[Oldmanmatt]

It's in the Fail! It must be true!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html


😜😜😜😜

[Falling Down]

I think its actually quite rare for capitalism to actually provide true innovation at a higher scale than Socialism

I'd be interested to see some examples of where and when this has occurred,  I'm struggling to think of any.

I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested.

[Sasquatch]

I think its actually quite rare for capitalism to actually provide true innovation at a higher scale than Socialism

I'd be interested to see some examples of where and when this has occurred,  I'm struggling to think of any.

I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested.

Russia was in space before the US.....     Mostly kidding.  I've never seen any studies to either prove of refute my claim above, just my opinion. 

One of the problems with the whole capitalism vs. socialism debate stems from the understanding of what they aeach are and what countries fal under one vs. the other.  For example, living in Alaska(extremely conservative) most of the population here would consider the UK and almost all of europe to be a socialist state.  I would guess that most of europe doesn't consider themselves as left wing as the people here do.

Another challenge that has no counterfactual is that during the last 70 years, there has been no country on earth with the resources, or population to grow and develop like the US.  (and don't get me started on a comparison between the US and russia) As such a disproportionate number of innovations were US based and therefore skew the whole.

Even so, if you look at the lists of nobel laueates by country, as an indirect means of assessing innovation, there seems to be a pretty proportionate spread amongst developed countries.  The US has around 350, France 120, Germany 115, etc... So nothing really shows too much there. 

I dunno.  Any ideas for how to look at this?  I'd be curous and would love to be proven right or wrong.....

[Sloper]

Hmm let's look at the statement 'Another challenge that has no counterfactual is that during the last 70 years, there has been no country on earth with the resources, or population to grow and develop like the US.'

hmm ever heard of Russia, India, China, Indonesia etc  All of whom broadly had the population, the resources and so on to develop as the USA did.

I'm genuinely struggling to think of one genuine innovation that ws developed in a socialist system that wasn't also in broad terms developed in a capitalist one.

And also wtf do you mean by 'counterfactual'?

[slackline]

I'm genuinely struggling to think of one genuine innovation that ws developed in a socialist system that wasn't also in broad terms developed in a capitalist one.

Socialism

[Sloper]

Actually socialism was devevloped by the petit bourgoise trustafarians in a capitalist system, in fact, in part a couple of miles down the road from my office in Manchester.

[Sasquatch]

Hmm let's look at the statement 'Another challenge that has no counterfactual is that during the last 70 years, there has been no country on earth with the resources, or population to grow and develop like the US.'

hmm ever heard of Russia, India, China, Indonesia etc  All of whom broadly had the population, the resources and so on to develop as the USA did.

Russia was decimated in both population and infrastructure by WWII, and started the race so far behind there was no chance of winning.  In spite of that they still beat the US into space......

As for the others, all of them were third world contries at the time, and China ended up with a mad dictator in Mao.  Do you honestly think they are a fair comparison against the US in 1945-1950?

I'm genuinely struggling to think of one genuine innovation that ws developed in a socialist system that wasn't also in broad terms developed in a capitalist one.

And also wtf do you mean by 'counterfactual'?

Can you name me what you would consider a socialist stem, and perhaps we can find some?  Does Sweden count? What about the UK?  Most Americans would consider the UK quite far down the socialist spectrum. What about the rest of Scandinavia? 

Counterfactual is heavily used in macroeconomics when assessing policy and attempting to determine causation.  Basically it means there is no way to prove the point.  In other words, If there were another country on Earth that had the same starting point, resources, and population as the US but had socialist system, then we could make a comparison, but in most macroeconomic evaluations this does not exist.  Therefore there is only circumstantial evidence and theorizing, no factual evidence. 

[Sloper]

Hmm let's look at the statement 'Another challenge that has no counterfactual is that during the last 70 years, there has been no country on earth with the resources, or population to grow and develop like the US.'

hmm ever heard of Russia, India, China, Indonesia etc  All of whom broadly had the population, the resources and so on to develop as the USA did.

Russia was decimated in both population and infrastructure by WWII, and started the race so far behind there was no chance of winning.  In spite of that they still beat the US into space......

As for the others, all of them were third world contries at the time, and China ended up with a mad dictator in Mao.  Do you honestly think they are a fair comparison against the US in 1945-1950?

I'm genuinely struggling to think of one genuine innovation that ws developed in a socialist system that wasn't also in broad terms developed in a capitalist one.

And also wtf do you mean by 'counterfactual'?

Can you name me what you would consider a socialist stem, and perhaps we can find some?  Does Sweden count? What about the UK?  Most Americans would consider the UK quite far down the socialist spectrum. What about the rest of Scandinavia? 

Counterfactual is heavily used in macroeconomics when assessing policy and attempting to determine causation.  Basically it means there is no way to prove the point.  In other words, If there were another country on Earth that had the same starting point, resources, and population as the US but had socialist system, then we could make a comparison, but in most macroeconomic evaluations this does not exist.  Therefore there is only circumstantial evidence and theorizing, no factual evidence.

re counterfactional, thanks I couldn't get my head around how you were using it as opposed to c.f. & etc

O.k. leaving aside the bit about Russia (they had plenty of people and resources to grow rapidly) & etc let's just apply Occam's razor and say the reason they didn't grow as the USA did was their political and economic system led to the deaths of millions and oppression on a truly vast scale.

Let's deal with the point about what's a socialist system, off the top of my head I would say that there have been any number of examples, from Cuba, CCCP, Yugoslavia, Rumania & etc North Korea to a degree a number of African states, Zimbabwe, India, China & etc

Now I do hope you're not going to come out with the no true scotsman answer.

PS the Russians won the space race 'because their Germans were better than our Germans'

[Sasquatch]

re counterfactional, thanks I couldn't get my head around how you were using it as opposed to c.f. & etc

You're welcome

O.k. leaving aside the bit about Russia (they had plenty of people and resources to grow rapidly) & etc let's just apply Occam's razor and say the reason they didn't grow as the USA did was their political and economic system led to the deaths of millions and oppression on a truly vast scale.

Same as North Korea, China, Etc. 

Let's deal with the point about what's a socialist system, off the top of my head I would say that there have been any number of examples, from Cuba, CCCP, Yugoslavia, Rumania & etc North Korea to a degree a number of African states, Zimbabwe, India, China & etc

Now I feel like we're getting somewhere.  All of the examples you point to are autocratic states masquerading as "socialist", with the exception of perhaps India. Although that is debateable as well, and it would be hard to argue that until recently it was extremely autocratic.

One issue that gets muddled is most cpaitalism vs. socialism debates is the difference in political vs. economic policy.
I think democracy is a FAR higher inducement to innovation than autocracy, and probably has a much greater correlation  to innovation than capitalism vs. socialism from an economic sense.  And as I said before, Capitalism is far greater than socialism at spreading innovation.

Now I do hope you're not going to come out with the no true scotsman answer.

PS the Russians won the space race 'because their Germans were better than our Germans'

What's the no true scotsman answer?  Must be cultural miss....

Very true....

[Sloper]

I forget who posited it, basically it goes like this (and apologies to the northern natives*)

Jock is reading a newspaper that has an account of a brutal rape and murder, and tuts to himself saying 'no Scotsman would ever do a thing like that' . . .  the following week he reads about a Glaswegian committing a similar offence and says to himself 'no true Scotsman would ever do a thing like that'.

In other words you change your definition when the facts don't suit you, for example people saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist and therefore you can't equate the murderous regime with socialism & etc

So thank you for demonstrating the intellectual vacuum at the heart of your flaccid and jejune posturing.

* the season of casual racial slurs will end with the 6N.

[Sloper]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/26/unite-union-considers-cut-labour-party-fees

My god, where's the I can't stop laughing roflcopeter.

[Sasquatch]

I forget who posited it, basically it goes like this (and apologies to the northern natives*)

Jock is reading a newspaper that has an account of a brutal rape and murder, and tuts to himself saying 'no Scotsman would ever do a thing like that' . . .  the following week he reads about a Glaswegian committing a similar offence and says to himself 'no true Scotsman would ever do a thing like that'.

In other words you change your definition when the facts don't suit you, for example people saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist and therefore you can't equate the murderous regime with socialism & etc

So thank you for demonstrating the intellectual vacuum at the heart of your flaccid and jejune posturing.

* the season of casual racial slurs will end with the 6N.

What defines capitalism for you?

[slackline]

The Mysterious Incident of the Disappearing Book 

[tomtom]

The Mysterious Incident of the Disappearing Book 

Thats funny, brilliant and scary all in one!

[cowboyhat]

Not the Onion

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140225/williamsburg/facial-hair-transplants-growing-amid-hipster-beard-craze-doctors-say

[SA Chris]

I'm so unfashionable, I'm hip

[tomtom]

I'm so unfashionable, I'm hip

Maybe I need a hip transplant... boom boom..

[kelvin]

When does the revolution start? 

Nice read all the same, even if it's from the 'San Fran, too cool for school' corner.

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Bad idea of the day award goes to....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276
 

[Stubbs]

Wow that's proper sci fi horror material right there!

[SA Chris]

Combination of "The Thing" and "Contagion"

[slackline]

On a lighter note this is a brilliant story and a  Done for love not money, cynics may retort that he has made some money out of it, but...

Anyone with an MBA would immediately accumulate the maximum money. But I did not want to.

 

[Sloper]

I forget who posited it, basically it goes like this (and apologies to the northern natives*)

Jock is reading a newspaper that has an account of a brutal rape and murder, and tuts to himself saying 'no Scotsman would ever do a thing like that' . . .  the following week he reads about a Glaswegian committing a similar offence and says to himself 'no true Scotsman would ever do a thing like that'.

In other words you change your definition when the facts don't suit you, for example people saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist and therefore you can't equate the murderous regime with socialism & etc

So thank you for demonstrating the intellectual vacuum at the heart of your flaccid and jejune posturing.

* the season of casual racial slurs will end with the 6N.

What defines capitalism for you?

The definition of capitalism to me, is in simple terms the transfer of an asset from a lower value state to a higher one, with less cost than the benefit derived.

Capitalism is not a system of government.

Capitalism has never been 'free' or 'unrestrained', it has been regulated from the dawn of time (e.g. money changers in the temple), there is of course a question as to how far it should be regulated i.e. the sale of drugs, body parts, restrictive trades and professions e.g. law, medicine etc.

I think what you're getting at is what lies at the heart of a society that's not socialist, and the answer to that is, the rule of law and respect for individual freedoms.

Socialism and socialist states are predicated on the loss of individual liberty and the distortion of the rule of law; for example in Soviet Russia, compliance with one law would mean breaching another, the loss of individual liberty should need no illustration.

[Oldmanmatt]

I forget who posited it, basically it goes like this (and apologies to the northern natives*)

Jock is reading a newspaper that has an account of a brutal rape and murder, and tuts to himself saying 'no Scotsman would ever do a thing like that' . . .  the following week he reads about a Glaswegian committing a similar offence and says to himself 'no true Scotsman would ever do a thing like that'.

In other words you change your definition when the facts don't suit you, for example people saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist and therefore you can't equate the murderous regime with socialism & etc

So thank you for demonstrating the intellectual vacuum at the heart of your flaccid and jejune posturing.

* the season of casual racial slurs will end with the 6N.

What defines capitalism for you?

The definition of capitalism to me, is in simple terms the transfer of an asset from a lower value state to a higher one, with less cost than the benefit derived.

Capitalism is not a system of government.

Capitalism has never been 'free' or 'unrestrained', it has been regulated from the dawn of time (e.g. money changers in the temple), there is of course a question as to how far it should be regulated i.e. the sale of drugs, body parts, restrictive trades and professions e.g. law, medicine etc.

I think what you're getting at is what lies at the heart of a society that's not socialist, and the answer to that is, the rule of law and respect for individual freedoms.

Socialism and socialist states are predicated on the loss of individual liberty and the distortion of the rule of law; for example in Soviet Russia, compliance with one law would mean breaching another, the loss of individual liberty should need no illustration.

An interesting point and quite accurate. A neat summation of Capitalism.

It does not adequately address socialism though. There surely exists an "ideal" of socialism which Soviet Russia never achieved?

An ideal which would seem as repellent as unrestrained Capitalism.

And, by extension, we (the UKB debating society) all appear to be huddled around the rather liberal center ground; including you Sloper (on the right hand edge of the center ground, perhaps, but not advocating an extreme).

I'd be interested on your definition on Socialism?

Mine tends to conjure up an image of Ants...

Surely, Democracy, by definition; precludes Socialism?

Is there not a tendency for the Modern Conservative to confuse compassion and consideration with Socialism?

And mistake naked self interest and shortsighted grasping, with Capitalism?   

[Sloper]

Socialism is impossible to define, just look at the spats between the CPGB, WRP, SWP and the other fringe nutters, in fact I'd go so far as to say seeking to define it is rather missing the point, what's much more helpful is looking at it's core components,

First of all there's a theistic come quasi scientific belief in the doctrine, this is evident in almost all 'socialist tracts', from Marx through to Tony Benn (his finger post (i.e. him) not changing his views when the evidence changes vs the wind vane who does).  This is what underpins the socialist doctrine of the permanency of the state.

Then there's the ceding of personal freedom to that of the state, here we wee equality trumping individual rights, the old analogy as to why this is bad is the 50% eye problem, i.e eye transplants are possible, 50% of the population are blind and 50% have two good eyes, therefore you should enforce the transplant of eyes so everyone is equal.

Closely followed by a very strong degree of legal positivism i.e. if the state makes a law it's law rather than law having to have some 'natural' quality as per Aquinas.

The final clincher is the centrally controlled economy and the limits that this imposes.

The problem with democracy in a socialist country is that the plurality of debate isn't often possible and when the vote goes against the status quo there is anything but a peaceful transfer of power.

In terms of compassion, there's a problem with compassion across the political spectrum in that it causes confusion and bad headlines i.e. a complex subject doesn't come across well in a tabloid headline, for example closing hospitals.

Of course capitalism left unfettered would be less beneficial than regulated capitalism, which is why we have a highly regulated series of markets.  If you don't believe this google the FCA and look at their regulatory regime, whether it works or not is almost a moot point, it is there, its highly complex and very onerous to comply with.