US Politics Megathread

[fightinfrenchman]

Truly insufferable

[Riotcoke]

Why is he doing THE salute

[Horsemen]

Why is he doing THE salute

NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS' PARTY

[gibson]

I'm tempted to quote one of those giant walls of text but will refrain.

Anyway Warren 2020

https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/1 ... 4673285120

yang with the biggest jump

[fightinfrenchman]

He should just promise twice as much money to people

[rsy]

YangGang

[deleted_user0]

nice post lejenda... Don Quiote would be proud! Can you quote the post you are referring to? that would just make it even more glorious. thanks! You're my favorite giant chaser :)

ya seething?

Having trouble reading again? Seems like it's a selection criterion for your league of extraordinarily borint gentlemen. I suggest you start a book club.

[Dolan]

We shouldn't lose sight of how far we have gotten thanks to a market-based economy.

You say "thanks to", but one could just as easily claim "in spite of". Neither is provable. Correlation does not imply causation. Come on, you know this.

Well if we look at the evidence, smallpox vaccine prevents or lessens smallpox symptoms. I think that's a very useful correlation. Much like how a market-based economy so far has managed to raise the majority's living standards.

[Goodspeed]

One example doesn't prove that correlation implies causation. You know very well the difference

Much like

The part I would dispute...

[Dolan]

Which one example, though? We're talking about maybe centuries of experience with market-based economies.
Ever since northern Italian city-states adopted a mercantilist economic model, starting with the 11th century, our experience has shown that market-based economies tend to perform better than any other alternatives.

[Goodspeed]

Well if we look at the evidence, smallpox vaccine prevents or lessens smallpox symptoms.

This example

[Dolan]

What, you want me to quote like every kind of vaccine or medicine that evidence shows to be effective in treating certain diseases?

Medical science is replete with such useful correlations.

[Goodspeed]

I don't want you to do anything in particular. My only point is that the relationship between the adoption of market based economic models and high living standards is not necessarily causal. You can give one or a million examples of other correlations that happen to also be causal relationships, it won't prove a thing because I can think of another million correlations that aren't also causal relationships.

Your claim makes intuitive sense and is easy to make. Note that I never actually claimed otherwise, or claimed that you were wrong. I only mentioned that it isn't provable. Personally I'm of the opinion that humans would have innovated regardless of the economic system. Only the speed at which they would do so is debatable, and it seems unlikely that a system like capitalism, which does very poorly when it comes to equal opportunity, would have the highest possible rate of innovation, though I'll concede it's probably higher than most other systems we've explored.

Those who are born rich are elevated no matter how little they have to offer (e.g. Trump), yet the poor and talented are only rarely elevated. Not exactly ideal.

[Dolan]

No really, I want to see a list of those one million other correlations that would explain how Romania's living standards have risen after it transitioned from a communist, centralised economy to a market-based, capitalist/mixed economy.

Indulge me please, if you have 1 million correlations, don't hesitate to list every one of them.

Same for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the list goes on. Did they just tap into their colonial riches purse? Their global military clout? Their financial high standing on global markets? What exactly managed to lift their living standards if not switching from a completely inefficient economic model to a more efficient one?

[Goodspeed]

You're not understanding me. My point in the context of your example is that correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not saying there is no causal relationship in this case, I'm only saying it isn't necessarily so.
Just in case you really do need a basic lesson in logic: https://towardsdatascience.com/why-corr ... 99790df07e

[Dolan]

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a much-abused mantra that has become almost meaningless when people don't make it clear what they mean. This phrase is typically correctly used when you have two or more data points that seem completely unrelated or distantly related and on which you cannot establish a clear causal relation.

That's not the case for the complete and abject and violent and destructive failure of planned economy (aka communism), where things are quite well understood. And if you want to see how the causal relations worked there, you are free to tap into the rich literature on the subject. Just because you are not familiar with what made communism, ie planned economy, fail, doesn't mean there isn't a clearly understood causal relation between trying to run an economy through state control and economic failure.

Conversely, the same for market-based economics. There's a rich literature that explains why a market-based economy is more efficient at identifying demand and meeting that demand by supply. Self interest is simply a more powerful motivator to meet demand and keep innovating to stay relevant on the market, than simply getting orders to produce something because some grey eminence in the party apparatus thought it's best.

[Goodspeed]

Who are you talking to? I never even mentioned communism. You are, once again, arguing against a made up position.

Your claim makes intuitive sense and is easy to make. Note that I never actually claimed otherwise, or claimed that you were wrong. I only mentioned that it isn't provable. Personally I'm of the opinion that humans would have innovated regardless of the economic system. Only the speed at which they would do so is debatable, and it seems unlikely that a system like capitalism, which does very poorly when it comes to equal opportunity, would have the highest possible rate of innovation, though I'll concede it's probably higher than most other systems we've explored.

[fightinfrenchman]

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/stat ... 8786809856

[lejend]

Trump needs a new nickname for her. Borin' Warren

[fightinfrenchman]

Trump needs a new nickname for her. Borin' Warren

How is she boring

[lejend]

She's always serious and negative. Preachy, even. Like an annoying aunt.

This friction has nothing to do with Warren being a woman in politics, or displaying political ambition—just as much of what bothered people about Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with her gender. For an explanation of what it is about Warren that perturbs her colleagues, I sought out an observant former Senate Democratic aide of many years’ standing. What he said echoed comments and stories I’d heard from senators and reporters who’ve dealt with Warren. “She projects a ‘holier than thou’ attitude that her colleagues find irritating. She’s very doctrinaire. She’s somewhat ‘My way or the highway’—not as much as Bernie Sanders, but up there,” he said. “She has a moralizing to her . . . She rails against Wall Street, which may be appealing to some people, but it’s too simplistic to work as an analysis.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01 ... n-politics

Most presidential elections are personality contests and someone like her just can't beat Trump. She's just not 'cool.'

[gibson]

If it was a personality contest Trump wouldn't have won, because he has a terrible personality.

[deleted_user0]

If it was a personality contest Trump wouldn't have won, because he has a terrible personality.

i think you underestimate how many people have terrible personality and would vote for someone like them

[fightinfrenchman]

Beto is cool and he's losing :(

[gibson]

If it was a personality contest Trump wouldn't have won, because he has a terrible personality.

i think you underestimate how many people have terrible personality and would vote for someone like them

No I mean if you put his personality in a vacuum completely independent of his money and politics no one would like him. He won due to a combination of money, his platform, and a weak opponent. If anything his personality has made it worse since most people who arent right leaning republicans(and even some of those) despise him as a person, to an extent which is far past the normal dislike one has for a politician of the opposing party. A lot of republicans held their nose while voting for him, justifying his terrible persona by his good policy( in their mind).