|
|
On August 02 2012 04:43 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +The reason most Palestinians have low third-world income levels is that they are born into impoverished towns or refugee camps inside the gerrymandered Bantustans of the Palestinian Authority, where border crossings are controlled by Israeli military authorities, water sources are tapped to feed Jewish settlements, Israeli-built infrastructure bypasses them, the education system is funded by paltry international contributions and paltrier taxes, agricultural land is periodically taken by Jewish settlers whose illegal seizures are retroactively approved by the government, land values are undermined because of the overhanging threat of expropriation by Israel, and on and on through all the savage indignities and economic violence of a 50-year-long occupation by people whose ultimate goal is to force you off as much of the territory as possible. Obviously, gross corruption by Palestinian officials and counterproductive political and economic attitudes on the part of Palestinian citizens, mainly typical adaptive behaviours that any people tend to develop when they're confined to massive donor-supported detention zones, have made the situation much worse. So...is that culture or not?
Yes this is an important point. I think this is why the discussion has been unproductive. Some people hear "culture" and think of things like traditional dress, music, language, religion, rituals/celebrations, and pastimes. How could those things possibly affect economic output? Others view "culture" more broadly as all of that plus things like common attitudes towards more distant members of their nation and outsiders, acceptance of the rule of law, the importance parents place on providing their children with the best educational opportunities available, the acceptance of science in the face of traditional superstitions, belief in equality between races/sexes/etc, whether the nation is unified or fractured into rival factions, etc. It seems clear that those would be important economic factors. (though it's true that economy and culture evolve side by side rather than wholly one then the other)
I guess those latter things could be seen as a little borderline, since certainly if Saudi Arabia gave women full equal status they would still have everything else the same and still have their own distinct culture. But when people talk about "cultural" factors that have an economic impact, they mean things like that, not song and dance.
|
On August 02 2012 04:54 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.
Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).
The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point. No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US. You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent). On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.
Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare. Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system? His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government. If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech. At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success. No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy. No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform. Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own. A shrinking government is a specific point. Fiscal responsibility is a specific point. When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech. If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not. I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such. By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard? I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes.
Have you read the speech yet? Romney pointed out the size of Poland's government!
"The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent."
He also said:
"Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means." <- these are all government policies.
Calling it disingenuous to emphasize the role of private markets in the context of transitioning from communism to capitalism is absurd.
Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement. In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.
The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side. "We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs." He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen. Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top. I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no? Yes. Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no? Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against. So because he is against government intervention in healthcare in general he can never be supportive of any government intervention in healthcare? During his campaign, Romney has stated his opposition to the kind of government intervention found in Israeli healthcare.
Some, yes. But to me he's being nitpicked here. He's not against all government involvement - see Romneycare. He's against certain government involvement. Some of which can be found in Israel's system, but not all. For me this is just 'gotcha' politics. Feel free to disagree.
|
^^
Just my opinion, I think you're spot on regarding what Romney said regarding Poland and capitalism, but I disagree regarding Israeli healthcare. The nationwide individual mandate and government price controls, which are major parts of Israel's system, are things he's specifically said are bad ideas.
They are similar to Romneycare and if Romney had become president in 2008, I think he'd have implemented that system nationally here. But now that he's saying it's wrong and he's against the nationwide mandate, I think he's contradicting himself with those comments in Israel.
|
On August 02 2012 06:02 Signet wrote:
^^
Just my opinion, I think you're spot on regarding what Romney said regarding Poland and capitalism, but I disagree regarding Israeli healthcare. The nationwide individual mandate and government price controls, which are major parts of Israel's system, are things he's specifically said are bad ideas.
They are similar to Romneycare and if Romney had become president in 2008, I think he'd have implemented that system nationally here. But now that he's saying it's wrong and he's against the nationwide mandate, I think he's contradicting himself with those comments in Israel.
Haha, I like that. kwizach and I should call it a draw - we each win one 
|
On August 02 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 04:54 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.
You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).
[quote]
Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system? His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government. If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech. At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success. No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy. No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform. Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own. A shrinking government is a specific point. Fiscal responsibility is a specific point. When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech. If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not. I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such. By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard? I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes. Have you read the speech yet? Romney pointed out the size of Poland's government! "The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent." He also said: "Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means." <- these are all government policies. Calling it disingenuous to emphasize the role of private markets in the context of transitioning from communism to capitalism is absurd.
I read the speech before we even began discussing this. Again, Romney was not simply praising the merits of capitalism as opposed to communism. He decided to attribute the current economic success of Poland as opposed to other non-communist nations to factors that are consistent with his platform while deliberately leaving out the role of factors inconsistent with his platform. That's what's disingenuous (for the fifth time).
On August 02 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement. In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.
The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side. "We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs." He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen. Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top. I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no? Yes. Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no? Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against. So because he is against government intervention in healthcare in general he can never be supportive of any government intervention in healthcare? During his campaign, Romney has stated his opposition to the kind of government intervention found in Israeli healthcare. Some, yes. But to me he's being nitpicked here. He's not against all government involvement - see Romneycare. He's against certain government involvement. Some of which can be found in Israel's system, but not all. For me this is just 'gotcha' politics. Feel free to disagree.
He's not being nitpicked - you're desperately trying to find a way to save him from the obvious contradiction in him praising a healthcare system of the kind he's campaigning against at home - even when only looking at the specific issue of costs.
|
On August 01 2012 22:59 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 20:10 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you? On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection. And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way. On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection. I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs. It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims. Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive. User was warned for this postEdit: Image macro removed as per mod warning. That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science").
By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role.
Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects.
You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
On August 01 2012 23:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. If you're actually using those genetic differences to explain those disparities between the 'races' then yes that is racism and it is not supported by any science whatsoever. It is not coherent or logical at all. Sorry, I thought you actually understood the science. In that case the accusations of offense and racism are totally justified.
"If science explains something that is politically incorrect, then it can't possibly be correct!" -DoubleReed
Sorry, describing reality truthfully is not racist. If the truth is offensive to you, then that's your problem. Maybe you would prefer that arguments are censored based on whether or not they're offensive, but I'd much rather debate the merits of logical arguments, not their popular appeal.
On August 02 2012 00:24 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. I don't have the slightest problem with population genetics, but nothing in that field so much as hints at your theory. Your theory is nothing more than non-expert speculation with no serious evidence to back it up. I don't think it's unscientific to ask that you actually have evidence rather than speculation when you claim that African Americans are innately cognitively inferior to the rest of Americans. I also don't think it's crazy to myself speculate that the reason so many people seem to enjoy such baseless speculation lies with the well documented implicit biases that society ingrains in us.
There are studies such as this one which clearly indicate that genetic selection was at work (I'm sure there are cultural selection studies out there too, but that's not a field I'm familiar with). Of course, researchers don't touch the genetic effects on the brain with a 10-foot pole for fear of accusations of racism, but you can't deny that my arguments are logical conclusions given the evidence (what are the odds that genetic selection would affect everything but the brain?).
|
On August 02 2012 01:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. It's not coherent, nor logical, it's just plain racist. It has been disproven ages ago that such theories were incorrect. So now it is "political correctness" to just shows how stupid, uneducated and racist you are digging such old theories. Interesting.
It's a policial correctness issue because the majority of people aren't actually addressing my logical arguments. Instead, people like you are resorting to fallacies like insisting that I must be wrong because my conclusions are potentially offensive (wisdom of repugnance fallacy), I must be an awful human being (ad hominems), etc.
I really thought that most of the people here were better than that.
On August 02 2012 01:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2012 01:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. It's not coherent, nor logical, it's just plain racist. It has been disproven ages ago that such theories were incorrect. So now it is "political correctness" to just shows how stupid, uneducated and racist you are digging such old theories. Interesting. There's nothing racist about it. The studies are inconclusive. I've seen them go both ways. It's just a shame that some people are so intellectually small so as to demonize the research. It is what it is, regardless of how it is ultimately determined. No, it really doesn't work that way. There is no evidence that such a theory is correct or even plausible, even after the sheer amounts of population genetics that we have discovered. It's like treating creationism as credible theory. And the idea that sunprince immediately thought that such research shows racist ideas to be true (when, if anything, it shows that they are false) does not speak very highly of him in terms of implicit biases.
Try reading some of that research yourself before making fallacious accusations towards people who have.
It's funny that you talk about implicit biases when you haven't actually backed any of your ideas with legitimate research or coherent arguments.
I'm happy to be proven wrong here if TL can manage it. I'm an ethnic minority myself and don't particularly like the conclusions that research seems to indicate, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
|
On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. What science? I don't see any science in your posts, just conjecture which begs that question that African-Americans are inferior in the first place. Who cares if it is politically incorrect to be racist? More significant than "political correctness" is that racism is immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences. Just because your story is coherent and logical does not make it true or scientific or even worthy of discussion, any more than Nazi racial science--which despite being obviously wrong (in case you need a reminder) is actually LESS asinine than your assertion that those who found themselves enslaved lacked skills to succeed in a future capitalist society compared to slavers, not to mention the suggestion that people were bred to be stupid in just a few generations despite no evidence for it.
So in other words, you disagree with my conclusions because they are "immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences". Do you see why this is a logical fallacy?
On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:
TL;DR: racism is bad.
The fact that you think this is the issue at hand, rather than a legitimate discussion of the actual arguments involved, is blatant proof that you're not engaging in a legitimate debate.
|
The report, by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, looked at Romney’s call for a 20% income tax cut for everyone, that he says he would finance by ending existing (and as-yet-unnamed) tax deductions. They assumed for their analysis that Romney would try to eliminate tax breaks favoring the rich as much as possible to pay for his plan, before turning to popular middle-class deductions on health care and mortgage payments to make up the remaining gap. But even allowing for that highly generous baseline, the average American family making less than $200,000 would still have to pay $2,000 more of their income in taxes while the richest .1% would see an average net tax cut close to $250,000.
The study puts Romney in a tricky spot. His campaign has not disputed the substance of its findings. Doing so would require him to provide much more information explaining how he intends to pay for his 20% tax cut, information that could invite Democratic attacks if, as expected, his offsets included eliminating popular tax breaks for the middle class or powerful interest groups.
“Certainly this argues for more detail from Team Romney,” conservative economics blogger James Pethokoukis wrote, adding that the the study — while too pessimistic about revenues for his taste — was mostly fair.
Instead of releasing “more detail,” however, Romney is trying to shoot the messenger. His campaign put out a press release denouncing the Tax Policy Center as a “liberal group” that can’t be trusted. But that’s not likely to fly considering Romney’s own aides have referred to the group repeatedly as an independent and impartial referee. One November press release from the Romney camp highlighting a study of then-opponent Rick Perry’s tax proposal called the Tax Policy Center an “objective, third-party analysis.” Other Romney press releases cited Tax Policy Center analyses of tax plans from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as well.
Source
|
On August 02 2012 07:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. What science? I don't see any science in your posts, just conjecture which begs that question that African-Americans are inferior in the first place. Who cares if it is politically incorrect to be racist? More significant than "political correctness" is that racism is immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences. Just because your story is coherent and logical does not make it true or scientific or even worthy of discussion, any more than Nazi racial science--which despite being obviously wrong (in case you need a reminder) is actually LESS asinine than your assertion that those who found themselves enslaved lacked skills to succeed in a future capitalist society compared to slavers, not to mention the suggestion that people were bred to be stupid in just a few generations despite no evidence for it. So in other words, you disagree with my conclusions because they are "immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences". Do you see why this is a logical fallacy? The fact that you think this is the issue at hand, rather than a legitimate discussion of the actual arguments involved, is blatant proof that you're not engaging in a legitimate debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
For these reasons the fact that there are genetically differentiated populations does not necessarily validate the concept of race - since racial categorization of individuals is generally based on very broad criteria founded on arbitrary phenotypical characteristics such as skin color, which do not correlate well with geographic ancestry. For example, there is no logical reason that the typical American racial classification of people in groups of Black and White skin and Asian and Amerindian geographical ancestry is a better description of biological variation than other possible groupings of traits. Specialists in race, both geneticists and anthropologists, maintain that modern ideas of race are therefore primarily historical constructions that reflect the pattern of contact between previously distinct populations in the colonial period.
If you read that page further, it reveals that there are some researchers, I dare say a minority, who are still looking for absolute proof of a meaningful genetic underpinning to our current race taxonomy. How that proof manifests itself and whether or not it is ever to be found is one matter; to suggest that race essentialism plays a role in the misfortune of minorities is another piece of pizza entirely, the science is nowhere near refined enough to even hint at such things.
|
On August 02 2012 06:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:54 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.
If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech. At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success. No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy. No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform. Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own. A shrinking government is a specific point. Fiscal responsibility is a specific point. When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech. If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not. I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such. By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard? I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes. Have you read the speech yet? Romney pointed out the size of Poland's government! "The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent." He also said: "Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means." <- these are all government policies. Calling it disingenuous to emphasize the role of private markets in the context of transitioning from communism to capitalism is absurd. I read the speech before we even began discussing this. Again, Romney was not simply praising the merits of capitalism as opposed to communism. He decided to attribute the current economic success of Poland as opposed to other non-communist nations to factors that are consistent with his platform while deliberately leaving out the role of factors inconsistent with his platform. That's what's disingenuous (for the fifth time).
But no one ever makes a speech where they attribute economic success to every factor. EVERYONE picks and chooses what they think is important.
Romney does it.
Obama does it.
Economists (independent or otherwise) do it too.
It's not disingenuous - it's having a point of view.
|
On August 02 2012 07:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:16 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. What science? I don't see any science in your posts, just conjecture which begs that question that African-Americans are inferior in the first place. Who cares if it is politically incorrect to be racist? More significant than "political correctness" is that racism is immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences. Just because your story is coherent and logical does not make it true or scientific or even worthy of discussion, any more than Nazi racial science--which despite being obviously wrong (in case you need a reminder) is actually LESS asinine than your assertion that those who found themselves enslaved lacked skills to succeed in a future capitalist society compared to slavers, not to mention the suggestion that people were bred to be stupid in just a few generations despite no evidence for it. So in other words, you disagree with my conclusions because they are "immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences". Do you see why this is a logical fallacy? On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:
TL;DR: racism is bad. The fact that you think this is the issue at hand, rather than a legitimate discussion of the actual arguments involved, is blatant proof that you're not engaging in a legitimate debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_geneticsShow nested quote +For these reasons the fact that there are genetically differentiated populations does not necessarily validate the concept of race - since racial categorization of individuals is generally based on very broad criteria founded on arbitrary phenotypical characteristics such as skin color, which do not correlate well with geographic ancestry. For example, there is no logical reason that the typical American racial classification of people in groups of Black and White skin and Asian and Amerindian geographical ancestry is a better description of biological variation than other possible groupings of traits. Specialists in race, both geneticists and anthropologists, maintain that modern ideas of race are therefore primarily historical constructions that reflect the pattern of contact between previously distinct populations in the colonial period. If you read that page further, it reveals that there are some researchers, I dare say a minority, who are still looking for absolute proof of a meaningful genetic underpinning to our current race taxonomy. How that proof manifests itself and whether or not it is ever to be found is one matter; to suggest that race essentialism plays a role in the misfortune of minorities is another piece of pizza entirely, the science is nowhere near refined enough to even hint at such things.
I agree with everything on that page. One of the things I've stated multiple times in this thread is that "race" is not a valid scientific concept, but "ethnic/population group" is.
Nowhere is that more obvious than the recent discoveries of archaic human admixture which clearly indicate major genetic differences between ethnic groups.
|
On August 02 2012 06:54 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 22:59 plogamer wrote:On August 01 2012 20:10 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you? On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection. And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way. On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection. I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs. It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims. Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive. User was warned for this postEdit: Image macro removed as per mod warning. That's a gnarly case of rationalization going on here. One of the best I've seen in a while. Obviously, supported by an astute understanding of genetics (and thus "science").
By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help.Maybe smarter slaves acted more obedient. Or maybe, slave-owners actually wanted smarter slaves who would be better at their work. Or maybe that, even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence - let alone in the era before emancipation. Or maybe, environment plays an equal, if not more important, role. Most of your suggestions don't line up with history. We're very aware that across the board, slaveowners feared that intelligent/educated slaves might rise up, and worked to vehemently crush any who might potentially get out of line (there's also certain cultural effects that result when intellectual activities like reading are heavily punished). The environment did play an important role; the environment of slavery had major selection effects. You're also overlooking the selection effects of which Africans ended up as slaves in the first place.
Sigh. You accuse me of overlooking things while overlooking the most important part of my reply.
Even in this day and age, we actually don't have a good grasp on the heritability of intelligence
/edit
Unless you address this issue directly, I don't think we can have a real discussion - but rather a show of throwing conjectures at each other.
|
On August 02 2012 07:40 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:34 farvacola wrote:On August 02 2012 07:16 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect. How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation? Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there. Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't. Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now. In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry. I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do. What science? I don't see any science in your posts, just conjecture which begs that question that African-Americans are inferior in the first place. Who cares if it is politically incorrect to be racist? More significant than "political correctness" is that racism is immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences. Just because your story is coherent and logical does not make it true or scientific or even worthy of discussion, any more than Nazi racial science--which despite being obviously wrong (in case you need a reminder) is actually LESS asinine than your assertion that those who found themselves enslaved lacked skills to succeed in a future capitalist society compared to slavers, not to mention the suggestion that people were bred to be stupid in just a few generations despite no evidence for it. So in other words, you disagree with my conclusions because they are "immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences". Do you see why this is a logical fallacy? On August 02 2012 03:43 HunterX11 wrote:
TL;DR: racism is bad. The fact that you think this is the issue at hand, rather than a legitimate discussion of the actual arguments involved, is blatant proof that you're not engaging in a legitimate debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_geneticsFor these reasons the fact that there are genetically differentiated populations does not necessarily validate the concept of race - since racial categorization of individuals is generally based on very broad criteria founded on arbitrary phenotypical characteristics such as skin color, which do not correlate well with geographic ancestry. For example, there is no logical reason that the typical American racial classification of people in groups of Black and White skin and Asian and Amerindian geographical ancestry is a better description of biological variation than other possible groupings of traits. Specialists in race, both geneticists and anthropologists, maintain that modern ideas of race are therefore primarily historical constructions that reflect the pattern of contact between previously distinct populations in the colonial period. If you read that page further, it reveals that there are some researchers, I dare say a minority, who are still looking for absolute proof of a meaningful genetic underpinning to our current race taxonomy. How that proof manifests itself and whether or not it is ever to be found is one matter; to suggest that race essentialism plays a role in the misfortune of minorities is another piece of pizza entirely, the science is nowhere near refined enough to even hint at such things. I agree with everything on that page. One of the things I've stated multiple times in this thread is that "race" is not a valid scientific concept, but "ethnic/population group" is. Nowhere is that more obvious than the recent discoveries of archaic human admixture which clearly indicate major genetic differences between ethnic groups.
Even use of the signifier "ethnic/population group" presents a variety of issues, in that we are still figuring out the fundamentals of genetic variation in populations. If Witherspoon's conclusions here:
Witherspoon et al. (2007) have argued that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used in order for the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" to be "never". This assumed three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian). The entire world population is much more complex and studying an increasing number of groups would require an increasing number of markers for the same answer. Witherspoon et al. conclude that "caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."[36] Witherspoon et al. concluded that, "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. are even remotely applicable a huge issue arises in implementing literally ANY collective label to genetic information as a truth bearing standard. Even if we currently observe patterns of harmony in geographic or ethnic genetic data and population representation, we still know too little in terms of overall genetic significance to attach any sort of overwhelming importance to these interpretations.
|
On August 02 2012 07:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 06:17 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:54 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success. No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy. No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform. Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own. A shrinking government is a specific point. Fiscal responsibility is a specific point. When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech. If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not. I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such. By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard? I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes. Have you read the speech yet? Romney pointed out the size of Poland's government! "The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent." He also said: "Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means." <- these are all government policies. Calling it disingenuous to emphasize the role of private markets in the context of transitioning from communism to capitalism is absurd. I read the speech before we even began discussing this. Again, Romney was not simply praising the merits of capitalism as opposed to communism. He decided to attribute the current economic success of Poland as opposed to other non-communist nations to factors that are consistent with his platform while deliberately leaving out the role of factors inconsistent with his platform. That's what's disingenuous (for the fifth time). But no one ever makes a speech where they attribute economic success to every factor. EVERYONE picks and chooses what they think is important. Romney does it. Obama does it. Economists (independent or otherwise) do it too. It's not disingenuous - it's having a point of view.
No, it's not having a point of view, it's being disingenuous. If you know very well that A + B made C, it's not a "point of view" to only acknowledge the role of A and not the role of B because B playing a role contradicts your political discourse - you're deliberately presenting a misleading and truncated version of reality because it's the only one that fits the narrative you're trying to convey.
|
Ok, yea. This is tax thing is bad now. No "real" defense. Just labeling one of the blandest, nonpartisan groups as "liberal."
|
Not to mention that Romney and other Conservative hopefuls used the same group as proof their plans were better etc.
Also the Romney defense is now in the Hypothetical turf:
Mitt Romney’s policy director Lanhee Chen claims that a new study showing 95% of Americans would see a tax hike under Romney’s tax reform plan is “biased” and fails to take into account the explosion of economic growth that will occur under Romney’s administration.
“This is just another biased study from a former Obama staffer that ignores critical parts of Governor Romney’s tax reform program, which will help the middle class and promote faster economic growth,” Chen wrote in a statement Monday evening in response to the study by the Tax Policy Center released earlier in the day.
“The study analyzes only half of Governor Romney’s tax program, ignoring the reforms that would make America’s corporations more competitive by moving from the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world to one that is comparable to our trading partners. And the study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan. These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions.”
Source
|
On August 02 2012 07:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 06:17 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:54 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy. No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform. Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own. A shrinking government is a specific point. Fiscal responsibility is a specific point. When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech. If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not. I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such. By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard? I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes. Have you read the speech yet? Romney pointed out the size of Poland's government! "The private sector has gone from a mere 15 percent of the economy to 65 percent." He also said: "Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means." <- these are all government policies. Calling it disingenuous to emphasize the role of private markets in the context of transitioning from communism to capitalism is absurd. I read the speech before we even began discussing this. Again, Romney was not simply praising the merits of capitalism as opposed to communism. He decided to attribute the current economic success of Poland as opposed to other non-communist nations to factors that are consistent with his platform while deliberately leaving out the role of factors inconsistent with his platform. That's what's disingenuous (for the fifth time). But no one ever makes a speech where they attribute economic success to every factor. EVERYONE picks and chooses what they think is important. Romney does it. Obama does it. Economists (independent or otherwise) do it too. It's not disingenuous - it's having a point of view. No, it's not having a point of view, it's being disingenuous. If you know very well that A + B made C, it's not a "point of view" to only acknowledge the role of A and not the role of B because B playing a role contradicts your political discourse - you're deliberately presenting a misleading and truncated version of reality because it's the only one that fits the narrative you're trying to convey.
There's no A + B = C here.
What makes an economy work are a million different factors. You can't acknowledge all of them and keep a coherent message. No speech about why an economy works ever includes all factors.
No speech Obama has EVER made about the economy did anything but give a truncated version of reality.
|
On August 02 2012 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Not to mention that Romney and other Conservative hopefuls used the same group as proof their plans were better etc. Also the Romney defense is now in the Hypothetical turf: Show nested quote +Mitt Romney’s policy director Lanhee Chen claims that a new study showing 95% of Americans would see a tax hike under Romney’s tax reform plan is “biased” and fails to take into account the explosion of economic growth that will occur under Romney’s administration.
“This is just another biased study from a former Obama staffer that ignores critical parts of Governor Romney’s tax reform program, which will help the middle class and promote faster economic growth,” Chen wrote in a statement Monday evening in response to the study by the Tax Policy Center released earlier in the day.
“The study analyzes only half of Governor Romney’s tax program, ignoring the reforms that would make America’s corporations more competitive by moving from the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world to one that is comparable to our trading partners. And the study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan. These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions.” Source
I know that every country is different and that situations cannot be equated but surely the evidence from Europe shows that when you have a struggling economy encumbered by debt and anaemic growth, cutting spending as a way to fast track growth is just wrong. It hasn't worked in Greece, Ireland, Spain or anywhere it has been implemented. It didn't work when ol Herbet Hoover tried it in the 30's. Where is the evidence that this kind of thinking works?
How is removing money from the market going to make the market grow faster? Where is the evidence that the higher corporate tax rate is the cause of low growth? The massive growth of the 80's and 90's was concentrated in financial sectors and based mostly on debt. Given Republican's complete abhorrence of debt what do they expect will kick start the economy into overdrive enough to offset the loss of revenue? Private investment did not save Europe, why will it save the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
