Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Left democracy > Right Democracy

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?
I strongly disagree with the assertion. Switzerland is the most socially conservative nation in the Western world. Women didn't gain the right to vote in federal elections until 1971; in all cantons in 1991 following a decision by the Supreme Court.

America is the most liberty-oriented of all Western nations, followed by the members of the British Commonwealth. Rather than "right" and "left," which directly relate to the Enlightenment, the real dichotomy would be one in which individual liberty takes precedence to governing efficiency and equal outcome, against one in which governing efficiency and equal outcome takes precedence to individual liberty.

With that in mind, the HDI only calculates governing efficiency and equal outcome, irrespective of the conservatism of a nation's social mores.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 11:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

Smithereens, the amount of prejudice I can feel when imagining someone "using" this as some sort of justification for a political pattern is frightening. I'm not sure any good can come from this thread.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 12:20:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I don't know what it means to "adjust" an HDI index for inequality, given that it's already a numerical summary of conditions throughout the society and therefore takes note of the conditions of the disadvantaged as well as the advantaged (if a country does not take care of its poor, it will suffer in the index ranking). Just looking at the list of countries it appears what they've done is confine their analysis to the bottom e.g., 20 percent on the socioeconomic scale while ignoring the rest. That's the only way in which I can see the United States being tied with Poland and barely ahead of Greece. It's not a useless exercise, but it gives a rather distorted picture of what it's actually like to live in that society for the average person.

It's true that social democratic societies like those found in Northern Europe are among the most advanced in the world. At the same time, there are places like Hong Kong and Singapore where the government plays a fairly minor role (at least in terms of how much it spends) which manage to do about as well, if not better, than the countries of Northern Europe. So I think it's a bit more complex.

If you rank the American states from richest to poorest, you'll find that those at the top are generally the more liberal ones and those at the bottom are the most conservative ones. The trend is impossible to miss. Here's it's harder to say that the policies are responsible for the differing economic outcomes (and the differences are quite large), since the size of government between the states is not all that different, and the federal government tends to pick up the slack of poorly performing states (which are usually the ones with more conservative policies). So there's probably good reason to think that the correlation between left-wing politics and economic success is not entirely causative. That's to say that the Northern European countries would be rich whether or not they had a welfare state. Because they are rich, they can afford to have a welfare state, and for reasons not unrelated to their economic success, they think it's a good idea. Of course, inequality would be much higher without it.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 12:34:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
It seems Dyl Dyl has copied his response wholesale from "calmlywriter" and has tried to pass it off as his own: https://imgur.com....

Pitiful.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 12:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 12:34:43 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
It seems Dyl Dyl has copied his response wholesale from "calmlywriter" and has tried to pass it off as his own: https://imgur.com....

Pitiful.

He's also a tab addict. What a freak
NestorTheZizek
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 11:24:08 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
America is the most liberty-oriented of all Western nations, followed by the members of the British Commonwealth. Rather than "right" and "left," which directly relate to the Enlightenment, the real dichotomy would be one in which individual liberty takes precedence to governing efficiency and equal outcome, against one in which governing efficiency and equal outcome takes precedence to individual liberty.

With that in mind, the HDI only calculates governing efficiency and equal outcome, irrespective of the conservatism of a nation's social mores.

http://www.heritage.org...

Also how is America libertary orientated? America has the most people in prison relative to population in the world
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 12:05:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20.


And you seriously don't see a massive bias or a single problem here with your source?

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

No, it simply proves that your source, the content, the author, and every single last thing about this entire idea is unbelievably, and stunningly hard-left leaning.

If you have even the slightest notion in your mind that this idea holds any resemblance of truth, I would suggest you reevaluate your critical thinking.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 1:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 12:05:44 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20.


And you seriously don't see a massive bias or a single problem here with your source?

If you had reason to doubt the source, you would have explained specifically what the issue was. Is it not trustworthy? You think that the USA is actually in first place?

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

No, it simply proves that your source, the content, the author, and every single last thing about this entire idea is unbelievably, and stunningly hard-left leaning.

If you have even the slightest notion in your mind that this idea holds any resemblance of truth, I would suggest you reevaluate your critical thinking.

All rhetoric. Go on, back up your claims. Data does not lean left or right. I contest that there is no reason to dispute the accuracy of the data. What do you believe?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 1:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 1:01:14 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 12:05:44 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20.


And you seriously don't see a massive bias or a single problem here with your source?

If you had reason to doubt the source, you would have explained specifically what the issue was. Is it not trustworthy? You :think that the USA is actually in first place?


At what point did I say the U.S. should be #1, or use this as an argument? The fact that the U.N. was central for the writing, the U.N. bases it's rankings of member states on how dependent each nation is on being a welfare state, and do nothing but push socialist agendas. The fact that it was not peer reviewed, nor is there any cited scientific data. All these items are points of contest that should be answered directly by the "study".


In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

No, it simply proves that your source, the content, the author, and every single last thing about this entire idea is unbelievably, and stunningly hard-left leaning.

If you have even the slightest notion in your mind that this idea holds any resemblance of truth, I would suggest you reevaluate your critical thinking.

All rhetoric. Go on, back up your claims. Data does not lean left or right. I contest that there is no reason to dispute the :accuracy of the data. What do you believe?


OK, show me the base, raw data that was peer reviewed, to compile into these findings.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 2:24:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 1:25:36 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/25/2016 1:01:14 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 12:05:44 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20.


And you seriously don't see a massive bias or a single problem here with your source?

If you had reason to doubt the source, you would have explained specifically what the issue was. Is it not trustworthy? You :think that the USA is actually in first place?


At what point did I say the U.S. should be #1, or use this as an argument? The fact that the U.N. was central for the writing, the U.N. bases it's rankings of member states on how dependent each nation is on being a welfare state, and do nothing but push socialist agendas. The fact that it was not peer reviewed, nor is there any cited scientific data. All these items are points of contest that should be answered directly by the "study".

wtf are you talking about? The HDI is not a study, it's an index of education, life expectancy and typical key indicators of high quality of life.


In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

No, it simply proves that your source, the content, the author, and every single last thing about this entire idea is unbelievably, and stunningly hard-left leaning.

If you have even the slightest notion in your mind that this idea holds any resemblance of truth, I would suggest you reevaluate your critical thinking.

All rhetoric. Go on, back up your claims. Data does not lean left or right. I contest that there is no reason to dispute the :accuracy of the data. What do you believe?


OK, show me the base, raw data that was peer reviewed, to compile into these findings.

The HDI is a literal mathematical formula, invented by a Pakistani economist, not the UN.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 3:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 2:24:22 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 1:25:36 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/25/2016 1:01:14 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 12:05:44 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20.


And you seriously don't see a massive bias or a single problem here with your source?

If you had reason to doubt the source, you would have explained specifically what the issue was. Is it not trustworthy? You :think that the USA is actually in first place?


At what point did I say the U.S. should be #1, or use this as an argument? The fact that the U.N. was central for the writing, the U.N. bases it's rankings of member states on how dependent each nation is on being a welfare state, and do nothing but push socialist agendas. The fact that it was not peer reviewed, nor is there any cited scientific data. All these items are points of contest that should be answered directly by the "study".

wtf are you talking about? The HDI is not a study, it's an index of education, life expectancy and typical key indicators of high quality of :life.

And how do you get this "index"? Do you not study data from nations around the world? This studying of data from multiple sources would be called a what class? ....Yes, that's right, a study.

And what are these "Key indicators of high quality of life"?



In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

No, it simply proves that your source, the content, the author, and every single last thing about this entire idea is unbelievably, and stunningly hard-left leaning.

If you have even the slightest notion in your mind that this idea holds any resemblance of truth, I would suggest you reevaluate your critical thinking.

All rhetoric. Go on, back up your claims. Data does not lean left or right. I contest that there is no reason to dispute the :accuracy of the data. What do you believe?


OK, show me the base, raw data that was peer reviewed, to compile into these findings.

The HDI is a literal mathematical formula, invented by a Pakistani economist, not the UN.

And is this "literal mathematical formula" just pulled out his a$$? Does the mathematics stork drop it down your chimney while you sleep? Or does the data come from specific data sets, contained within specific environments, and correlating to specific variables?

So, show me the raw data....where he got the information from and what information it is that he used to create this formula.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 3:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 11:24:08 AM, NestorTheZizek wrote:
America is the most liberty-oriented of all Western nations, followed by the members of the British Commonwealth. Rather than "right" and "left," which directly relate to the Enlightenment, the real dichotomy would be one in which individual liberty takes precedence to governing efficiency and equal outcome, against one in which governing efficiency and equal outcome takes precedence to individual liberty.

With that in mind, the HDI only calculates governing efficiency and equal outcome, irrespective of the conservatism of a nation's social mores.
http://www.heritage.org...
You're conflating the UN's Human Development Index with the conservative Heritage Foundation's free-market index.

Also how is America libertary orientated?
America is organized on the principle of negative liberty in the tradition of classical liberalism, as opposed to the positive rights of the Rousseauan and Prussian welfare state apparatuses.

America has the most people in prison relative to population in the world
That's a non sequitur. Negative liberty regards rights pertaining to person and property, not the efficiency of the legal system or the length of the prison sentences.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 7:25:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

Your statistics may be correct, but the conclusion you've reached isn't.
Until the early modern age Europe was dominated by monarchs and the feudal system, under which economic inequality was extreme. During the Industrial Revolution, feudalism was replaced by the modern corporatist system, under which you had a few elites employing low-wage workers in their factories and the mines for up to 16 hours a day. Slavery was commonplace in Europe until the 19th century.
Furthermore, the European continent was perhaps the most violent on Earth. Warfare between European states was commonplace until 1945.
Finally, the European continent had traditional gender roles. Women were confined to the home and granted few rights until a little over 100 years ago.
Going by these standards, one could say that Europe was more "barbaric" than the rest of the world; most places weren't as violent as Europe, most places didn't have such an extreme degree of income inequality as Europe did, and there were probably many matriarchal societies out there. Yet Europe led the way to the modern world. In fact, Europe experienced far greater economic and population growth during this period than it does now. Today's "civilised" Europe is stagnant in terms of economic and population growth. And today's "barbaric" China, with its low wage workforce and aggressive foreign policy, is soaring ahead in terms of economic growth.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 10:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 3:11:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
And how do you get this "index"? Do you not study data from nations around the world? This studying of data from multiple sources would be called a what class? ....Yes, that's right, a study.

And what are these "Key indicators of high quality of life"?

Nations keep track of population statistics. There's no way to get it wrong. The HDI ranks countries by life expectancy, education and income. It is expected that a country with high life expectancy, high education and high income is more developed than one that is not.

And is this "literal mathematical formula" just pulled out his a$$? Does the mathematics stork drop it down your chimney while you sleep? Or does the data come from specific data sets, contained within specific environments, and correlating to specific variables?

So, show me the raw data....where he got the information from and what information it is that he used to create this formula.

Raw data comes from population statistics. These are either provided by the countries statistical organisation or an independent research organisation.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 10:38:23 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 3:11:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
And how do you get this "index"? Do you not study data from nations around the world? This studying of data from multiple sources would be called a what class? ....Yes, that's right, a study.

And what are these "Key indicators of high quality of life"?

Nations keep track of population statistics. There's no way to get it wrong. The HDI ranks countries by life expectancy, education and income. It is expected that a country with high life expectancy, high education and high income is more developed than one that is not.

And is this "literal mathematical formula" just pulled out his a$$? Does the mathematics stork drop it down your chimney while you sleep? Or does the data come from specific data sets, contained within specific environments, and correlating to specific variables?

So, show me the raw data....where he got the information from and what information it is that he used to create this formula.

Raw data comes from population statistics. These are either provided by the countries statistical organisation or an independent research organisation.

Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:

The U.N. as previously stated.

This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:

http://hdr.undp.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 11:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?

If you chose a metric that proves your point, whose methodology is designed to show only the point you're trying to make, then you're not really getting anywhere.

You're using the income inequality adjusted HDI. Actual HDI puts the United States at No. 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The reason your metric differs from actual HDI is because of the high concentration of extreme wealth at the top, and the fact that the ceiling of America's highest incomes is among the highest in the world.

Other countries that rank higher on income inequality adjusted HDI do not necessarily have better living conditions for their poorest members; they simply have less income inequality, because the ceiling of wealth is much lower in those other countries. The poorest in Slovenia, Austria, Canada, France, Spain, or Hungary are no better off than the poor in America.

Likewise, the volatility of those ranks (i.e. one year America is 27, but the year previous it was 16, and the year before it's 23, and the year before it was 14; or Iceland, Canada, the Czech Republic, South Korea, not to mention Belarus, Chile, etc. which all jump all over the place) generally tend to suggest less of a real difference between the top, say, 50 countries which would tend to disprove your suggestion that there are hard qualitative differences between left and right leaning democracies.

If you were going to make an argument to the effect that left leaning democracies present better outcomes than right leaning ones, you need to do more than cite to an income adjusted HDI. You'd want to talk about health care outcomes, birth rates, life spans, GINI coefficients, etc. Plus, you'd need to come up with a way to deal with the less successful left leaning democracies, like Greece, Poland, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, etc. After all, the presence of less successful left leaning democracies in concert with the presence of more successful left leaning democracies (even if I concede that the income inequality adjusted HDI is a viable metric for "success") suggests that there is something beyond a country's being a left of a right leaning democracy that is influencing their being at the top. But, the reality is that even going down that path isn't wise because income inequality adjusted HDI doesn't tell us much to begin with.
Tsar of DDO
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 12:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 7:25:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Your statistics may be correct, but the conclusion you've reached isn't.
Until the early modern age Europe was dominated by monarchs and the feudal system, under which economic inequality was extreme. During the Industrial Revolution, feudalism was replaced by the modern corporatist system, under which you had a few elites employing low-wage workers in their factories and the mines for up to 16 hours a day. Slavery was commonplace in Europe until the 19th century.
Furthermore, the European continent was perhaps the most violent on Earth. Warfare between European states was commonplace until 1945.
Finally, the European continent had traditional gender roles. Women were confined to the home and granted few rights until a little over 100 years ago.
Going by these standards, one could say that Europe was more "barbaric" than the rest of the world; most places weren't as violent as Europe, most places didn't have such an extreme degree of income inequality as Europe did, and there were probably many matriarchal societies out there. Yet Europe led the way to the modern world. In fact, Europe experienced far greater economic and population growth during this period than it does now. Today's "civilised" Europe is stagnant in terms of economic and population growth. And today's "barbaric" China, with its low wage workforce and aggressive foreign policy, is soaring ahead in terms of economic growth.

I believe this strongly supports the argument I was making.

You see, to call Europe barbaric, you would have to compare it to the world at the time. How does Europe compare to the Aztecs, Mongols, Chinese and Arabs of that time? Extraordinarily well. In china and Japan for instance, if a noble thought a commoner offended them, they had the right to summarily execute them on the spot. If a noble did that in Europe, they would be charged with murder.

Europe was the origin of feminism and the first continent to challenge gender roles. Inequality in Europe was less severe than in other nations. The only time when this wasn't the case was when China was the world's most powerful country.

Using economics alone to judge the development of a country is fallacious. Money doesn't measure development. Take Naru for case in point. That's why the HDI was devised, it's intention is to more accurately determine the developmental level of a nation.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:41:12 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 2:49:15 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/24/2016 1:31:30 PM, Smithereens wrote:
It's my casual observation that the top of the inequality-adjusted human development index is dominated by left wing liberal democracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Countries that lean to the right don't even make the top 20. The USA is placed 27th. After these right wing liberal countries are developed nations affected by civil unrest, such as the ex-soviet nations followed by the developing world.

In other words, leftist politics in a country invariably correlates to a more advanced nation. The correlation is too strong to attribute to chance, so does this suggest that conservative ideology is detrimental to developed countries (or at least inferior to it's antithesis)?
I strongly disagree with the assertion. Switzerland is the most socially conservative nation in the Western world. Women didn't gain the right to vote in federal elections until 1971; in all cantons in 1991 following a decision by the Supreme Court.

America is the most liberty-oriented of all Western nations, followed by the members of the British Commonwealth. Rather than "right" and "left," which directly relate to the Enlightenment, the real dichotomy would be one in which individual liberty takes precedence to governing efficiency and equal outcome, against one in which governing efficiency and equal outcome takes precedence to individual liberty.

With that in mind, the HDI only calculates governing efficiency and equal outcome, irrespective of the conservatism of a nation's social mores.

It's a simplistic view of "left" and "right" that causes observations like this. The political dichotomy is not really that simple, and in many ways Europe is more conservative in a classical sense than the US is. The US is an odd country because it tends to be conservative but the values it conserves are very radical and liberal.

But I don't think ideology has much to do with it. At the end of the day it's a lot easier to organize tiny, resource rich, strategically located nations with a few million people than it is to manage a continent spanning empire like the U.S.

Oh, and since I'm a HUGE white nationalist/supremacist I have to mention that it's because of white people
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:42:11 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

So you are studying stats? Do you study data mining? What languages, sql, Sas? SAP bo?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:50:12 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:42:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

So you are studying stats? Do you study data mining? What languages, sql, Sas? SAP bo?

Started with SPSS, then SAS, now R. I'm finding R the most challenging. SPSS in comparison is like a picture book to a quantum physics journal lol, big differences. What are you using?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:59:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:50:12 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:42:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

So you are studying stats? Do you study data mining? What languages, sql, Sas? SAP bo?

Started with SPSS, then SAS, now R. I'm finding R the most challenging. SPSS in comparison is like a picture book to a quantum physics journal lol, big differences. What are you using?

I use both sas and sql as predictive modeling has been proven not effective in my field. However the point was this: data mining and raw data can be manipulated to say whatever the analyst wants. So it can be wrong and often is (not the data itself unless one has no fvcking clue how to read the metadata map into how the Edw is compiled AND the feed data is properly mapped so the atomic tables are updated accurately AND the status tables are kept up to date for the constants.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 4:21:26 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:59:49 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:50:12 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:42:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

So you are studying stats? Do you study data mining? What languages, sql, Sas? SAP bo?

Started with SPSS, then SAS, now R. I'm finding R the most challenging. SPSS in comparison is like a picture book to a quantum physics journal lol, big differences. What are you using?

I use both sas and sql as predictive modeling has been proven not effective in my field. However the point was this: data mining and raw data can be manipulated to say whatever the analyst wants. So it can be wrong and often is (not the data itself unless one has no fvcking clue how to read the metadata map into how the Edw is compiled AND the feed data is properly mapped so the atomic tables are updated accurately AND the status tables are kept up to date for the constants.

well no, the HDI is not trying to track subtle nuances in ambiguous variables or anything, the method is incredibly basic:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Like I said to MSPD, there's really nowhere you can go wrong with such numbers. For example, the HDI considers life expectancy, which is an average of all citizen lifespans. How do you screw up an average? It's the same thing with expected years of education. If your country has 18 years compulsory education, you input '18' into the formula. How do you manipulate data that is already so publicly accessible? If the people who Indexed the HD used numbers which did not reflect reality, it would be incredibly obvious.

Furthermore, the HDI does not require people to go and gather new data. All of this data already exists. In fact, you can go and check their numbers yourself. If for example you are suspicious about their numbers for GNI/capita, all you have to do is look at the country in questions bureau of statistics and see if they were lying or not.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 4:22:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

Simple, it's biased based upon how socialist each national economy is.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 4:23:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 4:22:21 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

Simple, it's biased based upon how socialist each national economy is.

how is it biased?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 4:41:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 4:23:00 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 4:22:21 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

Simple, it's biased based upon how socialist each national economy is.

how is it biased?

Every report on how the U.S. can improve its economy and growth is just line after line after line of increased welfare states and socialist economy production.

"Expand unemployment payments, increase welfare payouts, establish livable wage laws so the government pays each citizen $12,000 to $15,000 a year just for breathing, stop deportations, increase immigration, transfer to open borders policies, make college free for everyone, implement a universal healthcare system" Completion of each of these tasks among others will raise America's scores in their different categories which are life expectancy, education level, racial equality, gender equality, general quality of life, etc., etc.

None of the U.N.'s metrics take into account the type of nation America is, or its culture. Yet these are the metrics where the IHDI raw data is pulled from. So the IHDI index model has a baseline and scaling values based upon socialist ideologies.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 4:49:53 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 4:41:14 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 4:23:00 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 4:22:21 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:37:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:22:43 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/26/2016 12:35:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/25/2016 11:09:37 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Thanks for that info, but that model is from the 1990's and is extremely basic. The current model, known as IHDI index is a bit more detailed.

Did you notice that I used the IHDI in the OP?

However, no matter the model you use, the raw data still comes from the same exact place:
The U.N. as previously stated.
This is discussed on the Human Development Index website; direct link to explanation page can be seen here:
http://hdr.undp.org...

Can you please explain why the raw data is not to be trusted? As someone who is studying statistics I simply cannot fathom how statisticians can go wrong with data collection.

Start reading the quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and 4-year reports put out for each nation within the U.N. You will notice a very clear pattern and interpretation of data emerge very quickly. This pattern directly correlates with, and impacts the IHDI index

Again, what accusation do you bring against the data?

Simple, it's biased based upon how socialist each national economy is.

how is it biased?

Every report on how the U.S. can improve its economy and growth is just line after line after line of increased welfare states and socialist economy production.

"Expand unemployment payments, increase welfare payouts, establish livable wage laws so the government pays each citizen $12,000 to $15,000 a year just for breathing, stop deportations, increase immigration, transfer to open borders policies, make college free for everyone, implement a universal healthcare system" Completion of each of these tasks among others will raise America's scores in their different categories which are life expectancy, education level, racial equality, gender equality, general quality of life, etc., etc.

None of the U.N.'s metrics take into account the type of nation America is, or its culture. Yet these are the metrics where the IHDI raw data is pulled from. So the IHDI index model has a baseline and scaling values based upon socialist ideologies.

These metrics measure quality of life, regardless if the local culture values them or not. Also, if you quote something, please source it.

The IHDI was an adjustment made because the HDI doesn't take into account the fact that most of the development of a country might only be enjoyed by 1%. Take India for example. By the HDI, India is a developed country. Of course, this notion is ridiculous, the IHDI shows exactly how undeveloped India actually is. Having large disparities between rich and poor in a country is an example of a lack of development. Sure, we've improved since the medieval era, but still some countries are so conservative they think they need to go back there.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...