The Truth About Socialism

[glenn1]

What you just wrote is literally not one iota different than how I described your argument. I understood your argument perfectly well. You're saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" i.e. other variables besides socialism may be causing these countries to have strong economies. I get it.

The problem is that you're dismissing his observation of strong correlation as unpersuasive when in fact it's quite persuasive. Correlation doesn't prove causation to 100% certainty on its own. However, correlation is like circumstantial evidence in court - the stronger it is, the more powerful the inference of guilt, even though technically it never gets you to 100% certainty.

Let's use your chosen subject of rape to illustrate what I'm talking about. For decades, feminists have claimed that pornography causes rape. That's a hypothesis. Here are the empirical facts: over the past 20 years, consumption of pornography has increased about five fold due to the internet, while at the same time, in both the U.S. and Japan, rape has declined by about 60%. What we have here is a strong correlation, in this case an inverse one, where more pornography correlates with less rape. Yet we haven't proven to an absolute certainty that pornography decreases rape, or even that pornography doesn't increase it. Why? Because there could be many other variables which have caused rape to decline. Pornography could still be increasing rape, but five other variables are driving it down by more than pornography is increasing it.

However, the strength of this correlation does weaken the feminist hypothesis even if it doesn't quite dispose of it entirely. A less strong correlation would be like if pornography consumption went up by only 10% while at the same time rape went down by only 10%. There, the chance that other variables are driving the decline in rape is higher. But with the strength of this actual correlation, a five fold increase in the one correlating with a 60% drop in the other, it's a body blow to the feminist hypothesis even if it isn't quite a knockout punch.

The thing about economies in the world is that literally every successful economy where there is a high standard of living is one based on a mix of socialist and capitalist elements, while at the same time, the unsuccessful ones don't really have such a mix. In particular, less developed countries tend to have corrupt and incompetent governments which are not willing or able to dispense services, i.e. the kinds of things like social safety nets and guaranteed healthcare which are a function of socialistic policies. Accordingly, the correlational evidence is strong here, and hence, so too is the inference of causation.

If you want more certainty of causation, you're going to have to read some books or long articles on the subject which crunch a lot of data. In particular, you'll want to look at analyses of specific socialistic policies and see what the evidence suggests about the impact of implementing such policies in specific countries. You are unlikely to find a detailed analysis of "socialism" so much as specific policies which people often refer to as socialistic. If you find something interesting, go ahead and link it to generate further discussion.

So then success should scale with increasing socialism, right? Or you can use Occams Razor to observe that economic factors such as abundant oil wealth drives the “success” of many socialist nations like Norway and socialism does diddly squat to make like better in “unsuccessful” socialist countries. People like Fskimospy are conflating the value of socialist public goods with social welfare policies like somehow having roads means confiscatory tax rates and huge welfare state are the driver of the success.

 

[jackstar7]

So then success should scale with increasing socialism, right? Or you can use Occams Razor to observe that economic factors such as abundant oil wealth drives the “success” of many socialist nations like Norway and socialism does diddly squat to make like better in “unsuccessful” socialist countries. People like Fskimospy are conflating the value of socialist public goods with social welfare policies like somehow having roads means confiscatory tax rates and huge welfare state are the driver of the success.

Automation is going to make this a moot point.

 

[woolfe9998]

So then success should scale with increasing socialism, right?

Or perhaps the key is in having a proper balance of socialistic and capitalistic elements, where going too far in either direction ends up being detrimental. I'm pointing out that your statement above isn't necessarily a logical implication of what I said or of what Eski said. Remember, his observation isn't that every successful economy is "socialistic." It's that every successful economy is actually mixed.

Or you can use Occams Razor to observe that economic factors such as abundant oil wealth drives the “success” of many socialist nations like Norway and socialism does diddly squat to make like better in “unsuccessful” socialist countries. People like Fskimospy are conflating the value of socialist public goods with social welfare policies like somehow having roads means confiscatory tax rates and huge welfare state are the driver of the success.

Yet every country with a successful economy isn't oil rich, and some which are oil rich aren't that successful at anything except making some people rich from the oil. I think what you have to do is look at all the successful economies and compare them to the less successful ones and figure out which variables the successful ones have which they do not share with the unsuccessful ones. You would quickly rule out oil abundance as that variable is shared by countries on both lists.

It's complicated because there are many variables which can affect economic outcomes. But policy trends among successful countries can be identified.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually it just means you don’t know the difference between rivalrous and excludable goods. Primary education is an excludable good as you can hire more teachers, it’s not rivalrous because adding another student to an existing class doesn’t prevent the existing students from consuming.

You are correct, my mistake!

It also kinda proves my point the only socialism worth having are non-rivalrous things which create unambiguously positive externalities for everyone in society (like roads and primary education). There’s no positive externalities fur society for any activities done for “fairness” or redistributionist reasons, it’s a zero sum event basically by definition. Your feelings about fairness about wealth distribution isn’t a positive externality no matter how much you want it to be.

This is a false choice as primary education and other things like that are done in significant part for redistributionist reasons. If you mean straight up income redistribution that’s rarely done, it’s mostly an outsized payment for the previously mentioned services by the wealthy.

Who cares about feelings? I’m all for what works, and what works is taking additional income and wealth from the well off to pay for those public goods. Sounds like you’re fine with that so hopefully we can jack those rates back up soon.

 

[fskimospy]

Or perhaps the key is in having a proper balance of socialistic and capitalistic elements, where going too far in either direction ends up being detrimental. I'm pointing out that your statement above isn't necessarily a logical implication of what I said or of what Eski said. Remember, his observation isn't that every successful economy is "socialistic." It's that every successful economy is actually mixed.

Yet every country with a successful economy isn't oil rich, and some which are oil rich aren't that successful at anything except making some people rich from the oil. I think what you have to do is look at all the successful economies and compare them to the less successful ones and figure out which variables the successful ones have which they do not share with the unsuccessful ones. You would quickly rule out oil abundance as that variable is shared by countries on both lists.

It's complicated because there are many variables which can affect economic outcomes. But policy trends among successful countries can be identified.

In fact the truth is often the opposite when it comes to oil wealth. Hence the ‘resource curse’. If anything oil wealth is negatively correlated with a stable and productive society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

He was defeating his own point.

 

[Zaap]

Heh! I knew it wouldn't be long before the age old tactic of magically redefining socialism on the fly was employed to exclude the latest failed state that fell for way too damn much of it.

"Why... that socialist state Sean Penn type dipshits couldn't get enough of?? Doesn't count!

....Norway!"

Lol!

 

[realibrad]

What you just wrote is literally not one iota different than how I described your argument. I understood your argument perfectly well. You're saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" i.e. other variables besides socialism may be causing these countries to have strong economies. I get it.

The problem is that you're dismissing his observation of strong correlation as unpersuasive when in fact it's quite persuasive. Correlation doesn't prove causation to 100% certainty on its own. However, correlation is like circumstantial evidence in court - the stronger it is, the more powerful the inference of guilt, even though technically it never gets you to 100% certainty.

Let's use your chosen subject of rape to illustrate what I'm talking about. For decades, feminists have claimed that pornography causes rape. That's a hypothesis. Here are the empirical facts: over the past 20 years, consumption of pornography has increased about five fold due to the internet, while at the same time, in both the U.S. and Japan, rape has declined by about 60%. What we have here is a strong correlation, in this case an inverse one, where more pornography correlates with less rape. Yet we haven't proven to an absolute certainty that pornography decreases rape, or even that pornography doesn't increase it. Why? Because there could be many other variables which have caused rape to decline. Pornography could still be increasing rape, but five other variables are driving it down by more than pornography is increasing it.

However, the strength of this correlation does weaken the feminist hypothesis even if it doesn't quite dispose of it entirely. A less strong correlation would be like if pornography consumption went up by only 10% while at the same time rape went down by only 10%. There, the chance that other variables are driving the decline in rape is higher. But with the strength of this actual correlation, a five fold increase in the one correlating with a 60% drop in the other, it's a body blow to the feminist hypothesis even if it isn't quite a knockout punch.

The thing about economies in the world is that literally every successful economy where there is a high standard of living is one based on a mix of socialist and capitalist elements, while at the same time, the unsuccessful ones don't really have such a mix. In particular, less developed countries tend to have corrupt and incompetent governments which are not willing or able to dispense services, i.e. the kinds of things like social safety nets and guaranteed healthcare which are a function of socialistic policies. Accordingly, the correlational evidence is strong here, and hence, so too is the inference of causation.

If you want more certainty of causation, you're going to have to read some books or long articles on the subject which crunch a lot of data. In particular, you'll want to look at analyses of specific socialistic policies and see what the evidence suggests about the impact of implementing such policies in specific countries. You are unlikely to find a detailed analysis of "socialism" so much as specific policies which people often refer to as socialistic. If you find something interesting, go ahead and link it to generate further discussion.

So then what are you disagreeing with? I did not dismiss strong correlation, as I never took a stance. Do you believe that I have at some point?

 

[fskimospy]

Heh! I knew it wouldn't be long before the age old tactic of magically redefining socialism on the fly was employed to exclude the latest failed state that fell for way too damn much of it.

"Why... that socialist state Sean Penn type dipshits couldn't get enough of?? Doesn't count!

....Norway!"

Lol!

Just go to the Wikipedia article. The definition is not new.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Well, since that is the very first hypothesis that any great mind of scientific stature will come to, there are literally reams of data that has been collected to substantiate your point but in all those attempts and looking at the upside down backwards and sideways, no such evidence has ever been found. You should go for an example more scientifically preposterous if you want to sound convincing, something maybe more abstruse like whether the chimpanzees in a countries zoos have ingrown toenails. Something like that might earn you the Nobel prize in economics and the title of Doctor Amazing.

Maybe I should have said that this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics has more to do with economics than this, https://www.news-medical.net/health/Genetics-of-Hair-Color.aspx

Note the number of references to economics are present in each. It would seem then that an attribution to a possible connection between how socialist an economic system is or is not would have orders of magnitude more relevance in a discussion of the success of some economy vs what color the hair is of the leader in that economic system.

You are known to have economic bias that colors your views so your absurdity here is easily predicted.

 

[Zaap]

Just go to the Wikipedia article. The definition is not new.

There's not a single reputable person anywhere that posits Venezuela wasn't socialist. Not one.

Hell, dumb looking useful idiots as they were, I don't think diehard boobs like Oliver Stone or Gas Giant Moore would attempt to now back pedal that they weren't stumping for a socialist regime.

That's a crackpot attempt at redefining socialism on the freaking spot that leftists always attempt.

I knew it would happen in this thread... and it did.

 

[fskimospy]

There's not a single reputable person anywhere that posits Venezuela wasn't socialist. Not one.

Hell, dumb looking useful idiots as they were, I don't think diehard boobs like Oliver Stone or Gas Giant Moore would attempt to now back pedal that they weren't stumping for a socialist regime.

That's a crackpot attempt at redefining socialism on the freaking spot that leftists always attempt.

I knew it would happen in this thread... and it did.

Again, reference that article. This is not complicated.

 

[mect]

Sure, I'll admit that if you likewise admit those who need to pay for that patient to benefit are made worse off. Basically the entire argument about socialism comes down to whether you believe you'll "win" or "lose" in the end since all redistribution is doing is moving money from one pocket to another one. If it had positive effects on its own merits without losses then those who want to "help the little guy" would already be helping them via voluntary charity and we know they aren't. Even the language they use of "I'd gladly pay higher taxes to ____" admits they know they'd be the losers in the tradeoff and would only agree to it if forced by law.

Depending on how one defines "worse off", this can actually be incorrect. In terms of quality of life, the wealthy are actually not worse off because decreasing the amount of money they have has zero impact on their quality of life. Someone doesn't live any differently if they have 4 billion dollars compared to 8 billion dollars. Their quality of life is identical. On the other hand, someone lives a very different life if they have $80k compared to $40k. Even the only moderately wealthy are impacted significantly less than the poor and lower middle class gain. For the moderately wealthy, the difference is a slightly less luxurious vacation, a slightly less luxurious car. For the poor and lower middle class, its the ability to pay bills, necessities, and maybe even a nice thing or two without having to stress about where the money is going to come from. In other words, wealth redistribution set to the proper level has only minimal negative impacts on the wealthy while have significant positive impacts for the poor. In other words, it is a net benefit for society as a whole.

 

[jackstar7]

Depending on how one defines "worse off", this can actually be incorrect. In terms of quality of life, the wealthy are actually not worse off because decreasing the amount of money they have has zero impact on their quality of life. Someone doesn't live any differently if they have 4 billion dollars compared to 8 billion dollars. Their quality of life is identical. On the other hand, someone lives a very different life if they have $80k compared to $40k. Even the only moderately wealthy are impacted significantly less than the poor and lower middle class gain. For the moderately wealthy, the difference is a slightly less luxurious vacation, a slightly less luxurious car. For the poor and lower middle class, its the ability to pay bills, necessities, and maybe even a nice thing or two without having to stress about where the money is going to come from. In other words, wealth redistribution set to the proper level has only minimal negative impacts on the wealthy while have significant positive impacts for the poor. In other words, it is a net benefit for society as a whole.

You're sure you're not just jealous?

 

[glenn1]

Depending on how one defines "worse off", this can actually be incorrect. In terms of quality of life, the wealthy are actually not worse off because decreasing the amount of money they have has zero impact on their quality of life. Someone doesn't live any differently if they have 4 billion dollars compared to 8 billion dollars. Their quality of life is identical. On the other hand, someone lives a very different life if they have $80k compared to $40k. Even the only moderately wealthy are impacted significantly less than the poor and lower middle class gain. For the moderately wealthy, the difference is a slightly less luxurious vacation, a slightly less luxurious car. For the poor and lower middle class, its the ability to pay bills, necessities, and maybe even a nice thing or two without having to stress about where the money is going to come from. In other words, wealth redistribution set to the proper level has only minimal negative impacts on the wealthy while have significant positive impacts for the poor. In other words, it is a net benefit for society as a whole.

So why can't I make the same argument that someone in Africa making $1/day should be able to plunder from that person making $40k? After all to them you won't miss the extra tens of thousands of dollars, you have electricity and indoor plumbing for godsakes. That's the problem, would-be socialists always exclude themselves from their grand plans because they define rich as someone with just a little bit more than them. "I'm not rich, you can barely survive in San Francisco on just $250k/year" is the rallying cry. In the U.S. the biggest purveyors of this crap are almost always those living in and directly benefiting from the inequality they claim to decry, for example if it were a country NYC would have the 6th highest GINI index in the world. Wealthy urban dwellers take enormous strides to purposely separate themselves (and especially their kids in schools) from the poor yet the problem is that some Republican surburbanite not agreeing to get hosed with higher taxes is at fault for that? Blue staters keep on telling us how we'd all be poor dirt farmers without them, why don't they fix the problem themselves rather than waiting for the poor red state folks to bail out the poor in their own damn cities?

 

[nickqt]

So why can't I make the same argument that someone in Africa making $1/day should be able to plunder from that person making $40k? After all to them you won't miss the extra tens of thousands of dollars, you have electricity and indoor plumbing for godsakes. That's the problem, would-be socialists always exclude themselves from their grand plans because they define rich as someone with just a little bit more than them. "I'm not rich, you can barely survive in San Francisco on just $250k/year" is the rallying cry. In the U.S. the biggest purveyors of this crap are almost always those living in and directly benefiting from the inequality they claim to decry, for example if it were a country NYC would have the 6th highest GINI index in the world. Wealthy urban dwellers take enormous strides to purposely separate themselves (and especially their kids in schools) from the poor yet the problem is that some Republican surburbanite not agreeing to get hosed with higher taxes is at fault for that? Blue staters keep on telling us how we'd all be poor dirt farmers without them, why don't they fix the problem themselves rather than waiting for the poor red state folks to bail out the poor in their own damn cities?

You just dropped a fucking mega buttload of napalm on that carefully-constructed strawman. I'm in awe.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sure, I'll admit that if you likewise admit those who need to pay for that patient to benefit are made worse off.

You had to pay for roads you did not use. Are you "worse off"?

When it comes to medicare for all, the benefit would be you and your family never going bankrupt over medical bills. Your hospitals not closing due to lack of payments. Small lumps on your body NOT being ignored because it's far too costly to pay up front for that $1,000 removal and test. Heaven forbid if you need some scans for it, add a !@#$ing zero to the cost. Kidney stone, are those unheard of? $60,000 to remove. YOU TRY PAYING FOR THAT OUT OF POCKET. 6/10 Americans don't have $500.

Worse off, yeah, it'd be so terrible if they actually had medical care. They might have a chance in hell of living, and not going bankrupt.

 

[mect]

You're sure you're not just jealous?

Nope, I'm not at all jealous. I'm actually content with what I make, which is only median income. But I think it would benefit society as a whole. It would decrease crime, decrease prison costs, improve neighborhoods and communities, and restore a sense of the American dream. For the first time in the history of the US, the next generation is projected to be worse off than their parents. Not because of the economy, but because all the gains are going to the top. I just don't understand how anyone can think that's a good thing.

 

[glenn1]

You had to pay for roads you did not use. Are you "worse off"?

When it comes to medicare for all, the benefit would be you and your family never going bankrupt over medical bills. Your hospitals not closing due to lack of payments. Small lumps on your body NOT being ignored because it's far too costly to pay up front for that $1,000 removal and test. Heaven forbid if you need some scans for it, add a !@#$ing zero to the cost. Kidney stone, are those unheard of? $60,000 to remove. YOU TRY PAYING FOR THAT OUT OF POCKET.

Worse off, yeah, it'd be so terrible if they actually had medical care. They might have a chance in hell of living, and not going bankrupt.

Everyone can benefit from roads even if they never wind up driving on them. Nobody but you benefits from others paying to have your kidney stone fixed.

Pretty much the only “free” medical care which provides a positive externality to society is vaccinations. Otherwise it’s just a utilitarian function of not wanting to see dead indigents blocking doorways of hospitals when the better class of paying customers shows up; we give you minimal possible care in the ER for the cost to you of time opportunity cost.

Unless I’m one of your creditors IDGAF if you go bankrupt. If you (wrongly) think it’s a benefit to society then pull out your wallet and pay for it yourself.

 

[mect]

So why can't I make the same argument that someone in Africa making $1/day should be able to plunder from that person making $40k? After all to them you won't miss the extra tens of thousands of dollars, you have electricity and indoor plumbing for godsakes. That's the problem, would-be socialists always exclude themselves from their grand plans because they define rich as someone with just a little bit more than them. "I'm not rich, you can barely survive in San Francisco on just $250k/year" is the rallying cry. In the U.S. the biggest purveyors of this crap are almost always those living in and directly benefiting from the inequality they claim to decry, for example if it were a country NYC would have the 6th highest GINI index in the world. Wealthy urban dwellers take enormous strides to purposely separate themselves (and especially their kids in schools) from the poor yet the problem is that some Republican surburbanite not agreeing to get hosed with higher taxes is at fault for that? Blue staters keep on telling us how we'd all be poor dirt farmers without them, why don't they fix the problem themselves rather than waiting for the poor red state folks to bail out the poor in their own damn cities?

Yeah, Warren Buffet just wants those making more than him to pay their fare share.

 

[ElFenix]

So the 50th percentile had their wealth double from 1963 to 1983 and up another 15% from 1983 to 2016. That's a great thing. Your problem is you're too focused on what someone else got to appreciate your own good fortune. Stop trying to "keep up with the joneses" of the higher percentiles and you'll be a lot happier and mentally balanced.

you'll have your crumbs and you'll like them!

 

[Jaskalas]

Everyone can benefit from roads even if they never wind up driving on them. Nobody but you benefits from others paying to have your...

You or your family have never seen a doctor, never been to a Hospital?
You in no way benefit from insurance?

"Everyone can benefit from healthcare even if they never wind up using it". Isn't that your point with roads?
Remember, currently 6 in 10 can barely afford to SEE a Doctor, let alone afford to get anything out of it.

Unless I’m one of your creditors IDGAF if you...

There's the truth of it. You don't care if people are sick and needy. You'd rather see them "get what they deserve", is that right? You are the antithesis of the New Deal and of the social order that cares what happens to other people. You think you're better than everyone, that you'll never be in that position.

 

[twjr]

Everyone can benefit from roads even if they never wind up driving on them. Nobody but you benefits from others paying to have your kidney stone fixed.

Pretty much the only “free” medical care which provides a positive externality to society is vaccinations. Otherwise it’s just a utilitarian function of not wanting to see dead indigents blocking doorways of hospitals when the better class of paying customers shows up; we give you minimal possible care in the ER for the cost to you of time opportunity cost.

Unless I’m one of your creditors IDGAF if you go bankrupt. If you (wrongly) think it’s a benefit to society then pull out your wallet and pay for it yourself.

So sick people don't have a cost to society and the economy?

 

[woolfe9998]

So then what are you disagreeing with? I did not dismiss strong correlation, as I never took a stance. Do you believe that I have at some point?

Then what was your point? That strong correlation doesn't get us to 100% certainty about causation? If you had just said that, there would be no argument here.

 

[jackstar7]

Everyone can benefit from roads even if they never wind up driving on them. Nobody but you benefits from others paying to have your kidney stone fixed.

Pretty much the only “free” medical care which provides a positive externality to society is vaccinations. Otherwise it’s just a utilitarian function of not wanting to see dead indigents blocking doorways of hospitals when the better class of paying customers shows up; we give you minimal possible care in the ER for the cost to you of time opportunity cost.

Unless I’m one of your creditors IDGAF if you go bankrupt. If you (wrongly) think it’s a benefit to society then pull out your wallet and pay for it yourself.

"I got mine." on display.

 

[rommelrommel]

So sick people don't have a cost to society and the economy?

I guess not if you just let them die. I assume this extends to letting their children die from starvation afterwards. Just toss in summary executions for people that can’t afford the court system and I think you’d have the costs down pretty much. Legalize long pork and you might even break even.