The Truth About Socialism

[fskimospy]

That's because the abstraction of the argument is pedantic and silly. No one argued that if a system is good that all the parts that make up the system must also be good. The argument was made that because the overall system was good, a specific part that plays a significant roll in the function of the system must also be good.

The argument was simple. If all the most successful economies in the world share a particular attribute, the most logical conclusion is that attribute is likely either a good thing or at least not an inhibitor of success.

He then responded with 'THEN RAPE MUST BE GOOD', and started digging the world's biggest and dumbest intellectual hole.

 

[realibrad]

That's because the abstraction of the argument is pedantic and silly. No one argued that if a system is good that all the parts that make up the system must also be good. The argument was made that because the overall system was good, a specific part that plays a significant roll in the function of the system must also be good.

Wow what? Are you trying to say that it must not be bad because many successful countries have a heavy mix of it?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When all of the most successful economies includes a strong dose of socialism the logical conclusion is that socialism is not an inhibitor to a successful economy and is most likely a contributor to it.

I mean surely you wouldn't dispute that socializing certain aspects of society provides superior economic outcomes to privatizing them?

That is exactly what happened.

 

[realibrad]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Facts.

 

[fskimospy]

That is exactly what happened.

Yes, thank you. I will include bolding so there's no mistaking things.

fskimospy said: ↑
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When all of the most successful economies includes a strong dose of socialism the logical conclusion is that socialism is not an inhibitor to a successful economy and is most likely a contributor to it.

No rational person would take that to indicate that every attribute of those societies is a contributor to economic success without question. No one. This is the dumbest hill to die on ever.

 

[mect]

That is exactly what happened.

Which supports exactly what I stated (except you left out the original post). The influence of a heavy mix of a significant component of a system cannot be ignored like the influence of a minor component. If I have a good car, that means that it has a reliable engine. It doesn't mean that the carpets are vacuumed.

 

[realibrad]

Yes, thank you. I will include bolding so there's no mistaking things.



No rational person would take that to indicate that every attribute of those societies is a contributor to economic success without question. No one. This is the dumbest hill to die on ever.

No, its that its not a large enough inhibitor to stop the overall growth of the economy. That is if the presumption is that socialism is bad.

 

[realibrad]

Which supports exactly what I stated (except you left out the original post). The influence of a heavy mix of a significant component of a system cannot be ignored like the influence of a minor component. If I have a good car, that means that it has a reliable engine. It doesn't mean that the carpets are vacuumed.

If its a good car, does it mean every part that makes up the car is perfect? No, as you clearly establish some parts may be less optimal, or actually bad. So when Spy says that if successful economies have socialism in them, thus socialism cannot be bad, that is flawed. Because the car can still be good, even with bad carpets.

 

[fskimospy]

If its a good car, does it mean every part that makes up the car is perfect? No, as you clearly establish some parts may be less optimal, or actually bad. So when Spy says that if successful economies have socialism in them, thus socialism cannot be bad, that is flawed. Because the car can still be good, even with bad carpets.

Literally no one said that socialism cannot be bad. For like the 10th time, I said what was the logical conclusion and what was likely. I've quoted it. You've quoted it. This is basic reading comprehension.

Jesus christ dude, STOP DIGGING A DEEPER HOLE.

 

[mect]

If its a good car, does it mean every part that makes up the car is perfect? No, as you clearly establish some parts may be less optimal, or actually bad. So when Spy says that if successful economies have socialism in them, thus socialism cannot be bad, that is flawed. Because the car can still be good, even with bad carpets.

So if a mechanic says the engine is good because the car runs well, he's wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

They do not have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not going any further on this, there is literally nothing to gain now.

I keep trying to warn you not to be a pin head but you can't see the point of what I say because you're a pin head. Everybody or at least most of us can tell you're a sincere and well meaning person, but that like a horse that wears blinders can only see directly in front of you. It's the perspective holistic situational contextual stuff you miss. I don't exactly know how you can fix it but the fact that it happens to you over and over with different people should tell you something I should think. Perhaps, instead of going straight down the road that is illuminated for you and makes you want to defend, you could instead explore what others see that makes them feel right. If others in fact see where your approach fails maybe they know better than you do as to why? Maybe you could include more consideration of what you might be missing than what you get. I think that when you attempt to argue based on the logic you see, you go down a blind alley. It isn't your arguments that are amenable to being straightened out via a logic debate, but that the answers you need lie in switching perspective. You double down on the narrow rather that expanding your understanding of context and where other people are coming from. Just some suggestions, probably not worth much.

 

[realibrad]

So if a mechanic says the engine is good because the car runs well, he's wrong.

The answer to yours is that he is right. Running well is a function of the engine as a system. Description of running well is a way to talk about the engine.

A better way would be to say the engine runs well, even though one of the rings is a bit worn and it burns some oil. The engine works and runs relatively well, but that does not make a worn ring good or bad. It does make it part of an overall system that runs well though.

 

[Moonbeam]

The answer to yours is that he is right. Running well is a function of the engine as a system. Description of running well is a way to talk about the engine.

A better way would be to say the engine runs well, even though one of the rings is a bit worn and it burns some oil. The engine works and runs relatively well, but that does not make a worn ring good or bad. It does make it part of an overall system that runs well though.

Good thoughts to keep in mind when evaluating ones own mental strength and weaknesses. A car with worn rings that is parked in a garage because of that subtracts from utility. And don't forget you entered a debate about socialism, a word that is guaranteed to generate a multitude of arguments that display a quivering mass of irrational prepackaged ignorant garbage. It's like trying to discuss the value of liberalism at a hoedown.

 

[realibrad]

Good thoughts to keep in mind when evaluating ones own mental strength and weaknesses. A car with worn rings that is parked in a garage because of that subtracts from utility. And don't forget you entered a debate about socialism, a word that is guaranteed to generate a multitude of arguments that display a quivering mass of irrational prepackaged ignorant garbage. It's like trying to discuss the value of liberalism at a hoedown.

Yeah well, if people want to get uppity about socialism they can. I pick and choose what I talk to people about. If I find something interesting I jump in.

A car parked does not run well, or at all for that matter.

 

[glenn1]

The argument was simple. If all the most successful economies in the world share a particular attribute, the most logical conclusion is that attribute is likely either a good thing or at least not an inhibitor of success.

You've still not explained causation rather than correlation. Without that you might as well be pointing out any random attribute that "the most successful countries in the world share" and attribute it to that instead. Saying "most successful countries are led by people with brown hair" is just as valid and supportable a claim as saying it was due to socialism.

 

[bshole]

I missed the nonliberals saying don't tax me bro because F the police, firemen, schools, bridges, roads, etc. The Anandtech "socialists" tend to think that taxing the crap out of people is going to redistribute wealth and nullify wealth inequality and isn't a government run trickle down economy. Increasing the taxes and costs to the people with the wealth is only going to be passed off to the have-nots.

I recognize that I or a member of my family could become ill with disease that could wipe me out financially. I recognize that medical bankruptcy is nonexistent in other 1st world nations and is the leading type of bankruptcy in America. I watched my in-laws be wiped out with medical issues, it took them a few years but they were able to transition from middle class to impoverished poor people. They died with nothing other than medical bills. You live in a fantasy world where you think medical issues only affect bad people or liberals and thus you will never be affected. You could not be more wrong.

Socialized medicine is an absolute benefit to middle class people and also to corporations which are saddled with paying for it.

 

[fskimospy]

You've still not explained causation rather than correlation. Without that you might as well be pointing out any random attribute that "the most successful countries in the world share" and attribute it to that instead. Saying "most successful countries are led by people with brown hair" is just as valid and supportable a claim as saying it was due to socialism.

This is the same silly 'correlation does not prove causation' argument that's already been dispensed with. Anyone who has ever taken stats 101 would know that your argument is nonsense. Of course correlation does not PROVE causation, but it is evidence for causation given two things:

1) A statistically significant relationship within your model.
2) A plausible causal mechanism.

Your example clearly fails part 2, so it is not even remotely as valid or supportable. You would be laughed out of the room by any competent analyst for making such a silly argument.

 

[bshole]

I missed the nonliberals saying don't tax me bro because F the police, firemen, schools, bridges, roads, etc. The Anandtech "socialists" tend to think that taxing the crap out of people is going to redistribute wealth and nullify wealth inequality and isn't a government run trickle down economy. Increasing the taxes and costs to the people with the wealth is only going to be passed off to the have-nots.

Yea, we tend to look at history and see how higher tax rates in the 50s and 60s objectively did in fact greatly lessen wealth inequality. Objective data tends to matter to us, (man are we idiots).

 

[mikeymikec]

That is irrelevant. The context is that you cannot argue that the parts that make up a system must be inherently good/bad simply because the overall system is labeled good/bad. You are trying to make it seem like I am equating again, and I did not. I took the underlying logic, replaced one system (economy) and one part of that system (socialism) and put in society and rape. If the underlying logic were sound, it should still hold true, and yet it does not. If the formula cannot have its inputs replaced, then its wrong.

Look, the only way your argument here is a valid one is to use the second sentence only. End of argument. While logically valid, It's a lame argument, like if someone shows off their new computer to me and I responded by saying, "it doesn't mean it's a good computer", it literally presents nothing of value to the conversation in itself. At best your comment an off-the-cuff observation tacked on to a relevant response regarding the topic. If you think that your opponent's argument is weak, then challenge it and respond with a stronger basis for your argument.

You talk of irrelevance even though I'm suggesting ways for you to present relevant argument stances. Rape is utterly irrelevant to the topic. Discussing the merits and disadvantages of socialism, preferably citing existing implementations and their consequences is relevant to the topic. The funniest part of you using that line of argument was that you were using it to disparage the quality of fskimospy's argument, yet it's more of a "you call that a crap argument? Hold my beer..." response.

Honestly, we're going around in circles. There's no doubt in my mind that you're going to give any ground in your argument, so by all means go on believing whatever you like. Considering that the quality of your argument since that post has not improved, you evidently have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. I mean christ, fskimospy's post was a basic opener to a discussion, simple and to the point, not the end of the intellectual rainbow with regard to logic and evidence-based discussion, yet five pages on that's where the discussion is still.

I personally would subscribe to the notion that if several reasonably healthy economies have some socialist principles at work, that's a pretty good indicator that the principles must have some positive relevance to building an improving society. To assume the opposite without any logical or factual basis is to assume that you, an armchair economist, know better than people who helped develop those systems. I'd call that an arrogant perspective to adopt, but first and foremost it's a fucking silly perspective.

 

[glenn1]

This is the same silly 'correlation does not prove causation' argument that's already been dispensed with. Anyone who has ever taken stats 101 would know that your argument is nonsense. Of course correlation does not PROVE causation, but it is evidence for causation given two things:

1) A statistically significant relationship within your model.
2) A plausible causal mechanism.

Your example clearly fails part 2, so it is not even remotely as valid or supportable. You would be laughed out of the room by any competent analyst for making such a silly argument.

Every single feature of "socialism" you mentioned earlier was a non-rivalrous good like roads which basically all nations have agreed to socialize and few conservatives or libertarians really disagree with. Having roads doesn't oblige us to therefore support wealth redistribution and you haven't made a single argument for why or how socializing any rivalrous or excludable goods would benefit anyone. It all comes down to "well the rich guy has more than me and that's not fair."

 

[jackstar7]

Every single feature of "socialism" you mentioned earlier was a non-rivalrous good like roads which basically all nations have agreed to socialize and few conservatives or libertarians really disagree with. Having roads doesn't oblige us to therefore support wealth redistribution and you haven't made a single argument for why or how socializing any rivalrous or excludable goods would benefit anyone. It all comes down to "well the rich guy has more than me and that's not fair."

Roads are a product of wealth redistribution.

And you might notice that many of the 'liberal' bent here aren't talking about themselves.

Conservatives sure do though.

 

[glenn1]

Yea, we tend to look at history and see how higher tax rates in the 50s and 60s objectively did in fact greatly lessen wealth inequality. Objective data tends to matter to us, (man are we idiots).

Income tax rates went up huge during the Great Depression and that didn't help. Actual data disputes your claim also. The longer term trendline on economic growth has been down since 1950 despite relatively high tax rates immediately after WW2. Each economic growth peak and valley was lower as the post WW2 economy went on.

 

[bshole]

Every single feature of "socialism" you mentioned earlier was a non-rivalrous good like roads which basically all nations have agreed to socialize and few conservatives or libertarians really disagree with. Having roads doesn't oblige us to therefore support wealth redistribution and you haven't made a single argument for why or how socializing any rivalrous or excludable goods would benefit anyone. It all comes down to "well the rich guy has more than me and that's not fair."

I got one for you. Insurance have a profit motive in denying you coverage or denying procedures. Your health is secondary to their wealth. I can see how patients would benefit from socializing medicine. Can you?

 

[glenn1]

Roads are a product of wealth redistribution.

And you might notice that many of the 'liberal' bent here aren't talking about themselves.

Conservatives sure do though.

It's a non-rivalrous good that benefits everyone and thus a good candidate for a "socialist" solution. Neither you, Fskimospy, or anyone has (or probably can) articulate a rationale for why socializing rivalrous goods is a good thing.

 

[bshole]

Income tax rates went up huge during the Great Depression and that didn't help. Actual data disputes your claim also. The longer term trendline on economic growth has been down since 1950 despite relatively high tax rates immediately after WW2. Each economic growth peak and valley was lower as the post WW2 economy went on.

I am sure you looked up the wealth inequality data which was what I was talking about, saw the data backed me up so in your response talked about something else entirely. Well done. Dishonest as all hell but well done.

 

[realibrad]

Look, the only way your argument here is a valid one is to use the second sentence only. End of argument. While logically valid, It's a lame argument, like if someone shows off their new computer to me and I responded by saying, "it doesn't mean it's a good computer", it literally presents nothing of value to the conversation in itself. At best your comment an off-the-cuff observation tacked on to a relevant response regarding the topic. If you think that your opponent's argument is weak, then challenge it and respond with a stronger basis for your argument.

If the person is proud of their new computer and you respond that way, it makes you a dick because the person is excited for their computer. If, however, that statement is made in the context as a rivalry in which the person believes that because the computer is new its better, then your response would make sense. If, that comment is made in the context about what computers are best, your response makes sense.

You talk of irrelevance even though I'm suggesting ways for you to present relevant argument stances. Rape is utterly irrelevant to the topic. Discussing the merits and disadvantages of socialism is relevant to the topic. The funniest part of you using that line of argument was that you were using it to disparage the quality of fskimospy's argument, yet it's more of a "you call that a crap argument? Hold my beer..." response.

I do not talk of it, I stated it, but whatever.

Rape is irrelevant to the topic yes.

Discussion the merits and disadvantages of socialism is also irrelevant to the topic yes.

No. I took his argument, switched out the items to exemplify how it was wrong.

Honestly, we're going around in circles. There's no doubt in my mind that you're going to give any ground in your argument, so by all means go on believing whatever you like. Considering that the quality of your argument since that post has not improved, you evidently have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. I mean christ, fskimospy's post was a basic opener to a discussion, simple and to the point, not the end of the intellectual rainbow with regard to logic and evidence-based discussion, yet five pages on that's where the discussion is still.

Okay.

I personally would subscribe to the notion that if several reasonably healthy economies have some socialist principles at work, that's a pretty good indicator that the principles must have some positive relevance to building an improving society. To assume the opposite without any logical or factual basis is to assume that you, an armchair economist, know better than people who helped develop those systems. I'd call that an arrogant perspective to adopt, but first and foremost it's just a fucking silly perspective.

Indicator, sure. Its reasonable to think that. To say conclusively disproven however is false. History does not have that power logically.