Economics

[TheEconomist]

I would be interested to see your evidence for that.

It would take several in-depth expanations of several graphs. The jist is, however, that, like education, if you break it down into race it paints a different picture. Asians are just as skinny as in Asian countries. Whites can be either pathetically skinny or hilarious fat, as in Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. The difference comes from blacks and Mexicans. Blacks, according to the chart for obesity or even BMI, would be considered obese even with a good build because of bigger bone structures and such. You know, slave genetics. And, of course, Mexicans is one of the most obese race I've ever seen. It is cultural in Mexico to be fat, especially for the very wealthy. When they come to America, they're basically wealthy.

Naturally, that should and does count towards the obesity rate, which is fine. The problem is that the stereotype is that all Americans are fat, when they're not. Similiar to how a low total education score makes it seem that all Americans are stupid, even though the portion of the population thats always done well is still doing well. Likewise, America's obesity is increasing due to bad measuring and immigrant cultures. The white south has always been fat, and isn't getting that much fatter. In the end, not saying America doesn't have an obesity problem (I crack jokes about it all the time.) It's just that, like education, it is waaay overblown due to a misunderstanding of what the statistics mean. The blanket term of "fat Americans" just isn't accurate.

In summation, ever heard someone say, "Those fat ass Germans/Greeks/Britons/Australians"? I haven't. Even though the obesity rate is similar, depending of the measurement system.

"Germans are as fat as Americans." http://atlanticreview.org/archives/6...Americans.html



Either way, though, the trend for all countries is rapidly increasing obesity and they're catching up with Americans. The old saying, "Los Angeles today, America tomorrow, the world next week." is true.

The American education system is very inefficient. I understand that the funding for schools mostly comes from local land taxes creating vast inequalities and inconsistencies of funding.

That's true, however, if you're a minority, you can go wherever you want and get into whatever college you want. If you're poor and black, you get tons of hand outs. If you're poor and white, shit outta luck. So, yeah, it's inefficient and unequal, just in the reverse way that you think. The example of this that I always give when this is brought up, is the Romania school adminstrator shooting that happened in Miami years ago. Blacks were getting basically free college and would be bussed to any school they wanted. While other white/asian minorities were not. It just happened to be some Romanians that blew up about it.

China has enourmous numbers of low-skill manufacturing jobs right now. Those sorts of jobs are largely absent from America right now and there is heavy competition for those that do exist.

Not sure what you're saying here. Let me rephrase my statement. Whenever an area with poor grades is encountered, DSquid blames the government and funding. I grew up in a probably one of the worst performing and most violent areas in America, so I know the mentality and true problems preventing success. Has nothing to do with funding or government especially since funding is already more than, say, Canada on average. As I said before, the problem is cultural. My simple, logical evidence for this is that poor inland Chinese students can perform just as good, if not better, than the OECD average when, according to ChinaSmack.com, some of them even have to build their own desks and chairs and take them to school. Now, THAT'S lack of funding.

There is no true definition of socialism.

There is. The founding Socialists even gave somewhat of a manifesto declaring their philosophies and what should be changed. For example, and end to competition. However, as you've said, it's been so politically basterdized as to be useless, as I've said before.

Living standards =/= material wealth.

Living standard is the economist way of saying wealth. You can switch it out with GDP per capita or material wealth and the only difference would be whether or not you adjust for PPP (purchaser's power parity).

that is the importance of equality in society.

Equality and freedom to succeed are VERY important to me. I've ranted about this time and time again. The real difference between me and Squid is that he believes government is the great equalizer and that, if there's inequality, its due to a lack of intervention by government. But, as I've shown to him time and time again using charts and facts, more spending =/= more results. i.e. the above China example.

What I argue is self-reliance and independence. Don't blame the government for not funding a school enough as the reason for low scores. Blame the student/parents/culture for not wanting to succeed academically.

Still, this being the Internet, you could probably find some heated arguments for any country. Palestine/Israel, China/Japan, India/Pakistan, etc.

Just in case there's a misunderstanding, as I've said a thousand times before, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Canada. It's just that DSquid's delusions make me have to go on the offensive to break through.

[Rake]

Interesting. Regardless of country, obesity is a massive example of market failure. A system of taxation and regulation should be put in place to reward people selling healthy food and punish people selling crappy food. Markets will adjust and the results will be a healthier populace.

That's true, however, if you're a minority, you can go wherever you want and get into whatever college you want. If you're poor and black, you get tons of hand outs. If you're poor and white, shit outta luck. So, yeah, it's inefficient and unequal, just in the reverse way that you think.

I was only referring to primary and high school, which are the most important parts of an education system (though actually kindergarten is). I agree that funding should not be based on race but wealth level. The US needs a centrally funded education system that provides extra resources to poorer areas. That is what most developed countries have and it helps.

Living standard is the economist way of saying wealth. You can switch it out with GDP per capita or material wealth and the only difference would be whether or not you adjust for PPP (purchaser's power parity).

I know that that is how economists treat the question. I am saying that it is far too narrow. The question of what makes a high living standard is a complicated one that can't be reduced to a single factor, such as money. The point is, even if GDP goes up, living standards can go down. Especially when you are focused on the lower parts of society.

Equality and freedom to succeed are VERY important to me. I've ranted about this time and time again. The real difference between me and Squid is that he believes government is the great equalizer and that, if there's inequality, its due to a lack of intervention by government. But, as I've shown to him time and time again using charts and facts, more spending =/= more results. i.e. the above China example.

Increased government spending does not have to produce better results. Money can certainly be wasted, especially once spending exceeds the capacity of a school to effectively use it. But that does not mean that increasing government spending can't lead to better results. It has to be paired with appropriate administration and competent teachers but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Governments can have a lead role in turning around social disadvantage due to their ability to provide stable, multi-decade funding and co-ordinate multiple social services.

What I argue is self-reliance and independence. Don't blame the government for not funding a school enough as the reason for low scores. Blame the student/parents/culture for not wanting to succeed academically.

Self-reliance is an excellent philosophy for an individual and maximizing the resources that one has available. However, it doesn't have much to say about groups. That is, there is no point in just waiting for a group to become self-reliant. Nor can you impose self-reliance on people.

Boosting people out of poverty is a complicated business. What works for one person might not work for another. All one person might need is a bus ticket to get to a job. Someone else might need comprehensive health assistance and education before they are ready for independence. Social networks and mentors are important as well and they don't appear out of no where. Government can help with all of these factors and countries that have high government spending tend to have higher equality as well. They can't fix everything but they can do a lot.

[Quirel]

Interesting. Regardless of country, obesity is a massive example of market failure. A system of taxation and regulation should be put in place to reward people selling healthy food and punish people selling crappy food. Markets will adjust and the results will be a healthier populace.

We'll see. Just watch New York.

Also, does anybody else think that the abundance of high fructose corn syrup is caused by the massive corn subsidies that the government gives out? If these subsidies were taken away, would alternative sweeteners be economically viable?

[TheEconomist]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-...020258934.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-...020000713.html

Didn't someone in this thread use the IMF's and World Bank's position as an argument against mine? Looks like the World Bank has finally seen the light that a high school student saw three years ago. Six months ago they had their heads up their asses. IMF awakened a bit earlier.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analys...203630554.html

A recession so obvious its in mainstream news. That means its too late to do anything but buckle up.

[phazonjunkie]

A recession so obvious its in mainstream news. That means its too late to do anything but buckle up.

On that note, many have been forecasting a MASSIVE depression in 2013, the likes of which we've never experienced before.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/04/2...oom-and-gloom/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44bwvSQN4nI
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simo..._b_933748.html

A lot of it is Greek to me, but you seem knowledgeable on this subject. What are your thoughts on this?

[DemolitionSquid]

This thread seems like the best place to post this.

Gold Pooping Bacteria
http://gizmodo.com/5948739/researche...duce-pure-gold

Economic crisis averted? Naw, just more wealth for the already rich.

[Quirel]

Um... huh. Actually, that's slower than the traditional way of refining gold from gold chloride (or gold chlroride, to quote the article). The only thing that's interesting about it is that a bacterium is doing it, rather than humans with chemicals and beakers.

It's nothing too new, though. Bacteria have been known to do the same thing to iron in peat bogs, turning up lumps of almost-pure iron.

Anyhow, if it can process other forms of toxic waste and turn up pure metals, I'd like to see what it can do to Berkeley Pit.

[phazonjunkie]

Well well.....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinas...055603673.html

[TheEconomist]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49410960

China is having trouble transitioning into a consumption economy. Shocker! As a result, top firms are now shorting the shit out of the Chinese economy, esp. its financials. Suck it IMF, World Bank, Wall Street, everyone else. I'm going to be eating your lunch.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4810520/

Consensus among economists is a ~20% decline in Toronto real estate is imminent and unavoidable. WHAT?!?! Six months ago the consensus was ~20% inrease. What is this madness?

I've been saying it for years and some big firms have been saying it for a year or so now. Only came back to say that the "general sentiment" has now officially changed from pro-CA/AU/CN to pessimistic. So, for those of you that had greater insight than top firms for some time now, congratulations, the tables have turned and your are now the majority with other now seeing the light.

Sorry, probably the last time I'll gloat. Unless DSquid ever comes back. Never get tired of rubbing this in his face.



@Rake: Don't want to get into it now but when talking about the U.S. wealth distribution compared to other countries you have to be aware of all of the differences. America has the richest people in the world. Period. We also have massive amounts of poor immigrants with high birth rates. We also have a generation of baby boomers reaching the peak of their net wealth that will soon start to drop sharply. America's inequality has less to do with policies, and more to do with things like geography and politics. Basically, we have one end of the wealth spectrum being first or second generation third-world immigrants with little wealth and a large baby boomer population just now reaching the peak of their wealth, many of these being the richest in the world. If you'll also notice, the countries with the highest income equality are also more homogenized in terms of race and culture.

Just another example of how you can take one simple statistic, bring emotions or bias into the equation and completely miss what the statistic is actually saying. A socialist like Squid is going to, no matter what, say that it is a problem with wealth distribution because he knows nothing about economics or what its like to live in a country that every damn third-world immigrant wants to get into. A level-headed person would investigate the math and see why this the case and that person would find the above information.

AMAZING, huh?

[Rake]

America has the richest people in the world. Period. We also have massive amounts of poor immigrants with high birth rates. We also have a generation of baby boomers reaching the peak of their net wealth that will soon start to drop sharply. America's inequality has less to do with policies, and more to do with things like geography and politics. Basically, we have one end of the wealth spectrum being first or second generation third-world immigrants with little wealth and a large baby boomer population just now reaching the peak of their wealth, many of these being the richest in the world.

I would love to have the time/energy to go into the numbers in depth myself but I don't and I expect you don't either. Instead, I will just ask you this, is it therefore just coincidence that the US has such low tax rates and such high inequality compared to other rich countries? Surely it seems logical that if you are taking money from the richest and giving it to the poorest then you will increase equality.

If you'll also notice, the countries with the highest income equality are also more homogenized in terms of race and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GI...chedcolors.png

If you take a look at the above map, most of the purple/blue countries have significant government redistributive systems (even if, in some cases, they can no longer afford it). It may be that a homogenized culture may mean that people are more prepared to pay taxes and fund welfare but that means it is the redistribution system that is the important factor in equality, not the culture as such.

Unless DSquid ever comes back. Never get tired of rubbing this in his face.

You two are enormously entertaining. Don't ever change.