Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Battle of The Statistics

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 2:49:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you think your opinion on economics is supported by the facts?

Prove it. Let mountains of evidence be posted here by every side.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:20:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Followers of Austrian economics will maintain that economics is too complicated for empirical evidence to be useful, and that instead we should work from a-priori principles instead.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:26:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do tend to worship evidence, but to be honest, I really shouldn't until I learn some rudimentary statistics myself. My impression is that data can be made to dance for any old tune, although not as credibly.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:31:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:20:20 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Followers of Austrian economics will maintain that economics is too complicated for empirical evidence to be useful, and that instead we should work from a-priori principles instead.

It's so complicated that they're sure only they are right. S'weird?: "This is too complex a field for you and your synthesized observations, it should be left to me and my gut feelings about what people are really like."
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.


Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:47:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
would the price of margarine increase, if there is a decrease in the supply in butter?

If you answered yes, then congrats. that is what economics is.

Economics doesn't have any normative implication due to Hume's "is/ought" problem. You can not derive an ought from an is. Economics obviously can't agree on normative implications since people have different value systems.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:56:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

That being said, statistics are very neat and comforting.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:59:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Wow, you think that Africa's problems stem from a lack of minimum wage and TOO MUCH economic freedom.

I've heard A LOT of stupid explanations, but this is a new one.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:59:47 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Wow, you think that Africa's problems stem from a lack of minimum wage and TOO MUCH economic freedom.

I've heard A LOT of stupid explanations, but this is a new one.

The point is, you can link it to near anything. And yes, minimum wage is very well linked to prosperity. Using the same logic as the original video, USA, UK, Italy, France and all other nice places to live have minimum wage, but Myamnar, the Soviet Union, my arse and the the third moon of Saturn had no minimum wage! This proves that minimum wage makes good places to live! Yeah!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Minimum wage is a welfare program, so of course it is linked to prosperous countries that can afford it.

Africa can't afford welfare programs...duh!
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:15:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 12:07:14 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:59:47 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Wow, you think that Africa's problems stem from a lack of minimum wage and TOO MUCH economic freedom.

I've heard A LOT of stupid explanations, but this is a new one.

The point is, you can link it to near anything. And yes, minimum wage is very well linked to prosperity. Using the same logic as the original video, USA, UK, Italy, France and all other nice places to live have minimum wage, but Myamnar, the Soviet Union, my arse and the the third moon of Saturn had no minimum wage! This proves that minimum wage makes good places to live! Yeah!

No, no it isn't.

Minimum wage REDUCES prosperity.

Question: Are you denying that economic freedom increases prosperity?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:20:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 12:07:14 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The point is, you can link it to near anything. And yes, minimum wage is very well linked to prosperity. Using the same logic as the original video, USA, UK, Italy, France and all other nice places to live have minimum wage, but Myamnar, the Soviet Union, my arse and the the third moon of Saturn had no minimum wage! This proves that minimum wage makes good places to live! Yeah!

You'll be more appreciated in this forum: http://www.debate.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 1:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 2:49:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think your opinion on economics is supported by the facts?

Prove it. Let mountains of evidence be posted here by every side.

I see that there is a government role to allow markets to function properly and serve the common good. Government support in the economy for stability and protection is absolutely essential for the success of the market economy.

Obama's student-loan program reform will save the gov't $60 billion than the old system over a decade ($6 billion in savings for the gov't annually), $40 billion which will go to increase Pell Grants, and the remaining $20 billion will be used to reduce the debt. [1]

Other nations, one's in Europe who have less income inequality correspondingly have higher income mobility. [1] So, we can conclude that if we limited income inequality with a more fair and progressive tax system that is simper to understand, if we invested in our people and infrastructure, and if we reduced the burden of our future obligations, the economy would prosper more, income mobility would grow, allowing Americans to pursue their dreams. We would have greater equality of opportunity, a vibrant infrastructure, less debt, and prosperity that is broadly shared.

One benefit of increased infrastructure that isn't noticed are side issues that harm us, but aren't directly noticeable. For example, potholes and substandard infrastructure cost Americans $130 billion annually. This is crazy. [1]

The smart grid with alternative renewable American energy would increase our economic output, protect our clean environment, and use green energy to power the future and make our air and water healthier.

Single Payer health care would save Americans over $300 billion net, I prove it in fully detail here. [2]

A social safety net is a good idea. In Brazil, a significant social safety net program reduced poverty by over 20 points (from 27% to 7%), improved children's health and nutrition, and increased the wealth of lower income families. It reduced income inequality by large amounts. [3]

Deregulation leads to conglomeration and eventually monopolies or limited competition. [4] This is very critical. All the conservatives and "free market" champions ignore this consequence. With no regulation, or limited regulation, many areas will lack competition and there will be a monopoly, and over large areas only limited competition. Thus, this is another free market failure that can be fixed by government support and regulation.

Tax cuts on the wealthy fail to create jobs, because the investment in companies usually happens via stocks, which is useless unless the demand exists to make those investments in capital worthy. [5]

Smart gov't social programs can lead to equal opportunity and broader prosperity, and improve the livelihood for the unskilled by training them useful market skills. [6]

Tax hikes for the wealthy wouldn't be harmful for the economy. [7]

The US has an effective corporate tax rate of 13%. [8]

A national green retrofit initiative with a loan guarantee fund would create over 3 million initial jobs, reduce emissions by 10%, reduce electric costs for the average family by 30%, saving $100 billion annually, all for the cost of only $30 billion for a loan guarantee, which in reality will probably barely have to be touched. [9]

Investing $500 billion in a vibrant transportation system would create over 7 million jobs, and costs less than having high unemployment, lower tax revenues, the loss of business activity, and the high costs of gov't spending to counter the symptoms of joblessness and low growth rates. Just $78 billion in infrastructure investments would save Americans 180 million hours in travel time annually, an deliver an average of $1,060 to the average family. [10]

[1] "Back to Work". By Bill Clinton, 2011.
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.aliveness.com...
[5] http://conceptualmath.org...
[6] http://evidencebasedprograms.org...
[7] http://www.cbpp.org...
[8] http://business.time.com...
[9] http://www.debate.org...
[10] http://contract.rebuildthedream.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 5:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:38:50 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/24/2012 2:49:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think your opinion on economics is supported by the facts?

Prove it. Let mountains of evidence be posted here by every side.

I see that there is a government role to allow markets to function properly and serve the common good. Government support in the economy for stability and protection is absolutely essential for the success of the market economy.

I agree that we should have a government.


Obama's student-loan program reform will save the gov't $60 billion than the old system over a decade ($6 billion in savings for the gov't annually), $40 billion which will go to increase Pell Grants, and the remaining $20 billion will be used to reduce the debt. [1]

Don't know enough about this to comment.


Other nations, one's in Europe who have less income inequality correspondingly have higher income mobility. [1] So, we can conclude that if we limited income inequality with a more fair and progressive tax system that is simper to understand, if we invested in our people and infrastructure, and if we reduced the burden of our future obligations, the economy would prosper more, income mobility would grow, allowing Americans to pursue their dreams. We would have greater equality of opportunity, a vibrant infrastructure, less debt, and prosperity that is broadly shared.

Here is where I disagree. European nations have actually been much LESS prosperous than the USA. Pre Obama America featured higher incomes, higher GDP per capita, higher GDP growth rates, more job growth, and lower unemployment than most European nations.

Why?

Because, European nations have been over regulated and over taxed.

Sure, they have more equality... but that is partially cultural... and doesn't really matter when everyone is equally poorer.


One benefit of increased infrastructure that isn't noticed are side issues that harm us, but aren't directly noticeable. For example, potholes and substandard infrastructure cost Americans $130 billion annually. This is crazy. [1]

I agree that we need a stronger infrastructue. But, libs aren't really as into infrastructure as they are entitlements (Im talking about actions not rhetoric)


The smart grid with alternative renewable American energy would increase our economic output, protect our clean environment, and use green energy to power the future and make our air and water healthier.

Yes, because green "investments" have worked so well, like Solyndra.


Single Payer health care would save Americans over $300 billion net, I prove it in fully detail here. [2]

We really need to debate this.


A social safety net is a good idea. In Brazil, a significant social safety net program reduced poverty by over 20 points (from 27% to 7%), improved children's health and nutrition, and increased the wealth of lower income families. It reduced income inequality by large amounts. [3]

Actually, the best anti poverty program is one of economic freedom. Look at Chile, Singapore, Hong Kong...


Deregulation leads to conglomeration and eventually monopolies or limited competition. [4] This is very critical. All the conservatives and "free market" champions ignore this consequence. With no regulation, or limited regulation, many areas will lack competition and there will be a monopoly, and over large areas only limited competition. Thus, this is another free market failure that can be fixed by government support and regulation.

Regulation is usually the CAUSE of monopolies. All the libs and "regulation" champions like to pretend that regulators are really just devoted public servants with infinite information. It's as if they have never heard of regulatory capture


Tax cuts on the wealthy fail to create jobs, because the investment in companies usually happens via stocks, which is useless unless the demand exists to make those investments in capital worthy. [5]

Nobody argues that tax cuts for the rich directly create jobs. We do argue that a free economy, which includes lower marginal tax rates on business, labor, and capital, will lead to higher incomes and less unemployment. This has been borne out by reality.


Smart gov't social programs can lead to equal opportunity and broader prosperity, and improve the livelihood for the unskilled by training them useful market skills. [6]

The only time gov't social programs are smart is when they are reduced or eliminated.


Tax hikes for the wealthy wouldn't be harmful for the economy. [7]

Basic economics beg to differ.


The US has an effective corporate tax rate of 13%. [8]

And a statutory rate of 35%... highest in the world.


A national green retrofit initiative with a loan guarantee fund would create over 3 million initial jobs, reduce emissions by 10%, reduce electric costs for the average family by 30%, saving $100 billion annually, all for the cost of only $30 billion for a loan guarantee, which in reality will probably barely have to be touched. [9]

And, it would lead to less new businesses and higher energy costs.


Investing $500 billion in a vibrant transportation system would create over 7 million jobs, and costs less than having high unemployment, lower tax revenues, the loss of business activity, and the high costs of gov't spending to counter the symptoms of joblessness and low growth rates. Just $78 billion in infrastructure investments would save Americans 180 million hours in travel time annually, an deliver an average of $1,060 to the average family. [10]

Yes, pouring more money into roads is the way to go!



[1] "Back to Work". By Bill Clinton, 2011.
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.aliveness.com...
[5] http://conceptualmath.org...
[6] http://evidencebasedprograms.org...
[7] http://www.cbpp.org...
[8] http://business.time.com...
[9] http://www.debate.org...
[10] http://contract.rebuildthedream.com...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 6:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've posted this a few times and still have never gotten a satisfactory reply to it. It's in line with what Contra was talking about.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 6:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 1:15:35 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 12:07:14 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:59:47 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Wow, you think that Africa's problems stem from a lack of minimum wage and TOO MUCH economic freedom.

I've heard A LOT of stupid explanations, but this is a new one.

The point is, you can link it to near anything. And yes, minimum wage is very well linked to prosperity. Using the same logic as the original video, USA, UK, Italy, France and all other nice places to live have minimum wage, but Myamnar, the Soviet Union, my arse and the the third moon of Saturn had no minimum wage! This proves that minimum wage makes good places to live! Yeah!

No, no it isn't.

Minimum wage REDUCES prosperity.


Question: Are you denying that economic freedom increases prosperity?

I am stating the evidence provided in the source is clearly agenda-driven. Are you honestly saying the samples are fair and balanced? For example, Congo against USA?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 6:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:


1. I'm wondering, more precisely, how economic freedom is calculated here.

2. May it not also be that countries with high economic freedom aren't more rich because they produce more wealth but because they flow more wealth into their country from other countries, particularly through globalization but also through perpetuation of war?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 6:38:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I've posted this a few times and still have never gotten a satisfactory reply to it. It's in line with what Contra was talking about.



I replied earlier, with links.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:22:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 6:42:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 1:15:35 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 12:07:14 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:59:47 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:44:28 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:38:51 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:36:07 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:
Absolutely. In terms of smaller and short term things, the evidence appears mixed. But, once one looks at the larger picture, the evidence becomes quite one sided and the leftists and socialists look quite silly.

This is evident when looking at economic freedom.

In fairness, list A includes a goodly number of the beneficiaries of British, then American imperialism (eg: USA, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Singapore), a mixed bag probably, but at-least providing some stability from non Anglo-American friendly foreign interventions, and in some cases aiding infrastructure.




Maybe, but do you deny that more economic freedom = more economic prosperity.

Because, the evidence is extremely onesided that it does.

Any actually half-educated person will realise that list B is a blatant misrepresentation, seeing as 6 out of 10 are from Africa, the rest from Southeast asia, the two poorest areas in the world, colonisation victims (the victims of too much economic freedoms, arguably), victims of lack of minimum wage, victims of even living where it's too hot, where the governments are muslim, etc.

The entire thing is a testament to how the three untruths are lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Wow, you think that Africa's problems stem from a lack of minimum wage and TOO MUCH economic freedom.

I've heard A LOT of stupid explanations, but this is a new one.

The point is, you can link it to near anything. And yes, minimum wage is very well linked to prosperity. Using the same logic as the original video, USA, UK, Italy, France and all other nice places to live have minimum wage, but Myamnar, the Soviet Union, my arse and the the third moon of Saturn had no minimum wage! This proves that minimum wage makes good places to live! Yeah!

No, no it isn't.

Minimum wage REDUCES prosperity.


Question: Are you denying that economic freedom increases prosperity?

I am stating the evidence provided in the source is clearly agenda-driven. Are you honestly saying the samples are fair and balanced? For example, Congo against USA?

Um, yes.

Congo is extremely low in terms of economic freedom, so they are extremely poor... and vice versa.

Zimbabwe is a fair example too. They have virtually no economic freedom and are very poor. And, I think it is fair to point that out.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:26:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 6:46:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/24/2012 11:23:13 AM, JamesMadison wrote:


1. I'm wondering, more precisely, how economic freedom is calculated here.

A combination of tax rates, government spending, monetary policy, trade, labor freedom, regulation, red tape, property rights, among other things.


2. May it not also be that countries with high economic freedom aren't more rich because they produce more wealth but because they flow more wealth into their country from other countries, particularly through globalization but also through perpetuation of war?

So, are you saying that the economically free countries are exploiting the economically unfree countries?

I don't see that happening, but, even if it is, I would say that the economically unfree would be better off joining the ranks of the free.

Now, the way I view it is very different.

Economic freedom allows entrepeuners and decentralized businesses to make decisions... policies are stable and people know they can keep what they earn.

This creates incentives to grow, invest, and innovate... and makes a place attractive for foreign capital. This leads to economic growth.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Other nations, one's in Europe who have less income inequality correspondingly have higher income mobility. [1] So, we can conclude that if we limited income inequality with a more fair and progressive tax system that is simper to understand, if we invested in our people and infrastructure, and if we reduced the burden of our future obligations, the economy would prosper more, income mobility would grow, allowing Americans to pursue their dreams. We would have greater equality of opportunity, a vibrant infrastructure, less debt, and prosperity that is broadly shared.





Here is where I disagree. European nations have actually been much LESS prosperous than the USA. Pre Obama America featured higher incomes, higher GDP per capita, higher GDP growth rates, more job growth, and lower unemployment than most European nations.

An analogy:

Say there are 5 guys in a bar. They slightly poorer than average. However, Bill Gates suddently walks in. The average wealth per capita in the bar is much higher, although that doesn't mean that the poorer bar customers are any better off. They aren't.

Why?

Because, European nations have been over regulated and over taxed.

They have a Social Democracy. That is different from what I advocate.

Sure, they have more equality... but that is partially cultural... and doesn't really matter when everyone is equally poorer.






One benefit of increased infrastructure that isn't noticed are side issues that harm us, but aren't directly noticeable. For example, potholes and substandard infrastructure cost Americans $130 billion annually. This is crazy. [1]




I agree that we need a stronger infrastructue. But, libs aren't really as into infrastructure as they are entitlements (Im talking about actions not rhetoric)

Progressives care more about infrastructure than entitlements, and I think liberals do too.




The smart grid with alternative renewable American energy would increase our economic output, protect our clean environment, and use green energy to power the future and make our air and water healthier.



Yes, because green "investments" have worked so well, like Solyndra.

That was a unique option, caused by the lower price of natural gas and the result of a special type of product called CIGS being flooded in the market, which Solyndra relied on.





Single Payer health care would save Americans over $300 billion net, I prove it in fully detail here. [2]



We really need to debate this.

I agree. After I finish my debate with conservative politico.




A social safety net is a good idea. In Brazil, a significant social safety net program reduced poverty by over 20 points (from 27% to 7%), improved children's health and nutrition, and increased the wealth of lower income families. It reduced income inequality by large amounts. [3]




Actually, the best anti poverty program is one of economic freedom. Look at Chile, Singapore, Hong Kong...

The market economy can be a source of good. By relying on the common wealth (infrastructure) it can create great things and help many people. However, some people are naturally left behind. From the origin of one person's life, it has a huge impact on their future. We should act out of empathy for others so that they self nurtured and given a strong shot at opportunity so that all Americans are guaranteed opportunity. Look at Finland.





Deregulation leads to conglomeration and eventually monopolies or limited competition. [4] This is very critical. All the conservatives and "free market" champions ignore this consequence. With no regulation, or limited regulation, many areas will lack competition and there will be a monopoly, and over large areas only limited competition. Thus, this is another free market failure that can be fixed by government support and regulation.




Regulation is usually the CAUSE of monopolies. All the libs and "regulation" champions like to pretend that regulators are really just devoted public servants with infinite information. It's as if they have never heard of regulatory capture

This is something I am concerned about. With smart government action to simplify regulation, it would go a long way against this. Progressives can take on this better than others because they aren't beholden to corporations like many others.




Tax cuts on the wealthy fail to create jobs, because the investment in companies usually happens via stocks, which is useless unless the demand exists to make those investments in capital worthy. [5]



Nobody argues that tax cuts for the rich directly create jobs. We do argue that a free economy, which includes lower marginal tax rates on business, labor, and capital, will lead to higher incomes and less unemployment. This has been borne out by reality.





Smart gov't social programs can lead to equal opportunity and broader prosperity, and improve the livelihood for the unskilled by training them useful market skills. [6]



The only time gov't social programs are smart is when they are reduced or eliminated.

This is not why the fact actually show.

The real goal of tax cuts is to cut the progressive goals of government like social programs. It is not a hidden fact.



Tax hikes for the wealthy wouldn't be harmful for the economy. [7]




Basic economics beg to differ.




The US has an effective corporate tax rate of 13%. [8]



And a statutory rate of 35%... highest in the world.

Which is why I think we should cut the rate to 25% and cut most deductions, loopholes, credits, etc etc.




A national green retrofit initiative with a loan guarantee fund would create over 3 million initial jobs, reduce emissions by 10%, reduce electric costs for the average family by 30%, saving $100 billion annually, all for the cost of only $30 billion for a loan guarantee, which in reality will probably barely have to be touched. [9]




And, it would lead to less new businesses and higher energy costs.

lol What?




Investing $500 billion in a vibrant transportation system would create over 7 million jobs, and costs less than having high unemployment, lower tax revenues, the loss of business activity, and the high costs of gov't spending to counter the symptoms of joblessness and low growth rates. Just $78 billion in infrastructure investments would save Americans 180 million hours in travel time annually, an deliver an average of $1,060 to the average family. [10]



Yes, pouring more money into roads is the way to go!

Not just roads. But in high speed rail.




[1] "Back to Work". By Bill Clinton, 2011.
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.aliveness.com...
[5] http://conceptualmath.org...
[6] http://evidencebasedprograms.org...
[7] http://www.cbpp.org...
[8] http://business.time.com...
[9] http://www.debate.org...
[10] http://contract.rebuildthedream.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Contra. Why do you think the government can make smarter and wiser investment decisions than private sector can't?

The private sector is just as capable of providing infrastructure and "green" energy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 10:13:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
@ Contra. Why do you think the government can make smarter and wiser investment decisions than private sector can't?

I believe that through taxation the common wealth should be used to build a robust infrastructure, so that we can fulfill our individual needs and dreams.

I think that infrastructure generally on the local level cannot be a good market investment. It would be hard to pay off $400,000 for a single mile — if a private business was to own this road and try and pay back the loan. Overall, it is too demanding for the market in many cases to fund our infrastructure alone. That is why the common wealth should construct the infrastructure so enterprise and individuals can flourish from it.

And those who benefit the most from the market have a social duty to restore some of their wealth to the common infrastructure so that opportunities are once again available for the next generation and so forth.

Infrastructure has a broad base. It includes roads, water supply, sewers, telecommunications, electrical grids, schools, hospitals, military, gov't structures and system, transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, water management, communications, education system, earth management, economic, social, and recreational infrastructure, etc.

Some parts can be privatized. But overall, the infrastructure should be built and maintained by the common folk and common wealth, which allows markets to succeed in the first place.

The private sector is just as capable of providing infrastructure and "green" energy.

Many infrastructure projects are too demanding for the market. For individual enterprises to have the rights to sell energy such as wind or solar, the market can provide it. Such as selling energy to individual businesses or families. But the electrical grids are different.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how one can justify it through saying its too "demanding" on the private sector. Do you mean private sector wouldn't be able to profit it off it? If they can't profit off of it, then it means that there isn't enough consumer demand for it.

If it would be a bad investment for the private sector, its a bad investment for the public sector as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:46:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 10:38:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see how one can justify it through saying its too "demanding" on the private sector. Do you mean private sector wouldn't be able to profit it off it? If they can't profit off of it, then it means that there isn't enough consumer demand for it.

On a local level, on many areas, the private sector couldn't profit from it. Collectively though, it would be profitable. Like my example earlier, a business owning 2 miles of paved road would be hard to get a profit from that. However, with a full paved road system nationwide, it would facilitate the distribution and production of goods, being profitable. The other choice is having a business own the whole system, which is naturally a monopoly and is usually bad.

If it would be a bad investment for the private sector, its a bad investment for the public sector as well.

Gov't should provide investments in areas when the costs are too great or the cost recovery period is too long for the private sector to finance, in areas like highways, airports, rails, fast broadband connections, a national electric grid, critical research and development in areas like biotechnology, etc.

And gov't should protect and advance the public interest where the market cannot fix, in areas like clean air, clean water, safe food, safe affordable transportation, civil rights, affordable health care, national parks, etc.

This is why gov't should do more things than having a court system and some very basic services.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:01:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 10:46:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/24/2012 10:38:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't see how one can justify it through saying its too "demanding" on the private sector. Do you mean private sector wouldn't be able to profit it off it? If they can't profit off of it, then it means that there isn't enough consumer demand for it.

On a local level, on many areas, the private sector couldn't profit from it. Collectively though, it would be profitable. Like my example earlier, a business owning 2 miles of paved road would be hard to get a profit from that. However, with a full paved road system nationwide, it would facilitate the distribution and production of goods, being profitable. The other choice is having a business own the whole system, which is naturally a monopoly and is usually bad.

Not a fan of natural monopoly myself. However, I don't believe that government monopoly is necessarily inherently better than natural monopoly. There's other forms of transportation that compete with roads: railroad and air travel being two big ones.

A business can profit from owning 2 miles of paved road. Or a few businesses can get together and do a capital intensive project. There's no reason why cars can't pay to use the roads. Or you could make a contract with your car mileage usage in the same way one makes a contract with their phone company.


If it would be a bad investment for the private sector, its a bad investment for the public sector as well.

Gov't should provide investments in areas when the costs are too great or the cost recovery period is too long for the private sector to finance, in areas like highways, airports, rails, fast broadband connections, a national electric grid, critical research and development in areas like biotechnology, etc.

However, there are opportunity costs to these investments. Money has time value. If the recovery period is too long, then it could have been used for other more profitable ventures.

And gov't should protect and advance the public interest where the market cannot fix, in areas like clean air, clean water, safe food, safe affordable transportation, civil rights, affordable health care, national parks, etc.

These areas are all things the market can fix. If there's a demand for it, then the market will do its best to supply it. That's how markets work. Affordable health care would be possible without the government regulations (ex: controlling the supply of doctors, controlling the health insurance cartels, etc.). People demand clean water. If there's a demand for national parks, then the market will supply it. Etc.

This is why gov't should do more things than having a court system and some very basic services.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 11:07:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 10:13:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
@ Contra. Why do you think the government can make smarter and wiser investment decisions than private sector can't?

The private sector is just as capable of providing infrastructure and "green" energy.

Government is (we are speaking in theoreticals here) be driven by the wants/needs of the people. Private sector is driven by profits.

That means if their aren't profits in something, it will not get done.

Or it could be simplified into another way.

Government gets things done by vote of the people.
Private sector gets things done by vote of the dollar.

Sometimes they line up, sometimes not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"