tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post2798569184298085813..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: But The Grocery Store Knows Everything!Brethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-58390117065230687022013-07-17T13:04:44.820-07:002013-07-17T13:04:44.820-07:00Bret:
The assumption that smaller government is n...Bret:<br /><br />The assumption that smaller government is necessarily better government may be a bit simplistic, too.<br /><br />Quite a few analysts (including some Nobel prize economists) agree that the last crisis was in good part caused by excess leverage of the private sector. They argue that most of this excess leverage was possible due to deregulation of the financial sector, that was able then to package garbage as good stock and sell it to everyone.<br /><br />So, it looks like that an absolutely unregulated market can run amok and cause much damage too. To my best knowledge, Adam and a few of your founding fathers were aware of that too.<br /><br />So what do you propose? The same way you fear an ever stretching government that can harm you with its heavy hand, other people fear an unleashed market promoting a "no country for old man" way of life, where only the rich and powerful would stand a chance. Libertarians are too aware of the first evil, but will have not much sucess until they adress the second one too.<br /><br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-16599341764947325602013-07-17T12:00:10.344-07:002013-07-17T12:00:10.344-07:00Clovis wrote: "I also have the impression tha...Clovis wrote: "<i>I also have the impression that the libertarian fight would be easier if more focused on countering the bureaucratization of life, instead of "fighting socialism" or something like that.</i>"<br /><br />From a marketing standpoint, that's probably true.<br /><br />From a standpoint of actual positive (from my perspective) change, I'm pretty convinced it's the same thing. All politicians and bureaucrats pay lip service to more efficient government and directing more of the resources to important areas, but government only grows more bureaucratic and corrupt. The only way to make government less bureaucratic and corrupt is to make it smaller which will also make is less socialistic, by definition.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-12579784467598043062013-07-17T09:48:21.716-07:002013-07-17T09:48:21.716-07:00Erp:
I once again thank you for your explanation ...Erp:<br /><br />I once again thank you for your explanation of the US system.<br /><br />The passion with which you can describe things like library financing and division of constitutional power is... truly beautiful. I believe you are indeed an authentic American.<br /><br />As I described in other thread, my country copied with no shame from yours - well, we could argue that everyone copied those democratic ideals and that much started with your not so beloved French, but this is another topic.<br /><br />So we have much the same structure of federal power division between the executive, legislative and judiciary branch. One important difference is that our code of justice is based in the French one, while yours in the English one ("law of the land"), but it does not change the big picture.<br /><br />All to say that, in this case, I do not think I misunderstood AOG. I was just doing a remark over how the federal powers (be it the judiciary or executive) are not always the bad guys.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-12224360621050392262013-07-17T08:39:19.049-07:002013-07-17T08:39:19.049-07:00aog wrote: "...but thousands of little cuts.&...aog wrote: "<i>...but thousands of little cuts.</i>"<br /><br />Exactly! Or at least thousands of little knives pointed at you wherever you turn.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-3192795935249031512013-07-17T08:17:47.744-07:002013-07-17T08:17:47.744-07:00Bret & AOG:
Thank you for the examples, they ...Bret & AOG:<br /><br />Thank you for the examples, they are all very intersting. Now I am beginning to realize what you are talking about.<br /><br />Part of my initial difficulty is that there has been a mix of a too broad range of subjects - I have the impression that the libertarian thinker sees it all connected, but I do not (or not yet).<br /><br />For example, I do not understand why anti-poverty relief goes against individual freedom, other then the fact that your (obligatory) tax helps to pay the bill (e.g. as you help to pay for garbage collection, which I do not see complaints about).<br /><br />But I do see how this thousand of little cumbersome and arbitrary regulations can make life not easy. Or that they can have the overall effect of restricting your individual, political and property rights.<br /><br /><br />Somehow, I also have the impression that the libertarian fight would be easier if more focused on countering the bureaucratization of life, instead of "fighting socialism" or something like that...<br /><br />I, for one, would be a subscriber.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-91635780573078611722013-07-17T07:56:41.509-07:002013-07-17T07:56:41.509-07:00I can't resist mentioning, in this context, th...I can't resist mentioning, in this context, the <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/17/overregulation-follies-feds-want-disaster-plan-for-magic-hat-bunnies/" rel="nofollow">disaster plans for magician's bunnies</a> as another example. Yes, here in the USA, you are not free to simply have a rabbit to use as a hobby magician. You must fill out a lot of paperwork with the USDA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36508897898681617702013-07-17T05:50:10.217-07:002013-07-17T05:50:10.217-07:00Here is another example - needing government permi...Here is another example - <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/here_comes_the_bride_zoning_permit_in_hand.html" rel="nofollow">needing government permission to have parties on your own property</a>. What Bret was talking about is the creeping bureaucratization of what used to be normal, private actions. The examples you ask for will not be some major impediment, but thousands of little cuts.<br /><br />You say society is more complex. Speaking as someone (like Bret) who spends his life designing complex systems and being responsible for making them work, I can say that as the problem gets more complex, it gets more important, not less, to have as few general rules as possible. Bogging down in centrally managed detail is a recipe for failure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-9521507407583542602013-07-16T16:48:32.713-07:002013-07-16T16:48:32.713-07:00Clovis,
You've misunderstood aog's examp...Clovis, <br /><br />You've misunderstood aog's example regarding freedom of speech. <br /><br />The Supreme Court's job is (in broad terms) to decide the constitutionality of laws and/or to decide whether a lower court made a mistake in an interpretation of the Constitution or a state legislature enacted a law contrary to the Constitution as the example contends.<br /><br />There is no analogous relationship between the U.S. Congress and President and state or local executives and legislatures. IOW, if the mayor of a city does something his or her constituents don't like, the president can't be called in to the right the matter. His job is to execute the laws of the land, Congress' job is to enact those laws and the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.<br /><br />The Constitution rules. <br /><br />No law or action may be unconstitutional. The only way around it is to amend the Constitution, a very long and cumbersome procedure. In our history there have only been 27 amendments including Amendments 1-10 known as the Bill of Rights, so since the very beginning of our country there have been only 15 changes (prohibition was passed and then repealed) in 237 years.<br /><br />Pretty smart guys those Founding Fathers of ours.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36717392155458817812013-07-16T15:54:38.981-07:002013-07-16T15:54:38.981-07:00On the other hand, restrictions like this have flo...On the other hand, restrictions like this have flowed down from the federal level (e.g., Mcain-Feingold incumbent protection act, I mean campaign finance "reform"). The idea of political action committees and the laws regulating in Ohio are simply local replicas of federal level laws. I wouldn't expect much actual relief to happen.<br /><br />On the other hand, he's going for help from the part of the federal government that basically just overturns state legislation. That's probably not such a bad thing and could be quite libertarian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-44493579984005352622013-07-16T15:52:20.448-07:002013-07-16T15:52:20.448-07:00Clovis wrote: "I wonder if you could add a fe...Clovis wrote: "<i>I wonder if you could add a few real life situations where you personally feel affected by this growth of regulations represented in the FR.</i>"<br /><br />Personally, the whole babysitting thing is a lot harder. Child Protective Services will come by in a heartbeat if they feel you've left your kids with someone too young (or whatever) to babysit. And there's so much liability associated with having your own children babysit that many parents won't let them, reducing the availability of babysitters. And it's a felony punishable with jail time if you don't keep track of your kids' earnings and report them to the tax authorities.<br /><br />Also, though I have yet to be arrested for many regulations that I've no doubt violated, that doesn't mean I don't feel any effect. Basically, we're all guilty of something and now with the NSA and other agencies keeping track, I find it worrisome that they may choose to target me, or I may just inadvertently run afoul of the authorities for some regulation I don't even know about (80,000 pages is a lot to keep up on).<br /><br />One of the biggest areas of worry to me is what the authorities may do to my kids. Here are some examples:<br /><br /><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/" rel="nofollow">Texas teen makes violent joke during video game, is jailed for months</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/4003-dodgeball-banned-in-nh-district-amid-bullying-concerns/" rel="nofollow">Dodgeball Banned: ‘Turning Into a Nanny State’</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ktnv.com/news/watercooler/194673111.html" rel="nofollow">7-year-old Student suspended for shaping Pop-Tart into gun</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thedailysheeple.com/minor-in-possession-of-tea-is-suspended-from-cali-school_102012" rel="nofollow">Minor in Possession of Tea is Suspended from Cali School</a><br /><br /><a href="http://rt.com/usa/texas-school-id-hernandez-033/" rel="nofollow">Texas schools punish students who refuse to be tracked with microchips</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.infowars.com/cops-interrogate-family-for-allowing-kids-to-play-outside/" rel="nofollow">Cops Interrogate Family For Allowing Kids To Play Outside</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/" rel="nofollow">State Inspectors Searching Children’s Lunch Boxes</a><br /><br />My older daughter has asthma. Regulations around inhalers are damaging her. The first one is a common thing of asthmatics helping each other. Someone who's ever been severely short of breath (my daughter has been blue before - a nice color on a smurf, but rather disconcerting on your child) is not going to withhold an inhaler from someone who's having an attack and doesn't have an inhaler handy.<br /><br /><a href="http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/01/28/2-students-face-expulsion-for-sharing-an-asthma-inhaler/" rel="nofollow">2 Students Face Expulsion For Sharing An Asthma Inhaler</a><br /><br />Another problem is that they've prohibited the inhalers that work. My daughter has had to go to the hospital because these new, supposedly environmentally friendly inhalers don't work.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/22/has-your-inhaler-been-banned-out-of-environmental-concerns-it-could-cost-you/" rel="nofollow">HAS YOUR INHALER BEEN BANNED OUT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS? IT COULD COST YOU</a><br /><br />Anyway, the list goes on and on and on...Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-7822043861710443702013-07-16T15:12:52.683-07:002013-07-16T15:12:52.683-07:00AOG:
An interesting example indeed.
Not only bec...AOG:<br /><br />An interesting example indeed.<br /><br />Not only because it really looks a serious constraint of his political freedom, but also a demonstration that the motto "get the feds out of here and let all be locally decided" has its own pitfalls. After all, it is the federal justice that he is looking for to save the day.<br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-665471692571257102013-07-16T14:25:38.113-07:002013-07-16T14:25:38.113-07:00Clovis;
I'll give you one - political speech....Clovis;<br /><br />I'll give you one - political speech. Once upon a time I could simply speak out on political issues. Now I risk (literally) fines and possible imprisonment if I don't fill out the correct forms. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/11/in-todays-america-consult-your-attorney-before-speaking-freely/" rel="nofollow">Here is a recent example</a> and I can provide more if you want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-48538724576426874532013-07-16T07:18:39.248-07:002013-07-16T07:18:39.248-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-1049492818709526082013-07-16T07:15:11.266-07:002013-07-16T07:15:11.266-07:00Bret:
Your metaphor is very strong.
I wonder if ...Bret:<br /><br />Your metaphor is very strong.<br /><br />I wonder if you could add a few real life situations where you personally feel affected by this growth of regulations represented in the FR.<br /><br />You my agree that, as your society today is more numerous and complex than decades ago, it is natural that regulations may also grow. If they still have grown much faster than naturally should, is a point I have not how to judge - here I will agree with Erp that not living in the US hinders my capacity to understand your view.<br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-6873476413411023502013-07-15T10:21:09.063-07:002013-07-15T10:21:09.063-07:00Clovis wrote: "... it does not mean that all ...Clovis wrote: "<i>... it does not mean that all utility functions would be useless to the matter</i>"<br /><br />I didn't say useless, I said subjective and that any two people would prefer different utility functions as being optimal.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>it is still possible to argue that country X delivers "better conditions" to a subset of population than country Y</i>"<br /><br />Yes, from subjective perspectives, but not from any objective measure of "goodness".<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>You have today more mobility, access to information and, if you are part of some minority, far more rights and protection from abuse. Am I wrong?</i>"<br /><br />Yes and no. First a metaphor, then some data.<br /><br />The domesticated dog gets more calories, better health care, more nurturing, lives a longer life, etc. than a wild wolf. Yet if you put the wolf in captivity like a domestic dog, it tends not to live very long. Prior to the emancipation of slaves, one of the arguments for not freeing them was that the southern slaves had more calories, better health care, more offspring, lived longer lives, etc. than the northern free blacks. No one thinks that was a good argument for keeping them enslaved.<br /><br />Now some data. It's hard to describe all the niggling little encumbrances imposed by the government during my lifetime (it's a really long list), so I'll just put forth one statistic that gives you an idea of the oppressive increase in regulation. In the United States, the Federal Register <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Register" rel="nofollow">"is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains most routine publications and public notices of government agencies"</a> and basically reflects the regulations of the United States. In the year I was born, <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2013/05/FR-Pages-published.pdf" rel="nofollow">there were</a> 11,116 pages in the FR. In 2012, there were 80,050 or nearly <i>eight times as many regulations</i>. That probably does include more "rights", but unlikely that any of them do me or my family or my community any good.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>...you've stretched the definition too far, to the point that every country in the world is a socialist state...</i>"<br /><br />It's a spectrum, and yes, every country in the world is socialist to some degree. My hope is simply that the United States at the federal level begins to move the other direction. I don't believe that it makes sense to define a threshold where below some level of taxes or regulation or something a country isn't socialist, otherwise it is. I don't see how one would come up with such a threshold or why that threshold would have meaning.<br /><br />Clovis wrote: "<i>As for the Sweden thing, I insist: it is meaningless the whole comparison...</i>"<br /><br />Yes. All comparisons of utility functions are meaningless <i>except</i> at the subjective level.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-77692539763578864072013-07-12T18:12:44.788-07:002013-07-12T18:12:44.788-07:00Erp: finally, on that we agree completely. My rega...Erp: finally, on that we agree completely. My regards.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-32176560336660830262013-07-12T16:57:03.873-07:002013-07-12T16:57:03.873-07:00You can't be serious. You really don't ge...You can't be serious. You really don't get us and I bet you don't understand Americans at all. Stay well.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-21092993041713682712013-07-12T16:24:19.362-07:002013-07-12T16:24:19.362-07:00Erp: well, I know you do not mean those comments a...Erp: well, I know you do not mean those comments as compliments, but I will take them as such anyway. I mean, if I can evoke good memories of your past and also manage to be a candidate for Obama's sons club, I must at least be entertaining. I confess you sound to me like that grumpy aunt of some funny and crazy american movie, which means I am far from bored too.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-62701167023669027712013-07-12T16:10:59.812-07:002013-07-12T16:10:59.812-07:00... Full blown socialism is not complete yet, but ...... Full blown socialism is not complete yet, but they're really working hard on it. Right now they've only attained fascism.<br /><br />Bret, you know how Obama said if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin? Well if every dogmatic brain washed tunnel-visioned lefty I ever met had a son, he would sound like Clovis who apparently is unaware that except for our military, Europe would be part of the Third Reich.<br /><br />Oh, I forgot, the Russians won WW2. ;-{<br /><br />Only the very young can be so smug and sure they know all the answers when in truth, they don't even know any of the questions. <br /><br />It's actually almost nostalgic. I haven't heard these arguments in decades since the last communist delegates to the U.N. we're guests in my parents home. They simply couldn't believe anything was real and that everything outside of NY was no different than the USSR and the cars, travel, etc. was all pretense.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-17654474543346186232013-07-12T14:21:46.778-07:002013-07-12T14:21:46.778-07:00Bret: Thanks for the English lesson.
I agree tha...Bret: Thanks for the English lesson. <br /><br />I agree that assessments of "well being" by entire populations deal with subjective aspects. So usually only more objective economic factors - as income distribution and access to services - are taken in account (and, for sure, even that deals with some degrees of subjectivity). But it does not mean that all utility functions would be useless to the matter, only that we need to couple them with further analysis and methods. In the end of the day, it is still possible to argue that country X delivers "better conditions" to a subset of population than country Y.<br /><br /><br />As for the subjective part, it truly puzzles me that you feel more constrained in America 2013 than ancestors decades (centuries?) ago. You have today more mobility, access to information and, if you are part of some minority, far more rights and protection from abuse. Am I wrong?<br /><br />As far as I can understand from your blog and comments, you regret most taxes you are obliged to pay - but even that is not necessarily greater than what your ancestors had.<br /><br />As for the comment on socialism, sorry, but I believe you've stretched the definition too far, to the point that every country in the world is a socialist state. The US does not control the means of production of most of its economy nor promotes the vesting of ownership. It simply collects taxes and spend it accordingly to what democratically elected representatives choose. Or are you suggesting we should define a threshold of taxes after which we declare a country to be socialist? If so, what would be the number? (You are well aware of the subjectivy we are leaning too again, right?)<br /><br />As for the Sweden thing, I insist: it is meaningless the whole comparison. That Milton Friedman took part does not lend more meaning to it. We can easily find many subsets of a population using other markers than ancestrality to reach the same conclusion or even its contrary, just to make clear how the whole exercise is a truly bad statistical procedure. It reminds me of my students in the laboratory who tend to discard the experimental points they do not think were good enough.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-34675648398927947152013-07-12T12:11:43.127-07:002013-07-12T12:11:43.127-07:00CeA wrote: "...what you are demonstrating is ...CeA wrote: "<i>...what you are demonstrating is that we can always choose numbers to fit our prejudices...</i>"<br /><br />Yes, that's almost exactly my point. Except that I think a much better word than "prejudices" is "preferences". "Prejudices" has a very negative connotation in English (your English is excellent but American English is not your natural language), while "preferences" is neutral and an outsider can never know if someone prefers things because of prejudice or just because that's the way that person is.<br /><br />But ultimately, while we can construct utilitarian functions based on supposedly objective metrics to "prove" that one societal structure is better than another, it's all meaningless simply because we can't adequately capture the individual preferences of hundreds of millions of people. There's also the problem of deciding which utilitarian function denotes "goodness" and how is one better than the other?<br /><br />I personally hugely value economic and non-economic freedom. In my lifetime, in America, that freedom has been greatly diminished and it's absolutely true from sitting inside my head, that I'm far, far worse off than my ancestors because of that loss of freedom. Note that I didn't say I value economic "success" - in fact I'm not particularly materialistic. I value freedom, even if that were to make me worse off in some materialistic way.<br /><br />A couple of other things. The <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t" rel="nofollow">dictionary definition of socialism</a> is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Note that it doesn't say <i>how</i> the ownership, control, distribution, etc. is set up or what's done with the resources, only that the community (typically via the government) has that ownership or control. Thus, since the United States governments controls and expends more resources than France, it is more socialistic than France by the definition of the word in English. The fact that it deploys more on things you find less than optimal (like the military), doesn't change that.<br /><br />Also, regarding Sweden, the well-being of poor Swedish Americans compares favorably with poor Swedes (and of course non-poor Swedes are much better off). Here's an <a href="http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia" rel="nofollow">excerpt from one of many articles on the subject</a>:<br /><br /><i>"The 4.4 million Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer than the average American. If Americans with Swedish ancestry would form their own country their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the earnings of the average American.<br /><br />"The old Sweden, in contrast, has not done as well in economic terms. In 1960 taxation stood at 30 percent of GDP, roughly where the US is today. As taxes rose, economic growth decreased, with Sweden dropping from being the 4th richest country in 1970 to being the 12th richest in 2008. Swedish GDP per capita is now $36,600, far below the $45,500 of the US, and even further behind the $56,900 of Swedes in America.<br /><br />"A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%."</i>Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-84252064013641557332013-07-12T06:19:28.885-07:002013-07-12T06:19:28.885-07:00Bret, as good as your answer is, I beg to disagree...Bret, as good as your answer is, I beg to disagree.<br /><br />You argue two main points: i) there are measures that would indicate a greater spending per person in America, ii) A restriction to a subset of the population would take any significant difference away.<br /><br />As for (i): it is beforehand an improper measure, maybe the worst you could choose. If we are trying to measure the well being of the population, we should restrict ourselves to clear measures of it. Total expenditure is clearly a bad one, since any country can spend money in so many things that have negligible impact on that.<br /><br />In terms of budgets, the American Joe decided to have far more military toys than the French Jean, and to pay for that he foots a bigger bill - which by no means imply he will have a better life. To say it even makes him more "socialist" is quite ironic, given those toys importance to defeat real old socialism.<br /><br /><br />ii) Sure you can find any subset of a population faring better than the whole of another one - so what? I guarantee the 0,1% of upper class Mexicans are having much fun in life, maybe much more than you (actually I have no idea of your income, so I take that back).<br /><br /><br />So Bret, what you are demonstrating is that we can always choose numbers to fit our prejudices - but that lesson we learn too soon. <br /><br /><br />Erp: I am happy if you are having some fun, after all, grumpy people need it more than anyone else. But I can give you a better tip: open up your window, breath some fresh air, take joy in the blue sky and rest in peace for 1 minute with the thought that the world is not this dark place with communists ready to jump on everything you collected in life. After that you can go back to your old self, but I hope the 1 minute of rest may make your day - and help you to see the world from other peoples eyes.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-35256830636309469972013-07-11T09:37:06.550-07:002013-07-11T09:37:06.550-07:00Thanks Bret. I was laughing so hard the tears in ...Thanks Bret. I was laughing so hard the tears in my eyes prevented me from typing.<br /><br />I wonder if Clovis has spent as much time in <i>la Belle</i> as I have -- seeing things with my own eyes, not the eyes of lefty academics.<br /><br />Also my best friend was born in Denmark and has many interesting stories about the socialist paradise there.<br /><br />... and pretty soon we'l hear about Harry's tar paper shacks the darkies live in ... <br /><br />It's amazing we're only grumpyerphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-26896363849951027462013-07-11T08:52:44.689-07:002013-07-11T08:52:44.689-07:00Clovis wrote: "I believe that the poor and th...Clovis wrote: "<i>I believe that the poor and the midle class French are better of than the American one ... we could argue so based in objective numbers ...</i>"<br /><br />So one set of "objective numbers" that I find telling is this. Based on three wikipedia pages:<br /><br />1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP<br /><br />2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States<br /><br />3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France<br /><br />We can calculate absolute government spending per capita (with PPP adjustment).<br /><br />For France, a proudly socialist country, we have 52.8% of GDP is government spending and per capita GDP (PPP) is $35,548, giving $18,769 spent per person by the French government.<br /><br />For the United States, supposedly not a socialist country, we have 38.9% of GDP is government spending and per capita GDP (PPP) is $49,922, giving $19,420 spent per person by U.S. governments.<br /><br />So the U.S. actually spends more per person than France. Since the base definition of socialism is pretty much related to the amount of resources controlled by the government, the U.S. is more socialist per capita than France.<br /><br />So what gives?<br /><br />Well, lots of things, but the point is that even supposedly objective measures are misleading.<br /><br />The other thing to consider is that if you want to compare France to the United States, perhaps you should consider comparing France to French Americans? This has been done for Swedish Americans (because Sweden is one of the favorite examples of those favoring government spening) and it turns out that Swedish Americans are on average, substantially better off than the average American and suddenly Sweden doesn't look so good in comparison.<br /><br />The point being that to make objective comparisons, one probably has to consider culture and possibly genetics. That's even harder to do, of course.<br /><br />I've found that looking at these things over the years, there is very little meaningful about supposedly objective aggregate numbers.<br /><br />So what do you end up with?<br /><br />Subjective preference. Nothing less, nothing more.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-12781422802914731182013-07-11T07:56:28.827-07:002013-07-11T07:56:28.827-07:00Erp, it is not just a generational change of words...Erp, it is not just a generational change of words, it is really different to defend socialism in its old (and well defined) meaning and modern capitalist states that happens to favor strong safety nets. Here semantics do matter, for you are being sloppy in its use to say the least.<br /><br />As for France, I believe that the poor and the midle class French are better of than the American one in general (sure, this is not easy to compare, so emphasis in "general") and we could argue so based in objective numbers so that you should not shrug it off easily as "my perspective". But I can foresee that numbers and objectivity will not do the trick here. You know what you know right? Anything else is pure communist conspiracy or whatever...Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.com