(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: By that definition then sure, they aren't. What I was intending to mean by "right wing" was more referring to the 1 dimensional political spectrum where ideas that are fiscally conservative or more free market are considered to the right, regardless of their social position, in that sense general libertarian parties are right wing, as are the centre-right parties such as the National or ACT parties here, but by that definition of right wing neither of them would qualify either, a notion that the majority of political pundits would reject. South Korea's system of government is very similar to that of our current ruling party both socially and economically, it was by that notion that I considered them "right wing".

Granted. However, Adrian's definition fits better with regards to collectivism and individualism.

However, the past elections in South Korea show that they elect both liberal and conservative parties,

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pre...outh_Korea

So for being "right wing", they're more or less centrist with a older bias towards conservative parties that is not reflected in newer elections.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Then North Korea are not Left Wing? They are after all as socially conservative they come. I also disagree that progressives are left-wing, they are as I understand it much more centrists, some kind of democratic capitalism with socially liberal attitudes. You would likely consider our government "progressive" by that standard, yet they are very clearly a centre-right party in my view.

I'm ultimately not too concerned about definitions, as long as we understand what each other mean it wouldn't matter if we called it 'floob'.

I think most liberal and conservative parties can agree that North Korea is about as liberal as Iran is secular. It would be more fair to characterize North Korea as a authoritarian dictatorship akin to the Junta in Burma.

Last I checked, 'liberal' economic philosophy would involve massive safety nets, welfare and payouts to the bottom of society.

If you are trying to frame North Korea as 'left wing', I think we will be unable to hold a discussion and best terminate this one, as you are demonstrating an inability to match 'left wing' with your 'ass'.

If this is a misunderstanding, however, then I apologize.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Yeah, they are strict on drugs. I did say they were "right wing" and not libertarian, so I'm not sure what your point is.

A large body of right wing ideology involves similar to the liberal version of the nanny state a desire to control what their population may imbibe or use.

I was attempting to lay out what I perceived as your admiration of the 'right wing'ed ness of South Korea with an issue that I know is close to both your interests and mine of which they have taken certain 'right wing' policies from the US and used it as something distinctly anti-democratic.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: So wait, when they are socially liberal on one issue you say they're necessarily not "right wing" but when you raise an issue on which they are conservative you ignore it?

If they we're "right wing" as you laid out, their social issues would most likely match up with it. It doesn't.

They're similar to the United States. If you wish to claim the US is 'right wing', then that is another debate entirely.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: So far you've raised one issue in which they are liberal and one issue which they are conservative, and this to you seems a good enough argument to ridicule me for calling them "right wing"?

Well, I bothered to pull up at least some of my sources and call you out on titling them as "right wing". Your post made it out to seem as if the "right winged" nature of South Korea is responsible for their current living conditions today, but a look at their history and progress on LGBT rights, for example, show more than a simplistic picture of their political status.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: He said that a Korean company shouldn't be allowed to operate a chicken plant because Koreans eat dog meat! That is blatant bigotry.

And I admitted it was his bigotry.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Are you saying you're also going to judge all Koreans because of what a few of them have done, something that isn't necessarily any worse than eating pork from an ethical perspective?

Had you bothered to read my posts:

(July 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(July 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I don't see any other reason why Minimalist would mention dogs in a thread about Koreans buying chicken companies...

Maybe the Harim Holdings Co. also sells dog meat in Asia? That would also be legit as that is part of their business.

To be frank, a lot of people eat dogs though.

I don't see in my other posts opposition to such. What I did see from Min's post was a statement of fact. I referenced the Wikipedia page on the consumption of canine meat, in which "a fair number of South Koreans (anywhere from 5 to 30%) have eaten dog meat at least once in their lifetime, only a small percentage of the population eats it regularly." This shows that the statement of them eating canines is accurate to a degree in which at most 30% of the population has done such.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: What if you were in charge of their ability to run a business? Would you prohibit them for something present in their culture, even when it is minority participation? From what Min has said I'd assume he'd do exactly that and that's something I take issue with.

See above. You ascribed what I didn't write.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: And yet I bet you'd still happily buy a Korean cellphone, right?

Happily.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: And do you think a "progressive" system with more laws and bureaucrats will be less subvertable?

Perhaps. Laws are only as strong as the authority that enforces it, and the ability to enforce it can be corrupted.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: I genuinely don't buy it, it's nothing more than wishful thinking that you can elect a bunch of experts free from greed and temptation to have more authority over the resources of the people, in practice the politicians are often incompetent, power hungry, greedy or self-righteous, so much so that the ones who are genuinely capable, humble and caring can't make a dent

Yes, and what stops those powerful people from simply paying off those they hurt, lying and subverting such? Nothing.

A governing body works best when the population critically examines them. In practice, critical thought seems to fail more often than not.

But I ask you this, what possible feed back system do you think will allow for the appropriate divvying of resources et al?

Your solution invites anarchy and no accountability, choosing to trust in the all powerful unit of currency to rectify such. But as I pointed out, money is justice-agnostic.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: - In reality you end up with endless laws, licenses and regulations that drag down small business while their corporate counterparts get given massive advantages ensuring that there is a disproportionate allocation of capital and thus wealth.

You are seriously arguing against regulations? Against licenses? Really?

So you'd argue against gun permits because a determined criminal can subvert them? You'd argue against driving licenses because it infringes on your personal freedom?

I don't know where you stand on those issues, but one thing I do feel strongly is this -- the extreme you presented is just that, an extreme.

At least with a democratic government, at least there is a chance for people to use critical thought and elect better policies and politicians. At least with regulations, you have a basic form of restrictions that can do something, however ineffective and small.

Explain to me how else will people be able to rigorously and economically test and hold their local factories and businesses accountable, given the economic incentive to hide damage and cheat?

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: You should already know by now that I am against any restriction in personal liberty exercised without thwarting the liberties of others, so there is no excuse for that straw man.

You've had no excuse for the strawman you rendered against me, and yet it still happened. It is a given that I have misinterpreted your statements, for that I am sorry.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: I am also a strong advocate of tougher sentencing and a police system focused on victims, that includes crimes committed via markets and the environment or any action where another person is forced/coerced into an action

What about the dumping of PCB's into the ocean? It doesn't directly affect people, but it has been linked to declining fisheries and toxins in human consumed food that can act as a mental retardant for developing adolescents. It took years to figure out, and who is directly to blame may never be discovered.

The point is, finding out who is responsible can never be in some cases. The regulations posted afterwards, at least in the US, prohibit PCB dumping in US territorial waters.

And because there is no 'responsible' entity, in your system, nothing would be done. At least for your local area.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: - Strong deterrents, tough sentences and a focus on victims of crime will be a much more effective system in my view.

It has been shown that the death penalty gives no deterrence to committing homicide. It has been shown that the deterrent of prison time against drug use hasn't deterred drug use one bit.

So I disagree with your simplistic solution that we simply need strong and tough deterrents.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Put as succinctly as possible; Any person should be free to do anything they like with their mind, body or property so long as they force no others to do that which they do not wish to.

And I agree with that. But I also think that people who do well in our communal society, the same communal groups that we fucking evolved from as cooperative apes, should help support a base, a base I repeat, quality of life so that our broken and fallen can perhaps recover and thrive once again.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: People aren't cogs in a machine, they aren't a resource at the disposal of some strategist, they are individuals who should be free to pursue whatever pleasures in life they wish so long as it is consensual.

That's why I wrote what is above. I think that to ignore the most vulnerable in our society is atrocious and merely treats our societal failures as "bad resources" and "broken cogs".

(July 31, 2011 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Money is a measure of purchasing power, nothing more.

Yes, and that's why I think we need some form of entity to prevent the purchasing power of any other entity, individual or otherwise, from trashing what we all hold dear.

I am a staunch believer in the economic benefit of acting aberrantly, of being destructive. And I think we need to figure out methods of stemming most of the issues, however inefficient. Because being absolutely efficient is never going to happen.

(July 31, 2011 at 5:03 pm)bozo Wrote: Capitalism is about maximizing profit for the organisation and wiping out the competitor if possible.

And the entity is made up of people cooperating out of mutual self-interest, producing to trade with others out of mutual self-interest. In a free market the only conceivable way you could "wipe out the competitor" is if you offered your good/services to a consumer at a price lower than what the competition can offer it or hire the employees of the other company or bought out the competitors. While it would be possible for someone to buy out all their competitors (although in a global economy this is near impossible), the higher they raise their prices once gaining market dominance the more opportunity there is for someone else to take market share and profit.

I can guarantee you that the restrictive licenses, regulations, tax breaks, subsidies and exclusive contracts given by the government does far more to hurt market competition than anything a business could do via trade alone, the most harmful being the allocation of available capital investment towards the industries that are backed by a government.

Quote: Co-operation may exist in a cartel situation, where greedy capitalist exploiters decide it best to work together in their own common selfish interest.

It's impossible to do that without committing fraud in my view, if the public are sold an illusion of competition the perpetrators have committed a crime, this gives the police/prosecutors a real moral authority to intervene.

Quote: That is mutual interest among the exploiting class. Mutual interest doesn't stretch to the working and under classes, who simply have to get a living by either selling their labour or accepting whatever handout exists under the capitalist system.

EVERYONE has to sell their labour/resources, not just the middle class. The amount you receive in exchange for it depends on how desirable the skills of the person are to others. Desire and pleasure are the source of value, the more desired someone/something is the more valuable they are, since money is quantized value operating as an exchange for the fulfilment of desires/pleasures, the more desires a person can fulfil the more they are valued in dollars.

While you may dislike the notion that some people are genuinely more valuable given how desired their skills/resources are it's a simple fact. Telling someone how much they can be worth, based on your own values and despite their desirability is nonsense, if a pop-star has millions of fans and is desired globally their value denominated in dollars is going to be much higher than someone selling antiques at a local level.

Quote:In the job scenario, the worker wants as much for his labour as he can get. The employer wants to hire as cheaply as he can so as to maximise his own and any shareholders' profit.

In many cases sure. However you can't ignore that this exchange is cooperation. Someone who has highly desirable skills might well hire someone in a job that is in it's self not so desirable, they should expect to make less money.

Quote:It is a competition loaded in favour of the employer 99% of the time, the exception coming very rarely when labour is hard to come by.....rare as rocking-horse shit nowadays.

It depends not only on the quantity of labour but also the desirability of their skills.

Quote: And what is worse is that the workers are in competition against fellow workers for the work available!

Of course they are, someone who is unemployed for instance is quite understandably going to make themselves stand out against others who are seeking work. Why do you get to decide who gets a job and who gets to stay on the dole? Shouldn't the people looking for the finite number of available jobs be able to put their best forward in effort to seem more desirable than the other people after the same finite number of jobs?

Quote: Work can take many forms, some being quite attractive, most being just a necessity and some being very unpleasant indeed.

And these people get paid a lot more because the less attractive a job is the lower the supply of workers who are willing to do it. I've got a friend in "Sanitation" working for a company who clear the premises of various factories, especially meat processors, it's a disgusting job and not many people would be willing to do it, making labour more scarce and thus more desired - He gets paid a lot more than me, a web designer, I've got a cushy job that many people would be happy to do, there is more competition so I can't expect to be as valuable to others as my friend.

Quote:Whatever it is the man hires when he needs workers and the man fires when he no longer has the need for them. Capitalism is not worker-friendly.

This ties back to that UN report which showed that more capitalism created more jobs, lowered the level of poverty and lead to a general increase in the standard of living. Not only that report but there are countless other detailed studies showing economic freedom and standards of living being highly correlated.

https://www.terry.uga.edu/economics/docs...reedom.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2170613/Economic-Freedom
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/06/28/...y-of-life/
http://capitalist-shrugged.blogspot.com/...ndard.html

Quote:Gangter/crony capitalism, call it what you like, any description that has the c word in it indicates the thirst for profit. That thirst inevitably leads to unfairness, exploitation, greed, dodgy dealings, corruption at the highest levels of business and government, obscene wealth in the hands of the few....and the third world.
I won't have capitalism, even diluted capitalism put forward as the best option for the human race.

And yet it is strongly correlated with rising standards of living... Hmh...

Tell me, what example of a system without so much as "diluted capitalism" can you name that has comparable standards of living to the likes of Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Canada etc?

Quote:Of course I would legislate a maximum wage, just as a minimum wage has been. That minimum wage in the UK is derisory and yet the so-called left-wing government that brought it in considers it a great achievement! I don't have a figure in mind, but it would be set so as to drastically reduce the massive difference in the pay packets of the ordinary workers and the M.D , Chief Execs etc.etc. A business isn't a business without the worker.

And what gets done with the money that would otherwise be paid to high-earners? Bet you it gets paid out to shareholders as dividends. Are you going to also cap the amount of money that someone can receive as a return on the money they took the risk to invest?

Quote:I'll tell you Void, one thing we can agree on.....god doesn't exist, in all probability!!

Sure.

Void,
true co-operation is not to be found under capitalism. Indeed much wasted money and effort is spent by capitalist organisations, each spending millions to bring similar products to the market place and all concerned with one thing, maximising their own profit. Under socialism, r&d would be for bringing products to the market place that would enrich society, not shareholders. Under socialism, desperately ill people would not go wanting of drugs that today are so expensive
as a result of the huge profits the pharmaceutrical companies make out of sick people.

Cartels operate quite openly....take the energy companies as an example. It goes without saying that energy supply should be in common ownership. If it were possible to harness it, private industry would charge us for the very air we breathe----and let those that can't afford to pay die.

Under capitalism, I agree with you, we are all wage slaves. The problem is that the value to society of what you do for a living is not reflected fairly in wage earned. You are right, I deeply resent the millions paid to pop-stars and the like. Obscene.
Only today I read that one Gisele Bundchen, the world's highest paid " supermodel " ( how I detest that title and the fashion industry in toto )is 16th richest woman in the entertainment industry, with an estimated fortune of £92million.......all due to " working " as a clothes-horse! Obscene in the extreme, and whilst the gravy train keeps on rolling along for the likes of her, ordinary people are left competing for the finite number of jobs ( thus ensuring high levels of unemployment ) at whatever terms the man will offer.

I'm glad you admit to having it cushy, lucky you. Good job there are those who will take on the dirty jobs which are not usually as well paid as your friend in sanitation, apparently. In the UK we depend on imigrant workers, frequently exploited, always on low pay, to do the dirty jobs ...cleaning, fruit-picking, hotel work, care of the elderly and such like...the jobs not valued under capitalism.

Freedom is what socialism is about. Freedom to enjoy the necessities of life. Freedom from poverty on the one hand and bloated excess of wealth on the other. Freedom from fear of falling ill and growing old, safe in the knowledge that the state will be there for you. Freedom from being at the mercy of " the man " to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head.
The road is a long one, but sometime in the far off future just maybe we'll get there.
If we don't, then I fear capitalism will have been succeeded by barbarism.

I like Venezuela and Italy hanging out there in the wind on that graph.

(August 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm)bozo Wrote: Void,
true co-operation is not to be found under capitalism.

True cooperation is only possible when people act of their own accord, without any coercion. A state that requires cooperation is coerced cooperation, If people truly wanted to cooperate in the way that you desire them to then you would not need a state, you would need "perfect selfless humans" which don't exist.

In that sense cooperation under capitalism is much more "true" than cooperation mandated by an authority.

Quote:Indeed much wasted money and effort is spent by capitalist organisations, each spending millions to bring similar products to the market place and all concerned with one thing, maximising their own profit.

And it is this process that leads to innovation, efficiency, usable price signals to guide capital investment and lower prices for the consumers. The consumer electronic market is one of the most 'free' markets on earth, it is one of the only industries that consistently results in better goods for lower prices, the price of a flat-screen TV is 15% lower than last year.

What do you think the industry would look like the state ran everything? There would be less innovation, less incentive to invest in new ideas, the price would stagnate and like the Soviet Russian car industry everyone would be using the same products from 10 years ago and there would be little to no change, what would be more important to them is that everyone has the same product - In contrast the market automotive industry saw lower prices, lower manufacturing costs, more innovation and more freedom for the people to chose a product that bet suited their needs.

Quote:Under socialism, r&d would be for bringing products to the market place that would enrich society, not shareholders. Under socialism, desperately ill people would not go wanting of drugs that today are so expensive
as a result of the huge profits the pharmaceutrical companies make out of sick people.

You mean people would be coerced into working for others in roles they did not chose to produce technologies. Nobody who took a risk would be rewarded, nobody who saved to invest would see benefit from it, everyone would be an automaton, "consume what you are given slave! We'll handle all the big boy stuff!"

Drugs are so expensive because there is a lack of competition, a situation that has changed drastically over several decades with the increase in intervention - The system ensures that a sparse few companies are given all the capital, you can only get drugs from government-backed companies, you can't pursue the treatment you want but the one that is offered to you and treatments that show promise but aren't "approved" are off-limits, even if there is no good alternative you are not allowed to try these products - There are many people who are dying because the treatments that they were given did not work and they are told by some authoritarian douches that they could not freely chose to take other products as well as all the people who died when they were not allowed to take products that were later proven to be effective.

Quote:Cartels operate quite openly....take the energy companies as an example. It goes without saying that energy supply should be in common ownership. If it were possible to harness it, private industry would charge us for the very air we breathe----and let those that can't afford to pay die.

If I can do you the courtesy of not expecting you to defend something YOU don't condone (pol-pot communism) then don't for a second expect me to defend Cartels. I do not support Cartels, I've already explained that their actions are either coercive or fradulent and seeing as I oppose anything that involves Force, Fraud, Coercion or Negligence It follows necessarily that I do NOT support such an operation, nor do I believe any such structure can exist in a free market without the use of force, fraud or coercion, all of which give a government a moral authority to intervene.

Quote:Under capitalism, I agree with you, we are all wage slaves.

Wage Salves?!? No more so than we're all Hunger slaves! Think back on those hunter gatherers living 10,000 years ago, what bunch of Hunger slaves! And in that sense we're all Labor slaves and Oxygen slaves! Wages are a quantified exchange in value and value is a product of pleasure and desire - If they weren't wages it would be rations, under socialism we'd all be "Rations slaves". I'm self-employed, I guess that makes me a labor slave! When I make money from selling a Menu UI I designed I'm an innovation slave! Oh, and I'm also putting off consuming some of my hard earned slavery to buy a server, I guess pretty soon I'll be a resource slave! Damn, I'm a triple slave!

It looks like the only people who aren't "slaves" are beneficiaries, right? After all they are the only ones who don't have to exchange their labor, ideas or resources for their income!

The fact is we need to put effort (labor) into our environment to survive, to extract that which we need to fulfill our desires and pleasures, it doesn't make a shit-bit of difference whether our labor is quantified in rations, wages or dividends, we're all giving up something for our income, we all depend on this sacrifice to survive, the amount we receive in exchange for this sacrifice is a function of how desired our goods/skills/ideas are to others.

Quote:The problem is that the value to society of what you do for a living is not reflected fairly in wage earned.

"Fair" is a reasonable allocation of value and once again, it all stems from desire.

Quote:You are right, I deeply resent the millions paid to pop-stars and the like. Obscene.

Well tough shit, you don't get to decide what value is or how it works. Value is a product of desire and pleasure, nothing has value without someone desiring it, the more desired something/someone is the more valuable that thing/person is - Anything else is arbitrary.

Quote:Only today I read that one Gisele Bundchen, the world's highest paid " supermodel " ( how I detest that title and the fashion industry in toto )is 16th richest woman in the entertainment industry, with an estimated fortune of £92million.......all due to " working " as a clothes-horse! Obscene in the extreme, and whilst the gravy train keeps on rolling along for the likes of her, ordinary people are left competing for the finite number of jobs ( thus ensuring high levels of unemployment ) at whatever terms the man will offer.

Yeah people desire her. You've got a problem with that? Again, tough, these are other people's values, you don't get a say - You're free to pursue your own values, you're free to persuade other people that they shouldn't value supermodels or fashion (I'm all on board with persuading people of that), you're free to persuade people to value others over their own needs (again, being an social egalitarian I am 100% behind this persuasion) but you DO NOT get to dictate values, it's thought crime.

And by what means does competition for finite jobs create less jobs? Complete nonsense!

Quote:I'm glad you admit to having it cushy, lucky you.

Lucky me? I spent years teaching myself what I needed to know, I work hard pursing and soliciting clients, I work hard to make sure I'm up to date with all the new skills, there is nothing "lucky" about it. And yeah, as a single guy with no kids I get by just fine, but seeing as I have goals of having a family I am taking active measures to set up my skills and resources for the future - I do not consume all I earn, I save it to invest in increasing resources to increase my productivity and thus my desirability to others. My parent's aren't rich and I've had no opportunities that other people don't get.

Quote:Good job there are those who will take on the dirty jobs which are not usually as well paid as your friend in sanitation, apparently.

I doubt there are many people at all who have to deal with anything near as "dirty" as him, being knee deep in rotting chicken guts. Working in waste disposal would be a walk in the park, but there are more people willing to do that work so they aren't as scarce and therefore not as desirable, he freely chooses to do the job because it pays well.

Quote: In the UK we depend on imigrant workers, frequently exploited, always on low pay, to do the dirty jobs ...cleaning, fruit-picking, hotel work, care of the elderly and such like...the jobs not valued under capitalism.

Cleaning is easy, fruit-picking is easy, hotel work is easy, I've done all but the latter. Fruit picking is also something many people enjoy, I know people who do it full time in summer and they enjoy the work, they are paid a commission and the more effort they put in the greater their reward. One of my good friends (a foreigner too, by the way) works in elderly care, she enjoys her work and it pays an average wage but the pleasure she takes from it combined with the value of her work to others makes it a job she is more than willing to do.

Quote:Freedom is what socialism is about.

Bollocks. Am I free to sell my ideas to someone for whatever the price they are willing to pay? No, I'm coerced into giving it to the state for whatever price they want to pay me, swapsies for a bag of chips and a generic house!. There would be no incentive for me to take risks or spend my spare time studying to increase my productivity? No. Will I get any more for my effort than someone who takes handouts? No.

Fuck that.

Quote:Freedom to enjoy the necessities of life.

Shitting is a necessity, I can't say I enjoy it. We don't enjoy necessities, we enjoy pleasure.

Quote:Freedom from poverty on the one hand

Capitalism reduces poverty, go look at those studies I cited earlier, it's all there in the data buddy.

Quote: and bloated excess of wealth on the other. Freedom from fear of falling ill and growing old, safe in the knowledge that the state will be there for you.

Oh right, we all want to be free from excessive wealth! How terrible!

Unlike you I would rather see EVERYONE be excessively wealthy, hell, compared to 100 years ago almost everyone is excessively wealthy.

What?? Socialists don't fear death or cancer? Bullshit. And I'm absolutely for helping people pay for medical expenses, I actively give to the volunteer ambulance service and advocate means dependent aid. Don't fool yourself into thinking Socialists have a monopoly on this, you'd be dead wrong. My country is capitalist, we have a healthy social medicine program - The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

Also, seeing as governments have made promises to people that they would take care of their retirements we have a moral obligation to provide. Private investment of retirement savings have a much greater rate of returns which means that there are less people who need the means-dependent aid later in life - Encouraging people to invest their retirement savings in the local economy benefits everyone, much more so than having it sit there as a debt-obligation for the governments borrowing.

They will be if you are truly poor, if you're struggling they'll help, but people shouldn't go into life with that attitude, it causes nothing but problems. People should try and be self-sufficient and responsible and only the people who fail at doing so should receive aid from the state.

Quote:Freedom from being at the mercy of " the man " to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head.

Right, you're at the mercy of a coercive monopolistic state instead!

Quote:The road is a long one, but sometime in the far off future just maybe we'll get there.

You're just going to ignore the failed experiments of the past? Right, because somewhere at some time there will be a highly competent group of angels to micromanage the economy! Let's just ignore the failures. Those other guys were just bad apples right?

Quote:If we don't, then I fear capitalism will have been succeeded by barbarism.

Oh yeah, we're going to go from being awesome at producing material goods, a complex web of interacting individuals cooperating from mutual self interest all to fulfill their desires and pleasures to hunting with sticks and stoning each other! That makes so much sense!

---

(August 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I like Venezuela and Italy hanging out there in the wind on that graph.

You're seriously going to ignore the trend and focus on a single data point? How intellectually rigorous of you!

Hey, I guess the universe is expanding at a constant speed, after all there is are data points from Type 1a supernovae that shows an Ωm,Ωv of 0.25,0! Wait, there are other data points of 1,0! Damn, guess we're due for a big crunch in 20 billion years! Ooh, and there are thermometer readings showing no increase in temperature, no climate change! Awesome, I was concerned there for a second, time to buy a really inefficient car!

Void, I have no idea what data that study comes from, I don't have a stake in either side of this debate, I just found it anomalous that those two countries are in the position that they find themselves in on the graph. Intellectually rigorous, I'll have to get some sort of tag for the posts where I'm trying to be intellectually rigorous in the future. However, on a serious note, anomalous points of data are truly disturbing in any conclusion. They do need to be explained, even if they have little meaning in the end.

Just looking at that graph, I could have drawn a very different line, Venezuala would not be anomalous if we drew the line to suggest that wealth peaked under very prohibitive systems that are much like Venezuela's, and that as control was lifted beyond that point there is an intial slump until it picks back up again, and becomes a pretty nice curve. If the graph were drawn so, it would make Italy the real anomaly.

(August 3, 2011 at 12:58 am)Rhythm Wrote: Void, I have no idea what data that study comes from, I don't have a stake in either side of this debate, I just found it anomalous that those two countries are in the position that they find themselves in on the graph. Intellectually rigorous, I'll have to get some sort of tag for the posts where I'm trying to be intellectually rigorous in the future. However, on a serious note, anomalous points of data are truly disturbing in any conclusion. They do need to be explained, even if they have little meaning in the end.

We don't make conclusions from anomalous points of data, we follow trends. Having a few points out of place could represent culture, one massive and uncontrolled industry amongst a strictly controlled every-day business structure (like Venezuelan tourism) etc.

Quote:Just looking at that graph, I could have drawn a very different line, Venezuala would not be anomalous if we drew the line to suggest that wealth peaked under very prohibitive systems that are much like Venezuela's, and that as control was lifted beyond that point there is an intial slump until it picks back up again, and becomes a pretty nice curve. If the graph were drawn so, it would make Italy the real anomaly.

And I could draw a zigzag... The line is shows the average income per capital given the economic freedom of the country, it can only possibly be in one place given the data, it's not a game of "connect the dots".

I've obviously waded in on something that is very important to you. Again, I have no idea where the data set comes from. I dont have any conclusions at all. What the hell is it that you think I'm alluding to anyway?

I understand that it isn't connect the dots, in theory, except that in practice it is. That we have let a formula decide where the dots should be is fine, that's that way it's done, I understand that. Still, those two points were excluded, and there is a reason (When I saw them I immediately thought tourism personally). I'm still not sure what's riling you up in all of this?

(August 3, 2011 at 2:25 am)Rhythm Wrote: I've obviously waded in on something that is very important to you. Again, I have no idea where the data set comes from. I dont have any conclusions at all. What the hell is it that you think I'm alluding to anyway?

I thought you were suggesting that the anomalous points invalidated the graph, though it seems now that you were just suggesting it was interesting, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Quote:I understand that it isn't connect the dots, in theory, except that in practice it is. That we have let a formula decide where the dots should be is fine, that's that way it's done, I understand that. Still, those two points were excluded, and there is a reason (When I saw them I immediately thought tourism personally). I'm still not sure what's riling you up in all of this?

How do I appear riled up?

The dots are simple coordinates along two axis represented by average income and economic freedom, the source of the data is explained in the first link.

Those two points are not excluded, they contribute to the average which is represented by the line, they are simply not enough compared to the other data points to drastically change the curve. The reason the line is suppressed relative to Venezuela is the large number of data points around the bottom of the graph. What it shows is that relative to economic freedom Venezuela is doing rather better than comparable nations, as is Italy.

(August 3, 2011 at 2:48 am)theVOID Wrote: How do I appear riled up?

\/

(August 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: You're seriously going to ignore the trend and focus on a single data point? How intellectually rigorous of you!

Hey, I guess the universe is expanding at a constant speed, after all there is are data points from Type 1a supernovae that shows an Ωm,Ωv of 0.25,0! Wait, there are other data points of 1,0! Damn, guess we're due for a big crunch in 20 billion years! Ooh, and there are thermometer readings showing no increase in temperature, no climate change! Awesome, I was concerned there for a second, time to buy a really inefficient car!

Use of exclamations and the general sarcastic tone of your response was quite negative. I can see why Rhythm would think you were riled up.

I think you just interpreted Rhythms initial post as though he was insinuating something but he was actually just giving a general comment

C'mon guys group hug!