Economic systems

Started by Quetzalcoatl, December 26, 2022, 10:31:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

gmalivuk

#1515
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 10:58:20 AMWe could decide in our discussion to only refer to OWiD, because it has a lot of information, reliable information.
You yourself have posted links to GapMinder, which is where I first encountered the Sustainable Development Index, and at that time said it was a fine source to use.
Can you show this?
Can I show what? That sustainable development is on Gapminder? You can find that yourself.
So you can't? Okay.
So you can't be bothered to check, but still maintain that you're the one who cares about data.

Here you go, you lazy troll.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 02:31:32 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:33:25 AM
QuoteSo it would help to keep our discussion grounded. That would be better than you referring to the Jacobin
I referred to the Jacobin article in a similar way to how you constantly link to Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with the sources of the data therein, say that. Don't just dismiss them sight unseen because they happened to be linked to from an article you disagree with ideologically.
Wikipedia is a reliable, non-ideological source.
Wikipedia is as reliable as the people who edit it an the sources it links. I explicitly said I was using Jacobin because it was a convenient collection of links to the data they discuss.

But since you have no response to (and indeed probably haven't even bothered to look at) that data, you attack the incidental article I quoted instead.
Haha dude, I am the one who quotes data all the time. You even have complained about that I do that all the time.
Haha dude, do you not know what "that" means?

If you have looked at the data discussed in the Jacobin article, then why are you even still whining that it was in Jacobin? Is it because you don't have any coherent objections to the data itself but still want to dismiss it?


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 02:31:32 PM
QuoteHow come that I always refer to reliable sources and data, and you guys always refer to highly ideological outlets? Does that suggest anything at all to you?
It suggests that you're making shit up about our sources and how they're responded to.

Give one example where I have "made shit up" as you referred to.
When you said, "I always refer to reliable sources and data, and you guys always refer to highly ideological outlets". You can see that you said it if you scroll up to the post where you said it, or to the post where I quoted it, or the post where you quoted me quoting it, or indeed this very post you're reading right now.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 02:31:32 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 10:58:20 AMCan you outline the criteria by which Russia is by some combination more developed and more environmentally sustainable than Denmark and Sweden?
https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/methods
Still no mounting of a defense of its ranking and therefore methodology from you. I suspect it will never come.
Why should I defend something you haven't looked into enough to attack from any point other than your dislike of its conclusions? Attack a specific part of the methodology and I might defend it.

I did exactly that, just below.
Yes, you did that after you criticized me for "still no mounting of a defense". Do you understand that I cannot travel back in time and respond to something before you say it?


Quote
QuoteFrom the link:

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 02:31:32 PM
QuoteGiven that income is so tightly coupled with ecological impact, it makes sense to look at nations that achieve high levels of human development with moderate levels of income as models to emulate in the process of designing more sustainable approaches to development, rather than punishing such countries for not having high income, as the HDI does.
So countries with higher incomes per capita are penalized in the index because they are assumed to be less sustainable.
No, they are not. They just don't get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth.
That doesn't happen in the HDI (or IHDI) either. You clearly are not very familiar with it.
If you're so familiar, then why don't you explain exactly how HDI prevents it from happening, and then explain why the way SDI does it is so horrible in comparison.

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: Harry Black on February 03, 2024, 06:53:37 PMIm not arsed clicking your link until you engage with mine but i dont dispute the stats on poverty as they have been gathered and presented.

What are you talking about? I am discussing with your fan, including his links. So yes I engage with you guys's links.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 03, 2024, 06:53:37 PMThey are just fucking irrelevent to the discussion.

No, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant. To claim otherwise is you speaking from your privileged ivory tower in one of the world's most highly developed countries.
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 07:26:26 PM
Quote
QuoteFrom the link:

Quote
QuoteGiven that income is so tightly coupled with ecological impact, it makes sense to look at nations that achieve high levels of human development with moderate levels of income as models to emulate in the process of designing more sustainable approaches to development, rather than punishing such countries for not having high income, as the HDI does.
So countries with higher incomes per capita are penalized in the index because they are assumed to be less sustainable.
No, they are not. They just don't get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth.
That doesn't happen in the HDI (or IHDI) either. You clearly are not very familiar with it.
If you're so familiar, then why don't you explain exactly how HDI prevents it from happening, and then explain why the way SDI does it is so horrible in comparison.

This is the only part of the post where you even tried to post substantively, without stomping on insults and discussing words and "Why did you do X?" kind of posts.

The HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

gmalivuk

#1518
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:36:15 PMSo yes I engage with you guys's links.
Finding flimsy excuses to dismiss links so you don't have to learn anything new is not discussion or engagement.


QuoteNo, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant.
That's a big if, for reasons we've been pointing out to you for months. And even if true, it is irrelevant to the things you're trying to conclude from it, including that capitalism is the only or primary reason for the change and that it somehow disproves any research about wealth and resource transfer that you can use it to avoid ever actually looking at the evidence and research about wealth and resource transfer.


QuoteTo claim otherwise is you speaking from your privileged ivory tower
You sure like to talk about privilege a lot for someone who has at least as much as anyone else in this discussion and who evidently doesn't even understand what it is or how it works.

And in any case, no one is suggesting that declining poverty or increasing life expectancy or whatever else is irrelevant to the people it's happening to. That's just some more bullshit you made up and threw out because it's easier than making any real arguments.


Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:38:11 PMThe HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
So you don't actually know, then? If a hypothetical country had a GDP per capita of say, a billion dollars, do you know how, methodologically, the HDI and IHDI would prevent that country from ending up with far and away the highest index?

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:36:15 PMSo yes I engage with you guys's links.
Finding flimsy excuses to dismiss links so you don't have to learn anything new is not discussion or engagement.

I am engaging you right now, which is more than you deserve. Stop complaining.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteNo, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant.
That's a big if, for reasons we've been pointing out to you for months.

Huh? According to Harry Black, "No one is disputing the data cited.".

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PMAnd even if true, it is irrelevant to the things you're trying to conclude from it, including that capitalism is the only or primary reason for the change

As has been explained to you, it is about institutions. Democracy ensures that bad leaders can be voted out. A capitalist economic system works better than the alternative. That has been the result every single time.

And you can read what experts think, who I align myself with rather than just making up what I think.

- Extreme poverty: How far have we come, and how far do we still have to go?

- Historical poverty reductions: more than a story about 'free-market capitalism'

It is incredible that the fact that I refer to reliable sources and data, and you refer to highly ideological outlets, tells you nothing at all.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PMand that it somehow disproves any research about wealth and resource transfer that you can use it to avoid ever actually looking at the evidence and research about wealth and resource transfer.

Contrary to the disinformation you are spreading, poor countries are much better off today than they were a few decades ago.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteTo claim otherwise is you speaking from your privileged ivory tower
You sure like to talk about privilege a lot for someone who has at least as much as anyone else in this discussion and who evidently doesn't even understand what it is or how it works.

And in any case, no one is suggesting that declining poverty or increasing life expectancy or whatever else is irrelevant to the people it's happening to. That's just some more bullshit you made up and threw out because it's easier than making any real arguments.

Now your argument is even more strange. Decline in poverty and increased life expectancy is not irrelevant to the people they happen to, you now say. But they are irrelevant to you? Or exactly what argument are you making here?

Or is it that such "boring" things are not interesting to you, and that you are more interested in overthrowing capitalism and therefore don't care?

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:38:11 PMThe HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
So you don't actually know, then? If a hypothetical country had a GDP per capita of say, a billion dollars, do you know how, methodologically, the HDI and IHDI would prevent that country from ending up with far and away the highest index?

That is quite an extreme example, but I'd guess that in such a country, the other parts would follow along.
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

gmalivuk

#1520
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 06, 2024, 02:45:25 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:36:15 PMSo yes I engage with you guys's links.
Finding flimsy excuses to dismiss links so you don't have to learn anything new is not discussion or engagement.

I am engaging you right now, which is more than you deserve. Stop complaining.
Well we always say words about your links so if that's all engagement is, why do you keep saying we don't respond to "evidence" and "data"?


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteNo, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant.
That's a big if, for reasons we've been pointing out to you for months.

Huh? According to Harry Black, "No one is disputing the data cited.".
The data cited is about PPP dollar amounts. No one is disputing that those numbers are accurate.

We very much are disputing that they are genuinely indicative of real material poverty, which is a much more complex thing than just whether or not someone makes more than $2/day.


QuoteIt is incredible that the fact that I refer to reliable sources and data, and you refer to highly ideological outlets, tells you nothing at all.
The fact that you haven't ever followed links to the actual studies because you ideologically oppose the articles that aggregate them tells me a lot. As does the fact that you keep repeating the same small handful of "reliable sources and data", despite each of us repeatedly and far too patiently explaining why those data don't tell the story you're using the to tell.


QuoteContrary to the disinformation you are spreading, poor countries are much better off today than they were a few decades ago.
All of them? Because of capitalism? Really better off in terms of how their poorest are actually living or just in terms of your too-simplistic dollar-amount view of poverty?

And do you have evidence that's more comprehensive and direct than iOS:Android ratios?


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteTo claim otherwise is you speaking from your privileged ivory tower
You sure like to talk about privilege a lot for someone who has at least as much as anyone else in this discussion and who evidently doesn't even understand what it is or how it works.

And in any case, no one is suggesting that declining poverty or increasing life expectancy or whatever else is irrelevant to the people it's happening to. That's just some more bullshit you made up and threw out because it's easier than making any real arguments.

Now your argument is even more strange. Decline in poverty and increased life expectancy is not irrelevant to the people they happen to, you now say. But they are irrelevant to you? Or exactly what argument are you making here?
I already said what argument I was making and you even quoted it.

They are irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make about economic systems. Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the improvements that may or may not have really happened, so pointing to those changes to support capitalism is fallacious on your part.

Especially something like life expectancy, which we've already been over.


QuoteOr is it that such "boring" things are not interesting to you, and that you are more interested in overthrowing capitalism and therefore don't care?
Fuck off with this. It's got nothing to do with what I find interesting. You started a thread about economic systems. Lots of things I find fascinating are not related to economic systems so I don't try to pollute this thread talking about them all the time.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:38:11 PMThe HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
So you don't actually know, then? If a hypothetical country had a GDP per capita of say, a billion dollars, do you know how, methodologically, the HDI and IHDI would prevent that country from ending up with far and away the highest index?
That is quite an extreme example, but I'd guess that in such a country, the other parts would follow along.
What happened to it being a combination of things besides wealth? Now you're assuming the other factors correlate closely enough with GDP that there won't be any issue? Then why bother with the other factors at all?

If that's good enough for you, why did you object to a sentence you took to mean the SDI assumes high income correlates with unsustainability?

If you don't understand how or even whether HDI or IHDI have ways to prevent one factor from completely swamping all the others, you don't get to lecture me or anyone else about how we're ignorant.

gmalivuk

#1521
Setting aside for the moment the fact that you apparently don't know how HDI works well enough to answer my simple question, it's also pretty telling that you didn't even read the whole methodology page I linked for you earlier.
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 10:58:20 AMCan you outline the criteria by which Russia is by some combination more developed and more environmentally sustainable than Denmark and Sweden?
https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/methods
Still no mounting of a defense of its ranking and therefore methodology from you.
Quote from: the page you didn't finish readingMaterial footprint and CO2 emissions are rendered in consumption-based terms; in other words, they account for international trade by adding the materials and emissions embodied in imports (including the upstream materials and emissions involved in producing and shipping imported goods) and subtracting that which is embodied in exports.
I've already talked about the issue of externalizing resource use and pollution by consuming a large amount of goods manufactured elsewhere from resources extracted elsewhere. One reason your precious Nordics fall in the SDI rankings is because that's accounted for.

Here's a reliable source about it.


QuoteFrom the link:

QuoteGiven that income is so tightly coupled with ecological impact, it makes sense to look at nations that achieve high levels of human development with moderate levels of income as models to emulate in the process of designing more sustainable approaches to development, rather than punishing such countries for not having high income, as the HDI does.

So countries with higher incomes per capita are penalized in the index because they are assumed to be less sustainable.
From the same link:
Quote from: the same link you stopped reading when you got to the above quote and decided to nitpickThere are a few things to note here.  First, countries are not punished for exceeding $20,000; rather, it is simply that income over this level does not further boost a country's score. Second, this sufficiency threshold does not generate human development scores that differ significantly from HDI (it raises scores by no more than 0.05 over HDI), and does not significantly alter relative rankings (except in the case of nations where HDI is boosted by high income disproportionate to education and longevity, such as Kuwait, whose relative position would decline).

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 06, 2024, 02:45:25 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:36:15 PMSo yes I engage with you guys's links.
Finding flimsy excuses to dismiss links so you don't have to learn anything new is not discussion or engagement.

I am engaging you right now, which is more than you deserve. Stop complaining.
Well we always say words about your links so if that's all engagement is, why do you keep saying we don't respond to "evidence" and "data"?

I don't see you accepting the evidence and data, and the accompanying expert opinion and consensus.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteNo, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant.
That's a big if, for reasons we've been pointing out to you for months.

Huh? According to Harry Black, "No one is disputing the data cited.".
The data cited is about PPP dollar amounts. No one is disputing that those numbers are accurate.

We very much are disputing that they are genuinely indicative of real material poverty, which is a much more complex thing than just whether or not someone makes more than $2/day.

And again, no matter how you slice it, poverty has declined.



Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
QuoteIt is incredible that the fact that I refer to reliable sources and data, and you refer to highly ideological outlets, tells you nothing at all.
The fact that you haven't ever followed links to the actual studies because you ideologically oppose the articles that aggregate them tells me a lot. As does the fact that you keep repeating the same small handful of "reliable sources and data", despite each of us repeatedly and far too patiently explaining why those data don't tell the story you're using the to tell.

I am not saying what stories they tell. I am referring to experts to do the explaining.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
QuoteContrary to the disinformation you are spreading, poor countries are much better off today than they were a few decades ago.
All of them? Because of capitalism? Really better off in terms of how their poorest are actually living or just in terms of your too-simplistic dollar-amount view of poverty?

The ones among them who have adopted better economies policies and integrated into the global economy, like India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

Of course, countries that don't, like North Korea, have not seen much improvement.



Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMAnd do you have evidence that's more comprehensive and direct than iOS:Android ratios?

It is actually a pretty telling example. I am not sure why you don't think so.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMYou sure like to talk about privilege a lot for someone who has at least as much as anyone else in this discussion and who evidently doesn't even understand what it is or how it works.

As usual, you are discussing me again, and not the actual topic. Has this ever happened before?

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMThey are irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make about economic systems. Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the improvements that may or may not have really happened, so pointing to those changes to support capitalism is fallacious on your part.

Sufficient, no. Necessary? Yes, I'd say so. History shows that the non-capitalist countries stagnate at some point. Even your own data showed that. There were no high-income non-capitalist countries.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMEspecially something like life expectancy, which we've already been over.

And which kind of countries countries score the highest there?

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
QuoteOr is it that such "boring" things are not interesting to you, and that you are more interested in overthrowing capitalism and therefore don't care?
Fuck off with this. It's got nothing to do with what I find interesting.

No matter how angry you become, it is rather telling in the wider context.

I thin it was Karl Popper (but it could have been someone else) who noted that the local communists in his home country were against improved working and living conditions for workers. Why? Because if they got better off, they might not be so interested in a communist revolution. I was thinking that maybe something like that guides your thinking as well.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMYou started a thread about economic systems. Lots of things I find fascinating are not related to economic systems so I don't try to pollute this thread talking about them all the time.

I didn't start this thread. Harry Black separated it from another thread.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:38:11 PMThe HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
So you don't actually know, then? If a hypothetical country had a GDP per capita of say, a billion dollars, do you know how, methodologically, the HDI and IHDI would prevent that country from ending up with far and away the highest index?
That is quite an extreme example, but I'd guess that in such a country, the other parts would follow along.
What happened to it being a combination of things besides wealth? Now you're assuming the other factors correlate closely enough with GDP that there won't be any issue? Then why bother with the other factors at all?

If that's good enough for you, why did you object to a sentence you took to mean the SDI assumes high income correlates with unsustainability?

If you don't understand how or even whether HDI or IHDI have ways to prevent one factor from completely swamping all the others, you don't get to lecture me or anyone else about how we're ignorant.

I think you are attempting weaponized pedantry.

Stick to the bigger picture, stick to data and expert analysis and consensus.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 05:32:35 PMSetting aside for the moment the fact that you apparently don't know how HDI works well enough to answer my simple question, it's also pretty telling that you didn't even read the whole methodology page I linked for you earlier.
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 10:58:20 AMCan you outline the criteria by which Russia is by some combination more developed and more environmentally sustainable than Denmark and Sweden?
https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/methods
Still no mounting of a defense of its ranking and therefore methodology from you.
Quote from: the page you didn't finish readingMaterial footprint and CO2 emissions are rendered in consumption-based terms; in other words, they account for international trade by adding the materials and emissions embodied in imports (including the upstream materials and emissions involved in producing and shipping imported goods) and subtracting that which is embodied in exports.
I've already talked about the issue of externalizing resource use and pollution by consuming a large amount of goods manufactured elsewhere from resources extracted elsewhere. One reason your precious Nordics fall in the SDI rankings is because that's accounted for.

Here's a reliable source about it.


QuoteFrom the link:

QuoteGiven that income is so tightly coupled with ecological impact, it makes sense to look at nations that achieve high levels of human development with moderate levels of income as models to emulate in the process of designing more sustainable approaches to development, rather than punishing such countries for not having high income, as the HDI does.

So countries with higher incomes per capita are penalized in the index because they are assumed to be less sustainable.
From the same link:
Quote from: the same link you stopped reading when you got to the above quote and decided to nitpickThere are a few things to note here.  First, countries are not punished for exceeding $20,000; rather, it is simply that income over this level does not further boost a country's score. Second, this sufficiency threshold does not generate human development scores that differ significantly from HDI (it raises scores by no more than 0.05 over HDI), and does not significantly alter relative rankings (except in the case of nations where HDI is boosted by high income disproportionate to education and longevity, such as Kuwait, whose relative position would decline).

By that graph, Russia is still slightly worse than Denmark and Sweden, and it is still significantly less developed. It still doesn't add up that it is considered more sustainable than those two. And, like, Russia of all countries, being considered sustainable is a joke.

Check out the rankings of the Environmental Performance Index. The best-performing country is not Russia, by a long shot. It is not Cuba either.

Here is some reading for you, that refutes the point you are trying to make:

- Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions, even if we take offshored production into account
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Harry Black

Tell me, how exactly is it incompatible with reduction of poverty, to stop private interests being able to exert influence on government policy?

What part of having individuals with the wealth of nations is essential to reducing world hunger and homelessness?

What is it about the existence of shareholders that does more good in the world than if those same companies were co-ops?

Why would it be worse if public schools were the only option and no one had to pay for them? Likewise healthcare?

Why would nationalised banks be worse than private financial interests?

We are not talking about doing away with democracy. We are not talking about recreating soviet style communism.

All you are doing is showing what DID happen in a world economy as it played out, with all the conflict and interference that did happen. And against the existence of regimes that no one here endorses.
The data you are using is absolutely useless because there is no control group to compare it to whereby the things we are talking about have been stopped or implemented.
-The system we have is the best system because the system we have has led us to where we are.-
Thats idiotic. Horse traders probably made similar arguments against the proliferation of motor vehicles. Especially when early models were so poor.

gmalivuk

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2024, 12:55:27 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 06, 2024, 02:45:25 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:36:15 PMSo yes I engage with you guys's links.
Finding flimsy excuses to dismiss links so you don't have to learn anything new is not discussion or engagement.

I am engaging you right now, which is more than you deserve. Stop complaining.
Well we always say words about your links so if that's all engagement is, why do you keep saying we don't respond to "evidence" and "data"?

I don't see you accepting the evidence and data, and the accompanying expert opinion and consensus.
You don't accept or even talk about our evidence and data, except to find flimsy reasons to reject it without having to do any work.

My point was that if what you're doing counts as engagement, then you don't get to have a double standard for what we have to do with your repetitive links.

(Even though we have addressed more specifics and methodology in your "evidence" than you've ever done with anyone else's.)


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
QuoteNo, everything else being equal, if people are less poor today than in the past, that is not irrelevant.
That's a big if, for reasons we've been pointing out to you for months.

Huh? According to Harry Black, "No one is disputing the data cited.".
The data cited is about PPP dollar amounts. No one is disputing that those numbers are accurate.

We very much are disputing that they are genuinely indicative of real material poverty, which is a much more complex thing than just whether or not someone makes more than $2/day.

And again, no matter how you slice it, poverty has declined.

Those aren't different ways of analyzing poverty. They're just different flat dollar amounts. We've repeatedly been over why that's too simplistic and insufficient for any serious analysis of material conditions.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
QuoteIt is incredible that the fact that I refer to reliable sources and data, and you refer to highly ideological outlets, tells you nothing at all.
The fact that you haven't ever followed links to the actual studies because you ideologically oppose the articles that aggregate them tells me a lot. As does the fact that you keep repeating the same small handful of "reliable sources and data", despite each of us repeatedly and far too patiently explaining why those data don't tell the story you're using the to tell.
I am not saying what stories they tell. I am referring to experts to do the explaining.
Parroting your own ideologically compatible sources to tell the story for you doesn't mean you aren't pushing a narrative.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
QuoteContrary to the disinformation you are spreading, poor countries are much better off today than they were a few decades ago.
All of them? Because of capitalism? Really better off in terms of how their poorest are actually living or just in terms of your too-simplistic dollar-amount view of poverty?
The ones among them who have adopted better economies policies and integrated into the global economy, like India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

Of course, countries that don't, like North Korea, have not seen much improvement.
Yes we already know that the simplistic measure of poverty you exclusively use says what you want it to say for the cherry-picked countries you e exclusively want to talk about. Especially when you selectively ignore what we've already discussed regarding South Korea.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMAnd do you have evidence that's more comprehensive and direct than iOS:Android ratios?
It is actually a pretty telling example. I am not sure why you don't think so.
Because it's a ratio of smartphone purchase and tells us nothing about whether people can afford adequate housing or how much they have to work to get an iPhone. I've already talked about how electronics prices don't necessarily change at the same rate as things like housing, education, and Healthcare.


QuoteAs usual, you are discussing me again, and not the actual topic. Has this ever happened before?
Here you are once again popping onto the forum for no apparent purpose other than replying to me.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMThey are irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make about economic systems. Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the improvements that may or may not have really happened, so pointing to those changes to support capitalism is fallacious on your part.
Sufficient, no. Necessary? Yes, I'd say so. History shows that the non-capitalist countries stagnate at some point. Even your own data showed that. There were no high-income non-capitalist countries.
There are no non-capitalist individuals with over a billion dollars, either. That calitalism is necessary for that kind of wealth concentration is not a point in its favor, though.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMEspecially something like life expectancy, which we've already been over.
And which kind of countries countries score the highest there?
We've also repeatedly been over the fact that yes no shit, rich countries can afford to do nice things for their own citizens. But the rest of us want to talk about the global system, not just the richest few and a few other developing ones you like to cherry pick.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PMYou started a thread about economic systems. Lots of things I find fascinating are not related to economic systems so I don't try to pollute this thread talking about them all the time.
I didn't start this thread. Harry Black separated it from another thread.
You still started the discussion that became this thread. Things unrelated to economic systems are still off-topic.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 03:55:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 04, 2024, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 04, 2024, 02:38:11 PMThe HDI does take into account income, but it doesn't make countries "get to rise up the rankings solely on the basis of gross accumulation of wealth" because it takes into account other factors as well.
So you don't actually know, then? If a hypothetical country had a GDP per capita of say, a billion dollars, do you know how, methodologically, the HDI and IHDI would prevent that country from ending up with far and away the highest index?
That is quite an extreme example, but I'd guess that in such a country, the other parts would follow along.
What happened to it being a combination of things besides wealth? Now you're assuming the other factors correlate closely enough with GDP that there won't be any issue? Then why bother with the other factors at all?

If that's good enough for you, why did you object to a sentence you took to mean the SDI assumes high income correlates with unsustainability?

If you don't understand how or even whether HDI or IHDI have ways to prevent one factor from completely swamping all the others, you don't get to lecture me or anyone else about how we're ignorant.
I think you are attempting weaponized pedantry.

Stick to the bigger picture, stick to data and expert analysis and consensus.
I am talking about the data and specifically about one of the reasons you've decided to ignore the uncomfortable implications of the Sustainable Development Index.

I'm calling attention to the fact that you don't know how your own oft-cited fave the IHDI works, but you don't let that stop you from having a double standard about it versus one whose ranking you don't like.


Quote
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 06, 2024, 05:32:35 PMSetting aside for the moment the fact that you apparently don't know how HDI works well enough to answer my simple question, it's also pretty telling that you didn't even read the whole methodology page I linked for you earlier.
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: gmalivuk on February 03, 2024, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 03, 2024, 10:58:20 AMCan you outline the criteria by which Russia is by some combination more developed and more environmentally sustainable than Denmark and Sweden?
https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/methods
Still no mounting of a defense of its ranking and therefore methodology from you.
Quote from: the page you didn't finish readingMaterial footprint and CO2 emissions are rendered in consumption-based terms; in other words, they account for international trade by adding the materials and emissions embodied in imports (including the upstream materials and emissions involved in producing and shipping imported goods) and subtracting that which is embodied in exports.
I've already talked about the issue of externalizing resource use and pollution by consuming a large amount of goods manufactured elsewhere from resources extracted elsewhere. One reason your precious Nordics fall in the SDI rankings is because that's accounted for.

Here's a reliable source about it.


QuoteFrom the link:

QuoteGiven that income is so tightly coupled with ecological impact, it makes sense to look at nations that achieve high levels of human development with moderate levels of income as models to emulate in the process of designing more sustainable approaches to development, rather than punishing such countries for not having high income, as the HDI does.

So countries with higher incomes per capita are penalized in the index because they are assumed to be less sustainable.
From the same link:
Quote from: the same link you stopped reading when you got to the above quote and decided to nitpickThere are a few things to note here.  First, countries are not punished for exceeding $20,000; rather, it is simply that income over this level does not further boost a country's score. Second, this sufficiency threshold does not generate human development scores that differ significantly from HDI (it raises scores by no more than 0.05 over HDI), and does not significantly alter relative rankings (except in the case of nations where HDI is boosted by high income disproportionate to education and longevity, such as Kuwait, whose relative position would decline).
By that graph, Russia is still slightly worse than Denmark and Sweden, and it is still significantly less developed. It still doesn't add up that it is considered more sustainable than those two. And, like, Russia of all countries, being considered sustainable is a joke.
Resource use also goes into SDI, not just pollution.

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMTell me, how exactly is it incompatible with reduction of poverty, to stop private interests being able to exert influence on government policy?

Nothing. The world doesn't end at US borders, try to loo outside once in a while.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMWhat part of having individuals with the wealth of nations is essential to reducing world hunger and homelessness?

Nothing.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMWhat is it about the existence of shareholders that does more good in the world than if those same companies were co-ops?

Nothing, necessarily.

And as has been explained to you, co-operatives can and do already exist. You are in fact free to start another one if you wish.

I don't mind at all different kinds of ownerships.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMWhy would it be worse if public schools were the only option and no one had to pay for them? Likewise healthcare?

Schools, no. Healthcare, that is a more tricky thing, though I agree that it should be available freely to everyone.

But this is not quite what the discussion is about.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMWhy would nationalised banks be worse than private financial interests?

Not necessarily, no. Did you know that we in fact have one state-owned bank, in order to increase competition?

Should all financial institutions be nationalized? No, I personally don't think that would be a good idea. But again, this is not rally what the discussion is about.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMWe are not talking about doing away with democracy. We are not talking about recreating soviet style communism.

And neither am I talking about some laissez-faire capitalist economic system with a night-watchman state. Yet you keep pretending that I am, because you don't want to engage with what I actually think, but prefer attacking a strawman. I have in fact posted this several times over, yet you ignore that and keep pretending that I support something that I don't.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMAll you are doing is showing what DID happen in a world economy as it played out, with all the conflict and interference that did happen. And against the existence of regimes that no one here endorses.
The data you are using is absolutely useless because there is no control group to compare it to whereby the things we are talking about have been stopped or implemented.

Bollocks. We can compare for example North Korea and South Korea, and East Germany and West Germany. Or China and Vietnam before and after their economic reforms. You keep ignoring lots of real world data that we have because the implications are ideologically unacceptable to you.

Observational studies are not illegitimate at all. Yes, they do have their weaknesses, but so do experimental studies. Ideally we would have both, but for social sciences, we are typically left with observational studies only.

If you reject the legitimacy of observational studies, you'd have to reject that smoking causes lung cancer. It would be unethical to carry out an experimental study to demonstrate that.

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PM-The system we have is the best system because the system we have has led us to where we are.-
Thats idiotic. Horse traders probably made similar arguments against the proliferation of motor vehicles. Especially when early models were so poor.

Did they make such arguments? I don't know, and clearly you don't either, but are true to form by not looking for any data whatsoever, instead going by your gut-feeling.

But it might be that the earliest models were poorer than horses and carts. New technology often needs to mature a bit before it becomes the better option. Consider that wireless headphones were originally worse than wire headphones, until the technology matured.[/quote]
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

gmalivuk

#1526
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2024, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMTell me, how exactly is it incompatible with reduction of poverty, to stop private interests being able to exert influence on government policy?
Nothing. The world doesn't end at US borders, try to loo outside once in a while.
Do you fantasize you're still talking to me even when you've very clearly quoted someone else?


QuoteAnd neither am I talking about some laissez-faire capitalist economic system with a night-watchman state. Yet you keep pretending that I am, because you don't want to engage with what I actually think, but prefer attacking a strawman.
It's rich of you to act as though we're the ones making strawmen, when you have yet to indicate anything above a kindergarten-level reading comprehension of any leftist position ever expressed in this thread, or pretty much any other that I can think of at the moment.

You've made clear what you're talking about, as have we. Feel free to extend us the same courtesy you demand and start responding to the actual positions we've each expressed (which are not identical to one another, by the way).

Harry Black

You keep saying the points I raised are not what we are talking about. They are exactly what we (your interlocutors) have been talking about.

These are the kinds of changes and protections we want. Simply to protect society from the drive to increase profits above other goals and to reduce inequality by giving everyone a more even starting point in life.

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 11, 2024, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2024, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 01:07:10 PMTell me, how exactly is it incompatible with reduction of poverty, to stop private interests being able to exert influence on government policy?
Nothing. The world doesn't end at US borders, try to loo outside once in a while.
Jesus Christ you're dense. Do you fantasize you're still talking to me even when you've very clearly quoted someone else?

Personal attack. Of course, we know that the rules don't apply to you.

Quote from: gmalivuk on February 11, 2024, 02:55:29 PM
QuoteAnd neither am I talking about some laissez-faire capitalist economic system with a night-watchman state. Yet you keep pretending that I am, because you don't want to engage with what I actually think, but prefer attacking a strawman.
It's rich of you to act as though we're the ones making strawmen, when you have yet to indicate anything above a kindergarten-level reading comprehension of any leftist position ever expressed in this thread, or pretty much any other that I can think of at the moment.

You've made clear what you're talking about, as have we. Feel free to extend us the same courtesy you demand and start responding to the actual positions we've each expressed (which are not identical to one another, by the way).

Gibberish.
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Quetzalcoatl

Quote from: Harry Black on February 11, 2024, 05:48:28 PMYou keep saying the points I raised are not what we are talking about. They are exactly what we (your interlocutors) have been talking about.

These are the kinds of changes and protections we want. Simply to protect society from the drive to increase profits above other goals and to reduce inequality by giving everyone a more even starting point in life.

So you want something fairly, or at least somewhat, close to the Nordic model then? At least it has empirically demonstrated real world success to boot.
"I'm a member of no party. I have no ideology. I'm a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that's all around us." - Christopher Hitchens