Marilyn vos Savant Won't Come Clean on These Issues

Marilyn vos Savant, who once held the title of the world's smartest person until Guinness deleted that category and who for years has been behind the "Ask Marilyn" column of "Parade" magazine, has stonewalled on retracting her replies to two questions for many years now.

The first issue arose when a reader asked how it is that intelligent people can cling to conspiracy theories about 9/11 when clearly the official government line on the matter should be the final word.

I don't remember Marilyn's reply exactly, but she did little more than to support the government's line.

I wrote to her asking how she could go against the scientific community which includes many very learned physicists, engineers, architects, aviation experts, et al, all of whom have presented very convincing arguments that the official government line on 9/11 could not possibly be true. I have written to Marilyn on this issue many times, but the stonewalling continues.

The second issue arose when a reader wrote in asking why a one-income household was sufficient in the 1950's, but now two incomes no longer cut it. Marilyn responded that this is because we now have Internet service and air bags in our cars.

WHAAATTTTT?? Internet service??? Air bags in our cars???

With advancements in technology, production methods and automation, things should have become more and more affordable, and the standard of living in a one-income home should not only still be sufficient these days, but it should be a much higher standard of living relative to the '50s.

The reason two incomes in a household no longer cut it is because equal employment opportunity and equal pay laws work only in the downward direction in equalizing wages. I have written to Marilyn many times for her rebuttal, but there has been nothing but silence on her part.

As a matter of fact, I searched the archives of Marilyn's past articles, and I was unable to unearth the past columns in question. Were they swept under the rug hoping that no one would remember... that no one would raise issue?

The mechanism of the downward equalization of wages (and other terms and conditions of employment) will become clearer to you if you refer to my earlier posts:

How Will the Lowest Bidding Employer Feel about Providing Expensive Healthcare Benefits to the Least Preferred Job Candidate?

and

For the Rich to Become Super Rich, White Males Have to be Eliminated from the Job Market

P.M.

It seems Ms. vos Savant is smart enough to know when to keep her mouth shut. Speaking out about things like 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Bank isn't a good career move for a syndicated columnist.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

With advancements in technology, production methods and automation, things should have become more and more affordable, and the standard of living in a one-income home should not only still be sufficient these days, but it should be a much higher standard of living relative to the '50s.

Investors. The rich only are rich if they continue to pick all of our pockets on everything we purchase.

Ask yourself, what is an investment in naked terms.. taking out MORE in profits than you put in via capital.

Does that not lead to an imbalance? How can one group ALWAYS take out more than they put in without the Pendulum swinging the other way. Someone(s) else must invariably be taking out LESS than they put in.

Imagine 4 categories : food, shelter, clothes, and fuel. the way the rich continue to stay ever richer is by investing in these things, and when we ALL buy them, they get a cut of every purchase. lets say they get a 5% cut of each item. These so called profits are their investment income. Formerly our money.

Lets take 2 of the items, (and say that for example due to modern technology) are now absolutely FREE> fuel and shelter.

Since fuel and shelter are now free, the rich are not making money off of us that way so they are losing 5% off each item in investments. So, they now raise their profits on the other 2 (clothes and food) to 10% each. it all balances out for them and we keep feeding the system in order to enrich them.

You see, it does not matter how much tech there is, how many items are improved. Life will NOT and can NOT improve for society as a whole as long as there are those rich people taking out more than they put in. It does not matter, if 99% of the things we buy are free, The rich will then just mark up the remaining 1% of things to a profit level where they still rake it all in the same way.

Look at housing, a new person cant buy a cheap house why? because the rich investors either buy/flip it for a markup, or they buy it and become the landlord.

The society is basically like a farm, where the biggest fattest hogs are FOREVER at the trough front and center and all us smaller ones are struggling on the TRICKLE DOWN scraps. And the fat hogs have bribed the farmer (govt) to not intervene.

Over time the middle class (smaller ones) will continually be starved until non-existent. All that will remain are the big fat greedy hogs.

originally posted by: HanzHenry
Look at housing, a new person cant buy a cheap house why? because the rich investors either buy/flip it for a markup, or they buy it and become the landlord.

Please think more clearly about what you write before you write it.

IN THE ABSENCE OF EQUALITY LAWS WHICH AMOUNT TO PRICE CONTROLS...

Real estate speculators (flippers) are responsible only for the last increment in prices in an up market.

In a down market, they are responsible only for the first decrement in prices.

If there wasn't price support from the rest of the market, prices would not go up very far in an up market. The converse is true in a down market.

I could comment on the rest of your post, but, again, I refer you to my prior posts.

P.M.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

I agree with VictorVonDoom that she knows when to keep her mouth shut or perhaps she agrees with the many experts, scientist, aviation experts, engineers who say that the official government account of 9-11 could happen exactly as stated.

Not everything is black or white, both sides have the experts to agree to their own agendas whatever they maybe and just because the worlds alleged smartest person says something doesnt mean anyone is going to buy into it. A rather bad attempt to dig up an answer to a question which you have already concluded an answer too, so why even bother to give you something to troll on about.

originally posted by: DJMSN

I agree with VictorVonDoom that she knows when to keep her mouth shut or perhaps she agrees with the many experts, scientist, aviation experts, engineers who say that the official government account of 9-11 could happen exactly as stated.

There is actually another dimension to this which is that Marilyn vos Savant is of the female persuasion.

The highest priorities of females are power and position.

Females will not go against their government which they view as the lifeline and support of their power and position.

Hence, reputability in government is not a priority for women, not even in a really big case like 9/11.

And, so, you will not see the League of Women Voters for 9/11 Truth which is in the same state of non-existence as Supermodels for 9/11 Truth.

originally posted by: DJMSN
Not everything is black or white, both sides have the experts to agree to their own agendas whatever they maybe...

And just how many scientific experts will agree that a building that is allegedly subjected to a "normal" gravitational collapse will drop at near freefall rates?

How many experts will say that airbags in our cars and monthly Internet service bills should put a really big dent in the budget of a two-income household?

P.M.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wow, I haven't read a post that sexist is in a while. Nice try though.

Was there not plenty of female attendees there supporting bundy? As far as I'm concerned that was standing up against the government. Please grow up and come to the realization you are no better than a woman. Thank you.