|
|
To me, it comes down to a simple number. $4 trillion. Its hard to imagine anyone doing worse than that.
Everyone knows that Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security is going down eventually. The entire thing is a federal Ponzi Scheme. Adding more entitlement programs is not the answer. This goes beyond political affiliation. I'm not even talking about whether they are good or bad; we simply can't afford it right now.
Those of you on TL with jobs, how much do you pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes? How much do you expect to get back?
|
My first vote in a presidential election will be for a jailbird. It's okay though because what she did was merely illegal, not immoral.
|
On August 02 2012 08:52 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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?
This is only discussing tax policy, not spending.
The higher corporate tax rate isn't a cause of our current low growth but the argument is that lowering taxes now (or maintaining the cut taxes from Bush) will simplify the tax code and allow companies to invest without the fear of tax increases like Obama has promised.
You could have said the same thing about Asia in 1997 and many people did. But the US seems to be different because it is seen as a safe harbor. Romney's idea is to encourage capital flows to flee to the US and keep it here by adding sweeteners that reduce the tax burden.
I don't think it will necessarily work but just clarifying what is being said.
|
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth?
|
On August 02 2012 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:59 kwizach wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
There is. The B deliberately left out by Romney is the crucial active role of government in the economy.
Please stop with the "you can't possibly list every factor" fallacious argument. Nobody is asking him to list every factor that has contributed to the success of the Polish economy. What the author of the article and myself are pointing out is that he chose to leave out the most obvious factor that contradicted his platform, yet was absolutely crucial to Poland's economic success. If he had not wanted to be disingenuous, he would have mentioned the vital role of government intervention, but since this runs contrary to the narrative he's trying to push, he chose not to mention it.
|
|
|
On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth?
The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify.
To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low.
So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing.
IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money:
Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place.
Lower taxes.
Clarify and simplify regulations.
Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work.
|
On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money:
Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place.
Lower taxes.
Clarify and simplify regulations.
Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work.
I fully agree with this. I think the biggest issue is the first point you raise. I just don't see how lowering taxes and gutting spending that disproportionately affects the less wealthy is a credible long term fiscal plan. Either medicare and social security are slashed or some revenue needs to be raised. You can't count your chicken before they hatch and Romney seems to be basing his whole solution for the current crisis on 8% growth driven by a lower corporate tax. It's just not credible.
|
On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth? The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify. To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low. So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing. IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money: Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place. Lower taxes. Clarify and simplify regulations. Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work.
On this topic, here's an interesting collection of studies and surveys of economists and business owners claiming that weak demand is the main problem currently facing the economy.
|
Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 23:10 DoubleReed 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. 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.
No no, what I mean is that the conclusions of population genetics just aren't that offensive. Like they actually are not offensive. The fact that you are being accused of racism says to me that you are not understanding it properly. In this specific case, you brought up Neanderthals and such, but you didn't bring up the Cro-Magnons...
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more.
For instance, research that went into how humans evolved specifically by becoming more and more childlike (Neoteny). They actually compared the various childlike features of the different races in this. Of course racists took this as some races were more 'evolved' than others, but that's not what the research actually states. Actually, it seems like different races have a various mix of more childlike features in comparison to others. But yea, science deals with this kind of stuff. It's lots of fun.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the articles I was using for this sort of thing (I had some pretty indepth ones that were really good). So I guess I'm just going to bow out. This is off-topic anyway.
Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright:
“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”
|
On August 02 2012 09:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:59 kwizach wrote: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:
[quote]
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. There is. The B deliberately left out by Romney is the crucial active role of government in the economy. Please stop with the "you can't possibly list every factor" fallacious argument. Nobody is asking him to list every factor that has contributed to the success of the Polish economy. What the author of the article and myself are pointing out is that he chose to leave out the most obvious factor that contradicted his platform, yet was absolutely crucial to Poland's economic success. If he had not wanted to be disingenuous, he would have mentioned the vital role of government intervention, but since this runs contrary to the narrative he's trying to push, he chose not to mention it.
There's nothing wrong with taking a few parts of an economy, focusing on them and declaring them to be the key to an economy's success. It is true that doing so does not give 'the whole picture' - but that is not always necessary - or even appropriate.
I can declare Germany's mittlestand to be the key to the nation's economic success. Truly that ignores a lot but it doesn't make my argument disingenuous or even incorrect.
But whatever, I think we need to agree to disagree at this point.
|
On August 02 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth? The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify. To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low. So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing. IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money: Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place. Lower taxes. Clarify and simplify regulations. Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work. On this topic, here's an interesting collection of studies and surveys of economists and business owners claiming that weak demand is the main problem currently facing the economy.
Yeah, I hear 'lack of demand' all the time too. I'm not sure I get it though. At least in theory if a business is really profitable than it should either have plenty of demand to expand or profit seeking competitors should enter the market to grab some of that profit. So it is a mystery to me how a lack of demand and lots of profits can be true simultaneously. The only thing I can think of is that businesses are unwilling to expand until they absolutely must (near full capacity), which differs from past expansions where businesses expanded in anticipation of future demand.
|
On August 02 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth? The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify. To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low. So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing. IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money: Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place. Lower taxes. Clarify and simplify regulations. Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work. On this topic, here's an interesting collection of studies and surveys of economists and business owners claiming that weak demand is the main problem currently facing the economy. Yeah, I hear 'lack of demand' all the time too. I'm not sure I get it though. At least in theory if a business is really profitable than it should either have plenty of demand to expand or profit seeking competitors should enter the market to grab some of that profit. So it is a mystery to me how a lack of demand and lots of profits can be true simultaneously. The only thing I can think of is that businesses are unwilling to expand until they absolutely must (near full capacity), which differs from past expansions where businesses expanded in anticipation of future demand.
Businesses laid off a lot of workers in the past few years and saw an increase in worker efficiency, due to both market forces (high unemployment) and technology. Demand shrank greatly and has remained deflated, but costs have come down and kept profits high. Not only that, however, but many companies survived the "great recession" by buying out competitors. Now, many businesses find themselves with a larger piece of their own respective pies, but see no way to make the pie bigger.
Consequently, a guaranteed buyer (aka the government) for the next few years would improve business prospects and encourage them to make expansionary investments in an attempt to get some of that sweet, Uncle Sam pie. This would be directly, through years of bidding for projects, or indirectly, through starting businesses to take advantage of the boom in construction, teaching, public safety, etc.
|
On August 02 2012 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:30 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 07:59 kwizach wrote: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:
[quote]
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. There is. The B deliberately left out by Romney is the crucial active role of government in the economy. Please stop with the "you can't possibly list every factor" fallacious argument. Nobody is asking him to list every factor that has contributed to the success of the Polish economy. What the author of the article and myself are pointing out is that he chose to leave out the most obvious factor that contradicted his platform, yet was absolutely crucial to Poland's economic success. If he had not wanted to be disingenuous, he would have mentioned the vital role of government intervention, but since this runs contrary to the narrative he's trying to push, he chose not to mention it. There's nothing wrong with taking a few parts of an economy, focusing on them and declaring them to be the key to an economy's success. It is true that doing so does not give 'the whole picture' - but that is not always necessary - or even appropriate. I can declare Germany's mittlestand to be the key to the nation's economic success. Truly that ignores a lot but it doesn't make my argument disingenuous or even incorrect. But whatever, I think we need to agree to disagree at this point.
Well, you're repeating the "you can't list every factor" argument that I already addressed in my previous post :-) If Romney's only goal was to praise Poland's economic success, he would have mentioned government intervention - a crucial and necessary factor. Since his goal was, however, not simply to praise Poland's economic success but to tie Poland's story with the economic narrative he's advocating for the US, he deliberately left government intervention out, since it contradicted the said narrative.
It's not a matter of randomly choosing a few factors, or now having the time to list all factors. It's a matter of purposively leaving out a crucial factor only because of a personal political objective. It's not being bias to point this out.
|
On August 02 2012 11:01 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth? The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify. To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low. So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing. IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money: Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place. Lower taxes. Clarify and simplify regulations. Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work. On this topic, here's an interesting collection of studies and surveys of economists and business owners claiming that weak demand is the main problem currently facing the economy. Yeah, I hear 'lack of demand' all the time too. I'm not sure I get it though. At least in theory if a business is really profitable than it should either have plenty of demand to expand or profit seeking competitors should enter the market to grab some of that profit. So it is a mystery to me how a lack of demand and lots of profits can be true simultaneously. The only thing I can think of is that businesses are unwilling to expand until they absolutely must (near full capacity), which differs from past expansions where businesses expanded in anticipation of future demand. Businesses laid off a lot of workers in the past few years and saw an increase in worker efficiency, due to both market forces (high unemployment) and technology. Demand shrank greatly and has remained deflated, but costs have come down and kept profits high. Not only that, however, but many companies survived the "great recession" by buying out competitors. Now, many businesses find themselves with a larger piece of their own respective pies, but see no way to make the pie bigger. Consequently, a guaranteed buyer (aka the government) for the next few years would improve business prospects and encourage them to make expansionary investments in an attempt to get some of that sweet, Uncle Sam pie. This would be directly, through years of bidding for projects, or indirectly, through starting businesses to take advantage of the boom in construction, teaching, public safety, etc.
Nevertheless, you've both suggested spending money although JonnyBNoHo has been more specific on what - roads/infrastructure and other things that are useful to business. I've read that we have a $2 trillion backlog of needed maintenance & updates projects on our national infrastructure. Doing more of that now would both provide short-term jobs for construction workers and be useful for business expansion.
Creating a long-term fiscal plan and simplifying the regulatory framework are probably good ideas even if we weren't in a weak economy. For that matter I think simplifying the tax code and proportionally lowering the marginal rates would be a good idea.
|
On August 02 2012 11:24 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:01 aksfjh wrote:On August 02 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2012 09:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 02 2012 09:19 Probulous wrote:
Tax cuts are a sort of spending if you won't gut actual spending. Isn't capital already fleeing to the US? I mean bond returns are virtually zero. Liquidity is not a problem, to the point that even Bernanke has given up on adding more. The fact that Apple has more cash than the US government shows that private enterprise is not starving for money. There is just no demand and I fail to see how adding more money to the system where it isn't needed, whilst removing money from where it is needed, will create 8% growth? The fact that Apple is sitting on a lot of cash raises the question of why they aren't spending it. Presumably companies don't see investing their cash as 'profitable enough' to justify. To say there is 'no demand' isn't really true. Corporate profits are high - if there was no demand then corporate profits should be low. So the reason companies aren't investing must be because they see too much risk. They see too much danger of demand falling or taxes rising or regulations changing or costs increasing. IMO I can only see a few areas (off the top of my head at least) where the government can make a difference in getting companies to spend money: Create a long-term fiscal plan that has credibility in the market place. Lower taxes. Clarify and simplify regulations. Spending money can also help, but only if it is on things businesses can use to expand - like needed roads and other infrastructure. Just chucking money around won't work. On this topic, here's an interesting collection of studies and surveys of economists and business owners claiming that weak demand is the main problem currently facing the economy. Yeah, I hear 'lack of demand' all the time too. I'm not sure I get it though. At least in theory if a business is really profitable than it should either have plenty of demand to expand or profit seeking competitors should enter the market to grab some of that profit. So it is a mystery to me how a lack of demand and lots of profits can be true simultaneously. The only thing I can think of is that businesses are unwilling to expand until they absolutely must (near full capacity), which differs from past expansions where businesses expanded in anticipation of future demand. Businesses laid off a lot of workers in the past few years and saw an increase in worker efficiency, due to both market forces (high unemployment) and technology. Demand shrank greatly and has remained deflated, but costs have come down and kept profits high. Not only that, however, but many companies survived the "great recession" by buying out competitors. Now, many businesses find themselves with a larger piece of their own respective pies, but see no way to make the pie bigger. Consequently, a guaranteed buyer (aka the government) for the next few years would improve business prospects and encourage them to make expansionary investments in an attempt to get some of that sweet, Uncle Sam pie. This would be directly, through years of bidding for projects, or indirectly, through starting businesses to take advantage of the boom in construction, teaching, public safety, etc. Nevertheless, you've both suggested spending money although JonnyBNoHo has been more specific on what - roads/infrastructure and other things that are useful to business. I've read that we have a $2 trillion backlog of needed maintenance & updates projects on our national infrastructure. Doing more of that now would both provide short-term jobs for construction workers and be useful for business expansion. Creating a long-term fiscal plan and simplifying the regulatory framework are probably good ideas even if we weren't in a weak economy. For that matter I think simplifying the tax code and proportionally lowering the marginal rates would be a good idea.
Of course. A lot of people advocate for tax and regulatory reform, but, in some ways, now is not the time. Any change, even simplification (unless it's MASSIVE simplification), will require analysis by businesses and consumers. It's a long term approach to a very immediate problem, and probably not an actual "solution." It could be years before people learn how to take full advantage of even the simplest of systems.
Expanding funding to local and state governments, though, to provide jobs for civil servants and starting capital for infrastructure, that is just straight up a good idea. There really isn't a credible reason to not do that, especially now that the federal government can borrow at record low rates. It's like getting offered an unlimited term mortgage for no down payment at 0.1% interest. You'd be stupid not to buy a house at those conditions.
Edit: By "now is not the time," I mean in terms of how quick we would see benefits of the reform and the amount of political grandstanding it would take to push through.
|
On August 02 2012 07:50 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 06:54 sunprince wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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.
We already know a decent amount about the heritability of intelligence. For you to insist that we don't know enough to make basic inferences is similar to how creationists insist that we don't know enough about evolution to make basic inferences. True, there's a lot we still don't know, but what we can do is make reasonably educated arguments on the subject.
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
On August 02 2012 07:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:40 sunprince wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
The study you quote sets up the same strawman that you've been arguing this whole time. Enough with it already, no one's arguing that "European", "African", or "East Asian" are valid groupings. Of course if you use such ludicrously unscientific categories, you won't be able to observe any useful data.
By contrast, if you use something like haplogroup populations, then you actually get something useful.
|
On August 02 2012 11:40 sunprince wrote:
Regardless, there is more to the selection effects we're talking about than mere intelligence. For example, one of the legacies of slavery is the culturally ingrained attitudes away from education, attitudes that were no doubt fostered by centuries of slaveowners brutally suppressing any slaves who dared to learn. By contrast, a large segment of the more recent waves of Asian immigrants are themselves better educated than average (or the children of better educated parents), with the obvious attendant selection effects on Asian-American cultural attitudes towards education.
This might be the most important aspect of all. Slaveowners did a lot to impress the culture of being a slave upon their slaves. When emancipation came, newly freed African Americans probably didn't have much in terms of an existing cultural basis to build upon - not in terms of what would enable them to become economically successful anyway - because theirs had been forced out of them. Even for the better part of a century after emancipation, there was widespread effort to prevent blacks from integrating into broader society.
Of the attempts to answer xDaunt's question so far, I think this has the most potential to be correct (or at least part of the answer).
|
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +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:
[quote]
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: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. No no, what I mean is that the conclusions of population genetics just aren't that offensive. Like they actually are not offensive. The fact that you are being accused of racism says to me that you are not understanding it properly.
Tautology. "The conclusions of population genetics aren't that offensive, therefore your conclusions are wrong because they are offensive." You've already assumed that said conclusions aren't offensive, without any basis for establishing this assumption.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
In this specific case, you brought up Neanderthals and such, but you didn't bring up the Cro-Magnons...
The current literature suggests that Cro-Magnons were simply the early modern humans of Europe.
If you have any studies on the subject of Cro-Magnon admixture, I'd be happy to read them. AFAIK, they don't yet exist, so there's nothing worth talking about unless you have a relevant inference/argument.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more.
I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist.
On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: Show nested quote +“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”
We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external.
Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States.
|
Not sure why so many people would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney. I can't see Mitt Romney doing much worse than all the lies Obama has made. It's kind of embarrassing that Obama won the Nobel peace prize, but yet he hasn't done much as far as created peace. The troops are still in the middle east. He says our medicare is bad, when it's not nearly as bad as other countries, and it seems like he's taking it for the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
44487
2394
715
367
195
EPT
