Awww, poor William Dembski is puzzled by the data that shows that acceptance of evolution rises with education level. I’m sorry, guy, but that’s what the evidence shows: better educated people tend to support good science more than poorly educated people, and Intelligent Design creationism derives its popularity from ignorance. Larry Moran puts him in his place.
At the risk of boring anyone with an IQ over 80, let me make the point that Dembski is deliberately missing. In 2002, if you rejected evolution you were an idiot. That’s because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The same correlation holds today, only more so.
One other thing that that graph shows is that conservatism is associated with disbelief in evolution, and several people have complained that they dislike the way I phrased it, as “American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science”. They’ve complained that it’s only a correlation, not evidence of causation, and that it’s not about science, it’s about evolution. However, I stand by my wording.
The voice of conservatism in America is the Republican party, and the Republican party stands against evolution, against stem cell research, against reproductive rights, against education, against the environment, against alternative energy research, against pollution controls, against good science education, against universal health care, on and on and on. I appreciate that individual conservatives in good conscience may deplore the anti-science agenda and divorce themselves from rather large chunks of the Republican platform, and I understand that the party has not always been such a refuge for know-nothings and may someday reshape itself, but face it: conservatism in this country is tightly coupled to scientific ignorance. If you are a conservative, that is your problem (just as the ineffective, dithering dullards of the Democratic party are my problem, as an openly declared liberal). Buck up, accept the responsibility, and do something about it. Fight for reform of America’s conservative political party.
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
Poor Willy–didn’t he hear the Rev. Ray Mummert exclaim Aiiieee!! Help!! “We’re under attack by the intellectual and educated segment of society!” in Pennsylvania during the Kitzmiller trial? Oh, that’s right, Dembski wasn’t there.
i saw some guy in a minivan driving around the other day with a huge magnetic sign on the driver’s side door. in big black letters:
and the word “science” was bright red and bold.
oy.
PZ: Well stated!
On this:
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
Or, recognize that some of your conservative views should be modified (to embrace the more correct, liberal views) or put aside (because they are private issues and should not be part of legislation or politics). What remains can probably be accommodated in the Democratic party (hey, we have Joe Lieberman, right?).
You don’t have to declare yourself a Democrat, or joint the party. Just vote Democratic. Trust us, you’ll be happy you did.
(That was for all 1.5 of you conservatives reading this thread.)
Re Greg Laden
Actually, Ben Nelson is well to the right of Joe Lieberman.
PZ: Is there a difference in the education specialty of conservatives vs liberals. Is there a larger percentage of liberals with science education compared to conservatives? While your conclusion may be valid, I think we would need to know more about the educational background of the two groups before positively concluding it is solely a difference between being a conservative or being a liberal.
>>I appreciate that individual conservatives in good conscience may deplore the anti-science agenda and divorce themselves from rather large chunks of the Republican platform, and I understand that the party has not always been such a refuge for know-nothings and may someday reshape itself, but face it: conservatism in this country is tightly coupled to scientific ignorance. If you are a conservative, that is your problem
AND they still voted for him, they still support his policies, they still patronize Fox and Limbaugh, they still turn a blind eye to those within their party that DO or say the things some of them claim to not support.
I say, if you voted for the Doofus, and voted for his Rubber Stampers in the Senate and Congress, then I don’t care if you claim you don’t support all of it, YOU’RE STILL THE PROBLEM. Forget distancing yourself now, it’s too late.
Redemption is possible, I guess, but it’d better be accompanied by action.
Cleek:
The NIV Bible has “science” as “knowledge” instead; the passage is actually intended to warn against anyone who promulgates prevarication as fact, such as the Van Guy himself is doing. That is, he’s acting in direct contradiction to the admonition he’s plastered on the side of his vehicle.
But then, unlike the Van Guy, I’ve actually done some research into various religions … which is of course why I reject them all. :
Actually, I think you were more than fair when you implied at the end that it isn’t enough to accept evolution if is only because it is the “leftist” thing to do (these days, anyway) and not because of scientific understanding.
“the Republican party stands against… stem cell research”
How would you feel about funding churches and anti-evolution seminaries? From what I have gathered, most conservatives are against FEDERAL funding of stem cell research which is a good thing.
I’m all for stem cell research for as long as it’s done by private individuals and companies.
“against education”
The policies of the Democratic Party have long been more anti-education (in practice) than those of the Republican party. The Republican party advocates market-based solutions, vouchers and private schools which all are sane alternatives to the platform of the Democratic Party. The Dems only want more money (which some states already spend more than the so called “welfare” states in Europe) on education and are unwilling to fight against the teacher unions that uphold the poor quality of education by fighting for the “rights” of bad teachers.
“against the environment”
Economic growth is more important than “controlling” (which can’t be done) global warming (for example). Economic growth also leads to technological research and development which has always been mankind’s best weapon (of adaptation) against nature and “overpopulation”.
“against alternative energy research”
On the contrary – the Republicans want to lower corporate taxes so that companies can invest more into the kind of research they want to which ultimately means investing into alternative energy research (since it’s their future incomes that depend on exploiting alternative energy sources).
The Republicans also want to make oil more available by advocating drilling oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico.
“against universal health care”
And this is a bad thing?
Have you ever read a book on economics? Keeping in mind that economic planning doesn’t work and that you can advocate Socialism only by relying on moral arguments it seems to be you who’s advocating unscientific, religious crap here.
If anything the US should liberalize its private health care system even more and get rid off MedicAid and MediCare.
Cleek, notice that scripture warns against “science falsely so-called.”
And creationists think it doesn’t apply to creationism. Isn’t that rich?
One could make a case for this, as PZ began to do in this blog: “American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science”. For taken as a whole (which is allowable depending on context), conservatives impede or block science through political means.
However, no scientist would come to the cause-effect conclusions that PZ did earlier, not based on those data alone. If one were clearly editorializing, rather than trying to make apparently factual claims that (as far as I can tell) Science doesn’t make–probably due to confounding issues–then it would be fine.
The Republican party is the voice (not “a primary” or “the primary” voice) of conservatism? Has PZ had a divine revelation to this effect, or may people still think for themselves in the US? Ought pro-science conservatives to shut up, not contradict their leaders? I would hate to push that, simply as a matter of trying to win some over to science. And does PZ think that one must be conservative in order to call him on his inadequate analysis?
Well they aren’t my dogs in this fight, so I’ll leave off this subject now. I wanted to disagree with those who think that saying one “believes in evolution” or “believes evolution” is somehow a misuse of words (instead of merely leaving the door open to the yahoos’ constant misuse of words).
The first definition for “believe” that I looked up had as its first meaning “To accept as true or real”, with the sentence example being “Do you believe the news stories?”. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/believe Well, does one believe in exercise, quantum mechanics, the judicial system, mathematical axioms and prooofs, or is that somehow impossible (I know that not all examples are fully comparable)? Did people believe in continental drift prior to its widespread acceptance, and may they believe in it now (I mention both cases because “believing in” continental drift prior to its mainstreaming seems an especially common way of stating one’s mind)?
Of course I don’t recommend using “believe in evolution” any more than is necessary today, because the secular vernacular meaning of “accept as true” is either ignorantly or deliberately equivocated with the religious meaning of the phrase “believe in God”. They have to say that they “believe in God” because one cannot make an adequate case for this God being in existence, while we have alternatives like “acknowledge” or “accept” (I know that they say these too, but these are predicated on belief without adequate (or any) evidence).
So I do recommend not using “believe evolution” or the like, but there was really nothing wrong with its use in common parlance. One may say “I believe” in order to affirm assent to a reasonable proposition or a well-evidenced theory, yet it is not wise to do so any more with respect to evolution.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Dr. Dembski would do well to remember that you can’t spell IDiot without ID. In fact, it can be argued that ID is an essential part of being an IDiot. A quick perusal of his Uncommonly Dense blog backs this up, and a more in-depth look at the postings of the sycophants he has surreonded himself with give even more credence to ths view.
His next book will probably called “ID – Greetings From The Fringe”.
Except when ‘conservatives’ got into office all they seemed to want to do was cut taxes for the rich and run up huge deficits.
They don’t believe in government other than as a police force and as a military.
They want everything privatized so they can get a big pay off. They don’t want to do anything.
The last time I checked healthcare and health insurance were incredibly expensive…
and yes that’s great for the corporations but not for the average working person who’s
wages have gone down while the top 5% got richer.
But fuck’em right, that’s the free market.
Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus tells a similar tale of progressive religious transformation toward lesser belief in the mystical with increasing education. I believe he’s now an atheist. No wonder higher education is and always will be on the hit list.
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
How long before the Insane Christianist party broke down into a few dozen squabling fundamentalist sectarian strains all pointing the finger of godlessness at each other? Not to mention the outsider Catholics and Mormons who wouldn’t meet qualifification for admission in the first place (the godless heathen “Christian” need not apply – only REAL Christians need apply clause).
One other thing that that graph shows is that conservatism is associated with disbelief in evolution, and several people have complained that they dislike the way I phrased it, as “American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science”. They’ve complained that it’s only a correlation, not evidence of causation, and that it’s not about science, it’s about evolution. However, I stand by my wording.
Well, you can stand by it, but the evidence you’ve presented doesn’t support it. Science is obviously much more than just evolution. I wonder what the results would look like for similar graphs on belief in things like homeopathy and numerology and parapsychology.
I heard Ehrman describe himself as happily agnostic in an NPR interview last year.
Well, it’s difficult to maintain a literally-interpreted Biblical view when you’re exposed to a decent education.
Buck up, accept the responsibility, and do something about it. Fight for reform of America’s conservative political party.
I’ve been doing it longer than you’ve been in long pants, guy. But thanks for the inspirational lecture. What I really needed was encouragment from a leftist.
Statistics and analysis come from national surveys conducted by Barna Research.
Two snippets from Dembski’s post:
and
Sometimes further comment is superfluous.
Against universal health care, someone said:
I’ll bet the support of universal health care corresponds well with college education, too.
First, socialism requires planning of outputs in the classic models. Unless you have some means of planning who will get sick, with what diseases or injuries, and when, the health care system can never be socialism. If you’re softening the definition of socialism to mean “concerned about the welfare of other people,” then you could be right — but then one would be a fool to oppose it.
Second, any economic study would show that delivery of medical care is cheaper than not delivering it. Preventive care, and frequent doctor visits, and catching diseases earlier rather than later, reduce the costs of health care over the lifetime of the average person by about 50%. Currently in the U.S. we spend a minimum of $0.25 of every $1.00 in health care for administrative purposes designed to prevent people from getting health care if they are not insured. If we stopped doing that one thing alone, health care costs would remain flat at least for two years.
Reading a book on economics and studying health care economics are not the same things.
Universal health care, by the way, would be the Christian thing to do. Jesus’ ministry included healing the sick, halt and lame – especially those who couldn’t afford insurance. A true Scotsman would pinch that damn penny wisely.
“”against universal health care”
And this is a bad thing?
Have you ever read a book on economics? Keeping in mind that economic planning doesn’t work and that you can advocate Socialism only by relying on moral arguments it seems to be you who’s advocating unscientific, religious crap here.
If anything the US should liberalize its private health care system even more and get rid off MedicAid and MediCare.”
Does this poster ealise that EVRY EU country + Switerland+Norway has “Socialst” helth-care, and all of it is better than given to people in the USa – especially those without VERY EXPENSIVE private health insurance – and sometimes, even then it is better – especially if you get a prolonged cancer…..
Ed Darrell:
“I’ll bet the support of universal health care corresponds well with college education, too.”
With the way universities are these days, especially in Finland, it’s no wonder the welfare model seems to be considered a value in itself.
“First, socialism requires planning of outputs in the classic models. Unless you have some means of planning who will get sick, with what diseases or injuries, and when, the health care system can never be socialism.”
That’s the way it works here (Finland). First you plan an estimate on how much money the health care sector is going to need and then you work with it. Because governments can’t plan (also known as “the economic calculation problem”) they can’t adjust supply properly with demand. This is why our socialized health care system doesn’t work; there isn’t enough workers, the work environment isn’t very appealing (the work load and stress have been increasing for years), the pay is very low, you have to wait from months to years to get treatment (it’s no wonder our cancer survival rate is lower than that of America’s) and the whole system is basically a free rider of the American system (Americans pay the bill of r&d and we take advantage of your innovations since our system doesn’t create enough wealth, or can’t allocate resources efficiently enough, for r&d).
And we have only five million people here. A universal health care in a country of 300 million people with a heterogeneous population would be a disaster.
“Second, any economic study would show that delivery of medical care is cheaper than not delivering it.”
Medical care can be delivered by the private sector more efficiently.
“Reading a book on economics and studying health care economics are not the same things.”
Reading a book on economics helps you understand the cause of problems within our health care system.
“Universal health care, by the way, would be the Christian thing to do.”
And why you think I care? I’m an atheist.
(That was for all 1.5 of you conservatives reading this thread.)
I guess I’m the .5, since I’m a Libertarian. I embrace some conservative views, but definitely not of their religious and anti-science ones. In fact, education is one of the few places I think the government should focus on. If we can stop paying for useless projects and misguided wars, we should adopt the Irish plan and start giving out free college. With a highly educated workforce, we won’t need welfare or any social security nets; people will be smart enough (hopefully) to not run up credit card debts, understand economics, vote in a more mature way, and restore America to it’s brilliant past.
But that’s Libertarian idealism for you.
G. Tingey:
“Does this poster ealise that EVRY EU country + Switerland+Norway has “Socialst” helth-care and all of it is better than given to people in the USa”
Read my earlier post in which I listed some of the problems we have. The bottom line is that WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THIS SYSTEM. The day the American consumer is attacked with high taxes the European welfare system falls. We’re already having major problems. The growth of the welfare system stopped during the nineties but was partly saved by your economic growth during Clinton (restrained by Gingrich’s Congress).
“especially if you get a prolonged cancer…..”
Chances of surviving one is higher in America. The welfare system sacrifices lives in the name of egalitarianism.
JD Kolassa:
“I guess I’m the .5, since I’m a Libertarian. I embrace some conservative views, but definitely not of their religious and anti-science ones. In fact, education is one of the few places I think the government should focus on.”
That’s quite anti-libertarian. The government should back off instead of focusing on anything.
“With a highly educated workforce, we won’t need welfare or any social security nets;”
Heh! Poverty in Finland is INCREASING and our unemployment rate is at 10%. At the same time more and more people are better educated. Again; governments can neither calculate nor allocate resources efficiently.
Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now.
Maybe accepting evolution just MAKES you intelligent. Some may want to consider offering some kind of baptismal acknowledgment of evolution that people can just take to be certified intelligent hahaha HEY, I’m JOKING.
I pass from any argument leading to the ole “be like me or be stupid” notion, from any of the sides involved (since most sides always make similar bad arguments based on crappy data).
We should not piddle our pants in enthusiasm over any of this kind of “suggestive” soft crap. On the most frivolous or unsincere can be moved by such an argument into accepting evolution. It’s no use.
Wow. A Finn is telling us to listen to conservatives?
He has no idea what it’s like here.
Do you even know how much we spend on insurance?
afterthought:
“Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now.”
Another fine example that economically left-wing people and Christians are from the same tree. Both live in a world which can be protected only by preventing facts from flowing in. This is why most left-wing “debators” start relying on ad hominem and moral arguments when things get rough.
Steve_C:
“Do you even know how much we spend on insurance?”
Yes. Do you know that Finns have hardly any wealth and that 44% of income is taxed? On top of that the whole system is falling apart.
So much for “free” health care and education.
And that’s not even relevant. American Capitalism works and has worked for more than two hundred years while the welfare state lasted for maybe two or three decades.
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
Also we’re one of the UNhealthiest countries in the industrialized world.
I didn’t say capitalism didn’t work. I said our healthcare system isn’t. I have nothing against captialism. But it must be managed. And it should not be used to shirk a government’s responsibility to its citizens.
Conservatives got their chance here… and what did they do?
Nothing positive.
I’d like to comment on this a bit more:
“A Finn is telling us to listen to conservatives?”
Don’t get me wrong – conservatives are hardly better. After all, they spent like socialists for the past six years.
But Christianity has always been there and America has triumphed despite Christianity because of the economic system. That’s why it’s more important to oppose left-wing economics than to oppose right-wing Christians.
As a Classical Liberal I, of course, also oppose all attempts by the government to mess with social liberties and, like most Finnish libertarians, advocate rationalism (of which advocating Capitalism is a result of) and atheism.
Left wing economics have been around since the 30’s.
Also the only president to preside over an economic boom in the past 20 years was a liberal democrat.
Actually I’m not sure conservatives have had ANY positive record when it comes to the U.S. economy in the past century.
“Americans have hardly any wealth.”
Americans have more wealth than 99% of all nations on this planet.
“I didn’t say capitalism didn’t work. I said our healthcare system isn’t.”
And I said I partly agree and that is because the system is not free, because of Medicare and Medicaid, because of those million-dollar lawsuits etc.
There’s no reason to sosialize the system even more since we have all seen how the so-called “welfare” states are doing.
“I have nothing against captialism. But it must be managed.”
Capitalism is economic liberalism. Laissez-faire is the whole point of Capitalism. It should never be managed.
“Conservatives got their chance here… and what did they do?”
I agree. I hoped to see them lose but only to force them to get back to their original principles.
“Left wing economics have been around since the 30’s.”
Which is quite unfortunate especially when considering the fact that the Great Depression was caused by the government (the Federal Reserve).
“Also the only president to preside over an economic boom in the past 20 years was a liberal democrat.”
Restrained by a conservative Congress. After all, Hillary did try to socialize the US health care system.
“Actually I’m not sure conservatives have had ANY positive record when it comes to the U.S. economy in the past century.”
Ronald Reagan turned the tide although he actually does get a bit too much of credit. But still; “he” brought down the unemployment rate, encouraged economic growth and most importantly – brought inflation down and unregulated the sluggish oil markets.
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542. The U.S. also has one of the highest rates of homeownership in the world, higher than that of almost all European nations.
Yes. Do you know that Finns have hardly any wealth and that 44% of income is taxed? On top of that the whole system is falling apart.
“[T]he whole system is falling apart”? Forgive me, but this sounds a bit like the rhetoric we get from right-wingers that our social security system is “falling apart”. They’ve been saying this since FDR, always relying on the same bogus economic pseudoscience.
So much for “free” health care and education.
Ah, I see. Our education system is falling apart too. But it seems that most other countries have education statistics that trump ours. I supposed Europe and East Asia can only have viable public education systems because we don’t, though.
But hey, public education is obviously a failure. Those countries which have invested in massive public education and wiping out illiteracy over the last 150 years have failed miserably, while those who have not are top-tier world economies.
And that’s not even relevant. American Capitalism works and has worked for more than two hundred years while the welfare state lasted for maybe two or three decades.
How do you define “American capitalism”? America has never had the purely laissez-faire system that right-wingers dream of. We have almost always had high protective tariffs and have had anti-trust laws, union-organizing rights, workers compensation laws etc. (which all, by the way, used to be much more stringently enforced) for more than a century, not to mention social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. for decades. And then there is the fact that we have had a graduated income tax…do I really have to go on?
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542.
He probably means net income, which is actually in the $36,000 range.
Either you need our public sector, or we need your private sector. Handling a health care claim costs 10 times as much run through the private sector in the U.S. that the same claim costs run through Medicare or Medicaid. The public sector is vastly more efficient at handling the paperwork, and has been for 30 years. On health delivery, Canada’s system is vastly more efficient than the U.S. system — a heart attack hospital stay runs about 25% in Canada what it runs in the U.S. for exactly the same treatment. Lines are nonexistent up there. Here in the U.S. we have different waiting lines: Forever if one lacks the best insurance. About 100 million Americans are grossly under-served, and 50 million have almost no access at all except at the most expensive end, the emergency room once they are close to death.
Cancer and heart survival rates are better in Canada than the U.S. simply because everybody gets treated, and consequently cancers, for example, get treated earlier, when the treatments are cheaper and much more effective.
The least expensive health care is the best health care: Top notch prevention, early intervention. U.S. health care now is designed to prevent access at almost all costs (“gatekeepers” is what our general practice physicians are called, and they get bonuses from the insurance companies for preventing access to specialists — no kidding).
Market systems rarely work in health care where there are secondary payors. The person ordering the product doesn’t pay the bill. “Privatizing” the system can’t fix it, it only rations health care by denying it to more people of lower economic means, which raises the overall costs in the medium and long run (and sometimes the short run). The magical drugs we get from U.S. citizens paying more for drugs are less than 15% of the cost of health care — less than administration, almost equalled by legal complications from lack of timely delivery.
At every step of the way in the U.S., a universal payor system has been shown to be cheaper.
By the way, one reason Japanese autos cost less than U.S. autos is because Japan has a government-operated health system that both works better in delivery of health care to workers, and costs a lot less. The most efficient of the world’s industrialized free market nations typically have a government-run health system that beats the heck out of the U.S. system.
If there were a way to make health care truly a free market, free market solutions would work. Trauma victims can’t afford to shop; people with company insurance are prevented from shopping. In such a non-free-market system, socialized medicine is a vastly superior delivery system, vastly more efficient and efficacious, vastly less expensive, and a long, long way from socialism.
Every one of the problems you cite for Finland, Mikko, is worse here. There is a constant, chronic shortage of nurses and technicians, they get paid a pittance (I was arguing this with Sen. Orrin Hatch some years ago, and he said that was untrue; we walked into his office, where his new receptionist had come from Utah where she had a masters in nursing, and I asked her why she took the job. She explained to Hatch that she was making much more answering the phone there, one of the lowest-paid staffers, than she made as a nurse. It’s still true. I wish I had that sequence on video.)Work conditions are stressful, especially for physicians who must argue with insurance companies constantly.
Poverty in America is rocketing. Free market failures are no prettier than socialism failures, but with no government safety nets the falls are longer and the deaths more grisly.
The government bureaucracy that covers everyone, by dint of its being much, much smaller, and not greed-driven, is much more efficient than a fractured, private bureaucracy that fails to cover at all a sixth of the population. Private socialism is no better at allocating resources than government socialism, it’s just more expensive.
I rant too long. My apologies. I hope you get your problems resolved there, and keep those telephones and fancy design items coming our way. Vodka, too.
Here are some number I happen to have handy for 2004:
The mean family before-tax income in 2004 was $70,000. The median family income in that year was $43,200
Mean household income in 2004 for the top 10 percent of the US population in 2004 was $302,100
The number you cite may be from a subset of data of homeowners only, with equity adjustments. That’s the only thing that could come close to the figure you cite. It is not the median household income of actual households.
Ed Darrell,
You make numerous factual claims and provide nothing to substantiate them. The Canadian health care system suffers from serious problems of rationing and shortages. Health care services in Canada are increasingly provided by private, for-profit companies. See, for example, this piece from the New York Times.
Quote:
Another point that should be made is that 90% of the research on medical drugs in done by that ghastly public sector, not private R&D. Not only that, but most of what counts as private research is a copy-cat version something already produced by universities, the NIH, small biotech labs using public grants, etc. We already have a health-care system in America, it’s just a ramshackle system due to the influence of private extortionists.
Jason,
Ed Darrell provided about as much factual content as the article you cite. Most the railing against Canada’s system is interpretation, and it says later in the article that Canadian provincial officials are drawing plans to shore up the system. Full privatization is unlikely to happen when less then 10% of their population prefers out system.
He probably means net income, which is actually in the $36,000 range.
He said “wealth.” The Census Bureau reports that median household money income in 2005 was $46,326. That doesn’t seem like “hardly any” income, either.
No, I don’t think Net Worth is there either, unless you only count the median for people with, well, worth.
Tyler DiPietro,
Ed Darrell provided about as much factual content as the article you cite.
We don’t know if Ed Darrell’s post contains any factual content at all. He makes a lot of factual claims but provides nothing to substantiate any of them. Without even having to check, I knew immediately that his “poverty in America is rocketing” claim is utter nonsense. The U.S. poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6%, barely different from the rates in previous recent years. The rate has been roughly stable for around three decades [source].
Most the railing against Canada’s system is interpretation, and it says later in the article that Canadian provincial officials are drawing plans to shore up the system.
Huh? The piece documents serious shortages and rationing of health care services in Canada’s government-run health care system, and the rapid growth of private, for-profit medical centers to satisfy public demand for services.
Greg Laden,
No, I don’t think Net Worth is there either, unless you only count the median for people with, well, worth.
Assuming this is addressed to me, the median household net worth figure for 2005 of $224,542 is from here. The figure comes from the Federal Reserve Board’s annual Survey of Consumer Finances. And it reflects all U.S. households, not just those with a positive net worth.
The U.S. poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6%, barely different from the rates in previous recent years. The rate has been roughly stable for around three decades [source].
Looking at what he said:
Poverty in America is rocketing. Free market failures are no prettier than socialism failures, but with no government safety nets the falls are longer and the deaths more grisly.
It looks like he’s using an informal definition of poverty,
and the source you cite corroborates many of his claims on the matter (increase in the percentage of uninsured Americans, for instance). Plus one could take note of the chart showing increases in real median income between about 1960 and 2005, which can be complimented by this article detailing the largely disproportionate rise in productivity and corporate profits.
Huh? The piece documents serious shortages and rationing of health care services in Canada’s government-run health care system, and the rapid growth of private, for-profit medical centers to satisfy public demand for services.
It’s one article in the New York Times that makes such unbiased and journalistic-ally objective claims as “Canada’s health care system is falling apart”. That there are private clinics operating and shortages being experienced in Canada (one country with universal health-care among every industrialized nation outside the U.S.), doesn’t justify the grandiose conclusion that it is “falling apart”. It also mentions later that provincial authorities are drawing up plans to shore up the system. And still, less than 10% of Canadians support the American system, making privatization politically unlikely. And if you want statistics on how much better Canada does in health than the U.S., you can start here.
I don’t see much detail in statistical methodology in your source re: net household worth. This detailed 2001 U.S. Census report is giving far lower numbers.
Ed Darrell:
Lines are nonexistent up there [in Canada]
The New York Times, reporting a study by the Fraser Institute on waiting times in the Canadian public health care system:
The median wait between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist in 2005 was 8.3 weeks (up from 3.7 weeks in 1993).
The median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment in 2005 was 9.4 weeks (up from 5.6 weeks in 1993).
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery.
The Quebec court case that opened the floodgates to private, for-profit medical care in Canada was Chaoulli v. Quebec. The court’s ruling in that case included the following findings:
PJ seems to be confusing Conservatives with the people who have taken over the Republican party. Like some of the posters above, I’m working hard to get my party back on track. Hopefully some real conservatives will run for office next time and we’ll get a chance to reclaim our party’s values.
This detailed 2001 U.S. Census report is giving far lower numbers.
Of course it is. The year for which that document is reporting data is 1995, 10 years prior to 2005. Household net worth increased dramatically during that decade due to the stock market and real estate booms. And the numbers aren’t directly comparable anyway, because of inflation. The 1995 figure would need to be adjusted to 2005 dollars to allow a direct comparison. There are also probably differences in methodology between the Census Bureau’s analysis and the Survey of Consumer Finances analysis.
Richard Dawkins once said, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
I gather this is both true and clearly part of the reasoning for the correlation between intelligence and acceptance of evolution. As you move up in education (and one would hope intelligence) you reduce the chance of finding an ignorant person or a stupid person. As for insane and wicked I don’t know, but I doubt they occur in a high enough frequency to skew the results.
There are also probably differences in methodology between the Census Bureau’s analysis and the Survey of Consumer Finances analysis.
Which is what I said, there isn’t much detail. And anyway, the net household worth is a bit of a red-herring from the original topic you used it in response to. As you mention, the higher home values were largely due to the inflated housing bubble created by artificially low interest rates. It doesn’t necessarily translate into more overall economic well-being. This 2006 story from the Washington post paints a different picture:
U.S. families’ wealth stagnated during the economy’s recession and recovery from 2001 through 2004, as lackluster wage growth, sagging stock prices and rising debt levels offset the gains from higher home values, the Federal Reserve reported yesterday in its latest Survey of Consumer Finances.
Home prices did jump nearly 27 percent during the survey period, and the share of households owning homes rose to 69.1 percent in 2004, the report said. That made Americans feel good. And it did help boost the total value of families’ assets, such as homes, autos, stocks, bonds and other investments.
But wealth, or net worth, measures the value of a household’s assets minus its debts, such as mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit card balances. And debt climbed steadily during the survey period, as the Fed slashed interest rates to stimulate borrowing and spending in rocky economic times.
After totaling up both sides of the ledger, the median net worth of American households rose just 1.5 percent over the three years measured, to $93,100, according to the Fed’s report, which is compiled every three years to provide a portrait of family finances.
Just to be clear, those last three paragraphs are from the WaPo story.
Tyler,
It looks like he’s using an informal definition of poverty,
Please show me an “informal” definition of poverty by which “poverty in America is rocketing.” It’s nonsense. In fact, there are very good reasons to think that the official poverty figures substantially overstate the true poverty rate. Ed Darrell doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s obviously just making things up or uncritically repeating assertions he read or heard somewhere without bothering to check whether they’re true.
and the source you cite corroborates many of his claims on the matter (increase in the percentage of uninsured Americans, for instance).
I don’t know what statement of his you’re referring to here. He does say “[Americans need to wait] forever if one lacks the best insurance. About 100 million Americans are grossly under-served, and 50 million have almost no access at all except at the most expensive end, the emergency room once they are close to death.” This statement contains at least two false claims. First, the claim that Americans have to wait “forever” for health care services unless they have the “best” insurance is obvious nonsense. And second, even indigent and uninsured Americans have access to free or low-cost comprehensive primary health care services through a network of public and private agencies and programs, including the federal government’s Community Health Centers Program. So Ed Darrell’s claim that “50 million have almost no access at all” is yet more nonsense.
From what I have gathered, most conservatives are against FEDERAL funding of stem cell research which is a good thing.
Gosh! Just like 90% of all **other** research that goes on right.. Oh wait… No, the vast majority of research *is* funded, at least in part, by the federal government. Want research on how to use *existing* technology to make a better iPod, throw it at private businesses. If you want to know **how** something works, with no certain and specific goal, go for federal funding. Why? Because 90% of corporations are short sighted idiots, who only think about the product line for the next year, not whether or not knowing the genetic sequence of some obscure bit of DNA in stem cells, which have no apparent relevence to any *known* disease, *might* have some use 50 years from now. By the time the private sector, which is directed at “goals” instead of “knowledge”, figures out they need something, its about 20 years too late.
The Republican party advocates market-based solutions, vouchers and private schools which all are sane alternatives to the platform of the Democratic Party.
Hmm. Interesting how those things promote market results too. Think Beta Max. Do we really want “education” to be based on the most popular fracking brand, instead of on the best, most well reviewed, accurate and detailed information and the most *effective* methods? I certainly hope not, since the single most popular type of schools in the country are ones that cave in to every lunatic with an agenda, kiss the asses of the parents and let people “opt out” of things that they *need* to learn, because someone involved is “offended” by the idea their kid either A) needs to know it, B) someone else knows better than they do what their kid needs or C) it contradicts one of their pet delusions. Again, you want the next iPod, you give it to a business, if you want a fracking tack, you pay government funded institutions that have strict and specific standards.
Or, lets put it another way. In the market system 90% of *all* new businesses fail. Not just don’t make money, they completely and totally fail, going out of business. So.. You want a system where 90% of all schools don’t just fail to teach students well, they fail to teach them *anything*, so that your “market” can produce 10% of them that are perfect…. Briliant!!!
If that is not what you mean, then you damn well better rethink how perfect this so called system is supposed to be.
Economic growth is more important than “controlling” (which can’t be done) global warming (for example).
Sure, because everyone knows that the best solution to stop a ship from sinking is to build more decks on it, not fix the fracking holes in the hull. Again, get @$%@#@ real. The private sector only fixes things *after* they become critical. I can count the number of companies I know of that don’t work that way on the fingers of one hand, and I know a lot of companies. We needed alternative fuel vehicles 50 years ago. Now we have “some”, but it might be another 50 before “most” vehicles will use those. The private sector produces BS shit like the article in a local paper, which said, “Light rail will slow traffic.” No shit! If you build 5,000 roads and sell every half wit that walks in a door one to drive, then, when the problem becomes impossible to ignore, you decide on trying light rail, of fracking course its going to slow traffic. There isn’t any damn place left to put the rail system you should have installed for 90% less money years ago, because all of the space is now taken up by traffic from something even the people complaining about how light rail is going to slow traffic think is a problem they need to solve.
Some countries plan 50 years in advance. About 20 years ago “some” US companies got the idea that *maybe* they should start thinking ahead, the novel length of 5 years. Before that, you wouldn’t find one of them thinking farther ahead than one year, and some not even months ahead. If you want to plan for what your city, state *or* country is going to look like, you might revise things along the way, but you had better be @#$#$#@ thinking farther ahead than 5 years.
And more to the point, you shouldn’t piss on the sorts of people that warned 50 years ago that a major problem was going to arise if we didn’t do something, then *still* complain about them toady, when most people are going, “Damn… They might have been right all along!” That is how *your* prefect system has done things…
On the contrary – the Republicans want to lower corporate taxes so that companies can invest more into the kind of research they want to which ultimately means investing into alternative energy research (since it’s their future incomes that depend on exploiting alternative energy sources).
Yeah.. Now. Where were they 50 years ago when half these technologies where first proposed? Oh, right.. Back then they were considered unnessary, too expensive to research, not likely to make a profit, etc, etc, etc. What has changed? The fact that it will now cost 50 times as much in todays dollars to make them work, but it will cost the same companies 500 times as much to ignore the fracking problems. Suddenly its profitable to do something about it, so now the Republicrats are interested. Gosh! I am so sorry for not seeing how much visions these people have…
“against universal health care”
And this is a bad thing?
Already covered by other people, but sure, if you are unwilling to develop a *working* universal system, but have no choice but to impliment a broken one, like Medicare, then do every damn thing you can to make it more broken, or just keep it unfixed, so that people don’t accuse you of trying to create the boogie-man of “univeral healthcare”, what the hell do you expect?
Are the solutions easy? No. Of course not. But pretending that you can fix the damn thing at some imaginary “future” date with the technology of economy catches up, and it costs you $50 billion, all because you hate the idea of spending $50,000 now, you are a complete and total idiot and shouldn’t have the right to claim the title of conservative. Conserving what? National debt and mediocraty?
Tyler,
And anyway, the net household worth is a bit of a red-herring from the original topic you used it in response to.
Huh? I “used it in response to” the false claim that “Americans have hardly any wealth.” I fail to see how this is a “red herring.”
As you mention, the higher home values were largely due to the inflated housing bubble created by artificially low interest rates.
I didn’t say any such thing. I said the large increase in median household net worth between 1995 and 2005 was due in part to the boom in real estate values.
It doesn’t necessarily translate into more overall economic well-being. This 2006 story from the Washington post paints a different picture
That Washington Post story refers to the 3-year period between 2001 and 2004 and concludes that the typical U.S. family’s wealth was merely “stagnant” during that period. I am not sure how you think that alters the fact that wealth grew dramatically between 1995 and 2005.
So Ed Darrell’s claim that “50 million have almost no access at all” is yet more nonsense.
This is partially correct. Ed Darrell was sloppy in saying that those without the best insurance need to “wait forever” or have to “access at all” to treatment. But he would be correct to say that about 50 million lack health coverage and need to go through public agencies like Medicare and Medicaid to get such coverage. That is assuming they can get it. Such programs are means tested, and not all who lack insurance get them (they are primarily intended for the disabled and the elderly). Those who need expensive surgeries and are not covered by a public program stand to incur massive debts.
Huh? I “used it in response to” the false claim that “Americans have hardly any wealth.” I fail to see how this is a “red herring.”
In response to this, specifically:
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
You responded with:
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542. The U.S. also has one of the highest rates of homeownership in the world, higher than that of almost all European nations.
That is an isolated statistic from a real-estate boom that was created primarily by artificially lowered interest rates. That is why it is a red-herring. Compare it to the data from the same period that shows foreclosures and household debts on the rise.
I didn’t say any such thing. I said the large increase in median household net worth between 1995 and 2005 was due in part to the boom in real estate values.
And so did I, except I posited that the cause was the post recession artificial lowering of interest rates. Of course rises in median household worth are on the rise because of…a boom in values. That’s tautological.
I am not sure how you think that alters the fact that wealth grew dramatically between 1995 and 2005.
Median household worth did. And on average we’ve experienced large GDP growth. The problem is disproportionality. Wages were (and are) still stagnant, personal and consumer debts are increasing, as well as household debts and foreclosures.
Tyler,
This is partially correct. Ed Darrell was sloppy in saying that those without the best insurance need to “wait forever” or have to “access at all” to treatment.
“Sloppy?” The claim is ludicrous.
But he would be correct to say that about 50 million lack health coverage and need to go through public agencies like Medicare and Medicaid to get such coverage.
He might have been correct if that’s what he had said. But he didn’t say it. He claimed that “50 million have almost no access at all except at the most expensive end, the emergency room once they are close to death.” That claim is complete and utter nonsense. I just gave you a link to the federal government’s Community Health Centers Program which provides comprehensive primary health care services to poor and uninsured Americans regardless of their ability to pay. And the CHC is just one of many federal, state and local government programs that provide health care services to the poor and uninsured. In addition, there is a large network of private and charitable health care services for the poor and uninsured. I am not claiming the U.S. health care system is without serious problems. I am just pointing out that (1) those problems are often greatly exaggerated by its critics (Ed Darrell being a prime example), and (2) all other health care systems also have serious problems.
Um, Jason, you might want to check your numbers. Unless you think the median net worth of the U.S. households is the same as the median net worth of households in Arlington, VA. If you think this then you are an idiot. Just checking your linky for you.
Steve C’s great comment – Clinton hardly enacted any liberal democratic changes, and he “presided” over the boom the same way that I compel the sun to rise every morning. He was the “do nothing” caretaker of a strong economy that couldn’t be screwed up by either side, thanks to a balance of power.
Tyler,
That is an isolated statistic from a real-estate boom that was created primarily by artificially lowered interest rates. That is why it is a red-herring.
This is just nonsense. He made a (false) claim about Americans’ wealth and in response I provided the statistic showing that his claim is false. And not just false, but egregiously false.
Compare it to the data from the same period that shows foreclosures and household debts on the rise.
Er, your link is to foreclosure data for a single calendar year, 2005. The period under discussion is the ten years from 1995 to 2005. You know, for someone who seems to be so careful and rational when it comes to discussing science and religion, you’re very careless and sloppy in your discussion of economic and public policy issues.
As for debt, yes, household debts rose, but household ASSETS rose by a much greater amount. That’s why net worth increased so much. Debt increased mainly because people were able to borrow larger amounts against their greater assets. The same way rich people also typically have larger debts than the middle class or poor because their greater assets provide increased collateral.
And so did I, except I posited that the cause was the post recession artificial lowering of interest rates.
I don’t know what an “artificial” lowering of interest rates is supposed to mean, or why you think it somehow invalidates the large increase in real estate assets that has occurred. If you have an actual argument to make, then make it.
Median household worth did. And on average we’ve experienced large GDP growth. The problem is disproportionality.
Hold on. You’re moving the goalposts. The (false) claims I have been rebutting to this point are that Americans have “hardly any” wealth and that “poverty is rocketing.” Both claims are utter nonsense, as I have shown.
Wages were (and are) still stagnant, personal and consumer debts are increasing, as well as household debts and foreclosures.
As I said, debt has increased largely because assets have increased, allowing people to borrow more. You’ve provided no data on foreclosures except for a single calendar year. Wage stagnation has been an issue over the past few years, but one of the main reasons for that is that the cost of benefits has increased.
I made a long post over at my digs fisking Jason and Sandt (http://tinyurl.com/yfzzxw), but I figured I’d introduce a couple of points to this discussion:
I call bullshit. First, we can indeed control global warming. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30-40 % over the next couple of decades would keep global mean temperature rise from exceeding two K.
Second, global warming hurts the global economy immensely. The profits of the few multinational corporations that stand to gain from our failure to protect the global climate are dust and ashes compared to the costs of more extreme weather.
Moreover, allowing polluters to pollute is directly contrary to the core libertarian premise that ‘you break it, you bought it:’ The only reason it is usually financially viable to pollute is because somebody else pays for cleaning up after you.
To make a case, you need to prove that the lines grow longer the more government-run the system. Saying, as you do here, ‘universal health care systems have long lines, ergo market-based systems don’t’ is a blatant non sequitour.
An assertion that you have yet to back up with hard numbers.
And in the unlikely event that you do find numbers that superficially support your conclusion, remember to check (before posting them) that they take into account a) the patients that are only diagnosed post-mortem and b) the average time of first diagnose. Earlier diagnose runs a greater risk of false positives.
This is patent bullshit. Apart from the fact that – as other people have mentioned – most medical research is, in fact, publicly funded, I would point out that the leading commercial developer of insulin worldwide is a Danish company (Novo Nordisk). GlaxoSmithKline (http://www.gsk.ca/en/about_gsk/), possibly the world’s leading developer of pharmaceuticals is based in Canada, not the US. Do you want me to dig out more examples, or will you concede the point?
And, as others have pointed out already, the lion’s share of that increase comes from rising real estate prices. Rising real estate prices do not create wealth. It moves wealth from first-time buyers (who have to pay higher interests on their mortgages than they would if prices were lower) to people who inherit real estate (whose real estate has become more valuable without a comparative increase in the mortgage).
It also allows people to borrow more money (the only practiceable way to capitalise the extra value of your house), but this is all borrowed money, hence the illusion part.
By the way, the movement of wealth from first-time buyers to last-time sellers would also contribute to increasing the median – first-time buyers will inevitably tend to be below the median – and the gain is spread across the rest of the distribution in a more-or-less equal manner, hence raising the median value without generating any wealth (or even the illusion of wealth) at all. This is why a median by itself never says much of anything about the distribution. You always need to provide at least the mean or the standard deviation (preferably both) in addition to the median.
Conveniently, you neglect to mention that these ‘Community Health Centers’ mainly diagnose – their actual treatment options are quite limited.
In conclusion, I’ll note that the libertarians have failed to make a convincing case.
As usual.
– JS
This article reads like it was written by John Kerry, the genius that brought us the notion that only the uneducated were in the military.
I have an MSCS myself, and haven’t been convinced of evolution. Perhaps all the morons with doctoral degrees in liberal arts are skewing the statistic.
Nor am I “tightly coupled to scientific ignorance”. In fact, the article is replete with logical fallacies. This author gloating over the intellectual superiority of himself and his community is like someone using baby talk to explain to me that I’m an idiot for not having memorized Shakespearean works.
I am absolutely aghast at the comments degenerating into a discussion over socialized health care. Did everyone miss that socialism is failing everywhere in the world that it’s been tried? Are people that blind to the failings of the system in Canada? Must people turn a deaf ear to the desperate and earnest warnings of a liberal in the middle of a real socialist mess in Finland? A liberal whose self interest in free markets is that the U.S. continue producing useful medications for him and his country!
When it comes to understanding the market-wide implications of messing with an industry, any industry, no one does so as well as economists. And yet, the very same person who glorifies the educated is willing to ignore the inconvenient warnings of the education department next door, and the true science of economics is pushed aside with logical fallacies brushed over with empty moral statements and examples of failing socialized health care, examples shining so brightly to those with eyes closed.
For your own sake, stop gloating over your intellectual prowess, and start using it. Return to the basics of education which created your overinflated ego. Open a book on microeconomics and read. Understand the true moral repercussions of messing with market forces, and develop a level of thinking beyond single-step liberal logic of “Poverty bad. Medicine good. War bad…”
You lost my interest when you conflated the health care system in Canada to socialism.
I am sure Finland is worried that they consistently
rank near the top in education, health care, and economic competitiveness.
Gorgonzola I think you lost your way, http://www.freerepublic.com will be more than happy to accomodate your worldview.
Tyler DiPietro:
“Forgive me, but this sounds a bit like the rhetoric we get from right-wingers that our social security system is “falling apart”. They’ve been saying this since FDR, always relying on the same bogus economic pseudoscience.”
What makes it “bogus economic pseudoscience”?
America is going to have major problems with its social security system but not before we do. OECD recently released a study which says that Finland’s long term growth could seriously start to slow down within a decade.
“Ah, I see. Our education system is falling apart too. But it seems that most other countries have education statistics that trump ours.”
You, too, have a socialized education system which uses more money per pupil (at least in some states, cities, counties) than our system. Only a fraction of American colleges are privately owned which isn’t helping much since community colleges and some universities are heavily subsidized.
“I supposed Europe and East Asia can only have viable public education systems because we don’t, though.”
The homogeneous composition of our (this obviously, or even more, applies to those Asian countries with high quality public education systems) population is maybe the most important factor. Finland is a very homogeneous, racist country.
“Those countries which have invested in massive public education and wiping out illiteracy over the last 150 years have failed miserably, while those who have not are top-tier world economies.”
Welfare states have been able to invest into education because welfare states are more capitalist than 90% of nations on the planet. You can’t have massive public investments into education and health care without economic growth. Or you can but then you can go for the Cuban model; a country with no future for its educated population.
Finland is over-educating its population of which a part moves abroad the moment they graduate. At the same time we get more and more uneducated immigrants who are not net tax payers.
“How do you define “American capitalism”? America has never had the purely laissez-faire system that right-wingers dream of.”
That is true. What some view as the “Golden Days” when the size of the US government was small (less than 3% of national income) the economy was filled with regulations, mercantilism and protectionism. However, the US has been more or less a liberal democracy ever since 1776 while the European welfare model was created already during the 19th century (in Germany).
Mondo:
“I am sure Finland is worried that they consistently
rank near the top in education, health care, and economic competitiveness.”
International rankings are somewhat irrelevant; they don’t help the unemployed Finns to get a job. The studies that are supposed to study economic competitiveness are not doing that (you can check it yourself). FDIs as a percentage of GDP, economic growth and the size of the public sector (the bigger the worse since resources allocation is never more efficient in the public sector) are better indications of real economic competitiveness.
I’m sorry Tyler, but that’s just bs. I’ve worked in the private and public sector and the type of research is just not the same. I’m back in the public sector because I think basic research is more interesting, personally, but the sort of applied research that actually turns scientific results into an actual drug just *isn’t* done in the public sector — it takes far more money to push a drug through development and clinical trials then what any public grant could provide.
Where does this 90% figure come from? Is it just comparing the R&D budget of the NIH (which mostly funds biological research not directly related to drug development) to the R&D budget of major drug companies? If so, that’s nonsensical.
Mondo:
“You lost my interest when you conflated the health care system in Canada to socialism. ”
Conflated huh?
Nationalized health care is socialistic in nature. At the very least, the government controls the capital. Any dictionary could show you that, if an economics book is too much for you.
“I am sure Finland is worried that they consistently
rank near the top in education, health care, and economic competitiveness.”
I didn’t invent the words of the Finn. Censor them at your own peril.
Rankings are almost always self interested. I wouldn’t trust rankings whose fundamentals, motivations, and methods I don’t understand, any more than I would trust a political poll.
“Gorgonzola I think you lost your way, http://www.freerepublic.com will be more than happy to accomodate your worldview.”
Apparently so. I guess I was foolishly expecting to find scientific debate at a blog based in scientific community. The few who truly attempt to partake are summarily silenced.
afterthought:
“Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now.”
Now tell us how it is that conservatives are the ones with their heads in the sand.
Mondo:
“You lost my interest when you conflated the health care system in Canada to socialism. ”
Conflated huh?
Nationalized health care is socialistic in nature. At the very least, the government controls the capital. Any dictionary could show you that, if an economics book is too much for you.
“I am sure Finland is worried that they consistently
rank near the top in education, health care, and economic competitiveness.”
I didn’t invent the words of the Finn. Censor them at your own peril.
Rankings are almost always self interested. I wouldn’t trust rankings whose fundamentals, motivations, and methods I don’t understand, any more than I would trust a political poll.
“Gorgonzola I think you lost your way, http://www.freerepublic.com will be more than happy to accomodate your worldview.”
Apparently so. I guess I was foolishly expecting to find scientific debate at a blog based in scientific community. The few who truly attempt to partake are summarily silenced.
afterthought:
“Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now.”
Now tell us how it is that conservatives are the ones with their heads in the sand.
The policies of the Democratic Party have long been more anti-education (in practice) than those of the Republican party. The Republican party advocates market-based solutions, vouchers and private schools which all are sane alternatives to the platform of the Democratic Party. The Dems only want more money (which some states already spend more than the so called “welfare” states in Europe) on education and are unwilling to fight against the teacher unions that uphold the poor quality of education by fighting for the “rights” of bad teachers.
Standard right-wing propaganda.
You should look up the blueberry story.
This article reads like it was written by John Kerry, the genius that brought us the notion that only the uneducated were in the military.
And the distoretions/lies keep a comin’…
slpage:
“And the distoretions/lies keep a comin’…”
Well spoken. A true debater you are.
Perhaps I should tell you that I’m unmarried with no children, so you can inform me how I have no stake in liberalism.
slpage:
“And the distoretions/lies keep a comin’…”
Well spoken. A true debater you are.
Perhaps I should tell you that I’m unmarried with no children, so you can inform me how I have no stake in liberalism.
“This article reads like it was written by John Kerry, the genius that brought us the notion that only the uneducated were in the military.”
I, and most people, knew what Kerry meant: that it is the uneducated (as in, those who are guided by revelation as opposed to the insights provided by history and fact-based intelligence) who get us (the country) stuck in a quagmire (that being Iraq). Anyone who presents it differently is either unable to discern anything beyond superficialities, or deliberately distorting Kerry’s words to further their own agenda – i.e., lying. Which would lead me to question anything the distorter has to say.
I call talk radio listener. [Linky]
Field?
I refer you to the fact that even when the Swedish industrialists’ union tried really hard to cherrypick their ensemble, they failed utterly to make a case for that. [Linky]
He has given nothing that qualifies as a warning. He has merely asserted that Finland is heading for impending doom because it does not allow the free market completely free reign, and the free market is always superior to regulation. The latter, of course, is patently false.
This particular unsupported assertion (that the US is providing Europe with our medicine) is starting to annoy me. I presented two counter-examples (after, I might add, less than five minutes of Googling). If you want me to believe that those are the exception, I’d like to see some proof. As in import/export statistics. So far, all any of you have presented in favour of this proposition is argumentum ad handwavium.
OECD is full of shit. They said exactly the same thing about Denmark in ’04 or ’05. Since they also said some abysmally stupid things about privatising our universities, I went and had a look at their report.
It was guess piled on top of conjecture, made assumptions contrary to fact (even admitted this point), treated political propaganda tracts as if they were scientific papers and used statistics in a fashion that would flunk a freshman at any serious university.
Unfortunately, the full report is no longer on the web. I may have an archived version, in which case I will be happy to post a fisking should anyone ask.
You are talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy. Countries like China or India are highly inhomogeneous.
You’re moving the goalposts and knocking down straw men. Nobody says that the free market is bad. We say that the free market cannot stand alone.
That’s my point you’re making. Finland’s educational system is so successful that her graduates can ‘instantly’ move away and compete on the global market. While this may present a financial burden, it is actually an argument against the notion that a state-run school system is a bad idea.
If you want to debate indicators, you’ve forgotten balance of trade. And growth is not nearly as indicative of economic well-being as growth in lower-fractile income. You can achieve immense GDP growth by setting the tax rate to zero – all the tax cheats in the world will flock your country. But that doesn’t generate any value.
Further, I would quarrel with GDP as a measure of economic strenght – at least in third-tier economies. If my neighbour and I each mow our own lawns, it does not contribute to GDP. If, on the other hand, we mow each other’s lawns, it does, since goods or services are being exchanged. In the end, though, the same amount of lawn-mowing takes place. Thus, if the principal component of the economy is services rather than goods, it becomes really hard to tell how much of GDP is due to real increase in value and how much is funny-money.
Yet another Rethug shill complaining about ‘censorship’ in full view of God and everybody. *sigh* There goes another irony metre.
Oh, and by the way, I checked Jason’s statistics on the average net worth of American households. According to this statistic, there are only 31 thousand people in the US. Oh, and they all live within 1.6 km of the Capitol. I smell bovine manure.
On the whole, I’d ask for a little more in the way of substance from the Rethugs and their shills here. You know, like providing that OECD report one of you mentioned so we can fisk it properly. Put up or shut up.
– JS
Claiming that an MSCS gives any particular wisdom in the field of biology is ridiculous. You may not believe in evolution, but it just shows you weren’t paying attention in your other classes. If you even took any. Did you get that masters at a trade school?
Oh, man…
Ooh, Kerry, the scariest of the scary. I’m shocked — shocked, I tell you!!! Actually, Kerry said that if you’re uneducated you’re unlikely to find a job except in the military — and this is scaringly close to being true. The US “volunteer” army is a draft on the poor.
Not that this has anything to do with the blog post we are talking about.
Frankly… you have just proven that you are. Read a couple biology books and then come back.
Oh, boy, you have fallen for the Soviet propaganda of calling communism “socialism”. Impressive. Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried; economies cannot be planned; nobody here argues against this fact. Socialism? As in what the biggest parties have practiced here in Europe most of the time since around 1968? How is that failing?
Oh, man…
Ooh, Kerry, the scariest of the scary. I’m shocked — shocked, I tell you!!! Actually, Kerry said that if you’re uneducated you’re unlikely to find a job except in the military — and this is scaringly close to being true. The US “volunteer” army is a draft on the poor.
Not that this has anything to do with the blog post we are talking about.
Frankly… you have just proven that you are. Read a couple biology books and then come back.
Oh, boy, you have fallen for the Soviet propaganda of calling communism “socialism”. Impressive. Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried; economies cannot be planned; nobody here argues against this fact. Socialism? As in what the biggest parties have practiced here in Europe most of the time since around 1968? How is that failing?
Socialism? As in what the biggest parties have practiced here in Europe most of the time since around 1968? How is that failing?
Good grief, where have you been? Lower tax rates. Deregulation. The sale of state-owned businesses and industries to private corporations. The rise of private ownership and market-oriented policies in all areas of economic activity. Free trade. This has been the trend of the past few decades not just in Europe, but throughout the developed world.
Let’s hope the blockquote within the blockquote gets through…
Is it? It certainly is important, but is it more important than bare survival?
Excuse me?
It can lead to all that, sure, but it can also lead to phenomena like “jobless recovery”, or Halliburton and Bechtel and a few mercenary corporations and nobody else getting richer.
And you believe they will, just because they can? This is the fallacy that led to “trickle-down economics”. (Mind you, trickle-down economics is a scientific hypothesis — Raygun tested it, and it was falsified; Fearless Flightsuit is testing it again, and it’s being falsified again.) If you throw money at the rich, they pocket it, they don’t invest it. That’s “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”. I’m against socialism for the rich. They don’t need it.
Would be great if it were so. It just isn’t. Companies think about the profits of the next quarter, and that’s it in the vast majority of cases. Governments rarely think more than 4 years ahead either, which is still often not enough, but that’s already a factor of 16…
Natural selection operates on the free market, alright, but it isn’t any stronger there than in nature. Not having good ideas won’t be selected against long as this doesn’t lead to immediate extinction (bankruptcy) or as long as nobody has a good idea; there is no guarantee that anyone will ever have a good idea; selection does not produce mutations, let alone specific mutations — just because having a good idea would make you make millions doesn’t mean you or anyone will have a good idea.
I don’t know about the Gulf of Mexico, but the oil field in Alaska is tiny. Destroying a unique ecosystem for 6 months’ worth of oil is not just evil, it’s dumb. As in: Darth Vader and his Emperor would not do it.
Let’s hope the blockquote within the blockquote gets through…
Is it? It certainly is important, but is it more important than bare survival?
Excuse me?
It can lead to all that, sure, but it can also lead to phenomena like “jobless recovery”, or Halliburton and Bechtel and a few mercenary corporations and nobody else getting richer.
And you believe they will, just because they can? This is the fallacy that led to “trickle-down economics”. (Mind you, trickle-down economics is a scientific hypothesis — Raygun tested it, and it was falsified; Fearless Flightsuit is testing it again, and it’s being falsified again.) If you throw money at the rich, they pocket it, they don’t invest it. That’s “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”. I’m against socialism for the rich. They don’t need it.
Would be great if it were so. It just isn’t. Companies think about the profits of the next quarter, and that’s it in the vast majority of cases. Governments rarely think more than 4 years ahead either, which is still often not enough, but that’s already a factor of 16…
Natural selection operates on the free market, alright, but it isn’t any stronger there than in nature. Not having good ideas won’t be selected against long as this doesn’t lead to immediate extinction (bankruptcy) or as long as nobody has a good idea; there is no guarantee that anyone will ever have a good idea; selection does not produce mutations, let alone specific mutations — just because having a good idea would make you make millions doesn’t mean you or anyone will have a good idea.
I don’t know about the Gulf of Mexico, but the oil field in Alaska is tiny. Destroying a unique ecosystem for 6 months’ worth of oil is not just evil, it’s dumb. As in: Darth Vader and his Emperor would not do it.
Not only is the US system way more expensive for the taxpayers (good point about Japanese cars), it also simply fails to care for lots of people.
The U.S. health care system is more expensive in large part because Americans consume more health care services than people in other countries. And other nations’ health care systems also “fail to care for lots of people.” See my earlier posts about the Canadian health system for more details.
Remember the guy who managed to a) shoot an 8 cm long nail into his head and b) survive it? Because he wasn’t able to afford a private insurance, he didn’t have any. He got sixty thousand dollars in debt for having that nail removed from his brain.
Do you have a citation?
The thing is, you see, that private insurance companies are just that: companies. They want to make a profit. Countries don’t need to make a profit; they can afford moral arguments — or the long-term utilitarian argument that at least some of those people who would otherwise die preventable deaths could still have contributed something useful.
I don’t understand the point. Is this supposed to be an argument for a state-run health care system? We don’t rely on the state to provide us with other important services such as food, clothing, and shelter. The funding and provision of these goods and services is overwhelmingly dominated by private markets. Why should the funding and provision of health care be different?
It has worked! I must have forgotten to close a tag last time…
I’ve been in Austria almost all the time. The trends are all there throughout the last 15 years*, but the difference in degree from the USA stays enormous. Besides, over here it’s still the conservatives who want to balance the budget. Austria had a right-right coalition government (conservatives and, uh, um, er… xenophobic populists) from 2000 to 2006, and this government managed to balance the budget in 2001 while cutting the welfare state down to a level most Americans can still only dream of. How? Largely by increasing the tax rate to 48 %. Needless to say, this didn’t hold, but that’s just the most extreme example.
Oh, and the UK had to buy back its railroad corporation. While it had been private, it had produced pure horror: ticket prices had rocketed, the rails and trains had been totally neglected, and then train crashes started accumulating. When people die, someone has to stop it, and that happened after a few years (at high financial cost). Take-home message: do not privatize railroads; they should be publicly owned.
As long as you get the money back in services or as subsidies, what’s so bad about taxes? Do American right-wingers subconsciously still believe their taxes are flowing out to a dangerous madman called King George? Think of taxes as the membership fee for a republic, or maybe the price of shares in a shareholder-owned company.
* At the beginning of this period things like steel corporations. I agree with you that there’s no point in such a business being government-run; this nonsense is over.
It has worked! I must have forgotten to close a tag last time…
I’ve been in Austria almost all the time. The trends are all there throughout the last 15 years*, but the difference in degree from the USA stays enormous. Besides, over here it’s still the conservatives who want to balance the budget. Austria had a right-right coalition government (conservatives and, uh, um, er… xenophobic populists) from 2000 to 2006, and this government managed to balance the budget in 2001 while cutting the welfare state down to a level most Americans can still only dream of. How? Largely by increasing the tax rate to 48 %. Needless to say, this didn’t hold, but that’s just the most extreme example.
Oh, and the UK had to buy back its railroad corporation. While it had been private, it had produced pure horror: ticket prices had rocketed, the rails and trains had been totally neglected, and then train crashes started accumulating. When people die, someone has to stop it, and that happened after a few years (at high financial cost). Take-home message: do not privatize railroads; they should be publicly owned.
As long as you get the money back in services or as subsidies, what’s so bad about taxes? Do American right-wingers subconsciously still believe their taxes are flowing out to a dangerous madman called King George? Think of taxes as the membership fee for a republic, or maybe the price of shares in a shareholder-owned company.
* At the beginning of this period things like steel corporations. I agree with you that there’s no point in such a business being government-run; this nonsense is over.
I just wrote:
were privatized.
I just wrote:
were privatized.
David,
Yes, Austria and other European countries are still more “socialist” than the U.S., but the point is that they have been increasingly abandoning socialist policies in favor of free enterprise, free trade, and private ownership. A large number of European businesses and industries that were state-owned in the 1970s and before have since been sold to private owners. Free trade has grown enormously. Tariffs, subsidies and economic protectionism by the state have declined enormously. Social welfare benefits have been cut. These changes all reflect a move away from the failed policies of socialism.
I don’t understand your claim about the rail system in Britain. Yes, parts of it are still owned and run by a public or quasi-public corporation. But the vast majority of the system is now privately owned and operated.
David Marjanović:
“Is it? It certainly is important, but is it more important than bare survival?”
As I stated economic growth is the best weapon of adaptation against nature. This has been proven many times: agriculture, vaccines, anti-pollution measures, health care, food production (remember the malthusian argument?) etc.
Since we can’t “control” global warming and since we don’t even know if we should try (there is no scientific proof that man-“made” CO2 is causing global warming) we should adapt instead of waste money on a useless venture (since global warming will occur sooner or later anyways – what are you planning on doing then?).
“Excuse me?”
Ever heard of Kyoto? It’s worth NOTHING and costs like hell. That’s what some Greens and lefties have in mind – to sacrifice huge sums of money to fight a war that cannot be won.
“It can lead to all that, sure, but it can also lead to phenomena like “jobless recovery”, or Halliburton and Bechtel and a few mercenary corporations and nobody else getting richer.”
So what? It’s none of your business if a privately owned business makes profits by selling products that consumers want and are not forced to buy. You have no “right” to profit just because someone else does. But the amazing thing is that you do. The day the rich are prevented from getting richer our wealth will deteriorate.
“And you believe they will, just because they can?”
Yes. It’s already happening. There’s a short article about this in the latest issue of Time.
“If you throw money at the rich, they pocket it, they don’t invest it. That’s “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”. I’m against socialism for the rich. They don’t need it.”
Irrelevant. You don’t “throw” money at them – you just prevent the government from stealing from them.
I’m also against socialism for the rich but that means the government should abolish all subsidies and privileges.
The rich should not pay more simply because they are rich. There’s nothing rational about forcing them to pay more simply because they own more. If anything, the fact that they are rich already indicates that they contribute more than your average Joe and should not be punished for it.
Not supporting tax breaks is a result of not understanding the difference between public and private allocation of resources.
“Would be great if it were so. It just isn’t.”
It already is.
“Companies think about the profits of the next quarter, and that’s it in the vast majority of cases.”
So? The point is that the process never stops; even after four quarters you still think about the profits for the next quarter. With governments you can only rely on their good will.
“Governments rarely think more than 4 years ahead either, which is still often not enough, but that’s already a factor of 16…”
Governments are not using their own money and don’t profit and therefore are not able to allocate it efficiently.
Again, you don’t understand the difference between private and public allocation of resources.
“Not having good ideas won’t be selected against long as this doesn’t lead to immediate extinction (bankruptcy) or as long as nobody has a good idea”
On the contrary.
The demand for energy is huge and will become enormous. There will be tons of firms willing to give it a shot if one decides not to.
“Creative destruction” makes it possible for us to get more and better food than ever before while spending only a fraction of the amount we used to spend on food a hundred years ago. Companies do evolve and technological development and falling costs are a sign of this. We have more than ever before and at a cheaper price.
“but the oil field in Alaska is tiny. The Destroying a unique ecosystem for 6 months’ worth of oil is not just evil, it’s dumb. As in: Darth Vader and his Emperor would not do it.”
So with Christians it’s all about rational arguments and showing how stupid they are for relying on morals but here you go and show that you’re willing to sacrifice human welfare for the sake of some bears and birds.
The oil fields are of noticeable size. However, the size is irrelevant; if there’s a company that thinks it’s worth drilling and if there are enough people willing to buy it then the argument about its size flies out of the window.
What makes it “dumb”? Provide a rational argument.
“Yes. Not only is the US system way more expensive for the taxpayers”
Exactly. So liberalize it even further since now 65% of all health care costs are caused by tax-funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and so on.
These tax-funded, subsidy programs drive up the costs while at the same time the sector remains regulated which prevents competition.
“it also simply fails to care for lots of people.”
This is exactly true when it comes to universal health care. A lot of people have to wait for years with incredible pains to get treatment (unless they happen to die before they get any) because health care supply doesn’t meet demand which is a common phenomena under economic planning.
This, of course, is no wonder and everyone who’s been to high school should know such a common problem under economic planning.
“a) shoot an 8 cm long nail into his head and b) survive it? Because he wasn’t able to afford a private insurance, he didn’t have any. He got sixty thousand dollars in debt for having that nail removed from his brain. That’s insane. And it’s impossible over here.”
Some idiot managed to shoot a nail into his head and you think it’s okay to steal money from the people to fund his medical costs? At least they got the nail out of his head.
“The thing is, you see, that private insurance companies are just that: companies. They want to make a profit. Countries don’t need to make a profit; they can afford moral arguments”
That’s what scares the shit out of me. With private companies, like with privately owned hospital, you can rely on their doctors because they’re driven by both professional ethics and profits while as governments are not. You can only hope they remembered to count you in when they were planning on next year’s budget.
This on top of the well known fact that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. You cannot mix morals with science.
“My friend, this paragraph either means that you believe in the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence of the free market, which is a religious position;”
Calling it a “religious position” only shows that you have no idea how markets work.
“or it means you advocate being evil, as in “kill them all, God will know those who are his”.”
I advocate individual liberty.
Why is the Finnish education system so good?
“For example, the fact that everyone goes to the same type of school rather than there being a separation between good and bad students around age 14 flies in the face of European conservative dogma and seems to support the socialist dogma.”
This is pretty much what happens. After junior high the less intelligent go to a vocational school and the “smart” ones choose high school.
“”we’re a small country, we can’t afford to let anyone flunk””
Many people flunk. The fact that they do well in some international comparisons is still worth nothing since it doesn’t help them get a job here.
How’s this (from OECD):
“Notwithstanding these achievements, large inequalities in access to tertiary education by social origin still persist in Finland. Participation rates in university education among young students (aged 20-24) differ considerably according to the education background of their parents. The relative chance of entering university education has remained at least ten times higher during the last decade for those coming from academic home background compared to students from less educated families. The expansion of the
tertiary system appears to have narrowed the relative advantage of an academic home background to seven-fold.”
“Once more: as a system of economy, capitalism is good; planning the economy has been tried in half the world and has failed everywhere, so apart from communism being evil dictatorship, it doesn’t work; but the fact that water knows best how to flow downhill doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t build any dams or canals.”
When socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain didn’t have privately owned stores the people there thought that markets are not able to take care of selling food.
“they dislike the way I phrased it”
They dislike that you describe it accurately.
They like that it is what it is.
Robert:
“I, and most people, knew what Kerry meant: that it is the uneducated (as in, those who are guided by revelation as opposed to the insights provided by history and fact-based intelligence) who get us (the country) stuck in a quagmire (that being Iraq). Anyone who presents it differently is either unable to discern anything beyond superficialities, or deliberately distorting Kerry’s words to further their own agenda – i.e., lying. Which would lead me to question anything the distorter has to say.”
Is there anyone here who is willing to think scientifically?
If you find flaws in a proof but baselessly agree with the conclusion, do you still use the excuse of “What he meant to say..”?
Did you miss the New York Times deliberately misquoting him, replacing what he actually said with “what he meant to say”?
Have you never said what was on your mind, experienced an unexpected negative reaction, and stumbled over your words, saying “what I meant to say” in order to deceive and cover your tracks? Everyone has.
I am able to discern beyond superficialities. Kerry IS a superficiality. He knew his audience well and he sent them the message he wanted to send. Just like Al Gore acting like a preacher, he was too “superficial” to realize that other people would hear him.
You “and most people” (meaning most people who agree with you that you are in contact with) can deceive yourselves all you want. You are deceiving no one else. He said what he said, and should be honorable enough to be held accountable for it. He isn’t.
Robert, the more you don’t agree with their opinion the shriller and unfortunately longer their posts become. Just back away slowly.
Sandt and Jason: Put up or shut up. I’m still waiting for you to either back up your claim that the US provides Europe with pharmaceuticals or concede that you were talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy.
I will not dissect any more of your bullshit until and unless you provide citations. Jason has already given one patently bullshit citation, so I for one will not trust any statment of fact that he fails to back up.
Regarding global warming, some of us have sufficient scientific litteracy to judge the models for ourselves, and denialism will not convince us.
Regarding privatisation: What has been happening en Europe is not privatisation and deregulation. It’s either privatisation or deregulation for any given field.
Railroad ‘privatisation’ has been a dismal disaster. Railroad services have not improved. Costs have increased. And in most countries, maintenence has been cut.
But, really, we do not need to quarrel over the events of the last decade: Try comparing and contrasting the American railroad system with the American federal highway system. Then compare and contrast this with the German rails and Autobahn.
The most massive failure in this lot is the American rail system. It is also the only one that is not government-run.
Simple facts. Let the cries of denial begin.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to explain why GDP is a better indicator of wealth than – say – median real wage.
– JS
Mondo:
Considering that what I posted wasn’t directly associated with the thread, I figured I’d put in my two cents and then, as you suggested, “back away slowly.”
However, in a somewhat related vein, the question that included the phrase “thinking scientifically” was ironic. I’m not a scientist; my schooling and passion are in history. Still, a historian must consider many factors, just as a scientist does, before coming to a conclusion about a hypothesis. In this case, I would consider Senator Kerry’s own past: support for the military, his status as a veteran, his antipathy toward the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and the President himself, the context of his speech, his own explanation for what he said, and so forth. I’m not a huge Kerry supporter, but the consensus (outside of the Faux News corridors) was that he just flubbed up. Those inclined to read the worst in his words have always been thus inclined, and nothing the man can say, other than “I will now bow down slavishly to the Bush regime and lick George’s cow-patty stained boots,” will ever make up for the fact that he DARED run against G.W. in 2004.
With apologies, Professor Myers, for contributing to the continued off-tracked-ness of this thread!
JS,
Sandt and Jason: Put up or shut up. I’m still waiting for you to either back up your claim that the US provides Europe with pharmaceuticals
Since I haven’t said anything about pharmaceuticals, I don’t know why you would expect me to do this.
Your posts are so full of bluff and bluster and so devoid of facts and rational argument that you’re probably not worth bothering with at all.
JS:
“Sandt and Jason: Put up or shut up. I’m still waiting for you to either back up your claim that the US provides Europe with pharmaceuticals or concede that you were talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy.”
Since you took this thing to your blog I’ll answer there, later.
“Regarding global warming, some of us have sufficient scientific litteracy to judge the models for ourselves, and denialism will not convince us.”
Have I denied global warming? I stated a fact which is that there’s no scientific proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming. I’m not saying CO2 isn’t causing global warming and I’m not saying there isn’t global warming.
“Regarding privatisation: What has been happening en Europe is not privatisation and deregulation. It’s either privatisation or deregulation for any given field.”
There has been a heavy deregulation & privatization process ever since the depression of the nineties. The government has been selling, deregulating and privatizing although very little has happened with education & health care. For example, private schools are still practically banned in Finland.
“Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to explain why GDP is a better indicator of wealth than – say – median real wage.”
Strawman.
I never said GDP is a better indication of wealth than median real wage. However, GDP is an adequate measure of wealth.
Americans generally make 1/3 more than Finns do. For example, elementary teachers make 45-50 000$ in America and face lower taxation and lower prices. In Finland, teachers make about 25 000 a year and face heavy taxation (44%) and high prices.
Mondo:
“Robert, the more you don’t agree with their opinion the shriller and unfortunately longer their posts become. Just back away slowly.”
Yes Robert, just back away slowly from a debate you cannot win, and have a love fest with Mondo. That should convince everyone that you won the debate.
Also join Mondo in admitting that you are unable and/or unwilling to handle an argument that lasts more than two or three sentences.
Robert:
“Considering that what I posted wasn’t directly associated with the thread, I figured I’d put in my two cents and then, as you suggested, ‘back away slowly.'”
So you wanted to take a pot shot and slither away unanswered? I apologize for actually challenging you, because it is apparent that you don’t want to hear an opposing view.
“However, in a somewhat related vein, the question that included the phrase ‘thinking scientifically’ was ironic.”
Ironic!? Thinking that someone means what they say is irony!? You truly are stroking each other. Enjoy it.
“Still, a historian must consider many factors,”
A historian should consider not many, but all factors. In most cases, they become consumed with their own bias, your case being one of them, as you are not even willing to entertain the notion that he actually meant what he said. The sad thing is, this isn’t even pulling some fact out of thin air; these are his own words that you, as an historian, are denying. Perhaps history books will write Kerry’s words as the New York Times had.
“just as a scientist does, before coming to a conclusion about a hypothesis.”
Yes, now consider your methods as scientific.
“In this case, I would consider Senator Kerry’s own past: support for the military, his status as a veteran, his antipathy toward the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and the President himself, the context of his speech, his own explanation for what he said, and so forth.”
How about considering this:
1. His actual words
2. His intended audience
3. His historical antiwar and antimilitary positions (let your denials commence)
4. His marginalization by both by his own party and by the general U.S. population as a direct result of his statement
5. The reaction of the military to his statement
But hey, I’m not an historian, so who am I to say which historical facts are to be ignored.
“I’m not a huge Kerry supporter, but the consensus (outside of the Faux News corridors) was that he just flubbed up.”
Say that this was the “consensus” all you want. It wasn’t, and isn’t. The real consensus already knows that he meant what he said.
“Those inclined to read the worst in his words”
Inclined to read “the worst in his words” or inclined to read “his words”? Truth stares you straight in the eyes and yet you deny it.
Gorgonzola:
I did read Senator Kerry’s actual words – that is, his words that were prepared, as were reported by the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 2006. His sad attempt at a joke followed other speaking engagements where he also poked fun at the Bush Administration. Now, you may have a crystal ball to see into the mind and heart of the good Senator from Massachusetts. So, on point (1), I have already addressed and explained – what he said (which, to an ear attuned to nuance, sounded as if he were talking about Bush and not the soldiers), and what he MEANT to say (which you can dispute, but you have no basis for, because the documentation disagrees with your unfounded belief). In both cases, the interpretation on MY part is that he intended to poke fun at Bush. Your interpretation is different. However, MY interpretation is backed up by the Senator’s staff, as reported by the LA Times.
Your other points – 2 through 5 – are irrelevant and do not further your argument, or are unclear. You may have the aforementioned crystal ball, but I do not. Who was his intended audience? Is Kerry anti-war in general, or just anti-unjust and illegal wars in particular? In what way was he marginalized? (I might even agree with you on that one, because Kerry is a master of misstatements and the Democratic Party has been rather gutless for the last 20 years.) What proof do you offer as to the reaction of the current members of the military (and how were they polled)?
More importantly, Gorgonzola, why the continued venom directed against a has-been Presidential candidate? Are you a Republican? Could it be that, despite Kerry’s words prior to the November 2006 election, the Democratic Party still kicked the Republicans’ teeth in? Or do you think that without Kerry opening his mouth they would have taken 40 seats in the House and 2 more in the Senate, perhaps?
Sour grapes make the worst whine.
Robert,
I have no crystal ball. I only have reality. The reality of words spoken by Kerry.
Your attempt to turn this around and make it look like I ame the one living in a fantasy world is neither nuanced nor convincing.
In fact, even you have finally conceded that it is “your interpretation.” And how funny is it that “your interpretation” matches exactly that “interpretation” of those trying to brainwash.
You cannot summarily dismiss his spoken words. They will always be part of reality.
I was at a Thanksgiving dinner once with family, about ten of us, and some friends of the family. The friend made a joke about Italians, and the table went silent. She was either unaware of or forgetful of the fact that we were all half Italian. What if she had said “What I meant to say was German”? The answer is that it would not have mattered in the least. Whether or not intended to be part of the joke, the bias came out. It came from the heart. Just as, no matter what he claims about meaning to have said, what John Kerry said came from his heart. Anyone with an ear for what is truth knows. Any attempt to rewrite what happened may get a nod of acceptance in the name of avoiding confrontation, but the feelings of distrust remain.
His intended audience was the students literally standing in front of and around him.
Kerry is antiwar. As with his words, I judge him by his actions, and his actions have done nothing to show otherwise. Your subtle political statement of the current war and the Vietnam War is irrevelant.
His marginalization is clear in effect. He was outspoken before his statement. Now he is not (or, if he is, no one is listening).
It’s funny how you demand polls, while offering none of your own, especially concerning your “consensus”.
Everyone has seen the picture.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/irak.jpg
Now show me one picture or one statement by the armed forces supporting Kerry after he “apologized”.
I am an Independent. I have my share of disappointments in Republicans as well, but I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party line, and they have no one to blame but themselves, when Independents attempt to debate, or even merely communicate fact, and are confronted with little more than arrogance and rhetoric.
In any event, I came here to find something useful, intelligent, or educational on the topic of evolution vs. creationism vs. ID vs. whatever other theory wanting to jump into the ring. Nothing of the sort is here. I shall continue my pursuit of knowledge elsewhere. Enjoy your pursuit of peer approval.
I think I’ve made this point before, but I also think it’s important to make it again.
Unrestrained capitalism does not equal a free market.
A free-market, by economic definition, requires several conditions. Including:
1. No barriers to entry
2. Perfect information between buyer and seller
3. Indistinguishable products between sellers
4. A very large number of sellers
5. No control of prices
This does not exist. There are no examples of completely free markets.
Capitalism, in the sense of profit maximization, will attempt to adjust one or more of the above conditions to the sellers advantage. The simpliest example is a company with a monopoly, which has eliminated the requirement for a large number of sellers.
Most companies try to make their products different from other sellers, and limit the amount of information about their products to their customers. These actions alone will increase the amount they can charge and thus increase profits.
Unbridled capitalism is not a free market, and it will destroy the very conditions that enable a free market to operate. Unbridled capitalism will not result in the lowest prices and best goods for consumers, it will result in companies maximizing profit.
This is basic economics, as taught to me in my MBA program.
So, how does a society reap the benefits of a free market without degrading into unbridled capitalism?
Simple: regulate capitalism.
Unbridled capitalism (unrestrained greed) gives us miners who are minors, sellers of stockshares in companies which didn’t exist, sludge in our rivers and smog in our air.
Regulated capitalism can capture the costs to society of effluents. Regulated capitalism can prohibit companies from hiring minors without review. Regulated capitalism can punish those who are caught commiting fraud (which is only possible due to a disparity of information).
Regulated capitalism can have the power of a free market as a goal, even knowing it will never get there, by trying to eliminate the disparity of information between seller and buyer, help to reduce the barrier to entry of new firms by providing start-up capital, and monitor the market to ensure enough competition is available to prevent monopolies or cartels to form.
Regulated capitalism can approach the free market ideal. Unregulated capitalism will destroy a free market.
@ Flex: Beautifully put.
@ Jason: It takes a not insignificant amount of chutzpah to accuse someone else of posting ‘bluff and bluster’ when the sum total of one’s citations in a discussion of economics is one op-ed piece, one court ruling, one statistic that shows upon even the most casual inspection to be utterly irrelevant and one (1) meaningful source relevant to the discussion.
– JS
JS,
Jason: It takes a not insignificant amount of chutzpah to accuse someone else of posting ‘bluff and bluster’ when the sum total of one’s citations in a discussion of economics is one op-ed piece, one court ruling, one statistic that shows upon even the most casual inspection to be utterly irrelevant and one (1) meaningful source relevant to the discussion.
No, it really doesn’t, considering that your own posts contain no citations whatsoever and are riddled with unsubstantiated and factually incorrect claims.
FLEX:
“A free-market, by economic definition, requires several conditions. Including:
1. No barriers to entry
2. Perfect information between buyer and seller
3. Indistinguishable products between sellers
4. A very large number of sellers
5. No control of prices”
Wrong. You’re talking about the concept of “PERFECT COMPETITION”. Perfect competition is an artificial concept, which is obvious after reading the strict set of “rules” that are required for perfect competition. Perfect competition is a theoretical concept. Perfect competition hasn’t necessarily got ANYTHING to do with FREE competition.
Free competition exists when no one uses force or threat of force against persons or their property.
“This does not exist. There are no examples of completely free markets.”
True but there are degrees of economic freedom and countries like the US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and Switzerland are usually ranked in top-5 but they are still far from being laissez-faire economies.
“The simpliest example is a company with a monopoly, which has eliminated the requirement for a large number of sellers.”
Monopolies (I assume you’re not talking about government monopolies – also known as legal monopolies) are not against Capitalism; they’re only against the idea of perfect competition which is still only a theoretical concept.
“This is basic economics, as taught to me in my MBA program.”
Yet you don’t seem to be able to distinguish free competition from perfect competition.
And I don’t think I need to remind you that perfect competition is still just an idea. In fact, attempts to create an environment for this so-called perfect competition only tend to make things worse and create a situation that’s neither free nor perfect.
“Simple: regulate capitalism.”
Doesn’t work. Doesn’t need to be regulated. People who hate property and individual liberties need to be regulated.
“Unbridled capitalism (unrestrained greed) gives us miners who are minors, sellers of stockshares in companies which didn’t exist, sludge in our rivers and smog in our air.”
Under real Capitalism you are prohibited by law from releasing poisonous material that harms other people or their property against their will. Capitalism is about individual liberties which include PROPERTY RIGHTS.
“Regulated capitalism can prohibit companies from hiring minors without review.”
There is no need for minors to work under Capitalism thanks to the amount of wealth it creates. This is exactly what is happening in countries like India and China where free market reforms have made it possible for kids to do something else (although, these countries clearly haven’t yet gone far enough; the Chinese countryside, for example, is still heavily Socialist and that’s where the poor people are).
“Regulated capitalism can punish those who are caught commiting fraud (which is only possible due to a disparity of information).”
Punishing criminals doesn’t require “regulated Capitalism” – just Capitalism.
“Regulated capitalism can have the power of a free market as a goal, even knowing it will never get there, by trying to eliminate the disparity of information between seller and buyer”
Information can be delivered better under free markets. See all sorts of magazines that review and rate without any government interference. Let markets (the consumer) be the judge instead of a bunch of government bureaucrats.
“help to reduce the barrier to entry of new firms by providing start-up capital”
This only misallocates resources away from those who are able to use them more efficiently.
Under Capitalism there should be no LEGAL barriers for entry, no taxes that prevent you from starting up a firm, no minimum wages that prevent you from hiring, no subsidies that simply transfer money from one person to another etc.
I’m not going to bother to refute all of your statements, if because of this you want to claim you have won, go right ahead, but I want to make a couple points.
Mikko Sandt wrote, “Under real Capitalism you are prohibited by law from releasing poisonous material that harms other people or their property against their will.”
Who creates and enforces the law which prohibits a company from releasing poisonous material? Do you really think that companies would do this voluntarily? Or does your version of ‘real Capitalism’ include government regulation as this sentance implies?
and Mikko Sandt also wrote, “Information can be delivered better under free markets.”
Delivery of information may be easier under a free-market, but discovery of information is not. Would ENRON’s missuse of special purpose entities been discovered if they had not been required to file SEC statements? Would the propensity of SUVs to roll-over under tight turns have been discovered without NHTSA accident reporting requirements?
Information is valuable, companies spend a great deal of time and money protecting their information. Working for an automotive supplier, I spend time analyzing our competitor’s parts. We don’t make that information public either. Even though it’s our analysis of the flaws in a competitor’s part, it’s still the property of the company.
Another thing you, and a lot of other people as well, have apparently forgotten is that the government is us. The government is not an enemy, the only reason NHTSA or the FDA or the Census Bureau or the Labor Department require this information to be reported and disseminated is because we, the people (not you the individual), asked them to. The reason there is a minimun wage is because as a society we decided that people who work shouldn’t be slowly starving to death or enter into debt hell because of the inherent advantage employers have over employees.
Oh, and I’m surprised at your distinction between free competition and perfect competition. Since the mathematics of economics cleary show that the greatest benefit for consumers arrives if the market is in perfect competition, I assumed that this was the goal you were aiming for.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but my impression was that the justification for de-regulating the market was that it would provide the greatest benefit for consumers. This can be achieved through aiming for perfect competition, but not by un-regulated (free if you prefer) competition.
Apparently you don’t feel this is the case. You’re all for un-regulated competition even if the consumers are hurt by it. If I’m reading your distinction correctly, you don’t care a whit about the consumer only about maximizing the profits for a company.
And here I thought all the robber barons were dead. ;)
Flex:
“Who creates and enforces the law which prohibits a company from releasing poisonous material? Do you really think that companies would do this voluntarily? Or does your version of ‘real Capitalism’ include government regulation as this sentance implies?”
I do believe that a country needs a government but a limited government. Protecting liberties is the classical task of any government.
“Delivery of information may be easier under a free-market, but discovery of information is not.”
Of course it is. Now the process is bureaucratic and costly.
“Would ENRON’s missuse of special purpose entities been discovered if they had not been required to file SEC statements?”
Transparency benefits a company. No one is willing to invest millions of dollars in shadowy companies.
However, if a company commits a crime (against persons or their property) it should be investigated. This is not against Capitalism.
The fact that government regulates doesn’t mean markets can’t regulate. As I said before, under Communism people didn’t believe that private individuals could set up stores, sell goods etc. because the government had taken care of all these functions.
“Information is valuable, companies spend a great deal of time and money protecting their information.”
Of course, and they should. Not all information is relevant.
“Another thing you, and a lot of other people as well, have apparently forgotten is that the government is us.”
Only partly. It’s not even always chosen by a majority let alone guided by the will of a potential majority (see special interest groups and lobbyists).
“The government is not an enemy, the only reason NHTSA or the FDA or the Census Bureau or the Labor Department require this information to be reported and disseminated is because we, the people (not you the individual), asked them to.”
Doesn’t make it right. If me and my friend decided to steal all your property, it’d be a simple majority rule of two against one. I have never given anyone the permission to regulate me or my property. Democracy is there to protect individual liberties – that is the only reason it was born. The day democracy forgets individual liberties it becomes useless.
“The reason there is a minimun wage is because as a society we decided that people who work shouldn’t be slowly starving to death or enter into debt hell because of the inherent advantage employers have over employees.”
How does this differ from Communism where economic decisions are not allowed to be done by the individual? The so called system of “People’s Republic” gives power to the masses to exploit the individual.
And it doesn’t matter what you and your fellows intended; the fact is that as a result of your (thoughtless) actions people are going to be laid off.
Besides, you’re practically saying that you and your friends are gods who have some magical ability which allows you to know and set the “right” kind of wage. As if you knew better than an employer how much they can afford to pay or as if you knew if an employee is able to be productive enough to earn that 7,25$. How would you feel if I came through your door and told you how you’re supposed to spend money? Most companies are small and make little, if any, profits. They can’t afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year extra because of the minimum wage increase.
There was no rational reason to increase the minimum wage. It’s was an emotional solution and doesn’t differ from dictating people with a Bible.
“Since the mathematics of economics cleary show that the greatest benefit for consumers arrives if the market is in perfect competition, I assumed that this was the goal you were aiming for.”
Wrong. Perfect competition is just an economic model. As I said; in practice creating an environment of “perfect” competition requires regulations and unnecessary burdens on individuals and companies. The result would be far from perfect.
“This can be achieved through aiming for perfect competition, but not by un-regulated (free if you prefer) competition.”
There is no reason why we should aim for more regulations and burdens.
“You’re all for un-regulated competition even if the consumers are hurt by it.”
Under unregulated competition decisions concerning production and consumption are made by free individuals. You want to give some government the power to define what is right.
“If I’m reading your distinction correctly, you don’t care a whit about the consumer only about maximizing the profits for a company.”
I care about individual liberties which you all are so ready to sacrifice for the “benefit of society” (whatever that is). You’re advocating that masses (or both minorities and majorities) should control free individuals. This is exactly the same kind of perverted Republican-mentality according to which they can control what kind of sexual relationships are “right” for the people.
Bullshit. Not supporting tax breaks for the richest 1 % of the population is science. As I have mentioned, Reagan has done the experiment, and the tax breaks failed to make the poor any richer — nothing trickled down; Bush the Lesser, finding that discovery at odds with his ideology, is repeating the experiment, and it is having the same outcome again. Now you say the whole world should repeat the experiment yet once more???
Oh, and, the fact that you say “scientific proof” proves that you don’t know how science works. Nothing can be proven in science. Only disproof is possible (and even that only within methodological naturalism — disproving the FSM, or solipsism for that matter, is not possible).
Regarding Finland, I didn’t talk about tertiary education. — How many people do flunk?
Individual liberties: I agree. But, you see, my freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. For example, I don’t have the freedom to pay you less than a living wage because this infringes on your freedom to live an ordinary life.
On Alaska: you’re quite the speciesist, you know.
Of course, but, you see, the people in charge of Enron were too stupid to see that. You seem to systematically overlook the fact that the decisions in capitalism (like everywhere else) are made by fallible human beings. Democracy is the best we can do to mitigate the sometimes problematic outcomes of that fact. You don’t want democracies to have any control over companies — you accept that Enron will repeat itself again and again, and worse and worse.
Please stop using “communism” and “socialism” as synonyms. Contrary to USSR propaganda, they are not. Communism is the idea that heaven on earth should be brought about by means of violent revolution; socialism wants to do that in parliament, the democratic way. Socialism is liberal on social issues and largely liberal on economic issues, communism is not liberal on anything. You will have noticed that Finland and Cuba or China are not the same.
Oh, and… I don’t believe in slippery slopes.
Flex, very beautifully put both times. You have said what I should have said: that capitalism needs to be continuously saved from itself. If you leave capitalism to itself, you get monopolies instead of competition: Standard Oil, United Fruit Company, ITT…
Good point on the US railways. I repeat: the UK railways have been bought back by the state because keeping them private would have continued killing people.
Bullshit. Not supporting tax breaks for the richest 1 % of the population is science. As I have mentioned, Reagan has done the experiment, and the tax breaks failed to make the poor any richer — nothing trickled down; Bush the Lesser, finding that discovery at odds with his ideology, is repeating the experiment, and it is having the same outcome again. Now you say the whole world should repeat the experiment yet once more???
Oh, and, the fact that you say “scientific proof” proves that you don’t know how science works. Nothing can be proven in science. Only disproof is possible (and even that only within methodological naturalism — disproving the FSM, or solipsism for that matter, is not possible).
Regarding Finland, I didn’t talk about tertiary education. — How many people do flunk?
Individual liberties: I agree. But, you see, my freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. For example, I don’t have the freedom to pay you less than a living wage because this infringes on your freedom to live an ordinary life.
On Alaska: you’re quite the speciesist, you know.
Of course, but, you see, the people in charge of Enron were too stupid to see that. You seem to systematically overlook the fact that the decisions in capitalism (like everywhere else) are made by fallible human beings. Democracy is the best we can do to mitigate the sometimes problematic outcomes of that fact. You don’t want democracies to have any control over companies — you accept that Enron will repeat itself again and again, and worse and worse.
Please stop using “communism” and “socialism” as synonyms. Contrary to USSR propaganda, they are not. Communism is the idea that heaven on earth should be brought about by means of violent revolution; socialism wants to do that in parliament, the democratic way. Socialism is liberal on social issues and largely liberal on economic issues, communism is not liberal on anything. You will have noticed that Finland and Cuba or China are not the same.
Oh, and… I don’t believe in slippery slopes.
Flex, very beautifully put both times. You have said what I should have said: that capitalism needs to be continuously saved from itself. If you leave capitalism to itself, you get monopolies instead of competition: Standard Oil, United Fruit Company, ITT…
Good point on the US railways. I repeat: the UK railways have been bought back by the state because keeping them private would have continued killing people.
Come on. By that logic, atheism and Christianity are identical because they say something about God.
Excuse me? In universal health care, doctors are still paid and still make a profit. (And they still form cartels to make sure, indirectly, that they stay overworked… in Austria anyway, where there are more medicine students and graduates than needed, but too few doctors.)
Of fucking course. Sure you can afford spending… let’s see if I can divide 60,000 by 300 million, assuming flat tax, which is fortunately wrong… 0,00002 ¢? Who else will pay it? If you want to punish him for stupidity, having had that nail in his head is enough, don’t you think?
On where all that 14C-free CO2 comes from, what do you suggest? There has not been a drastic surge in volcanism…
Come on. By that logic, atheism and Christianity are identical because they say something about God.
Excuse me? In universal health care, doctors are still paid and still make a profit. (And they still form cartels to make sure, indirectly, that they stay overworked… in Austria anyway, where there are more medicine students and graduates than needed, but too few doctors.)
Of fucking course. Sure you can afford spending… let’s see if I can divide 60,000 by 300 million, assuming flat tax, which is fortunately wrong… 0,00002 ¢? Who else will pay it? If you want to punish him for stupidity, having had that nail in his head is enough, don’t you think?
On where all that 14C-free CO2 comes from, what do you suggest? There has not been a drastic surge in volcanism…
Ah. I had sup and sub tags that got deleted.
Ah. I had sup and sub tags that got deleted.
@Jason:
I will not play a game of tag over sources and citations with you. I could go back over the thread and count the number of unsupported assertions both of us have made, then compare and contrast. You would lose out in that comparison. This will serve little purpose, however – the fact that your assertions are largely unsupported is sufficient to render your umbrage at me hypocritical, regardless of the academic quality of my own posts.
I should also mention that in the academic tradition I was schooled in using crap sources is worse than using no sources.
And I would add that since you and Sandt are the ones claiming that existing paradigms are wrong (I count challenges to demand-side economics and anthropogenic global warming, have I missed anything?), the burden of proof is on you.
I will, however, make a simple proposal to allow you to determine whether I can back up my reasoning or not: Pick any number of concrete statements of fact from my post that you dispute. I shall then either provide you with a credible source or concede that I was, in fact, full of shit. Good enough for you?
Disclaimer: The source may not in all cases be in English. But since Sandt is a Finn, he should be able to parse most Scandinavian texts (Finland still has mandatory Swedish, correct?).
Disclaimer #2: Reviewing the thread, I do wish to make one retraction. Based on one of Tyler DiPietro’s posts, I technically endorsed a claim that 90 % of all medical R&D cost is borne by the public sector. I wish to retract this.
Since pharmacy is not my specialty, I will have to refer you to DiPietro for sources. This is, of course, tangential to the main point I was making in the paragraph in question, but a retraction is nevertheless in order.
– JS
David Marjanović:
“Not supporting tax breaks for the richest 1 % of the population is science. As I have mentioned, Reagan has done the experiment, and the tax breaks failed to make the poor any richer”
See figures 11 & 13 here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1
But you didn’t understand my point about resource allocation. Government’s don’t use money as efficiently as private individuals do. If they did the Soviet Union never would have fallen and the Welfare states wouldn’t have been forced to cut back on spending and taxes.
“Bush the Lesser, finding that discovery at odds with his ideology, is repeating the experiment, and it is having the same outcome again. Now you say the whole world should repeat the experiment yet once more???”
No. Bush should cut spending. Bush has inreased spending on social programs. This is why the Republicans got kicked out. Both spending and taxes should be lowered. Bush is a socialist, just like his father was.
“the fact that you say “scientific proof” proves that you don’t know how science works. Nothing can be proven in science.”
There is an everyday and practical use for the term “scientific proof” so you’re anxiously trying to get something out of nothing. There are such things as cause and effect and in the case of global warming there is no proof that CO2 causes global warming. It could but there no proof that it does.
“Regarding Finland, I didn’t talk about tertiary education. — How many people do flunk?”
No idea.
Then again, as I said before our population is far more homogeneous than yours and there is already a considerable level of racism and problems in this country.
I’d guess the level of problems goes up when some students can hardly speak the official language.
“But, you see, my freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa.”
Exactly.
“For example, I don’t have the freedom to pay you less than a living wage because this infringes on your freedom to live an ordinary life.”
This is not consistent, not in any way, with what you just said. If you own a company you are the boss. It’s your property. I don’t have to work for you if I don’t like the terms of our contract. I have no “right” to work for you because that’d require that someone has the right to tell you what to do with your property.
There’s is no “freedom to live an ordinary life” – there is just a freedom to live – a situation in which no one uses force or threatens to use force on you. You mix rights with freedoms. Rights are always taken from someone else; you can’t provide the right to education without violating someone else’s freedom (try not to pay your taxes and see if someone from the government comes knocking on your door).
“Of course, but, you see, the people in charge of Enron were too stupid to see that.”
But the state is smarter and more efficient than the people actually working for the company?
Mistakes are made and in business they, if serious, usually lead to a bankruptcy. This is a good thing since it provides an incentive to make a better use of scarce resources. Governments don’t face a similar threat.
“You seem to systematically overlook the fact that the decisions in capitalism (like everywhere else) are made by fallible human beings. Democracy is the best we can do to mitigate the sometimes problematic outcomes of that fact.”
The fact that humans are idiots is one reason to support Capitalism. Capitalism and individual liberties decentralize power. That’s a lot better than letting a bunch of idiots (voted by idiots) command you under a centralized system.
“you accept that Enron will repeat itself again and again, and worse and worse.”
If it violates individual liberties, which include property rights, it should be punished. However, government should not regulate the whole industry in case someone might do something some day. They should simply focus on punishing those who do.
“Communism is the idea that heaven on earth should be brought about by means of violent revolution; socialism wants to do that in parliament, the democratic way.”
Communism is a result of Socialism.
“Socialism is liberal on social issues and largely liberal on economic issues, communism is not liberal on anything.”
Socialism is not liberal on economic issues. Socialism is based on collectivization of private property.
“that capitalism needs to be continuously saved from itself.”
Such as when? The biggest economic problems (beginning with heavy protectionism and the Great Depression) that have been linked to Capitalism during the past hundred years have more or less been caused by the government.
“If you leave capitalism to itself, you get monopolies instead of competition: Standard Oil, United Fruit Company, ITT…”
So far the most efficient creator of monopolies has been the state.
“Come on. By that logic, atheism and Christianity are identical because they say something about God.”
The guy was trying to justify an act in which a group of people infringe on individual liberties in order to command economy for whatever perverted purpose. That sounds like Socialism.
“Excuse me? In universal health care, doctors are still paid and still make a profit.”
Incentives are greater outside the universal health care system. Doctors have more control over their careers and they must work to provide the best kind of service because of simple market competition. Some municipality or state cares far less if someone doesn’t happen to like their employees.
“Of fucking course. Sure you can afford spending… let’s see if I can divide 60,000 by 300 million, assuming flat tax, which is fortunately wrong… 0,00002 ¢?”
Sounds nice but just keep piling ’em over the years and voila – you have a state that spends half of your income.
“Who else will pay it?”
The idiot who managed to shoot that nail into his head.
“On where all that 14C-free CO2 comes from, what do you suggest? There has not been a drastic surge in volcanism…”
No idea.
Btw, I’ll be out of town tomorrow and won’t be home until Sunday.
JS,
Pick any number of concrete statements of fact from my post that you dispute. I shall then either provide you with a credible source or concede that I was, in fact, full of shit.
Okay, here’s two to start with:
1) “‘Community Health Centers’ mainly diagnose – their actual treatment options are quite limited.”
2)”The most massive failure in this lot is the American rail system. It is also the only one that is not government-run.”
But the basic problem with your responses to me is that most of what you say is just irrelevant to the points I made. Do you deny that real estate assets are, in fact, assets? Do you deny that waiting lists are a serious problem in the Canadian health care system? Do you deny that the U.S. poverty rate has been relatively stable for decades?
Some large number of comments ago, Jason cited the NY Times citing the Fraser Institute on the shortcomings of Canadian healthcare. For non-Canucks: the FI is a “think tank” which regularly produces “research” which, for some reason, always seems to support private enterprise over government, lower taxes, deregulation; in short: economic conservatism in general. There are, of course, equivalent “think tanks” on the other political wing, too.
My practice is to ignore the whole lot of them, equally, as paid shills for an ideology.
Steve Watson,
What superior alternative source of information on waiting times for health care services in Canada do you propose? The FI figures were cited by the New York Times, not a publication known for relying on disreputable or unreliable sources, and seem to be corroborated by the findings of the court in the Chaoulli case that I also cited. Do you really dispute that waiting lines are a serious problem in the Canadian health care system?
Jason:Assuming this is addressed to me, the median household net worth figure for 2005 of $224,542 is from here. The figure comes from the Federal Reserve Board’s annual Survey of Consumer Finances. And it reflects all U.S. households, not just those with a positive net worth.
The document you link to is a sample report for “123 Main Street, Any City, USA. It is not the household net worth of anybody.
If you go to the Census Bureau web site and get real data you will find tht the median household net worth is not a quarter of a million dollars, not by a long shot. Nope, not even close.
http://www.cdchc.org/services/adult.php
This will not help you if you get – for example – appendicitis or multi-resistent TB, break a leg or get a third-degree burn.
http://d692747.u35.secureserverdot.com/content/view/76/111/
This is diagnose only.
Again, this is diagnose, preventive care and referral only.
http://www.nhpf.org/pdfs_bp/BP_CHC_08-31-04.pdf (p. 8)
I do not mean to belittle the efforts of CHCs. Prevention, referral and preventive care are all important parts of a health care system. However, to insinuate – as you have repeatedly done – that CHCs address the major problems of a for-profit health care system is simply not supported by facts.
The interstate highways are good:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
Search for the headline “International Competitiveness and the Interstates:”
If you compare this statistic:
http://www.autobahn-online.de/neueneben.html
showing that there is about 5-10 times as much maintainence of the German Autobahn as there is construction with this statistic:
http://www.autobahn-online.de/laengen.html
showing that the growth in the Autobahn network is .5 – 1 %/yr we can conclude that a given strectch of Autobahn recieves maintainence roughly every 10-20 years. This should be adequate to keep them in good shape.
DeutcheBahn is likewise going strong:
http://www.db.de/site/bahn/en/db__group/investor__relations/ir__news/result__3rd__quarter__2006.html
The principal industrial users of the American rail system (the farmers), by contrast, testify that deregulation creates problems: With no common carrier obligation, there is a marked incentive to downsize in times of declining demand, and due to the nature of railroad construction, it is the next best thing to impossible to expand the network swiftly enough to cope with rising demand.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/TMD/summit/ch4c.pdf
Yes and no. If you inherit real estate, you can capitalise its market value. If you are a first-time buyer, you must borrow money to cover its market value. In this sense, real estate assets are indeed real assets.
If you are not, however, setting up shop for the first time or on the verge of dying, there is no practical way to capitalise those assets. What rising real estate prices do for this (majority) group of homeowners is solely increasing their borrowing capacity.
So, speculation aside (and yes, I do deny that speculation generates real value – it merely moves value around), for the vast majority of households, rising real estate prices do not translate into expanded life-time income. In this sense, real estate assets are not real assets.
I do not need to deny that. You are advocating moving towards for-profit health-care ‘solutions.’ I am merely advocating not moving away from universal health care. Hence, the burden of proof is on you to show that the for-profit US system has less problems with waiting lists.
Further, such a calculation will not be complete unless it also factors in those who wait for their whole life expectancy minus the age the would have entered a Canadian waiting list because they simply don’t get treatment.
I cannot recall making any claims one way or the other about poverty in the US, and I honestly think that a discussion of such should be deferred until and unless we have a meaningful definition of poverty.
You, on the other hand, claimed that poverty rates have been steady. You have backed this up with a source that uses a meaningless definition of poverty.
I will not make a hard-and-fast claim that poverty in the US is rising. Neither will I, however, accept on faith that it is not.
– JS
Mikko Sandt wrote, “Transparency benefits a company. No one is willing to invest millions of dollars in shadowy companies.”
Huh! Where were you in the period from 1995-2001? We have a fellow here in our office who re-mortgaged his paid-off house in order to invest in companies which he didn’t really understand. You undoubtably would say that it’s his fault that he did so. But that doesn’t elimiante the evidence of his actions, and millions like him, who invested in shadowy companies.
Now, based on your previous statements, you probably think that I feel the government should step in an help these people who lost lots of money to fools and frauds. For the record, I don’t think that. The recent stock market bubble was a direct result of the relaxation of SEC reporting requirements, and I blame the deregulation for the creation of the bubble. Those who lost money by being blind to the chaos of the market, for the most part, simply lost their savings not their livlihood. I saw the bubble form and got out of the stock market in 1999. I do, however, support funding the SEC to the level where they are able to monitor companies and step in to stop frauds.
Mikko Sandt also wrote, “I have never given anyone the permission to regulate me or my property.”
I’m sorry, but you have; possibly inadvertantly, but you have. This is a flaw in much of the thinking about property. Possibly you are trying to make the distinction that Proudhon made in _What_is_Property?_ where he suggests that personal property as the product of individual labor is not subject to anyone’s regulation. But by that argument counterfeiters shouldn’t be punished because they made their own money.
Property is defined by the laws of the nation/culture you live in. You can claim all the property rights you want, but if the laws of the nation or customs of the culture don’t respect your claims you will lose your claim. Violate the laws/customs and you lose your property. This is not a case of being ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’, this is how society works. By living in a society, you have agreed to abide by that societies definition of property. The most you can do is argue to change the definition.
Please note, I wrote laws/customs. I do not support the idea of individuals using brute force to wrest your property from you. It is not the same as an authorized representative of the law seperating you from your property. Authorized representatives of the law are, ideally, supposed to have publicly accessable records indicating the justification for their actions, and their justifications should be able to be questioned by any member of the public. I recognize that often reality doesn’t match our ideals, but it is an ideal we should be striving for.
Try meditating on the mantra, “No man is an island” for a bit.
But back to basic economics:
Mikko Sandt wrote, “As I said; in practice creating an environment of “perfect” competition requires regulations and unnecessary burdens on individuals and companies.”
So, in your opinion any regulation is an unnecessary burden. So your opinion trumps the mathematics of economics which clearly indicates that the consumer benefits most under perfect competition. Yet you accuse me of being dogmatic?
As one of my accounting instructors told me, there are good regulations and bad regulations. Those regulations which steer an economy toward perfect competition are generally good regulations which helps consumers. Those regulations which steer an economy away from perfect competition tend to hurt consumers. There are plenty of cases where the full effect of a regulation was not understood until it was implemented, but that’s why regulations need to be monitored and removed if necessary. This is not justification for eliminating all regulations entirely.
Your opinion appears to be that any regulation is an unecessary burden which will a business.
As I said previously, this shows a marked disregard for the consumers.
JS,
Re: Community Health Centers
Once again, the statement of yours I am disputing here is this: “Community Health Centers mainly diagnose – their actual treatment options are quite limited.” None of three links you offer in support of this statement substantiates it in any way whatsoever. In fact, none of the linked pages discuss the “main” activity of CHCs or the “limitations” of their treatment services at all. Your first two links refer to web pages describing one specific type of service provided by a specific clinic, and your third citation refers to one particular type of service (“enabling services”) provided by CHCs in general. They don’t say anything whatsoever about treatment limitations or the ratio of diagnostic services to treatment services. Try again.
Re: Rail Systems
Once again, the statement of yours I am disputing here is this: “The most massive failure in this lot is the American rail system. It is also the only one that is not government-run.” I have no idea what relevance you think your first three links have to this claim at all. They refer to national highway systems, not rail systems. Your fourth link is to a report of increased revenue and profit at Deutsche Bahn. It says nothing whatsoever about the ownership or operation of the U.S. rail system, or how it compares to the rail systems of other countries. And your fifth link is similarly irrelevant. Try again.
JS,
If you are not, however, setting up shop for the first time or on the verge of dying, there is no practical way to capitalise those assets. What rising real estate prices do for this (majority) group of homeowners is solely increasing their borrowing capacity.
More nonsense. Obviously, real estate assets may be “capitalized” in a number of ways. The most obvious way is to sell them for cash. Another way is to rent them for cash. A third way is to use them for a reverse mortgage. A fourth way is to use them to secure a loan. A fifth way is to use them as a residence or office.
… for the vast majority of households, rising real estate prices do not translate into expanded life-time income. In this sense, real estate assets are not real assets.
Another ridiclous claim. An asset is “real” whether it generates income or not. Some assets produce income and some do not, but they’re all “real” assets. If you own a million dollars worth of real estate, or stock, or bonds, or antiques, or whatever else it may be, you have a million dollars in assets whether they produce income or not.
Greg Laden,
If you go to the Census Bureau web site and get real data you will find tht the median household net worth is not a quarter of a million dollars, not by a long shot. Nope, not even close.
The most recent published Census Bureau data on household net worth that I have seen is for the year 2000, 6 years ago.
Here is the most recent Survey of Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve Board. For 2004, median family net worth is reported as $93,100. Since 2004, both real estate values and stock/bond prices, the primary asset types of most middle class American families, have risen dramatically. The CPI has also increased, requiring a further upward adjustment for current dollars.
I don’t know how close the resulting figure would be to $224,000, but it doesn’t matter to the point anyway. The claim I am rebutting, which you seem to have forgotten in all your quibbling over numbers, is that Americans have “hardly any” wealth. That claim is absurd whether the actual net worth figure is $93K, $150K or $224K.
Flex:
“You undoubtably would say that it’s his fault that he did so. But that doesn’t elimiante the evidence of his actions, and millions like him, who invested in shadowy companies.”
Their fault. I have no regrets when idiots lose money.
“The recent stock market bubble was a direct result of the relaxation of SEC reporting requirements”
It’s normal for markets to adjust after new laws are passed.
“and I blame the deregulation for the creation of the bubble.”
The bubble was caused by the Federal Reserve.
“But by that argument counterfeiters shouldn’t be punished because they made their own money.”
It depends on how you view copyrights. I see copyrights as an essential part of Capitalism and therefore counterfeiters should be punished for breaking property rights.
“By living in a society, you have agreed to abide by that societies definition of property. The most you can do is argue to change the definition.”
I have merely chosen not to act against the government simply because it’s the rational course of action at the moment.
“I do not support the idea of individuals using brute force to wrest your property from you. It is not the same as an authorized representative of the law seperating you from your property.”
There is hardly much difference. Politicians are not some enlightened people who know better how to handle other people’s property. There’s hardly much difference between a criminal that steals 20€ from you to finance his own welfare and a government that taxes 20€ from you to fund some welfare program.
Are you familiar with Friedman’s “four ways to spend money” (or something like that)? If we follow Friedman’s idea the criminal is actually going to use the money more efficiently than the government.
“So, in your opinion any regulation is an unnecessary burden.”
Regulations are required only when they protect individual liberties.
“So your opinion trumps the mathematics of economics which clearly indicates that the consumer benefits most under perfect competition. Yet you accuse me of being dogmatic?”
There is no such thing as “perfect competition”. The “mathematical” models behind perfect competition can’t predict human behavior. It’s like trying to predict weather.
“Perfect competition” is good when it results from free competition – not when competition is regulated and property rights violated. “The mathematics” don’t take this into account.
“As I said previously, this shows a marked disregard for the consumers.”
I’d not like to have the government doing decisions for me when it can mostly cause harm and hurt the consumer.