or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › And yet another free-market theory failure
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

And yet another free-market theory failure - Page 7

post #241 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Use your logical faculties. For once. Instead of the Randian autopilot.

The direction of the change means nothing if the end point is still “socialism.”

RE-READ THAT SENTENCE.

Sweden is a success. Its economic policy is impossible in American terms

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #242 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


This reply means nothing.

It is not an argument. It is not a rebuttal.

It is a pair of smilies.

Grow some balls and actually respond to my post. What you've written means fuck all.
post #243 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

This reply means nothing.

It means there is no reply to your bizarre and illogical post. Your post contained so much ignorance and stupidity that is got exactly the response it deserved.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #244 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It means there is no reply to your bizarre and illogical post. Your post contained so much ignorance and stupidity that is got exactly the response it deserved.

Fucking lame.

You said that Sweden was successful simply because it was moving away from "socialism."

I said that that was an illogical, foolish thing to write since its economic policy was still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America was supposedly moving leftwards.

And you duck out with a pair of smilies rather than even attempting to answer the point.

Pathetic.
post #245 of 338
Thread Starter 
It's almost like they're saying that the key to economic success is constantly moving away from socialism. Constantly. Never stopping. Of course we know what the end point of that is. It starts with an A.

If there's anything that Sweden and Canada have proved, it's that at some time in a nation's history, that nation can move WAY towards the socialist side, and still have a more socialist -- and more successful -- end point than the US. Perhaps if the US moved WAY toward the Socialist side, and then moved slightly to the right (but still way left of the starting point), we could see some of that success.

I expect a smilie in return...
post #246 of 338
Sweden is awesome because it has trees.


Respond to that statement ^^^.

If you don't respond, you are an idiot.

If you respond in a manner I don't approve, you are an idiot.

If you write a well thought-out post in response to it but I disagree with it, you are an idiot.

GO!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #247 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Sweden is awesome because it has trees.


Respond to that statement ^^^.

If you don't respond, you are an idiot.

If you respond in a manner I don't approve, you are an idiot.

If you write a well thought-out post in response to it but I disagree with it, you are an idiot.

GO!

Bingo! Whatever our response, we can expect a counter-response such as this one...

Quote:
It means there is no reply to your bizarre and illogical post. Your post contained so much ignorance and stupidity that is got exactly the response it deserved.

Yep. You've described the right's way of responding to argument perfectly. As was just demonstrated perfectly.
post #248 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, whatever our response, we can expect a counter-response like this...



Yep. You've described the right's way of responding to argument perfectly.

FAIL.

Next?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #249 of 338
I guess they must have handed out weekend passes today.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #250 of 338
Thread Starter 
I rest my case. Irony, anyone?
post #251 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I rest my case. Irony, anyone?

How utterly lame.

You are [insert some bizarre statement about what you are doing here] rather than even attempting to answer the point.

Pathetic.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #252 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Sweden is awesome because it has trees.


Respond to that statement ^^^.

If you don't respond, you are an idiot.

If you respond in a manner I don't approve, you are an idiot.

If you write a well thought-out post in response to it but I disagree with it, you are an idiot.

GO!

Oh good heavens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


That is not "a well thought-out response". Is that your idea of a "well thought-out response?

I made a response.

Quote:
The direction of the change means nothing if the end point is still socialism.

I even repeated it.

Quote:
I said that that was an illogical, foolish thing to write since its economic policy was still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America was supposedly moving leftwards.

And you see, I'm still arguing the subject. I'm still on topic. Neither of you are.

Come back when you're prepared to actually argue on topic.
post #253 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Oh good heavens.



That is not "a well thought-out response". Is that your idea of a "well thought-out response?

I made a response.



I even repeated it.



And you see, I'm still arguing the subject. I'm still on topic. Neither of you are.

Come back when you're prepared to actually argue on topic.

Can you please tell me where in this post you mentioned anything related to the topic? I seem to have missed it.

All I see are statements about what you think I and MJ1970 are doing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #254 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I guess they must have handed out weekend passes today.

Instead of lame one-liners, we were having an argument.

Quote:
I said that that was an illogical, foolish thing to write since its economic policy was still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America was supposedly moving leftwards.

You want to answer that and get this thread back on track or just continue writing an hominem bullshit about "day passes"?
post #255 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I even repeated it.

And repetition doesn't make your statement any more true.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #256 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Can you please tell me where in this post you mentioned anything related to the topic? I seem to have missed it.

All I see are statements about what you think I and MJ1970 are doing.

Why do I ever bother doing you people the courtesy of assuming you want to defend your arguments like grown ups?
post #257 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And repetition doesn't make your statement any more true.

And taking ad hominem pot shots rather than arguing on the substance of what I wrote doesn't make you honourable, brave or grown up.
post #258 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Why do I ever bother doing you people the courtesy of assuming you want to defend your arguments like grown ups?

Are you back on topic yet?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #259 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And taking ad hominem pot shots rather than arguing on the substance of what I wrote doesn't make you honourable, brave or grown up.

You just took an ad hominem pot shot in telling him he is taking ad hominem pot hot shots.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #260 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And taking ad hominem pot shots rather than arguing on the substance of what I wrote doesn't make you honourable, brave or grown up.

It's interesting. You're not here for a long time. You come in and suddenly make a couple of snarky and/or inflammatory posts in direct reply to my posts, followed by bizarre and illogical posts that claim to make some point and then you're surprised when the reaction starts getting snotty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #261 of 338
OK. Let's get this back on topic.

MJ1970 wrote this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Interesting.

Sweden starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.

Canada starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.

The US moves toward socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing worse.

I see a pattern here.

My reply to that post is this.

I believe that that post is illogical, because Sweden's economic policy is still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America is supposedly moving leftwards.

So, do you have a reply? Either of you? Let's get this back on topic. Come on.
post #262 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


No, but I guess I can assume from example that this makes my argument true.
post #263 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I believe that that post is illogical, because Sweden's economic policy is still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America is supposedly moving leftwards.

This statement in no way counters or rebuts MJ1970's statements.

He stated that Sweden is moving away from socialism/fascism and as it does, its prosperity increases.

You respond with a vague comparison between Sweden and the U.S.?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #264 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's almost like they're saying that the key to economic success is constantly moving away from socialism. Constantly. Never stopping. Of course we know what the end point of that is. It starts with an A.

If there's anything that Sweden and Canada have proved, it's that at some time in a nation's history, that nation can move WAY towards the socialist side, and still have a more socialist -- and more successful -- end point than the US. Perhaps if the US moved WAY toward the Socialist side, and then moved slightly to the right (but still way left of the starting point), we could see some of that success.

I expect a smilie in return...

And having seen that MJ was too ignorant to understand Mumbo's point [edit: and apparently Jazzy too], I clarified it in more direct terms here.

And I still expect a smilie or snarky dismissal in return. Because that's what you do.
post #265 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And having seen that MJ was too ignorant to understand Mumbo's point [edit: and apparently Jazzy too], I clarified it in more direct terms here.

And I still expect a smilie or snarky dismissal in return. Because that's what you do.

Nice ad-homs. You guys are on a roll today.

How about getting back on topic?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #266 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

OK. Let's get this back on topic.

MJ1970 wrote this:



My reply to that post is this.

I believe that that post is illogical, because Sweden's economic policy is still radically to the left of American economic policy, which isn't as successful, even though America is supposedly moving leftwards.

So, do you have a reply? Either of you? Let's get this back on topic. Come on.

You left off this part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Christ, do you actually do any thinking at all before your stupid, illogical automatic pot-shots?

And here was my reply to that post.

Quote:
It is because Sweden (and Canada) have started stepping back (however slightly) from their socialist policies that growth has happened and returned. It is because the US has move more toward these types of a policies that its economy has sputtered.

It is not an absolute point on the scale it is the move and the direction.

The original claim in this thread was that Sweden, Canada, et al were doing better (based on a dubious statistic) over a period of time and that this was a clear discrediting of free-marketism (of which the US is a supposed example). Since that claim, several facts have been posted pointing out that these countries appear to have experience new economic growth as a result of their new trending toward more freedom while the US has experienced relatively more difficulty as it has trending away from freedom.

You have now claimed that it is the absolute points on a spectrum that matter.

I believe this is untrue.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #267 of 338
In what way are Sweden and Canada "more successful"? The stock market index?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #268 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This statement in no way counters or rebuts MJ1970's statements.

He stated that Sweden is moving away from socialism/fascism and as it does, its prosperity increases.

You respond with a vague comparison between Sweden and the U.S.?

Sigh. I didn't make the comparison. Your anarchist friend did. Here:

Quote:
Interesting.

Sweden starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.

Canada starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.

The US moves toward socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing worse.

I see a pattern here.

The argument being made here is that the further you move from "socialism", the better the economy does.

Right? Right.

So, my point is this.

That arguement is illogical. Why? Because Sweden's economic policy is still radically to the left of American economic policy. Sweden is doing better than America. Even though America is supposedly moving leftwards.

So, now I have explained my argument, perhaps you would like to try again.
post #269 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So, my point is this.

That arguement is illogical. Why? Because Sweden's economic policy is still radically to the left of American economic policy. Sweden is doing better than America. Even though America is supposedly moving leftwards.

Perhaps speaking in specifics will help here. In what specific way is Sweden doing better than the US?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #270 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In what way are Sweden and Canada "more successful"? The stock market index?

Basic standard of living for the majority of citizens. Never did answer that 10% question, did you. Because you know the answer.
post #271 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Perhaps speaking in specifics will help here. In what specific way is Sweden doing better than the US?

How about standard of living, press freedom, position on the global happiness index, poverty, crime, mean wealth and hourly labour compensation (wages)?
post #272 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Basic standard of living for the majority of citizens.

Will you please objectively quantify "basic standard of living"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Never did answer that 10% question, did you. Because you know the answer.

Quote:
The weaknesses of Gini largely lie in its relative nature: It loses information about absolute national and personal incomes. Countries may have identical Gini coefficients, but differ greatly in wealth. Basic necessities may be equal (available to all) in a rich country, while in the poor country, even basic necessities are unequally available. In addition, Gini does not address causes: income equality may reflect differences in opportunity, or capability. For example, some countries may have a social class structure that presents barriers to upward mobility; some people may have more skills than others. By measuring inequality in income, the Gini ignores the differential efficiency of use of household income. By ignoring wealth (except as it contributes to income) the Gini can create the appearance of inequality when the people compared are at different stages in their life. Wealthy countries (e.g. Sweden) can appear more equal, yet have high Gini coefficients for wealth (for instance 77% of the share value owned by households is held by just 5% of Swedish shareholding households).[13][dead link] These factors are not assessed in income-based Gini.

Quote:
For a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient will be calculated for the country as a whole than will be calculated for each of its regions. (The coefficient is usually applied to measurable nominal income rather than local purchasing power, tending to increase the calculated coefficient across larger areas.)

As is the case for any single measure of a distribution, economies with similar incomes and Gini coefficients can still have very different income distributions. This results from differing shapes of the Lorenz curve.

Quote:
Too often only the Gini coefficient is quoted without describing the proportions of the quantiles used for measurement. As with other inequality coefficients, the Gini coefficient is influenced by the granularity of the measurements. For example, five 20% quantiles (low granularity) will usually yield a lower Gini coefficient than twenty 5% quantiles (high granularity) taken from the same distribution. This is an often encountered problem with measurements.

Care should be taken in using the Gini coefficient as a measure of egalitarianism, as it is properly a measure of income dispersion. For example, if two equally egalitarian countries pursue different immigration policies, the country accepting a higher proportion of low-income or impoverished migrants will be assessed as less equal (gain a higher Gini coefficient).

Quote:
Comparing income distributions among countries may be difficult because benefits systems may differ. For example, some countries give benefits in the form of money while others give food stamps, which might not be counted by some economists and researchers as income in the Lorenz curve and therefore not taken into account in the Gini coefficient. Income in the United States is counted before benefits, while in France it is counted after benefits, which may lead the United States to appear somewhat more unequal vis-a-vis France.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #273 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

How about standard of living, press freedom, position on the global happiness index, poverty, crime, mean wealth and hourly labour compensation (wages)?

Will you please objectively quantify "standard of living" and "happiness index"?

Links for press freedom (this seems like it has more to do with invasive government than anything else), poverty, crime, mean wealth (what's that?) and wages (because it looks liked median income is much lower in Sweden than the US.)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #274 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Will you please objectively quantify "basic standard of living"?

Just as soon as you name one "basic necessity" that's not equally available to all in Sweden.

But I know basic standard of living and it's...



Not this.
post #275 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post



Not this.

I said objectively quantify not random anecdotal pictures.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #276 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just as soon as you name one "basic necessity" that's not equally available to all in Sweden.

Umm...no. You've made a claim that the "basic standard of living for a majority of the people" is better in Sweden. The burden is yours to substantiate this claim. It begins with objectively quantifying "basic standard of living". We already know that "a majority of the people" is more than 50%. So...let's have it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #277 of 338
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Umm...no. You've made a claim that the "basic standard of living for a majority of the people" is better in Sweden. The burden is yours to substantiate this claim. It begins with objectively quantifying "basic standard of living". We already know that "a majority of the people" is more than 50%. So...let's have it.

And you've made a claim that the GINI index is unreliable because (among other equally lame excuses) basic necessities may not be equally available. The burden of proof that the GINI index is not an effective way to measure income equality is on you. Tell me what basic necessities are not equally available in Sweden, or admit that your unattributed quoteathon is not applicable to this example.

And then... that's where my photo comes in. We know there are hundreds of thousands of homeless in the US. There are none in Sweden.
post #278 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And you've made a claim that the GINI index is unreliable because (among other equally lame excuses)...

So you'd like to systematically refute the problems listed with the Gini coefficient?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The burden of proof that the GINI index is not an effective way to measure income equality is on you.

Actually the quotes (from the Wiki page on the Gini coefficient) wasn't claiming it didn't measure income inequality it was merely pointing out relevant problems with such an index. In fact right one of the passages I quoted it says:

Quote:
Care should be taken in using the Gini coefficient as a measure of egalitarianism, as it is properly a measure of income dispersion.

But we've already been through a simple exercise that demonstrated that income inequality/gap/dispersion doesn't necessarily mean anything like what you think it means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Tell me what basic necessities are not equally available in Sweden, or admit that your unattributed quoteathon is not applicable to this example.

No. That's not the question. The claim you have made that the "basic standard of living for a majority of the people" is better in Sweden. You then appear to have tried to use the a reference to the Gini coefficient as proof of your claim which it is not. Now, are you going to substantiate your claim in some way?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #279 of 338
Thread Starter 
Show me a photo like this from Sweden...



Anyone who ever has been in an American city knows that this kind of thing is EVERYWHERE in the US. In Every city. Well, guess what? People sit on those chairs because they are poor. They sleep in those alleyways because they are poor. The wrong type of person walking in the wrong part of town is in deep shit because so many people are poor. This is undeniable.

Fellowship has pointed out that there are poor neighborhoods in Paris. I've been to Paris as well, and I've walked through the streets. It's nothing like this ANYWHERE. Anyone who says Paris is just as bad as Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, New York City... anyone who says that is a LIAR.

But we're talking about Sweden now. Where are the Swedish slums? Is that not an indicator of standard of living?
post #280 of 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Show me a photo like this from Sweden...



Anyone who ever has been in an American city knows that this kind of thing is EVERYWHERE in the US. In Every city. Well, guess what? People sit on those chairs because they are poor. They sleep in those alleyways because they are poor. The wrong type of person walking in the wrong part of town is in deep shit because so many people are poor. This is undeniable.

Fellowship has pointed out that there are poor neighborhoods in Paris. I've been to Paris as well, and I've walked through the streets. It's nothing like this ANYWHERE. Anyone who says Paris is just as bad as Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, New York City... anyone who says that is a LIAR.

But we're talking about Sweden now. Where are the Swedish slums? Is that not an indicator of standard of living?

Indeed, those cities (and others like Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.) appear to be a pretty damning indictment of liberal Democratic leadership, management and policies.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › And yet another free-market theory failure