Well to be fair, many times it can make people better and more able to contribute to the economy. Many low hanging things can do both. Which is what makes this weird in his reaction.
Well, not exactly. I'm saying we aren't even to the point where we can make a correlation, which is not the same thing. Socialism is not in place to make economies successful anyway, it's ostensibly to improve the human condition.
I won't disagree, but it's hard to prove unequivocally since there aren't control groups. Most sociological stuff is pretty fuzzy science, imo.Well to be fair, many times it can make people better and more able to contribute to the economy. Many low hanging things can do both. Which is what makes this weird in his reaction.
Well, not exactly. I'm saying we aren't even to the point where we can make a correlation, which is not the same thing. Socialism is not in place to make economies successful anyway, it's ostensibly to improve the human condition.
This seems to be the current, preferred conservative strategy.No, this is what I said:
This argument is not only good, it is amply supported by the available empirical evidence. The only way your argument is logical is if you were trying to say 'well there's no way to actually know anything', which is also a stupid argument but for different reasons.
In closing your argument is either pedantic nonsense or a purposeful misstatement of my argument in the service of...well... more pedantic nonsense. Your arguments here are extremely bad and if you were anyone else on this board I would have probably already started simply mocking you for your stupidity rather than attempting to reason with you because... jesus....this is embarrassing. Because I know you're smarter than this I hope you think twice before doing this sort of ridiculous shit in the future.
No, this is what I said:
This argument is not only good, it is amply supported by the available empirical evidence. The only way your argument is logical is if you were trying to say 'well there's no way to actually know anything', which is also a stupid argument but for different reasons.
In closing your argument is either pedantic nonsense or a purposeful misstatement of my argument in the service of...well... more pedantic nonsense. Your arguments here are extremely bad and if you were anyone else on this board I would have probably already started simply mocking you for your stupidity rather than attempting to reason with you because... jesus....this is embarrassing. Because I know you're smarter than this I hope you think twice before doing this sort of ridiculous shit in the future.
What you would decry as socialism is the current economic blueprint for basically all of the most successful economies in the world. Even the US is significantly socialist. While there are certainly countries that take it too far, the idea that socialism is inherently bad has been pretty conclusively disproven by history.
It’s hard to debate these things when you don’t even understand the terms of the discussion.
Maybe this is the problem, because I responded to post #109.
That is very different than what you just said though.
I'm sure there are reams of stuff that tries to prove your point, though much of it is bound to be nonsense. What one might call a correlation, another will call a mere inference. We simply don't have access to purely scientific methods with which to test entire economic systems to see which will have the most positive outcome for each country or culture.Don't be ridiculous, of course we can make correlations. If you're interested I can provide you with reams of economic research that do exactly that. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would think we couldn't given the thousands and thousands of data points we have, stretching back decades. Whatever you think the 'purpose' of socialism is is irrelevant anyway as I imagine no sane person would think that the method of distribution of economic gains had no effect on economic performance. It obviously does, so we have everything we need to make logical, informed inferences on its effects.
It most certainly is not different, don't be absurd. Moreover, you responded to both post #109 AND the post that I just quoted to you. In fact, the post I quoted you was the one to which you responded with the 'then you must think rape is good' comment in post #124. If that is so 'very different' then why did you not change your argument?
Go back to post #121 to see what I responded too. I think you are mixing up what you might have said before, vs the post I responded to.
I'm sure there are reams of stuff that tries to prove your point, though much of it is bound to be nonsense. What one might call a correlation, another will call a mere inference. We simply don't have access to purely scientific methods with which to test entire economic systems to see which will have the most positive outcome for each country or culture.
That said, I'm NOT against the idea that certain amounts of socialism are a good. I've already stated so in this thread. If it was easy to determine the optimal blend, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
Do you not understanding comparisons?
I'm sure there are reams of stuff that tries to prove your point, though much of it is bound to be nonsense. What one might call a correlation, another will call a mere inference.
We simply don't have access to purely scientific methods with which to test entire economic systems to see which will have the most positive outcome for each country or culture.
That said, I'm NOT against the idea that certain amounts of socialism are a good. I've already stated so in this thread. If it was easy to determine the optimal blend, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
Right, so you’re back to the ‘its not possible to know anything’ argument. Can you provide me with the basis with which you are dismissing functionally all of modern economics?
A somewhat OT question for all here, can we stipulate that our human civilization, with all its cultures, countries, economic activity, etc., might be at least as, or more complex than the Earth's climate? A rather difficult thing to model successfully, I'd think. I'm in a project that helps refine climate models because they don't perform as well as they ought. My gut feeling is that the whole of human activity would be orders of magnitude more difficult to model, even in part. It's interesting to contemplate that we may approach a level of computational power that will make such a thing possible in our lifetimes, though.The terms you are using don’t make any sense. It’s not a ‘correlation vs. inference’ discussion, correlations are data points with which to make inferences. (Although the models used are substantially more sophisticated than that)
I'm saying that good information is difficult to come by when dealing with irrational actors. You are arguing with a strawman here, and a pretty dumb one at that.Right, so you’re back to the ‘its not possible to know anything’ argument. Can you provide me with the basis with which you are dismissing functionally all of modern economics?
I mean no offense but I strongly suspect you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Yet here you are, deigning to interact with people you admittedly dismiss? You care enough to tap on a keyboard, it seems, and for that, I for one am grateful.I don’t really care what people think about that in relation to this discussion. It’s not even the right question, really. I am against really bad arguments though, which are on ample display here.
A somewhat OT question for all here, can we stipulate that our human civilization, with all its cultures, countries, economic activity, etc., might be at least as, or more complex than the Earth's climate? A rather difficult thing to model successfully, I'd think. I'm in a project that helps refine climate models because they don't perform as well as they ought. My gut feeling is that the whole of human activity would be orders of magnitude more difficult to model, even in part. It's interesting to contemplate that we may approach a level of computational power that will make such a thing possible in our lifetimes, though.
I'm saying that good information is difficult to come by when dealing with irrational actors. You are arguing with a strawman here, and a pretty dumb one at that.
Yet here you are, deigning to interact with people you admittedly dismiss? You care enough to tap on a keyboard, it seems, and for that, I for one am grateful.
so how's that list of ATP&N liberals who support the norks coming?Except every socialist, communist , progressive and most Democrats.
That loud clacking sound you hear is economists all over the world hurriedly adding a rape index into their models.
But are they raping toasters? That is what i really want to know.
I mean even some of the biggest examples of socialist states in Europe will tell you they are capitalist with free markets and a democratic process. They just decided to move some services into the role of govt and taxing appropriately to pay for it. There is no single party controlling everything within the country. I would venture in many parts of Europe they have more democracy and more free markets than we do in the States.
.
@fskimospy , I don't believe realibrand's point was illogical, though it may have been based in part on a misunderstanding of your position.
And btw, I don't use the word "perfect" in my post. I wish you'd not mischaracterize my words.
Why do you think an extremely complex and ever more accurate model is good for climate prediction, but would be "fundamentally the wrong approach" for directing economic activity, assuming the ability to do such is eventually achieved?