth. If nothing exists to exchange green paper with only means the green paper is worth less. The Fed produced NOTHING and hence the corporations hold nothing more than they did before unless they produced goods for the notes.

Magical thinking (religion) is evidence of mental illness and should serve as a point of disqualification for those seeking political office.


Mmmmmkay....

I remember Republican Donald Rumsfeld being sent to Iraq by Republican Ronald Reagan to shake Saddam's hand and tell the world that he didn't do it.


So you agree with Rumsfeld? All those Kurds died of natural causes...even the 3 year old kids...

Feb 29, 2012
@Modernmystic Secondly we KNOW Saddam had WMD...he used them on his own people. It's historical FACT.
Why yes in fact Bush still has the RECEIPT!
Moreover do you think that because someone disagrees with your view of reality they should be legislated out of existence or do you think we should allow for a diversity of beliefs, cultures, and creeds in society?
Christ psychosis is a disease that belongs in a mental institution. The fact that it persists in politics means that many people are going to die without reason. Simply a matter of WHEN, not if.

Feb 29, 2012
Any libertarian that owned a laser satellite that could destroy an asteroid, would likely, if he were a libertarian, certainly accept payment for destroying the asteroid.
After all, it is in his self interest to keep the earth intact.
To continue with this absurd example, a good govt charged with protecting private property, would have already created an asteroid defense system.

Feb 29, 2012
Any libertarian that owned a laser satellite that could destroy an asteroid, would likely, if he were a libertarian, certainly accept payment for destroying the asteroid.
After all, it is in his self interest to keep the earth intact.
To continue with this absurd example, a good govt charged with protecting private property, would have already created an asteroid defense system.


Yes or no. I already outlined that he WOULD NOT use the satellite. Shit or get off the pot...

@Modernmystic Secondly we KNOW Saddam had WMD...he used them on his own people. It's historical FACT.
Why yes in fact Bush still has the RECEIPT!


If you have evidence that Saddam didn't use the weapons I'm glad to hear it...otherwise I fail to see your point.

Unless you subscribe to the idiotic idea that killing 5000 people somehow is made because Americans sold them the weapons??

Feb 29, 2012
Any libertarian that owned a laser satellite that could destroy an asteroid, would likely, if he were a libertarian, certainly accept payment for destroying the asteroid.
After all, it is in his self interest to keep the earth intact.
To continue with this absurd example, a good govt charged with protecting private property, would have already created an asteroid defense system.


Yes or no. I already outlined that he WOULD NOT use the satellite. Shit or get off the pot...

Your example is logically inconsistent and absurd.

Feb 29, 2012
There is no debate at all. For more than a decade the U.N. had inspectors in Iraq looking for WMD, and in the last half decade, finding nothing.


I'm sure they didn't. They were only allowed to search the places he didn't have them. All he had to do was open the entire country up for inspection, but he didn't...hence the invasion. Read a history book...

Your example is logically inconsistent and absurd.


You still don't answer...coward. I take that as you concede the point. People ARE NOT always logical or consistent. HENCE MY POINT...idiot.

Feb 29, 2012
"So you agree with Rumsfeld? All those Kurds died of natural causes...even the 3 year old kids..." - Modern

No, and I take it from your question that we are both in agreement that Republican Rumsfeld and the Reagan Administration, and Republican Bush and the Bush Administration were liars in claiming that it was so, and then claiming after the U.N. investigators (including Americans) had concluded that Iraq had none.


Indeed...we are in agreement.

Feb 29, 2012
Dawkins said in an interview that intelligent design was possible, that aliens could have created life on Earth...not someone I would overly quote or rely upon for sound theory....

Is that evidence of mental illness? Should he be disqualified from holding political office? All that's missing IMO is a tinfoil hat...

Mar 01, 2012
The same will occur with Iran. Everyone suspects they're developing nuclear weapons, but no one knows for absolute certainty outside Iran. What matters is what the majority suspects, because access to certainty is not available.
Your zionist neokhan news failed you again, Noumenon. You need to get your news direct, and not passed through Israel as every Iranian piece is before arriving in the USA: IRAN CALLS ON TREATY TO BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS "It's a sin" http://rt.com/new...sin-421/

Mar 01, 2012
I'll just have to mug you in a dark alley and steal your wallet and all the money in it.
Sounds like the stormtroopers are already yearning for another fuhrer to warm up those ovens.

Mar 01, 2012
They may have employed the same methods, but Stalin was a murderer and Bush was a Commander in Chief during a war that was caused by the Iraqi dictator. I wasn't referring to Bush Sr. as the genius who thought up burial by earth movers in the desert. That would be a strictly military decision.
Actually Stalin presided over catapulting the CCCP from feudal to modern times. Practically everything modern like indoor electricity, radio, tv, transport, skyscrapers, modern arms came under Stalin. In contrast Bush presided over mass murder and Bush has slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, imprisoned hundreds without trial or charges, and presided over the torture and sexual abuse of many of them. He is the world's leading recruiter for hate-America insurgents the world over. He presided over the economic destruction of the US and world economy.

Mar 01, 2012
Ritchiepirouette.

Would you please go on another honeymoon. And stay on it this time.

You make Marjon seem intelligent and truthful.

This thread has had two intelligent posters with either some ideology issues or a total lack of a sense of proportion and two blithering idiots that lie when they aren't brain damaged chiming in with stupefying idiocy. And for once Marjon isn't the bigger lying idiot of the two.

That is quite an achievement. Even Geokster hasn't managed it for so many posts.

If you go away, and take Marjon with you, the average IQ here will go up at least 10 points. Just seeing this nonsense from you two is depressing that America could have produced such a distillation of so much idiocy and mendacity in any two people that think they belong on a science site.

Why aren't you blessing Yahoo with your posts where there are plenty of like minds willing to admire your fool posts.

Ethelred

Mar 01, 2012
Do you agree the satellite should be used or not? Yes or no


Should it be used? Sure.
How do you plan to 'persuade' the owner to use it?
How will you prevent the owner from defending it from attack or destroying it?

rah
Mar 01, 2012
Then they are not "Upper Class" if that is how they act. Money does not determine a person's class. Their behavior does.

Mar 01, 2012
Thank you, rah. I was just about to write that when the discussion was hijacked by trolls and I gave up. The title of the study should read "High income (or wealth) predicts increased unethical behavior", not "high social class".

There used to be a time when the rich were expected to show class and behave in a higher manner than the lower classes. Today, money alone gives entrance into the "upper class". That's too bad.

Mar 01, 2012
You can't have it both ways, Ferky.

If money grants entrance into the "upper class," then the "wealthy" are upper class.

In the US, just how many "high social class" persons are those that are not also wealthy?

Mar 02, 2012
a friend's sister-in-law makes $65 hourly on the laptop. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was $19426 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more NuttyRich dot com

Mar 02, 2012
Just wondering how many think Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Waltons, Van Andles, etc, are 'high class' and cheat?

Mar 02, 2012
KKK. . .have you forgotten how to read English or do you only read the most recent posts and disregard what had been said earlier as my answer to Vendicar/Cardacian?
I think the former ;)

Mar 03, 2012
Are you censoring me, Red?
No. I am asking you to improve the site by going away.

Are you a Communist now?


Sorry that you felt the need to lie again.

You blinded yourself to reality long ago. But the reality is that you are a detriment to this site BECAUSE you have blinded yourself. You live in a fantasy world.

Ethelred

Mar 03, 2012
Loooooooooooooooooooooool^3

Tell me how much enlightenment costs ?


Mar 03, 2012
this study was done on middle income earners, not 'the upper class'. People on 150K - 500K are the hired thugs of our society, the prison guards, they are not the owners.

Mar 03, 2012
You can't have it both ways, Ferky.

If money grants entrance into the "upper class," then the "wealthy" are upper class.

In the US, just how many "high social class" persons are those that are not also wealthy?


deepsand,

You have a serious problem with reading comprehension. There's "is", and there's "ought", and my comment was very clear as to what is and what ought to be.

Mar 04, 2012
I just had dream: In the dream I was visiting an upper class friend of mine whom was having a dinner party. He's upper.class friends looked down on me with disdain for I am a man with out status or wealth. I am a mere mortal living a simple truthful life. I value friendship and LOVE, My upper class associates value Power, Eliteism. They look apon me as filth dwilling in the gutter of life. So sad we cannot yet find common ground, I long to share with them some true delights of life.

Mar 04, 2012
The number of responses to this article say it all. That being said, the curve ratio for upper class cheating only continues the higher it goes. It should be noted that at a certain point, the terminology for cheating redefines itself to those at the class level and simply becomes a tactical advantage.

Mar 04, 2012
The system is rigged so that success is largely determined by ones willingness to screw others over. It's a bummer.

Mar 04, 2012
The system is rigged so that success is largely determined by ones willingness to screw others over. It's a bummer.

That is the 'progressive' way. It started over 100 years ago in the US when the large meat packers in Chicago supported the creation of the FDA and expensive regulation to screw over their competitors.
That is the intent of most regulation promoted and supported by industries, use govt coercion to screw their competition.
That happened to Microsoft a few years ago when the US sued MS on behalf of a politically connected competitor.

"Its a vast protection racket, practiced by politicians and political operatives of both parties. Nice little software company youve got here. Too bad if we have to regulate it or if Big Government programs force us to raise its taxes. Your archrival just wrote a big check to the Washington Bureaucrats Benevolent Society. Are you sure you wouldnt like to do the same?"
http://www.politi...483.html

Mar 04, 2012
Add illegal eavesdropping and that makes the situation even worse. The Murdoch's are a good example of illegal eavesdropping. Who knows how much the Murdoch's have profited from their illegal activities. Then when they get busted they just pay the people off to shut them up, though they may find out that it is illegal to pay-off government employees.

Illegal eavesdropping (spying) is becoming the biggest threat to humankind and people will probably figure that out until it is too late. But guess who will gain the most from illegal spying? The rich!

Mar 05, 2012
Illegal eavesdropping (spying) is becoming the biggest threat to humankind and people will probably figure that out until it is too late. But guess who will gain the most from illegal spying? The rich!

You do know the NSA is spying on everyone? It is called Echelon and is 100% supported by the govt.
http://www.fas.or...elon.htm

Mar 05, 2012
You do know the NSA is spying on everyone? It is called Echelon and is 100% supported by the govt.
http://www.fas.or...elon.htm
Before you know it (within fifty years) the government will be reading our minds and changing it to their ideals whatever that may be???

Mar 11, 2012
You can't have it both ways, Ferky.

If money grants entrance into the "upper class," then the "wealthy" are upper class.

In the US, just how many "high social class" persons are those that are not also wealthy?


deepsand,

You have a serious problem with reading comprehension. There's "is", and there's "ought", and my comment was very clear as to what is and what ought to be.

Seems to me that the problem just be yours. If your writing is misread, look first to the writer.

Mar 11, 2012
"In arguably the most secretive and far reaching electronic surveillance program ever created, the Clinton Administration and the National Security Agency employed a global spy system, code named Echelon, which monitored just about every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Operation Echelon: Will Obama resurrect Clinton's spy program? - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com http://www.examin...orPLF0gv
"

Mar 12, 2012
Still can't stop lying I see Pirouette. What is it about RightWingNutRetainerClips that they think lying is better than dealing with the real world?

Bush taps phones throughout the US and lies that he didn't need a search warrant and you lie that it was Obama that stole our rights.

It was that vile, incompetent, economy destroying, draft dodging MORON President DUMBASS that did those things. And instead of learning that your are on the wrong side you LIE and just keep going down the path of the RightWingNutRetainerClip as if you hadn't been complaining about things that BUSH did.

The only real questions about you is

Are you really this dishonest or are you just that stupid?

Where you born this way or is it brain damage from the RetainerClip?

Ethelred The Appalled

Mar 12, 2012
I already know the answer for Marjon. He has a terrible case of AnnRand Induced Brain Damage that was initiated by pre-existing brain damage caused by burying his head in the sands of ignorance.

Ethelred

Mar 12, 2012
'Progresssives' are quite eager to establish enemy lists and use their political power to crush their enemies.
Recall the Clinton's FBI files and politically motivated IRS audits?
Obama has an enemy list and uses the IRS for politically motivated audits.
"In the 1990s Bill Clinton had an enemies list too. The Clinton administration targeted for IRS audit the National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation, the National Review, the American Spectator, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.

Today, Obama has an enemies list. The IRS is investigating conservative political groups including the Tea Party who oppose Obama's agenda."
http://www.humane...id=49908
And then we have a tax exempt org, Media Matters, campaigning for Obama along with several regulated TV networks. No conflict of interest there?!

Mar 12, 2012
'Progresssives' are quite eager to establish enemy lists and use their political power to crush their enemies.


Thus speaks the liar that has this 'progressive' on his enemies list.

How does lying so much make things better Marjon?

Recall the Clinton's FBI files and politically motivated IRS audits?


All were groups not people, much like that attacks on Acorn.

Recall Reagan sending a legal hit squad out to California to damage the Democrats? Actual people not corporations.

A hit squad that only caught Republicans taking bribes?

I didn't think you would remember that.

Ethelred

Mar 13, 2012
Good old Dogbert. Can't back up nearly anything he says so he gives me ones.

Tit for tat doggy. One each and it goes geometric for any after this warning.

Now is you show that I was wrong that will be different. Reagan did exactly what I said.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more