|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| senior wrote: |
The fact remains that the economically freest countries are the richest. Those with the most govt action and spending fail. |
"Norwegians enjoy the second highest GDP per-capita (after Luxembourg) and third highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world. Norway maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for six consecutive years (2001�2006),[15] and then reclaimed this position in 2009.[16]
The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. The state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, such as the strategic petroleum sector (Statoil), hydroelectric energy production (Statkraft), aluminium production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR), and telecommunication provider (Telenor). Through these big companies, the government controls approximately 30% of the stock values at the Oslo Stock Exchange. When non-listed companies are included, the state has even higher share in ownership (mainly from direct oil license ownership). Norway is a major shipping nation and has the world's 6th largest merchant fleet, with 1,412 Norwegian-owned merchant vessels."
I want my cookie, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Socialists just love references to Scandinavia. There's just one teeny, weeny problem: if Scandinavia is socialist, then the sky is the sea.
Economic freedom in Norway: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Norway
Economic freedom in the US: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/UnitedStates
Compare them, Leon. You will find that, in several ways, Norway is economically-freer than the quintessentially-capitalist US.
If there's one thing the religious hate, it's facts. The superior economic freedoms in Scandinavia are, to the religion of socialism, what Darwinism is to Genenis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Socialists just love references to Scandinavia. There's just one teeny, weeny problem: if Scandinavia is socialist, then the sky is the sea.
Economic freedom in Norway: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Norway
Economic freedom in the US: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/UnitedStates
Compare them, Leon. You will find that, in several ways, Norway is economically-freer than the quintessentially-capitalist US.
If there's one thing the religious hate, it's facts. The superior economic freedoms in Scandinavia are, to the religion of socialism, what Darwinism is to Genenis. |
I must be missing something. Firstly the information is from the Heritage foundation, which I'm tempted to dismiss out of hand, and secondly the US is ranked much higher. I am not a socialist, but the idea that every time a government is involved in the economy it's bad is silly. Norway has one of the biggest social benefits programs for it's citizens. It is routinely placed at the top of quality of life index's. If you are saying that Norway isn't a socialist country than I agree with you. Why is it always about buzzwords like socialism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I must be missing something. |
Yes - thought
| Leon wrote: |
| Firstly the information is from the Heritage foundation, which I'm tempted to dismiss out of hand |
ad hominem
| Leon wrote: |
| and secondly the US is ranked much higher. |
Yes, it is - that is, if you solely consider gross statistics and don't bother to look any deeper
| Leon wrote: |
| I am not a socialist |
Yes, you are.
You loath capitalism, you loath the Israelis - what more qualifications does a socialist require?
| Leon wrote: |
| but the idea that every time a government is involved in the economy it's bad is silly. |
Whose position is this?
| Leon wrote: |
| Norway has one of the biggest social benefits programs for it's citizens. |
It is also, in many ways, economically-freer than the US
Got a better empirical study? Bring it on
| Leon wrote: |
| It is routinely placed at the top of quality of life index's |
If there's one thing I hate, Leon, it's an unnecessary apostrophe. By any remote chance, did you receive 'free' education? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Firstly the information is from the Heritage foundation, which I'm tempted to dismiss out of hand |
ad hominem |
This isn't ad hominem. This is dismissing a source because it is a conservative think tank. The motivations behind the organization conducting the study are important to consider when reading it. This is like citing Robert Gibbs for an accurate portrayal of Obama's approval rating.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| It is routinely placed at the top of quality of life index's |
If there's one thing I hate, Leon, it's an unnecessary apostrophe. By any remote chance, did you receive 'free' education? |
Now this is an ad hominem attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I am not a socialist |
Yes, you are.
You loath capitalism, you loath the Israelis - what more qualifications does a socialist require? |
Where did I say I loath capitalism? I don't. Capitalism is good system. What does Israel have to do with anything? Your argument makes no sense. I'm flexible in my views, you don't appear to be. Try making an argument with out say socialist or socialism.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| but the idea that every time a government is involved in the economy it's bad is silly. |
Whose position is this? |
Have you read the rest of the thread? Are you serious? Did you read what my post was in response too?
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Norway has one of the biggest social benefits programs for it's citizens. |
It is also, in many ways, economically-freer than the US
Got a better empirical study? Bring it on |
So you agree that two very successful countries are not completely economically free. What are arguing with me about. I'm not a socialist, Capitalism is good, my main point was that government intervention isn't necessarily some dark evil thing like some other posters have emphatically stated.
| Leon wrote: |
| It is routinely placed at the top of quality of life index's |
If there's one thing I hate, Leon, it's an unnecessary apostrophe. By any remote chance, did you receive 'free' education?[/quote]
Oops. You caught me, you found the one valid mistake I made. Interesting that you ignored the statement that might contradict something you believe in, but honed in for an easy target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What does Israel have to do with anything? |
In general, there's a distinct correlation between what, in my view, is an excessive preoccupation with Israel and a general skeptcism towards the economic arguments of libertarian political philosophy
| Leon wrote: |
| Did you read what my post was in response too? |
It was in response to this, from Senior: "The fact remains that the economically freest countries are the richest. Those with the most govt action and spending fail"
He was right. Norway, your very own example, proves the point you opposed. Presumably, you totally misunderstood the real economic situation in Norway. Where does the wealth used to finance Norway's welfare state come from, Leon? Is it magicked out of thin air by blonde little Norwegian Obamas? No, it isn't. It's produced by, by and large, economically free people |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
This isn't ad hominem. |
Haven't we been here before, Seonengnimble? Poor memory? Still don't understand ad hominem?
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| This is dismissing a source because it is a conservative think tank |
A: Conservative think tank claims X
B: X is dismissed because it is claimed by a conservative think thank
This is ad hominem
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The motivations behind the organization conducting the study are important to consider when reading it. |
Why?
I despise many sources, but I don't just simply dismiss them as inherently dubious without at least making an effort to engage with any evidence given
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| This is like citing Robert Gibbs for an accurate portrayal of Obama's approval rating. |
An empirical study showing the link between economic freedom and prosperity is like "citing Robert Gibbs for an accurate portrayal of Obama's approval rating"? How on earth so?
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Now this is an ad hominem attack. |
No, it wasn't. It was an insult. Insults only qualify as ad hominem when the insult is used as proof of a statement being false. For example:
A: Bob claims X
B: Bill says that Bob is a douchebag, therefore X is false
That didn't take place. It was a cheap shot and nothing more. Cheap shots might not be very nice or proper, but they aren't ad hominem necessarily.
Best of luck with the whole basic formal logic lark, Seonsengnimble |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What does Israel have to do with anything? |
In general, there's a distinct correlation between what, in my view, is an excessive preoccupation with Israel and a general skeptcism towards the economic arguments of libertarian political philosophy
| Leon wrote: |
| Did you read what my post was in response too? |
It was in response to this, from Senior: "The fact remains that the economically freest countries are the richest. Those with the most govt action and spending fail"
He was right. Norway, your very own example, proves the point you opposed. Presumably, you totally misunderstood the real economic situation in Norway. Where does the wealth used to finance Norway's welfare state come from, Leon? Is it magicked out of thin air by blonde little Norwegian Obamas? No, it isn't. It's produced by, by and large, economically free people |
Did you only read the the first sentence of what Senior said? Perhaps you learned your reading comprehension skill's through "free" education. My point is that economic freedom can coexist with government action and regulation. Norway's government own's over 30% of the Norwegian economy, and they are free. You're point? I'm not sure, something about how if someone disagree's with you about foreign policy, Israel, they must not agree with libertarian political philosophy.
A quote from Ron Paul.
"During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?""
Ron Paul's views on Israel are closer to my own than almost any other politician, and you were saying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senior
Can you at least keep your arguments consistent.
When you say that we are richer than monarchs 200 hundred years ago, dont give me aninflation rate from 93 years ago and tell me I am ignorant.
So you are telling me that an Automobile from 1917 would have run me LESS than the 15 - 20 thousand dollar average it costs today?
You are going to tell me that the average person in 1917 made 75 000 or so a year.
That is what I meant when I said inflation rate, maybe I had the term wrong, but you went for the cheap joke.
Here are some links I found
http://crunkish.com/top-10-pollution-causes/
( biggest polluter in the world, responsible for 25% of word CO2 emmisiions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
( SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT over the world per capita average)
Hell you even beat out CHINA which has 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities in teh world
Now if you want to split the hair and say "yes but "America" is not that polluted" ( because they ship off factories to other countries) becuase it has far fewer people per square mile than some of the other countries. Then you are being fairly ignorant.
Its entiely possible that America is not all that polluted given its size and the amount of places you can stick much of that pollution or the fact that there is a much larger area for that pollution to blanket, but when your countries emmisiions of pollution are over 23 percent, a full 3 percent higher than a country that has FOUR TIMES your people in a virtually identical land mass, then don't tell me that you are not polluted, or polluting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Norway can afford to have a huge welfare system because of its vast mineral wealth. Likewise Germany has a generous welfare built on the back of its manufacturing base. Those countries had to have capitalist growth, BEFORE they could have that stuff.
This is, obviously, an over simplified explanation. There is quite a good thread on this topic somewhere, I will try to dig it up, but I'm not promising anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
When you say that we are richer than monarchs 200 hundred years ago, dont give me aninflation rate from 93 years ago and tell me I am ignorant.
|
I don't understand what you are saying here. Inflation doesn't create wealth, it destroys it. A person with a dollar back in 1917 is now 97% poorer because of inflation.
| Quote: |
So you are telling me that an Automobile from 1917 would have run me LESS than the 15 - 20 thousand dollar average it costs today?
You are going to tell me that the average person in 1917 made 75 000 or so a year.
That is what I meant when I said inflation rate, maybe I had the term wrong, but you went for the cheap joke. |
I think you might have your terms mixed up. I have no idea what you are driving at here. Do you mean 75,000 in 2010 dollars, or 75,000 in 1917 dollars? Even if I did have that information, I still don't know what your point would be.
A car in 1917 probably cost a similar amount in terms of the proportion of your income it cost to purchase (probably slightly more then than now, though). However, the amount of car you get for your money today, is infinitely more.
CO2 isn't a very good measure of pollution. There isn't that much evidence that it is bad for the environment.
Go bump the global warming thread if you want to have this debate. You will get shot to a million pieces, though.
| Quote: |
| Hell you even beat out CHINA which has 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities in teh world |
Proving my point. China is less free, therefore more polluted. Its people are getting richer, so they will start demanding a cleaner environment.
| Quote: |
| Now if you want to split the hair and say "yes but "America" is not that polluted" ( because they ship off factories to other countries) becuase it has far fewer people per square mile than some of the other countries. Then you are being fairly ignorant. |
I don't believe that is why the US is less polluted. It still has the largest manufacturing base in the world.
| Quote: |
| Its entiely possible that America is not all that polluted given its size and the amount of places you can stick much of that pollution or the fact that there is a much larger area for that pollution to blanket, but when your countries emmisiions of pollution are over 23 percent, a full 3 percent higher than a country that has FOUR TIMES your people in a virtually identical land mass, then don't tell me that you are not polluted, or polluting. |
Ummm, I'm pretty sure they measure total pollution. I doubt the land mass would make much difference.
Last edited by Senior on Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, in several ways, according to your propaganda site's arbitrary numeric figures, Norway is slightly "freer" than the United States. But in most other ways, according to the site's metrics Norway is substantially less free. Government spending and labor freedom are both ranked under 50, and fiscal freedom is ranked just above it! U.S. investment freedom is also a full ten points over Norway's. By contrast, the few categories Norway scores higher in are invariably by single digits, and one of those categories (corruption) is highly subjective.
When even your propaganda website is contradicting you, how seriously do you expect your case to be taken? The other people in this thread are right to mock the Heritage organization, but even if we take them entirely seriously and at face value, they still work against your argument in this case. Norway is less free than the United States according to them, yet incredibly prosperous.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| If there's one thing the religious hate, it's facts. |
And unfortunately in this case, it's your religion that has blinded you. You possess a priori beliefs on the issue, and with every example presented you, you try to force it into confirming those beliefs.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| and secondly the US is ranked much higher. |
Yes, it is - that is, if you solely consider gross statistics and don't bother to look any deeper. |
And when you look deeper, you see that Norway is less economically free (under the dubious usage of the word Libertarians, the lords of language misuse) than the United States. Norway has plenty of private enterprise, but it doesn't commit itself to private enterprise with a blind, religious fervor, and as a result gains most of the benefit of private enterprise without as many of the downsides.
Last edited by Fox on Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
This isn't ad hominem. |
Haven't we been here before, Seonengnimble? Poor memory? Still don't understand ad hominem?
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| This is dismissing a source because it is a conservative think tank |
A: Conservative think tank claims X
B: X is dismissed because it is claimed by a conservative think thank
This is ad hominem
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The motivations behind the organization conducting the study are important to consider when reading it. |
Why?
I despise many sources, but I don't just simply dismiss them as inherently dubious without at least making an effort to engage with any evidence given
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| This is like citing Robert Gibbs for an accurate portrayal of Obama's approval rating. |
An empirical study showing the link between economic freedom and prosperity is like "citing Robert Gibbs for an accurate portrayal of Obama's approval rating"? How on earth so? |
Yes, I understand what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack is attacking the person making the argument or other proponents of the argument rather than the argument itself. The problem, here is that the source of statistics is being attacked. This is not a logical fallacy. If I said "According to The Green Friends of the World, France has the biggest economy, there are no fat kids, and no one dies," you might want to question the source I'm citing.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Now this is an ad hominem attack. |
No, it wasn't. It was an insult. Insults only qualify as ad hominem when the insult is used as proof of a statement being false. For example:
A: Bob claims X
B: Bill says that Bob is a douchebag, therefore X is false
That didn't take place. It was a cheap shot and nothing more. Cheap shots might not be very nice or proper, but they aren't ad hominem necessarily.
Best of luck with the whole basic formal logic lark, Seonsengnimble |
It may have been meant as a cheap shot, but the implication was that the grammar error was a result of public education. If public education is so bad, public everything is pretty bad.
It wasn't exactly an ad hominem attack, but it was a lot closer than claiming a source doesn't have reliable information.
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Norway has plenty of private enterprise |
Excellent. So we agree then
| Leon wrote: |
| Norway's government own's over 30% of the Norwegian economy |
Well, that's splendid and comradely news for you and other followers of your absurd little politician creed.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| An ad hominem attack is attacking the person making the argument or other proponents of the argument rather than the argument itself |
Only if the "attack" in question is used as evidence that a claim is false.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| The problem, here is that the source of statistics is being attacked |
And how does that differ from the definition of "Ad hominem" that you just gave?
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| If I said "According to The Green Friends of the World, France has the biggest economy, there are no fat kids, and no one dies," you might want to question the source I'm citing |
No. I would question the claim itself. Claims are always true and false independently of the nature and character of the source.
| Leon wrote: |
A quote from Ron Paul.
"During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?""
Ron Paul's views on Israel are closer to my own than almost any other politician, and you were saying? |
I remain utterly convinced that what is, in my view, a morally dubious and disproportionate interest in Israel enjoys very close relations with subscription to essentially left wing economic ideas. Indeed, in a great many cases, today's Judeaphobes were yesterday's apologists for the Soviet Union. United in Hate by Dr Jamie Glazov (and The Top 200 Chomsky Lies) - read 'em and weep. Ron Paul is a rare and isolated exception to this general rule.
| Seonsengnimble wrote: |
| the implication was that the grammar error was a result of public education |
Well, if someone has an undergraduate degree and doesn't know how to use an apostrophe, what other possible interpretation is available? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
