National Psocialist Radio! Woo!

So on NPR this morning Diane Rehm and a panel of bank-hating fake experts are talking about the recent study findings that the rich got way richer over the past 30 years.

This study found the top 1%'s income grew 275%, adjusted for inflation, from 1977 to 2007. The bottom 25%'s income grew 18%, adjusted for inflation, from 1977 to 2007.

Rehm at one point says, "But, 275% percent, Woo!" As in man, that's a lot, and it's UNFAIR!

Do you think Diane knows anything about what that number means? Because I don't, really, but I'd expect a disparity. For one thing, the top 1% get income (most of their income?) from wealth, not just their salary. Those big bank accounts accumulate more and more wealth over the years, and interest compounds. The bulk (virtually all?) of the bottom 25%'s income is wages from their job. Obviously that doesn't explain all of it, but that's part of it I'm sure.

Also, do you think Rehm exclaimed "Woo!" and just didn't mention that compared to the income growth of the top 1% in other countries, 275% is way high? Did she undertake that inquiry, and just fail to talk about all those boring statistics? Because I'd be curious to know those boring stats.

Or was Diane looking at 275% vs. 18% in a vacuum, and having no idea what it really means, she just knows it's not fair that CEOs and Wall Street bankers are getting obnoxiously rich while hard-working poor people are struggling to survive?

Maybe what she's really saying is this: "Comprehension of this income disparity study requires actual sophistication and math! I'm out! I just want some talking points! F Wall Street! Woo!"

From Rick Perry's website. We're speechless.

Big 12 Billionaires Club.

No more interviews with McCombs and T. Boone about the Big 12. How about let's hear what Mike Leach has to say.

Useful Metrics.

Mike,

I saw your article in the E-N re. Texas’s struggles in the red zone. You noted:

“After ranking 82nd nationally in red-zone efficiency last year, the Longhorns have been even worse in 2011. They’ve scored on only 18 of 26 opportunities (69 percent) inside the opponents’ 20, placing them 113th out of 120 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision teams nationally. Even more frustrating for UT is that six of those scores were merely field goals. Bryan Harsin’s offense has scored touchdowns on just 46 percent of its red-zone trips.” LINK: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/longhorns/2011/10/ut-football-horns-focusing-on-red-zone/

I assume you got your rankings here: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/1038

A couple things bother me about red zone stats and rankings. First of all, there’s the obvious problems comparing the results of an offense with 1st and goal at the 5 versus an offense that gets into the red zone with 4th and 5 from the 20. But, I guess you’ve got to lump some apples in with oranges if you want macro-analysis, and maybe it evens out over the course of 12 or 13 games. My real problem with red zone efficiency stats is treating all scores equally. A field goal is as good as a touchdown, according to the red zone efficiency rankings. That’s ridiculous.

A team with 10 field goals in 10 trips to the red zone is 100% efficient, and sits atop the rankings. On the other hand, a team with 5 touchdowns in 10 trips to the red zone is 50% efficient, and would rank dead last in red zone efficiency. The first-place team scored 30 points in its red zone opportunities; the last-place team scored 35 points*. Have you ever heard anybody say, “Hey, my team lost today 35-30, but who cares - we were twice as efficient team in the red zone!”?

The best metric for red zone efficiency is points per trip to the red zone. Because we value more points over less points. The two teams in my example are hypothetical statistical extremes. Most teams’ delta between their All Scores Are Equal ranking and a points per red zone drive ranking wouldn’t be that extreme. Nevertheless, you get my point. We don’t count field goals and touchdowns equally on the scoreboard. Why do we count them equally in Red Zone Offense rankings?

Mike, please join me in my quest for measuring a team’s red zone efficiency based on points per red zone drives.

Regards,
luridtransom

P.S. Texas averages 3.92 points per red zone drive.

*assumes all PATs converted for one point

Flat Tax: It's time for poor people to pay more taxes.

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/rick-perry-embraces-flat-tax-concept/

So now Rick Perry wants a flat tax. Funny he's just now getting around to mentioning this. Hey, at least it's an idea.

Don't worry - Gov. Mountain Dew hasn't gone totally tax wonk on us. “It’s time to bring tough medicine to Washington,” Perry declared. “No longer will policy going be set by (lobbyists on) K Street. It will be dictated by Main Street.”

Jobs Bill Conversation.

Ahhh yes, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell both accusing the other's party of playing politics with the Jobs Bill.

Ummm, because, you know, it will be awesome!

Dear Mizzou,

What makes you think you're better off in the SEC than the Big 12? Because it's more fun to lose to LSU and Bama than Texas and OU? Seriously, explain to me how this is a good move for Mizzou. We have lots of Mizzou readers, right?