ILovePhilosophy.com

phyllo wrote:

I had the same question and it would be good if you'd answer it.

Why should I?

You're trying to make a point. I am not. I'm just saying that your argument is flawed.

Actually capitalism here has the meaning of "anti-socialism", which is a good definition of capitalism in the context of government spending. Essentially, socialist governments are those that spend more money, presumably for the good of society (social) and "anti-socialism" is governments that do not.

So you say. I don't think that capitalism is "anti-socialism". False dichotomy. Fabricated opposites.

Saudi Arabia simply pulls money from the ground and throws it around, hence the government spending and its rank on the list. The ranking doesn't take into account social justice.

A monarchy is socialism. If you say so.

That's two data points. I provided 13.

Plot the graph and you will see that lots don't match.

No I didn't. And neither did Chomsky.

Chomsky thinks that socialism and capitalism is a dichotomy?

Which number would you like me to use?

I don't want you to use any number. It's idiotic.

It represents the lack of government spending, which is an attribute of socialism.

You used it as a measure of capitalism and socialism.

Hey Sil, what fallacy is that?

Phyllo: Not that "private consumption as % of gdp" represents anything. It's basically a meaningless number.
Sil: What would represent a meaningful measure of "freedom", economically speaking, if not private consumption?
Phyllo: Really?
Me: I have the same question and it would be good if you'd answer it.
Phyllo: Why should I?

You said it's a meaningless number, so how do you know it's a meaningless number if you can't think of a meaningful number?

You made an assertion without evidence or rationale.

So the point you're trying to make is that my point is wrong. Where is it wrong?

Then what is capitalism? If you don't think it's anti-socialism, then you must know what it is, unless you're just guessing.

What is the opposite of the redistribution of wealth? What is the opposite of government spending? What is the opposite of taxation? What is the opposite of regulation? What is the opposite of government ownership?

The lack of all those things is capitalism.

Sure, it can be. That was the benevolent dictator argument of that joker dude who used to post here. If the dictator is really a good guy, it can work splendidly, but the trouble comes if he's not.

The black line is a 7 period moving average. Freedom declines with government spending in general.

You're right to be scared lol

Serendipper wrote:Hey Sil, what fallacy is that?

Phyllo: Not that "private consumption as % of gdp" represents anything. It's basically a meaningless number.
Sil: What would represent a meaningful measure of "freedom", economically speaking, if not private consumption?
Phyllo: Really?
Me: I have the same question and it would be good if you'd answer it.
Phyllo: Why should I?

You said it's a meaningless number, so how do you know it's a meaningless number if you can't think of a meaningful number?

You made an assertion without evidence or rationale.

phyllo wrote:

Hey Sil, what fallacy is that?

Phyllo: Not that "private consumption as % of gdp" represents anything. It's basically a meaningless number.
Sil: What would represent a meaningful measure of "freedom", economically speaking, if not private consumption?
Phyllo: Really?
Me: I have the same question and it would be good if you'd answer it.
Phyllo: Why should I?

You said it's a meaningless number, so how do you know it's a meaningless number if you can't think of a meaningful number?

You made an assertion without evidence or rationale.

Reducing "freedom" or "capitalism" or "socialism" to one number makes no sense.

Why not reduce "life" to one number?

So the point you're trying to make is that my point is wrong. Where is it wrong?

I already said. If you look at it, you have to wonder how Syria could be near the top of the capitalist heap. Or how could Saudi Arabia, a monarchy which makes money by selling oil, count as socialist.

It's pretty strange. One would have to examine those countries to determine if they legitimately could be considered socialist. If they could be considered capitalist. And there lots of countries that look strange.

Then what is capitalism? If you don't think it's anti-socialism, then you must know what it is, unless you're just guessing.

Capitalism exists in harmony with a variety of social programs. They are no polar opposites.

What is the opposite of the redistribution of wealth? What is the opposite of government spending? What is the opposite of taxation? What is the opposite of regulation? What is the opposite of government ownership?

These things don't have "opposites".

The lack of all those things is capitalism.

There was always taxation, regulation, government spending, government ownership of property and enterprises. So that can't be the definition of capitalism.

Sure, it can be. That was the benevolent dictator argument of that joker dude who used to post here. If the dictator is really a good guy, it can work splendidly, but the trouble comes if he's not.

Sure. Then the benevolent dictator dies or goes crazy or turns things over to his idiot children, your socialist utopia disappears and you're screwed.

The black line is a 7 period moving average. Freedom declines with government spending in general.

Your 'fitted' line goes up 15% over the range of 34 countries?

There is often a spread of 10% or more between adjoining countries on the list. It oscillates wildly.

You're right to be scared lol

Yeah, I don't want to live in a police state.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't know the full chain of events, but it seems to me the person asserting that private consumption as a percentage of gdp is the best or even a good measure of freedom bears a huge onus.

Presumably they asserted this first and Phyllo reacted with skepticism. Sure, he bears an onus for that, but only after the other person backs up what I would tend to agree with Phyllo sounds pretty silly.

It seems like a category error. There might be some kinds of correlation, but I would guess glaring counterexamples. And Sil's question strikes me as almost funny. What would be a good measure if not that. Well, things like can the press criticize the government, is there a right to assemble that actually defends against police and court intervention, is there freedom of speech both legally and in practice. You could look into how women and minorities are treated in courts and by police and even social policing. ETc. IOW look at freedom directly. I am quite sure there are organizations that do this and rank countries. It's not as easy to plop in a chart, but then, the ease of a measure where you just pop out a number doesn't make it a good measure.

Not reduced, but indicated by one number. It makes no sense to you because it makes your beloved system look bad. Anything putting capitalism in a negative light makes no sense.

I explained that. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Really?

Redistribution / lack of redistribution. Gov spending / lack of gov spending. Taxation / lack of taxation. Regulation / lack of regulation. Gov ownership / private ownership. Socialism / capitalism.

Show me a capitalist who wants more taxes, gov spending, regulation, and government ownership.

I know. That's what I said. It can work great until it doesn't.

Whatever the data says is what it says. Check it yourself; I posted the data.

Better be down with socialism then. The police state is a republican thing.

Serendipper wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't know the full chain of events, but it seems to me the person asserting that private consumption as a percentage of gdp is the best or even a good measure of freedom bears a huge onus.

I think you have it backwards. Private consumption is a measure of public consumption by subtraction from 100%. Private consumption is a measure of capitalism, plutocracy, etc or happens to correlate with less freedom. The countries with the lowest private consumption have the highest public consumption.

phyllo wrote:

Not reduced, but indicated by one number. It makes no sense to you because it makes your beloved system look bad. Anything putting capitalism in a negative light makes no sense.

It doesn't make any system look good or bad because it's all over the place. It makes one scratch his head and ask "what does it mean, if anything?"

I explained that. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If you call Saudi Arabia socialist, then you are tossing away a key concept of socialism which is that "the people" have the political power.

What you are really saying is that any government that spends a lot of money is socialist.

Really?

Redistribution / lack of redistribution. Gov spending / lack of gov spending. Taxation / lack of taxation. Regulation / lack of regulation. Gov ownership / private ownership. Socialism / capitalism.

Apple / lack of apple.

Show me a capitalist who wants more taxes, gov spending, regulation, and government ownership.

Didn't you post at least two examples of capitalists who want their taxes raised? (I forget which thread it was in.)

I think that KT spent several pages discussing gov spending and regulation with you. No need for me to repeat it.

I know. That's what I said. It can work great until it doesn't.

That's why the power has to be in the hands of "the people" instead of the despot. Socialists understand.

Whatever the data says is what it says. Check it yourself; I posted the data.

I did. I looked up the report. Fortunately you did not need to plot Saudi Arabia on the graph, (or China or Singapore). Freedom scores : Finland 100, Saudi Arabia 7.

Better be down with socialism then. The police state is a republican thing.

That was my lame attempt to move the conversation on to something more productive ... if we want freedom, what exactly do we want to be happening?

What are the biggest threats to freedom?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Serendipper wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't know the full chain of events, but it seems to me the person asserting that private consumption as a percentage of gdp is the best or even a good measure of freedom bears a huge onus.

I think you have it backwards. Private consumption is a measure of public consumption by subtraction from 100%. Private consumption is a measure of capitalism, plutocracy, etc or happens to correlate with less freedom. The countries with the lowest private consumption have the highest public consumption.

Ok, that might be better, but it seems to me you still should measure the actual freedoms. Harder to get a number, sure, but a vastly better measure. I think his ' they are all over the place' is a good argument against it. And to demonstrate that it's true, you are going to have to figure out the level of freedom directly. I mean, the speed that crickets chirp in the evening in different countries might correlate with freedom somehow, but might as well measure freedom, as well as you can. And yes, I can see where gdp percentages might have more easily argued correlations, but then perhaps humans somehow affect cricket chirping or their spending does, lol. It seems like the kind of statistic that will be used to draw poor conclusions whereas measuring actual freedoms gets you down to the core more directly. Of course there will be controversy and one will have to weigh different freedoms against each other when ranking, but that's a good debate. One worth having.
I wonder how the USSR and communist China in, say the 70s would have done on that scale. I am guessing that public spending was very high and freedoms rather low.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I realized that China was a crap shoot. But My guess is Russia was necessarily very high on public spending. There was no other real possible source. The military was huge compared to GDP.

Serendipper wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I realized that China was a crap shoot. But My guess is Russia was necessarily very high on public spending. There was no other real possible source. The military was huge compared to GDP.

Russia also has a lot of oil, so they could have functioned like Saudia Arabia: social spending, but no democracy.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Serendipper wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I realized that China was a crap shoot. But My guess is Russia was necessarily very high on public spending. There was no other real possible source. The military was huge compared to GDP.

Russia also has a lot of oil, so they could have functioned like Saudia Arabia: social spending, but no democracy.

I added a bit above.

I guess I'm seeing Phyllo, whose come from a socialist or perhaps 'socialist' country that was abusive and not free and I think had pretty high public spending.

thatcher and reagan seeping in slowly.

But perhaps it might help to address his concerns that socialism may lead again to the types of experiences one had behind the Iron Curtain

I think that says more about you than the research.

I can't think of a way to quantify democracy. Can you? I'll be more than happy to research it if you can.

Saudi Arabia has a lot of government spending and large welfare, but the people have no control over government. So on one hand it seems socialistic, but on the other not.But at the end of the day, the money is being spread around to the people and that has to be considered socialism.

If the corps themselves are being taxed to fund the military research and fix the roads, then it's not plutocratic/capitalistic, but socialistic because the military and the road crews are regular people receiving wages from the corporate tax. On the other hand, if government spending is coming from gas taxes and other taxes on the poor, then it's not socialistic since the poor are funding their own welfare and government workers are supplying their own wages.

The easiest thing to do is support Bernie. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders

Republicans.

Noam Chomsky: Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history

Lack of education. Educated people make better political decisions.

I guess I'm seeing Phyllo, whose come from a socialist or perhaps 'socialist' country that was abusive and not free and I think had pretty high public spending.

I wonder which country.

But if the people were in charge of their own government, would they vote for more or less government spending? Probably more. So although the people aren't in charge, they're still getting more or less what they want.

phyllo wrote:There is a Democracy Index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy ... untry_2018

Saudi Arabia has a lot of government spending and large welfare, but the people have no control over government. So on one hand it seems socialistic, but on the other not.But at the end of the day, the money is being spread around to the people and that has to be considered socialism.

You consider it socialism.

If the corps themselves are being taxed to fund the military research and fix the roads, then it's not plutocratic/capitalistic, but socialistic because the military and the road crews are regular people receiving wages from the corporate tax. On the other hand, if government spending is coming from gas taxes and other taxes on the poor, then it's not socialistic since the poor are funding their own welfare and government workers are supplying their own wages.

What? Your "consumption as % gdp" number doesn't take into account where the gov money came from.

The easiest thing to do is support Bernie. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders

I don't live in your fine republic.

There's no way a tyrant could take over under those conditions, especially if the people are decently educated.

phyllo wrote:

I guess I'm seeing Phyllo, whose come from a socialist or perhaps 'socialist' country that was abusive and not free and I think had pretty high public spending.

I wonder which country.

We (my parents and I) lived in Czechoslovakia until 1968 when the attempt to get "Socialism with a Human Face" ended with a Russian invasion and a kick in the face.

Then we were in Sweden for a while but eventually moved to Canada.

phyllo wrote:

There's no way a tyrant could take over under those conditions, especially if the people are decently educated.

Germany had a democracy and a highly educated population. They ended up with Hitler.

Serendipper wrote:

phyllo wrote:

There's no way a tyrant could take over under those conditions, especially if the people are decently educated.

Germany had a democracy and a highly educated population. They ended up with Hitler.

I'm dubious that the germans were highly educated. The smart ones were jews.

I'm not sure about the democracy claim either.

And Hitler was more a result of the treaty of versailles and the reparations imposed on the germans.

In Germany the general level of education in the Weimar period was regarded as high by international standards and there was very little illiteracy. Prussia, for example, had made education up to age 14 compulsory in 1825, much earlier than France or England. Even before that the proportion of children attending school up to age 14 had been high. Traditionally, Germans have held education in very high regard. Before 1933 Germany was seen as a bastion of scholarship and science, and aspects of its school and university systems were widely imitated in many other countries, in particular the heavy emphasis on research in the universities.

PS. There’s a strange idea that I have encountered from a few Americans that in the inter-war period Germans were ‘uneducated’. This view is complete nonsense.

So what does that prove? That Russia didn't want you to have prosperity?

phyllo wrote:

In Germany the general level of education in the Weimar period was regarded as high by international standards and there was very little illiteracy. Prussia, for example, had made education up to age 14 compulsory in 1825, much earlier than France or England. Even before that the proportion of children attending school up to age 14 had been high. Traditionally, Germans have held education in very high regard. Before 1933 Germany was seen as a bastion of scholarship and science, and aspects of its school and university systems were widely imitated in many other countries, in particular the heavy emphasis on research in the universities.

PS. There’s a strange idea that I have encountered from a few Americans that in the inter-war period Germans were ‘uneducated’. This view is complete nonsense.

https://www.quora.com/In-1930s-Germany- ... racy-ratio

I have difficultly imagining any large body of people could possibly be educated in the 1800s. Sure there were pockets on intelligentsia, but nothing like today where almost everyone can read.

phyllo wrote:

I have difficultly imagining any large body of people could possibly be educated in the 1800s. Sure there were pockets on intelligentsia, but nothing like today where almost everyone can read.

So you're going to hang on to that idea, even though the high level of education in Germany is confirmed by many sources.

Sometimes educated people make bad choices. Stupid people are not the only ones who mess things up.

Household final consumption expenditure (formerly private consumption) is the market value of all goods and services, including durable products (such as cars, washing machines, and home computers), purchased by households. It excludes purchases of dwellings but includes imputed rent for owner-occupied dwellings. It also includes payments and fees to governments to obtain permits and licenses. Here, household consumption expenditure includes the expenditures of nonprofit institutions serving households, even when reported separately by the country. This item also includes any statistical discrepancy in the use of resources relative to the supply of resources.