What makes countries rich or poor?

[Veronique]

"There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining
a country’s wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good
institutions, while others haven’t? The most important factor behind
their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government.
Until the rise of the world’s first states, beginning around 3400 BC,
all human societies were bands or tribes or chiefdoms, without any of
the complex economic institutions of governments. A long history of
government doesn’t guarantee good institutions but at least permits
them; a short history makes them very unlikely. One can’t just
suddenly introduce government institutions and expect people to adopt
them and to unlearn their long history of tribal organization."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-countries-rich-or-poor/


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

[Lee Ayrton]

Sadly, this doesn't explain how a country with long history and good
institutions can descend into "Lord Of The Flies" tribalism.

[Veronique]

It's a frustrating conundrum, isn't it? And "UR DOEN IT RONG!1!!!"
doesn't seem to penetrate.

[Mark Brader]

"Veronique" quotes:

> "There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining
> a country's wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good
> institutions, while others haven't? The most important factor behind

> their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government..."

And in "Guns, Germs and Steel", Jared Diamond argues that this in turn
is based on the historical duration of agriculture, which in turn is
based on how well the area was supplied -- either naturally or by
introduction from neighboring areas -- with plants and animals
suitable to be domesticated (i.e. modified by breeding) into food
crops and sources of meat and power.
--
Mark Brader "Succeed, and you'll be remembered for a very long time.
Toronto Fail, and you'll be remembered even longer."
m...@vex.net -- Hel Faczel (John Barnes: ...the Martian King)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[art...@yahoo.com]

Perhaps as with LOTF, it has something to do with insufficient noogie?

[Shawn Wilson]

> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-count...


Note the case of Hong Kong in the 20th century and the Us in the 19th
century. Government institutions obviously didn't drive wealth
creation, because there weren't any (to speak of).

I have done the Ramsey model before, it is still why.

Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
by returns to investment. Government protects investment from being
taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
will have wealth. Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.

It is dead simple.

If you enact the sorts of polices poor countries enact, you will make
yourself more like tham by making yourself more like them. Emulating
Greece will make the US more like Greece. That is to say poorer.
Emulating Europe will make us more like Europe- poorer.

Socialism is a *disease*. It isn't a cure for anything but
prosperity.

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 21, 9:57 pm, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining
>> a country’s wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good
>> institutions, while others haven’t? The most important factor behind
>> their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government.
>> Until the rise of the world’s first states, beginning around 3400 BC,
>> all human societies were bands or tribes or chiefdoms, without any of
>> the complex economic institutions of governments. A long history of
>> government doesn’t guarantee good institutions but at least permits
>> them; a short history makes them very unlikely. One can’t just
>> suddenly introduce government institutions and expect people to adopt
>> them and to unlearn their long history of tribal organization."
>>
>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-count...
>
>
>Note the case of Hong Kong in the 20th century and the Us in the 19th
>century. Government institutions obviously didn't drive wealth
>creation, because there weren't any (to speak of).
>
>I have done the Ramsey model before, it is still why.
>
>Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
>by returns to investment. Government protects investment from being
>taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
>will have wealth.

Like in Somalia, for example.

>Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
>imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.

Like in Sweden, for example.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 22, 2:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> >Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
> >by returns to investment.  Government protects investment from being
> >taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
> >will have wealth.
>
> Like in Somalia, for example.

No, not like Somalia. In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
They have tons of it.

> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> Like in Sweden, for example.

Yes, like Sweden. Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
Mississippi in wealth.

[Veronique]

On May 22, 11:10 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> "Veronique" quotes:
>
> > "There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining
> > a country's wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good
> > institutions, while others haven't? The most important factor behind
> > their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government..."
>
> And in "Guns, Germs and Steel", Jared Diamond argues that this in turn
> is based on the historical duration of agriculture, which in turn is
> based on how well the area was supplied -- either naturally or by
> introduction from neighboring areas -- with plants and animals
> suitable to be domesticated (i.e. modified by breeding) into food
> crops and sources of meat and power.

Mr. Diamond does point out in his review that too little attention is
paid in this book to environmental factors: "...In their narrow focus
on inclusive institutions, however, the authors ignore or dismiss
other factors. I mentioned earlier the effects of an area’s being
landlocked or of environmental damage, factors that they don’t
discuss." He also points out the burden that tropical diseases impose
on equatorial countries, and is skeptical of the dismissal of soil
fertility of tropical regions as contributing to a country's poverty.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <b4ebb152-f549-40b5...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 2:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>> >Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
>> >by returns to investment.  Government protects investment from being
>> >taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
>> >will have wealth.
>>
>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>
>No, not like Somalia. In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
>They have tons of it.

So, you want to get rid of the guns?

Besides, on the frontier that American libertarians seem to be
using as a model for their ideal society, every man with a gun was
his own government just as much as in Somalia.

>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>>
>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
>Yes, like Sweden. Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
>Mississippi in wealth.

Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
And, for the heck of it:
Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108

Mississippi is one of those red states that imports tax money
from blue states. Using it as an example of the strengths of
the free market is pretty misguided.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:24:12 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:


> In article
> <b4ebb152-f549-40b5...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 22, 2:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
>>> >by returns to investment.  Government protects investment from being
>>> >taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
>>> >will have wealth.
>>>
>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>>
>>No, not like Somalia. In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
>>They have tons of it.
>
> So, you want to get rid of the guns?
>
> Besides, on the frontier that American libertarians seem to be using as
> a model for their ideal society, every man with a gun was his own
> government just as much as in Somalia.

"Somali society is a polite society"?

[Kevin]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:24:12 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <b4ebb152-f549-40b5...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 22, 2:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
>>> >by returns to investment.  Government protects investment from being
>>> >taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
>>> >will have wealth.
>>>
>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>>
>>No, not like Somalia. In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
>>They have tons of it.

The fuck does that mean? No government is too much government? You're
a zen koan, you know that?

>
>So, you want to get rid of the guns?

Surely not. And yet... But... So, guns are good except when there's
no government, but when there's no government everyone with a gun is a
government, and government is bad so guns are bad, but guns are
good...

>
>Besides, on the frontier that American libertarians seem to be
>using as a model for their ideal society, every man with a gun was
>his own government just as much as in Somalia.
>
>>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
>>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>>>
>>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>>
>>Yes, like Sweden. Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
>>Mississippi in wealth.
>
>Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
>Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
>And, for the heck of it:
>Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108

This is probably a better measure of what the median person gets in
total, including stuff like health care and other safety nets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI

>Mississippi is one of those red states that imports tax money
>from blue states. Using it as an example of the strengths of
>the free market is pretty misguided.

No no, not at all. It's a very good strategy to lower the hell out of
your taxes, have crap schools, teach only abstinence sex education,
and then import other peoples' tax money to cover your mistakes,
that's very cunning. Probably not available to Sweden, though. Too
bad.

--
Kevin

[Veronique]

On May 23, 9:02 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:24:12 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >Shawn Wilson  <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On May 22, 2:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> >>> Shawn creaked:

> >>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> >>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
> >>Yes, like Sweden.  Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
> >>Mississippi in wealth.
>
> >Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
> >Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
> >And, for the heck of it:
> >Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108
>
> This is probably a better measure of what the median person gets in
> total, including stuff like health care and other safety nets:
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjus...

>
> >Mississippi is one of those red states that imports tax money
> >from blue states.  Using it as an example of the strengths of
> >the free market is pretty misguided.
>
> No no, not at all.  It's a very good strategy to lower the hell out of
> your taxes, have crap schools, teach only abstinence sex education,
> and then import other peoples' tax money to cover your mistakes,
> that's very cunning.  Probably not available to Sweden, though.  Too
> bad.

I wonder what the happiness/misery indices are for Mississippi and
Sweden?

[Mary]

Look at it anecdotally. Where would you rather live? Even setting
aside the fact that Mississippi's climate is like hell's anteroom.

Mary

[Greg Goss]

Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
leanings.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 7:24 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> Besides, on the frontier that American libertarians seem to be
> using as a model for their ideal society, every man with a gun was
> his own government just as much as in Somalia.

The American frontier was not composed of a multitude of petty
warlords...

> >> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> >> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
> >Yes, like Sweden.  Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
> >Mississippi in wealth.
>
> Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
> Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
> And, for the heck of it:
> Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108

You need to use something other than exchange rate comparisons, as
those do not take into account price level differences.

Sweden is $40,600

> Mississippi is one of those red states that imports tax money
> from blue states.  Using it as an example of the strengths of
> the free market is pretty misguided.

Really? This from the guy using *Somalia* as his example of 'free
market capitalism'(???) and Sweden for the wonders of Socialism?

Let is return to the real world. IF your theory is correct, why was
US growth in the 19th century and Hong Kong's growth in the 20th
century so rapid? Neither had government intervention in the economy
to speak of. Why did US growth slow in the 20th century? Why didn't
massive increases in government spending in the 1920s cause massive
growth? Why are countries with massive government intrusion in the
economy all poor? And the more intrusion, the poorer they are. Why
is government intervention in the economy (a measurable statistic)
NEGATIVELY correlated with growth? You are positing that it is
positively correlated.

What economic model are you using to support your conclusions?
(rhetorical question of course, whether you know it or not you are
relying entirely on the Keynes model. I use Ramsey, or Solow if I
want to impress rubes with a Nobel Prize). What makes you think that
model is correct? Books have been written about the problems with the
Keynes model, and it violates several natural laws in its assumptions,
not to mention known economic forces.

In the REAL world, and not your crypto-fascist/socialist fantasy,
government exists to provide only a specific kind of good known as
'public goods', there are only a few of them, and the efficient level
of provision is limited. The downside of government spending (not
even counting regulation) is the excess burden of taxation. The more
government goods/services provided, the lower the return, and the
higher taxes the higher the excess burden of taxation. Right now the
marginal excess burden is about 75%. To put $4 in government's
pocket, government must take $7 from the economy. That extra $3 is
lost output, NO ONE gets it. This is why the stimulus failed, and why
the economy is stagnant. The forces work the opposite way policy
makers think they do.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 10:06 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >"Somali society is a polite society"?
>
> Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
> leanings.

And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?

Why not?

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 9:02 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> >>No, not like Somalia.  In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
> >>They have tons of it.
>
> The fuck does that mean?  No government is too much government? You're
> a zen koan, you know that?

What makes you think Somalia has no government? Every warlord there
is a government.

> >>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> >>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
> >>Yes, like Sweden.  Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
> >>Mississippi in wealth.
>
> >Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
> >Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
> >And, for the heck of it:
> >Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108
>
> This is probably a better measure of what the median person gets in
> total, including stuff like health care and other safety nets:

You need PPP comparison, not exchange rate.

> No no, not at all.  It's a very good strategy to lower the hell out of
> your taxes, have crap schools

Are you claiming that those GOVERNMENT schools are inadequate? Why is
that? And what makes you think money is the problem? In Chicago (I
know Chicago rather better than Mississippi) at least, the government
provided public schools were once called "The worst in the nation" by
the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
produced infinitely superior results.

How is it that Bog Brother, with an unlimited budget and spending
mucjh more than the Catholic schools, could deliver WORSE results?

What makes you think the problem was money, rather than Big Brother
himself?

[Veronique]

On May 23, 11:46 am, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Let is return to the real world.

Tell us when you get there.


V., "Write if you find work"
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 2:01 pm, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Let is return to the real world.
>
> Tell us when you get there.

I will note here that when push comes to shove you can insult me, but
can't address the issues I raised.

Ignorance kills little girl.

[Greg Goss]

I believe in freedom of movement, freedom of speech and a number of
other freedoms that are not in place in totalitarian dictatorships.

I believe in a balance of government functions and private enterprise.
And I believe in PAYING for government. The right wing loves to
borrow to run government, then complain about the other guy raising
taxes to pay for the policies that had been put in place on the credit
card.

North Korea does not have a mix of government-directed policy and
private enterprise. There is an optimum mix somewhere between
Stalinism and anarchy.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <717a0c33-5000-4124...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Are you aware that there are other possibilities in addition to
anarchy and North Korea?

In multiple international surveys, the people of Denmark turn out
to be the happiest with their quality of life. I know several
Americans whose day to day concerns are dominated by the problem
of keeping their health insurance. It is only a matter of time
before I become one of them, I suppose. The same is probably
true for most of the geezers here on this newsgroup. I can see
why people who are free to concern themselves with other things
might be happier.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <e1ccaedf-9948-47a3...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I wonder what the happiness/misery indices are for Mississippi and
>Sweden?

That far north, the darkness of winter definately takes a toll on
morale. Denmark, further south, is much cheerier.

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:46:03 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> On May 23, 7:24 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> Besides, on the frontier that American libertarians seem to be using as
>> a model for their ideal society, every man with a gun was his own
>> government just as much as in Somalia.
>
>
> The American frontier was not composed of a multitude of petty
> warlords...

Are you certain of that?

[Mark Steese]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
news:jplak9$c5h$1...@reader1.panix.com:

>
> In article
> <717a0c33-5000-4124...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 23, 10:06�am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >"Somali society is a polite society"?
>>>
>>> Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
>>> leanings.
>>
>>And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>
> Are you aware that there are other possibilities in addition to
> anarchy and North Korea?
>
> In multiple international surveys, the people of Denmark turn out
> to be the happiest with their quality of life. I know several
> Americans whose day to day concerns are dominated by the problem
> of keeping their health insurance. It is only a matter of time
> before I become one of them, I suppose. The same is probably
> true for most of the geezers here on this newsgroup. I can see
> why people who are free to concern themselves with other things
> might be happier.

Bad news! In the most recent National Accounts of Well-being Index, Germany
topped the happy list with a score of 5.66 out of 10; Denmark was down to
4.96 out of 10.
--
The Alps are grand in their beauty, Mount Shasta is sublime in its
desolation. -William H. Brewer

[Mark Steese]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in

news:jplanf$c5h$2...@reader1.panix.com:

> In article
> <e1ccaedf-9948-47a3...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I wonder what the happiness/misery indices are for Mississippi and
>>Sweden?
>
> That far north, the darkness of winter definately takes a toll on
> morale. Denmark, further south, is much cheerier.

The same metrics that put Denmark at the top of the cheery list put Finland
and Norway just below it:

http://documents.latimes.com/world-happiness-report/

Oslo is at the same latitude as Stockholm, and Helsinki is a degree farther
north. Must be something besides latitude that makes the Swedes less happy
than their neighbors. It's probably the Bergman movies.
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that preserved,
in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms of life.
-David Lavender

[Greg Goss]

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in

>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote [to Greg]

>>>And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>>
>> Are you aware that there are other possibilities in addition to
>> anarchy and North Korea?
>>
>> In multiple international surveys, the people of Denmark turn out
>> to be the happiest with their quality of life.
>

>Bad news! In the most recent National Accounts of Well-being Index, Germany
>topped the happy list with a score of 5.66 out of 10; Denmark was down to
>4.96 out of 10.

This is bad news to the argument? Is union-dominated Germany an
example of libertopia?

[Mark Brader]

Mark Steese:

> The same metrics that put Denmark at the top of the cheery list put Finland

> and Norway just below it...

> Oslo is at the same latitude as Stockholm, and Helsinki is a degree farther
> north. Must be something besides latitude that makes the Swedes less happy
> than their neighbors. It's probably the Bergman movies.

Norway has:

http://tmcomponents.travelmarket.com/modules/TM_Imagebank2/upload/377/tre3.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6ctvRMC7zFo/TwW3t_2kdrI/AAAAAAAAMdg/trRqC42bz0g/s1600/norway.jpg

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23400000/Norway-norway-23475700-2000-1333.jpg

http://westcoastpeaks.com/pics10B/holmanut_019laatefoss.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2094865.jpg

Sweden doesn't.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Panda Lectures This Week at National Zoo"
m...@vex.net | --Washington Post, January 13, 2001

[Kevin]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 23, 9:02�am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>> >>No, not like Somalia. �In Somalia every man with a gun is government.
>> >>They have tons of it.
>>
>> The fuck does that mean? �No government is too much government? You're
>> a zen koan, you know that?
>
>
>
>What makes you think Somalia has no government? Every warlord there
>is a government.

"I did not break the dishes! I LET THE DISHES GO!"

>
>
>
>
>> >>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
>> >>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>>
>> >>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>>
>> >>Yes, like Sweden. �Without those policies Sweden would no longer rival
>> >>Mississippi in wealth.
>>
>> >Per capita GDP of Sweden: $56,956
>> >Per capita GDP of Mississippi: $32,967
>> >And, for the heck of it:
>> >Per capita GDP of Taxachussetts: $58,108
>>
>> This is probably a better measure of what the median person gets in
>> total, including stuff like health care and other safety nets:
>
>
>You need PPP comparison, not exchange rate.
>
>
>
>
>> No no, not at all. �It's a very good strategy to lower the hell out of
>> your taxes, have crap schools
>
>
>Are you claiming that those GOVERNMENT schools are inadequate? Why is
>that? And what makes you think money is the problem? In Chicago (I
>know Chicago rather better than Mississippi) at least, the government
>provided public schools were once called "The worst in the nation" by
>the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
>schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
>produced infinitely superior results.

Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
and they can kick out the troublemakers. There are other differences,
but those are the big ones.

>How is it that Bog Brother, with an unlimited budget and spending
>mucjh more than the Catholic schools, could deliver WORSE results?

Well, they're starting with different groups of kids, that's one.
Parents who care enough to get kids into Catholic schools are not the
same as those who don't, even if they look the same in income and
other measures. They're more engaged. Parental engagement is a large
predictor of student success.

>What makes you think the problem was money, rather than Big Brother
>himself?

I know a lot more about education than you do, mostly. Money will not
by itself make a school system better. But chronic lack of money will
make it a lot worse, very fast.

The best public schools do as good a job as private schools do, for a
lot less money. Newsweek just put out the list of top 100 public
schools in the country, 15 of them are in Texas, two of the top four
are in Dallas, where I used to teach. I knew administrators and
teachers at one of them fairly well. Dallas is also home to St Marks,
one of the best private prep schools in the country. The St Marks
kids and the Magnet kids were about level in academic terms, they all
got into top schools, and the Magnet kids were educated for far, far
less money. So public schools can, of course, do an excellent job if
you let them cherry pick students the way private schools can cherry
pick.

--
Kevin

[Kevin]

Man, there's No True Scotsman all over this place! Doesn't anyone
ever clean up around here, you can't walk across the room without
stepping in a big pile of No True Scotsman. Man. It's nasty, maybe
we should steam the carpets or something, or just keep the cat
outside.

[Kevin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:24:04 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Mark Steese:
>> The same metrics that put Denmark at the top of the cheery list put Finland
>> and Norway just below it...
>
>> Oslo is at the same latitude as Stockholm, and Helsinki is a degree farther
>> north. Must be something besides latitude that makes the Swedes less happy
>> than their neighbors. It's probably the Bergman movies.
>
>Norway has:
>
> http://tmcomponents.travelmarket.com/modules/TM_Imagebank2/upload/377/tre3.jpg
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6ctvRMC7zFo/TwW3t_2kdrI/AAAAAAAAMdg/trRqC42bz0g/s1600/norway.jpg
>
> http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23400000/Norway-norway-23475700-2000-1333.jpg
>
> http://westcoastpeaks.com/pics10B/holmanut_019laatefoss.jpg
>
> http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2094865.jpg
>
>Sweden doesn't.

On the other hand:

http://tinyurl.com/2fow7b3

SFW. ish.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On May 24, 11:04 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Bad news! In the most recent National Accounts of Well-being Index, Germany
> topped the happy list with a score of 5.66 out of 10

That's because that German comic's week finally ended.

[The flail of God, implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of his foes.]

On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>
>
>
>
>
> <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On May 21, 9:57 pm, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining
> >> a country’s wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good
> >> institutions, while others haven’t? The most important factor behind
> >> their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government.

> >> Until the rise of the world’s first states, beginning around 3400 BC,
> >> all human societies were bands or tribes or chiefdoms, without any of
> >> the complex economic institutions of governments. A long history of
> >> government doesn’t guarantee good institutions but at least permits
> >> them; a short history makes them very unlikely. One can’t just
> >> suddenly introduce government institutions and expect people to adopt
> >> them and to unlearn their long history of tribal organization."
>
> >>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/what-makes-count...
>
> >Note the case of Hong Kong in the 20th century and the Us in the 19th
> >century.  Government institutions obviously didn't drive wealth
> >creation, because there weren't any (to speak of).
>
> >I have done the Ramsey model before, it is still why.

>
> >Personal income is driven by available capital, and capital is driven
> >by returns to investment.  Government protects investment from being
> >taken and stays out of the way of profits and accumulation and you
> >will have wealth.
>
> Like in Somalia, for example.

Really, Kevin? This again from you?

>
> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> Like in Sweden, for example.

Perpetual recession? Yeah, that'sanother example of Shawn's premise!
Yeah.

[Lee Ayrton]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Is there a term for the obverse? A generalization, which is obviously a
generalization and is not accompanied by a 3 page list of disclaimers in
the interest of getting on with the point and conserving bandwidth, is
triumphantly refuted by reference to that one guy who was an outlier.

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:51:47 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:


> How is it that Bog Brother, with an unlimited budget and spending mucjh
> more than the Catholic schools, could deliver WORSE results?

I, for one, welcome our new fenlandic overlords.

[Greg Goss]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:


>>the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
>>schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
>>produced infinitely superior results.
>
>Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
>and they can kick out the troublemakers. There are other differences,
>but those are the big ones.

My current wife, despite being evangelical protestant, placed her son
into a Catholic school to attempt to fix attitude and behavioural
issues. It seemed to work, at least for a while.

So they don't just kick out the troublemakers; they reform some of
them. And some of those troublemakers are placed with them because of
their reputation for being able to handle troublemakers.

>Well, they're starting with different groups of kids, that's one.
>Parents who care enough to get kids into Catholic schools are not the
>same as those who don't, even if they look the same in income and
>other measures. They're more engaged. Parental engagement is a large
>predictor of student success.

[Kevin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of

I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet. I'm
pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
comfort.

>
>
>>
>> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
>> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>>
>> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
>Perpetual recession? Yeah, that'sanother example of Shawn's premise!
>Yeah.

And yet, people in Sweden seem pretty happy in Sweden. I woudn't want
to live there, it seems pretty regimented to me, but it's hard to say
the Swedish Model doesn't work, it actually seems to work pretty well.
I bet you'd rather live the life of the median person in Sweden than
the life of the median person in Mississippi, and doubly so if you
discovered you had a serious health problem.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 1:12 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >> Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
> >> leanings.
>
> >And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>
> >Why not?
>
> I believe in freedom of movement, freedom of speech and a number of
> other freedoms that are not in place in totalitarian dictatorships.

None of those are compatible with socialism. And certainly none of
them are typically found in socialist countries. You might want to
ask yourself why...

...the reason is because given a socialist country and a non-socialist
one, the non-socialist one will accrete wealthy ex-patriots from the
socialist country. Human capital and resources will flee the
socialist country making its social safety net unviable. This is in
the model of socialism I am assuming you are proposing- income
redistribuition based via taxes and a 'social safety net'. The rich
will leave to lower their tax bill, and poor will immigrate to gain
the benefits.

This is a slow but inexorable process. A faster process is for the
rich to move their investments 'overseas', to avoid taxes. This is a
much faster process. Less capital in-country means lower productivity
and incomes fall.

To make the system 'work' policy makers will have to limit such
movements, which is why socialist countries are not notoriously free.
See Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' for more on this.

> I believe in a balance of government functions and private enterprise.

What do you mean 'balance'? In a welfare maximizing state shouldn't
government provide those services it is superior at providing, up to
the point where the marginal return is zero? And if you are going to
claim that government needs to watch out for 'evil' capitalists, I
will ask you 'what about evil government'? I can (easily) refuse to
do business with an 'evil' corporation. I cannot (easily, emigration
is a major and difficult step) refuse to do business with an evil
government. Given a choice, depriving government of any power
possible reduces my risk infinitely more than government imposing its
will on me in order to 'protect' me.

> And I believe in PAYING for government.

Rasing the question- WHO pays? Everyone? Only a few? And WHAT is
paid for? Police? National defense? Courts? Income
redistribution? 'Free' healthcare? Should everyone pay for the
government they get? Or should a few pay disproportionately for
everyone?

>  The right wing loves to
> borrow to run government, then complain about the other guy raising
> taxes to pay for the policies that had been put in place on the credit
> card.

So does the Left. What's your point? People in government want more
power and more control over others, Right and Left. This is why I'm a
Libertarian.

> North Korea does not have a mix of government-directed policy and
> private enterprise.  There is an optimum mix somewhere between
> Stalinism and anarchy.

OK. Solve the optimization problem then. Do you realize that this
CAN be expressed as a calculus problem and solved in a straightforward
manner? All you need are some basic calculus skills and a reasonably
good model of the economy. I gave you a major clue to the solution
above. The best simple model of the economy is the Ramsey model,
which I have gone into detail about several times. Solow is also good
(Ramsey's assumptions are better, I don't like Solow's), though not as
good as Ramsey, and Solow won a Nobel Prize for his model.

[Kevin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:25:09 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
>>>schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
>>>produced infinitely superior results.
>>
>>Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
>>and they can kick out the troublemakers. There are other differences,
>>but those are the big ones.
>
>My current wife, despite being evangelical protestant, placed her son
>into a Catholic school to attempt to fix attitude and behavioural
>issues. It seemed to work, at least for a while.
>
>So they don't just kick out the troublemakers; they reform some of
>them. And some of those troublemakers are placed with them because of
>their reputation for being able to handle troublemakers.

I think you might be using a different definition of "troublemaker"
than was common in Dallas public schools when I taught classes there.
Did the police have to bring your wife's son to class every day?

Did he ever assault anyone with a desk, and say later he'd intended to
kill them?

Were any teachers ever thrown out of windows at this Catholic school,
which accepted "troublemakers"?

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 5:47 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> >> >"Somali society is a polite society"?
>
> >> Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
> >> leanings.
>
> >And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>
> Are you aware that there are other possibilities in addition to
> anarchy and North Korea?

Are YOU aware that Somalia does not represent unfettered capitalism?
So long as Somalia is brought up, I can (and will) bring up North
Korea.

> In multiple international surveys, the people of Denmark turn out
> to be the happiest with their quality of life.

No. Read for comprehension. In surveys the people of Denmark SAY
they are the happiest. This is different from actual happiness, which
is unmeasurable. Economists would be ALL OVER an actual, valid,
objective measure of happiness. What people say is too dependent on
cultural morays to be used for cross cultural comparisons.

>  I know several
> Americans whose day to day concerns are dominated by the problem
> of keeping their health insurance.

You are unfairly comparing here a supposed average of all Danes to a
select few Americans chosen for their unhappiness. There is no doubt
that there are also 'several' Danes whose day to day concerns are
dominated by the deficiencies of the health care available to them.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 10:10 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> >You need PPP comparison, not exchange rate.
>
> >> No no, not at all. It's a very good strategy to lower the hell out of
> >> your taxes, have crap schools
>
> >Are you claiming that those GOVERNMENT schools are inadequate?  Why is
> >that?  And what makes you think money is the problem?  In Chicago (I
> >know Chicago rather better than Mississippi) at least, the government
> >provided public schools were once called "The worst in the nation" by
> >the secretary of education.  They spent big money.  The Catholic
> >schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
> >produced infinitely superior results.
>
> Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
> and they can kick out the troublemakers.  There are other differences,
> but those are the big ones.

Are you claiming then that the majority of funding in Chicago public
schools went to 'troublemakers'? That the public schools cannot/did
not expel troublemakers? That the Public schools actually spent less
per non-troublemaking pupil than the Catholic schools? That the
Catholic schools did not have their own troublemakers?




> >How is it that Big Brother, with an unlimited budget and spending
> >much more than the Catholic schools, could deliver WORSE results?

>
> Well, they're starting with different groups of kids, that's one.

Not really, no.

> Parents who care enough to get kids into Catholic schools are not the
> same as those who don't, even if they look the same in income and
> other measures.  They're more engaged.  Parental engagement is a large
> predictor of student success.

This IS true. But a great many stuents in the public schools have
engaged parents, who can't afford the Catholic schools.

> >What makes you think the problem was money, rather than Big Brother
> >himself?
>
> I know a lot more about education than you do, mostly.  Money will not
> by itself make a school system better.  But chronic lack of money will
> make it a lot worse, very fast.

If that were true the less funded Catholic schools would do worse than
the highly funded public ones. That huge money is available/spent by
the public schools is beyond question. If Big Brother can't spend
that money wisely, giving him more won't help. It will just encourage
his inefficiency. More efficient to switch to a voucher system.

> The best public schools do as good a job as private schools do, for a
> lot less money.

Not in Chicago, though elite private schools can cost as much as
public schools. The superior Cathiolic schools cost less per pupil
than the public schools, and deliver superior results.

 Newsweek just put out the list of top 100 public
> schools in the country, 15 of them are in Texas, two of the top four
> are in Dallas, where I used to teach.  I knew administrators and
> teachers at one of them fairly well.  Dallas is also home to St Marks,
> one of the best private prep schools in the country.  The St Marks
> kids and the Magnet kids were about level in academic terms, they all
> got into top schools, and the Magnet kids were educated for far, far
> less money.  So public schools can, of course, do an excellent job if
> you let them cherry pick students the way private schools can cherry
> pick.

Catholic schools in Chicago don't cherry pick. They provide mass
education.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 1:12 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>>  The right wing loves to
>> borrow to run government, then complain about the other guy raising
>> taxes to pay for the policies that had been put in place on the credit
>> card.
>
>
>So does the Left. What's your point? People in government want more
>power and more control over others, Right and Left. This is why I'm a
>Libertarian.

The right is vastly worse about it. Compare Reagan versus Carter or
either Bush versus Clinton, or Bush II versus Obama.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Catholic schools in Chicago don't cherry pick. They provide mass
>education.

[groan]

[The flail of God, implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of his foes.]

I don't find it terribly so, no. Irrelevant to the extent it isn't
ironic. You know, mainly you're complaining that some private groups
get up to a small time version of what governments do as a matter of
course, especially in that part of the world.

Also, it'sa bit...are you regressiing, now? Since in the past David
and I have wrung certain admissions out of you.

> 'm
> pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
> comfort.

It seems mainly the ones scandalized are a certain type of white
person, who is just rebding his garments he can't get over there and
save those poor darkies from themselves.

>
>
>
> >> >Government taxes incomes highly, seizes capital,
> >> >imposes regulations and what not, and you will have poverty.
>
> >> Like in Sweden, for example.
>
> >Perpetual recession? Yeah, that'sanother example of Shawn's premise!
> >Yeah.
>
> And yet, people in Sweden seem pretty happy in Sweden.

Some people manage to find the bright side of terminal cancer and
concentration camps. And others just lie to spare someone their
feelings. I doubt any of it has much to do with the level of state
control over the economy.

Who told you being happy was the best thing in life, anyway? Roger's
about as happy as a pig in a mudpuddle full of heroin. Does that mean
the government should start feeding every paint chips?

>I woudn't want
> to live there, it seems pretty regimented to me, but it's hard to say
> the Swedish Model doesn't work,

I dont think economies break down well into binary dichotomies of
"works" and "doesn't work," especially if you're going to cheat and go
from "rich v poor" to "happy."


That all said, swedes are pretty obviously underutilizing their human
capital and their economic models are fairly unsustainable.

> it actually seems to work pretty well.

I admit, it's not the most ridiculous of the oecd countries, but
still...

> I bet you'd rather live the life of the median person in Sweden than
> the life of the median person in Mississippi,

I think you underestimate how much 8 like to walk around drunk with my
shirt off, and being able to say "faggot" and "nigger" should I get a
mind to.

nd doubly so if you
> discovered you had a serious health problem.

Of course, if I had to pick a country and preferences from"behind the
veil" id want to live in the freest society.

[Mark Steese]

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote in
news:MoydnbEuW4IJzyPS...@vex.net:

> Mark Steese:
>> The same metrics that put Denmark at the top of the cheery list put
>> Finland and Norway just below it...
>
>> Oslo is at the same latitude as Stockholm, and Helsinki is a degree
>> farther north. Must be something besides latitude that makes the
>> Swedes less happy than their neighbors. It's probably the Bergman
>> movies.
>
> Norway has:
>
> http://tmcomponents.travelmarket.com/modules/TM_Imagebank2/upload/377
> /tre3.jpg
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6ctvRMC7zFo/TwW3t_2kdrI/AAAAAAAAMdg/trRqC42
> bz0g/s1600/norway.jpg
>
> http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23400000/Norway-norway-2347570
> 0-2000-1333.jpg
>
> http://westcoastpeaks.com/pics10B/holmanut_019laatefoss.jpg
>
> http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2094865.jpg
>
> Sweden doesn't.

So what's the deal with Finland, then? Finland has this:

http://www.bestourism.com/img/items/big/1092/Finland_Winter-landscape_4023.jpg

http://www.gillandtuan.com/Gills-Corner/Finland-2009/20091229finland0533/781914333_g3kYp-L.jpg

http://www.gillandtuan.com/Gills-Corner/Finland-2009/20091229finland0510/781912702_PSc8i-L.jpg

http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2012/02/24/snow-cabin-finland-20090426191913_133006631069.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__MJHsvpe93k/TEyoYbJ1puI/AAAAAAAAAjk/4aPmPlz6qaY/s1600/finland+snow+pic.JPG

What makes Finns happier than Swedes? Maybe it's just because the
English don't confuse them with rutabagas.
--
It can be hard, sometimes, to come home to Van Nuys. -Sandra Tsing Loh

[Mark Brader]

Mark Steese:

> So what's the deal with Finland, then? Finland has this:
>
> http://www.bestourism.com/img/items/big/1092/Finland_Winter-landscape_4023.jpg
>
> http://www.gillandtuan.com/Gills-Corner/Finland-2009/20091229finland0533/781914333_g3kYp-L.jpg
>
> http://www.gillandtuan.com/Gills-Corner/Finland-2009/20091229finland0510/781912702_PSc8i-L.jpg
>
> http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2012/02/24/snow-cabin-finland-20090426191913_133006631069.jpg
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__MJHsvpe93k/TEyoYbJ1puI/AAAAAAAAAjk/4aPmPlz6qaY/s1600/finland+snow+pic.JPG

Lovely! Thanks.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Whatever you are, be out and out,
m...@vex.net | not divided or in doubt." -- Brand (Ibsen)

[Mark Steese]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:a2722n...@mid.individual.net:

> Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
>>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote [to Greg]
>
>>>>And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>>>
>>> Are you aware that there are other possibilities in addition to
>>> anarchy and North Korea?
>>>
>>> In multiple international surveys, the people of Denmark turn out
>>> to be the happiest with their quality of life.
>>
>>Bad news! In the most recent National Accounts of Well-being Index,
>>Germany topped the happy list with a score of 5.66 out of 10; Denmark
>>was down to 4.96 out of 10.
>
> This is bad news to the argument? Is union-dominated Germany an
> example of libertopia?

GOSSED!
--
The proud flag went up, hoisted on a staff in the center of the old Sonoma
Plaza. The crowds of Mexicans greeted it with laughter and derision, taking
the rather corpulent bear for a pig. -Lambert Florin

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <5e140df8-74a4-48ed...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 1:12 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> >> Lebannon in the seventies permanently cured me of libertarian
>> >> leanings.
>>
>> >And has North Korea's example cured you of Socialist leanings?
>>
>> >Why not?
>>
>> I believe in freedom of movement, freedom of speech and a number of
>> other freedoms that are not in place in totalitarian dictatorships.
>
>None of those are compatible with socialism. And certainly none of
>them are typically found in socialist countries. You might want to
>ask yourself why...

I frequently meet Europeans travelling for both recreation and business;
are you claiming that they do not have freedom of movement? Furthermore,
almost all of them choose to return to their home countries. You might
want to ask yourself how socialist hellholes are able to produce nicer
food, wine, beer, clothing, shoes, and bathroom fixtures than the free
world.

Of course, most European countries are only varying degrees of partially
socialist. That is a category that you seem to keep ignoring.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 12:15 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >>  The right wing loves to
> >> borrow to run government, then complain about the other guy raising
> >> taxes to pay for the policies that had been put in place on the credit
> >> card.
>
> >So does the Left.  What's your point?  People in government want more
> >power and more control over others, Right and Left.  This is why I'm a
> >Libertarian.
>
> The right is vastly worse about it.  Compare Reagan versus Carter or
> either Bush versus Clinton, or Bush II versus Obama.

I refute you with Roosevelt and Johnson.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 12:56 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> >> I believe in freedom of movement, freedom of speech and a number of
> >> other freedoms that are not in place in totalitarian dictatorships.
>
> >None of those are compatible with socialism.  And certainly none of
> >them are typically found in socialist countries.  You might want to
> >ask yourself why...
>
> I frequently meet Europeans travelling for both recreation and business;
> are you claiming that they do not have freedom of movement?

Not really socialist, are they? To the extent they aren't socialist
they will not need to worry about wealth flowing out of the country.
And to the extent they are socialist, wealth IS flowing out of the
country. If they haven't done anythin to stop it, good for them.

And I will note-

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/21/eduardo-saverin-and-echoes-of-the-reichs

"Call it the return of the Reichsfluchtsteuer.

"The president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, did not
use the term. But that is what Mr. Norquist was talking about when he
spoke to The Hill newspaper about the legislation proposed by Senator
Schumer, the Democrat of New York, to tax at a 30 percent rate the $2
billion capital gains of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who
renounced his American citizenship before Facebook’s initial public
offering."

>  Furthermore,
> almost all of them choose to return to their home countries.

And the ones that don't?

>  You might
> want to ask yourself how socialist hellholes are able to produce nicer
> food, wine, beer, clothing, shoes, and bathroom fixtures than the free
> world.

This is on the planet where Sweden is an example of socialism but East
Germany was not???

> Of course, most European countries are only varying degrees of partially
> socialist.  That is a category that you seem to keep ignoring.

You seem to perpetually ignore the fact that Europe is significantly
poorer then the US.

I mean, why do you *perpetually* bring up Sweden, but not (say)
Greece? Is Sweden socialist in some way Greece is not? How about
France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP


PPP comparison, per capita GDP, 2011 for all (CIA, last column)
followed by (ranking among US states)

(note- 52 total in state ranking, including DC (very top) and Puerto
Rico (very bottom))

(note also- US state data from *2010*, not 2011)


US- $48,100 (the US average is #20.5 (ND - LA))

Sweden- $40,600 (#39.4 (AZ - FL) as a US state)
Denmark- $40,200 (#39.7 (AZ - FL))
France- $35,000 (#49.5 (WV - ID))
Greece- $27,600 (#51.5 MS - PR)

EU (average) - $34,000 (#50.5 (ID - MS))

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 24, 11:36 am, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I believe in a balance of government functions and private enterprise.
>
> What do you mean 'balance'?  In a welfare maximizing state shouldn't
> government provide those services it is superior at providing, up to
> the point where the marginal return is zero?

I HAVE to fix this-

"... the NET marginal return is zero..."

[Lee Ayrton]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:41:23 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:


> "The president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, did not use
> the term. But that is what Mr. Norquist was talking about when he

You're invoking Norquist? Oh, sonny, you just brought a bratwurst to a
knife fight.

[Lee Ayrton]

> I refute you with Roosevelt and Johnson.

Completely unrelated to the argument at hand, save for the mention of
Roosevelt:

"The Day" (New London CT) Jan 1 1936, pg 3, col 1:

`Beat Roosevelt' Called GOP Issue

BALTIMORE Jan 1 (AP) -A two-word Republican "Platform" -- "Beat
Roosevelt" -- was proposed today by Maryland's national committeeman,
former Senator O. E. Weller.

"That will be the issue - just those two words: Beat Roosevelt," said
Weller, veteran of more than 30 years of political warfare on state and
national fronts, and a member of the party's platform committee.

"I'm in favor of having a conservative platform," he said, outlining his
own ideas generally, "one thing that will appeal to anyone in this
country, who has anything material at stake. We must, of course, balance
the budget, cut governmental offices, stop waste and extravagance in the
spending of public money and put the government back on a sane, business-
like basis."

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a27coi...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
>>>schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
>>>produced infinitely superior results.
>>
>>Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
>>and they can kick out the troublemakers. There are other differences,
>>but those are the big ones.
>
>My current wife, despite being evangelical protestant, placed her son
>into a Catholic school to attempt to fix attitude and behavioural
>issues. It seemed to work, at least for a while.

Was she aware that Catholic schools teach evolution and the old Earth?

[Charles Bishop]

In article <ievsr7h355rk1om7n...@4ax.com>, Kevin

<K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
>implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of
>his foes." <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson

[snip]

>>>
>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>>
>>Really, Kevin? This again from you?
>
>I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
>Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet. I'm
>pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
>comfort.

In what way is Somalia an example of libertarian principles?


--
charles

[Greg Goss]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <a27coi...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>the secretary of education. They spent big money. The Catholic
>>>>schools spent a fraction of what the public schools spent, but
>>>>produced infinitely superior results.
>>>
>>>Catholic schools get kids whose parents want them in private schools,
>>>and they can kick out the troublemakers. There are other differences,
>>>but those are the big ones.
>>
>>My current wife, despite being evangelical protestant, placed her son
>>into a Catholic school to attempt to fix attitude and behavioural
>>issues. It seemed to work, at least for a while.
>
>Was she aware that Catholic schools teach evolution and the old Earth?

She eventually married a scientific rationalist. After a few
arguments at services where I attended service with her a few times
(for various reasons), I spent the money to get a Darwin shirt made up
to wear to the annual summer Church picnic.

She doesn't really think through how some of the evangelical Christian
stuff interacts with science. When nobody's arguing the "muslims must
die" or "evolution is evil" in front of her, she's willing to be
rational.

[Greg Goss]

"An armed society is a polite society." It seems to be at the heart
of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
important part of evolving towards a free society.

[The flail of God, implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of his foes.]

On May 25, 1:35 am, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> In article <ievsr7h355rk1om7ns4o5rljusb9341...@4ax.com>, Kevin

>
> <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
> >implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of

> >his foes." <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>
> >>Really, Kevin? This again from you?
>
> >I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
> >Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet.  I'm
> >pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
> >comfort.
>
> In what way is Somalia an example of libertarian principles?

It's a convenient strawman for people who think having as much
government as we do in the states makes us the luckiest people in the
world, except that it could be even bigger.




> charles

[The flail of God, implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of his foes.]

On May 25, 1:23 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >In article <ievsr7h355rk1om7ns4o5rljusb9341...@4ax.com>, Kevin

> ><K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
> >>implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of

> >>his foes." <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>
> >[snip]
>
> >>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>
> >>>Really, Kevin? This again from you?
>
> >>I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
> >>Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet.  I'm
> >>pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
> >>comfort.
>
> >In what way is Somalia an example of libertarian principles?
>
> "An armed society is a polite society."

What do you think somalias really like, anyway?

> It seems to be at the heart
> of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
> important part of evolving towards a free society.

Have you ever noticed rampage shootings always happen in gunfree
zones? Why is that, do you think?

[()]

On May 25, 6:23 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >In article <ievsr7h355rk1om7ns4o5rljusb9341...@4ax.com>, Kevin

> ><K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
> >>implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of

> >>his foes." <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>
> >[snip]
>
> >>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>
> >>>Really, Kevin? This again from you?
>
> >>I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
> >>Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet.  I'm
> >>pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
> >>comfort.
>
> >In what way is Somalia an example of libertarian principles?
>
> "An armed society is a polite society."  It seems to be at the heart
> of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
> important part of evolving towards a free society.

Not just that, it is a "low tax, small government" country. I don't
understand why libertarians don't emigrate there in droves. Is it
possible that secretly they like some aspects of big government?

[doc...@gmail.com]

This just in: http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/120522105633-smallisbest.pdf

[Charles Bishop]

In article <a28jan...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:

>ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <ievsr7h355rk1om7n...@4ax.com>, Kevin
>><K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:39:46 -0700 (PDT), "The flail of God,
>>>implacable as the thunderstorm; upon whose boots dries the blood of
>>>his foes." <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 22, 5:36 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>>
>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Like in Somalia, for example.
>>>>
>>>>Really, Kevin? This again from you?
>>>
>>>I'm sorry if the existance of starving people and abusive overlords in
>>>Somalia is inconvenient for your libertarian artuments on usenet. I'm
>>>pretty sure it's worse for people who live in Somalia, if that's any
>>>comfort.
>>
>>In what way is Somalia an example of libertarian principles?
>
>"An armed society is a polite society." It seems to be at the heart
>of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
>important part of evolving towards a free society.

I doubt very much if that is the only governing principle. That is I don't
think a libertarian society would be build only on everyone having guns.
There are two versions of libertarianism that I'm familiar with.

The first is with a limited government that includes courts, national
military and police. The second is refered to as anarchistic capitalism or
some such, and I'm not sure what their form would take so I can't address
that. Each time I talked with one of them it seemed as if some form of
limited government was included, it just wasn't called that. If Dr.
Friedman were here he could perhaps fill me in.

So, for the limited government version - In no way would that result in a
Somalia. Picking and choosing one slogan and saying that's the whole of
the policies seems dishonest somehow.

--
charles

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 25, 6:24 am, "()" <karom...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Not just that, it is a "low tax, small government" country.

That's just delusional.

[Greg Goss]

ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:

>In article <a28jan...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:

>>"An armed society is a polite society." It seems to be at the heart
>>of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
>>important part of evolving towards a free society.
>
>I doubt very much if that is the only governing principle. That is I don't
>think a libertarian society would be build only on everyone having guns.
>There are two versions of libertarianism that I'm familiar with.
>
>The first is with a limited government that includes courts, national
>military and police. The second is refered to as anarchistic capitalism or
>some such, and I'm not sure what their form would take so I can't address
>that. Each time I talked with one of them it seemed as if some form of
>limited government was included, it just wasn't called that. If Dr.
>Friedman were here he could perhaps fill me in.
>
>So, for the limited government version - In no way would that result in a
>Somalia. Picking and choosing one slogan and saying that's the whole of
>the policies seems dishonest somehow.

I was thinking of the L Neil Smith, Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love"
end-state and Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned". These are all in your
second category.

In the latter, the government of New Mexico becomes a tourist
attraction.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <253ea296-834b-4477...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 12:56 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> >> I believe in freedom of movement, freedom of speech and a number of
>> >> other freedoms that are not in place in totalitarian dictatorships.
>>
>> >None of those are compatible with socialism.  And certainly none of
>> >them are typically found in socialist countries.  You might want to
>> >ask yourself why...
>>
>> I frequently meet Europeans travelling for both recreation and business;
>> are you claiming that they do not have freedom of movement?
>
>
>Not really socialist, are they?

OK, so you are NOT claiming that European nations are crippled by
socialism? You seem to cite Sweden as an example of a socialist
hellhole frequently.

>>  Furthermore,
>> almost all of them choose to return to their home countries.
>
>And the ones that don't?

How many western Europeans want to come to the US anymore?

>>  You might
>> want to ask yourself how socialist hellholes are able to produce nicer
>> food, wine, beer, clothing, shoes, and bathroom fixtures than the free
>> world.
>
>This is on the planet where Sweden is an example of socialism but East
>Germany was not???

If it still existed, sure, East Germany would be an example of all
sorts of bad things. But how much of East Germany's awfulness was
a direct result of being occupied by a the military forces of a
nation that held a real grudge from the last war?

>> Of course, most European countries are only varying degrees of partially
>> socialist.  That is a category that you seem to keep ignoring.
>
>You seem to perpetually ignore the fact that Europe is significantly
>poorer then the US.

Measured in dollars, sure. In terms of public education, access to
health care, life expectancy, etc., Europeans--well, western Europeans,
anyway--seem to be better off than Americans, on the average.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 26, 10:17 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:


> >>  Furthermore,
> >> almost all of them choose to return to their home countries.
>
> >And the ones that don't?
>
> How many western Europeans want to come to the US anymore?

I dunno. How many? Google it. Tell us the results. How many
Americans emigrate to Europe?

> >>  You might
> >> want to ask yourself how socialist hellholes are able to produce nicer
> >> food, wine, beer, clothing, shoes, and bathroom fixtures than the free
> >> world.
>
> >This is on the planet where Sweden is an example of socialism but East
> >Germany was not???
>
> If it still existed, sure, East Germany would be an example of all
> sorts of bad things.  But how much of East Germany's awfulness was
> a direct result of being occupied by a the military forces of a
> nation that held a real grudge from the last war?

Oh, so the most propsperous socialist country was so because the USSR
hated them...

OK. So would you care to explain why the USSR was so fucked up then?
How about Romania? Latvia? Yugoslavia? Vietnam? North Korea?
China?

Given that any large group of people will pretty much have the same
properties as any other large group of people (intelligence,
education, good will, whatever) what is your explanation of why so
many socialist countries are such impoverished totalitarian
hellholes? The only thing they all have in common is socialism. Why
is your best example of supposed socialism also the nation that of all
socialist countries, is the least so? If socialism didn't work in the
USSR, what makes you think it will work anywhere? Do you think
Russians are racially inferior to Americans such that we can make
socialism 'work' while they failed?

Sweden is less prosperous than the US. Don't you think it is the
extent to which Sweden is less socialist than other socialist
countries the same thing that makes it less poor and hellish than they
are/were?

> >> Of course, most European countries are only varying degrees of partially
> >> socialist.  That is a category that you seem to keep ignoring.
>
> >You seem to perpetually ignore the fact that Europe is significantly
> >poorer then the US.
>
> Measured in dollars, sure.  In terms of public education

Uh, the US education system is almost entirely socialist in nature
(state paid, state controlled, "pro buono publico" and all). Any
deficiencies you are claiming for it are arguments AGAINST socialism.



>, access to
> health care


Better in the US- in quality and technology and shorter wait times for
treatment and individual control over decision making.

And, ONCE AGAIN, half (literally) of all US spending on health care is
socialist in nature- state paid, state controlled, "pro buono publico"
and all. As a share of GDP (and the US had a higher per capita GDP
than the UK) the US government ALREADY spends what the UK does for
health care. There is literally no need at all for additional
government spending for the US to match the UK. If the US is getting
less for its money (and you are claiming here that we are) that is an
argument AGAINST greater socialism.




> life expectancy,


Adjust for race (mother nature isn't kind to blacks, and they are an
eighth of the US population) and obesity and other non-health care
factors and that effect goes away. Supposed quality of health care
(and I will remind you that the US government ALREADY spends what the
UK does per capita...) has nothing whatsoever to do with it.




> etc.


Taking "etc" to cover infant mortality, merely adjusting for the
mother's age at birth makes the US infant mortality rate the same as
Germany's. Quality of health care has nothing to do with that. And
the US government already spends what the UK does...

>, Europeans--well, western Europeans,
> anyway--seem to be better off than Americans, on the average.

OK, but I will note here that you have no actual examples to present.
What you HAD cited are either illusionary differences or in fact
criticisms of socialism.

Shouldn't the US then practice LESS socialism, not more?

[Jared]

On 5/26/2012 3:32 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 26, 10:17 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>
>>>> Furthermore,
>>>> almost all of them choose to return to their home countries.
>>
>>> And the ones that don't?
>>
>> How many western Europeans want to come to the US anymore?
>
>
> I dunno. How many? Google it. Tell us the results. How many
> Americans emigrate to Europe?
>

The figures I can find say that in 2009, about 90,000 Europeans became
American citizens, and about 6,000 Americans became citizens of EU states.

My sources are DHS and Eurostat.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2011/table21d.xls

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=MIGR_ACQ

It seems clear that for whatever reason, considerably more Europeans
want to become Americans than vice versa.

I find this mildly surprising, due to the steady stream of anti-U.S.
opinions provided by the English speakers in forums I read on the net.

--
Jared

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 26, 2:34 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> How many western Europeans want to come to the US anymore?
>
> > I dunno.  How many?  Google it.  Tell us the results.  How many
> > Americans emigrate to Europe?
>
> The figures I can find say that in 2009, about 90,000 Europeans became
> American citizens, and about 6,000 Americans became citizens of EU states.

Yes, but are these *western* Europeans? Or just filthy slavs...

[Jared]

In the EU?

Anyway looking at just the UK, per year, about 1 in 6,600 become US
citizens, while 1 in 100,000 US citizens become UK citizens, IIRC.

So a UK citizen is much more likely to become a US citizen than vice versa.

--
Jared

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 27, 5:15 am, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I dunno.  How many?  Google it.  Tell us the results.  How many
> >>> Americans emigrate to Europe?
>
> >> The figures I can find say that in 2009, about 90,000 Europeans became
> >> American citizens, and about 6,000 Americans became citizens of EU states.
>
> > Yes, but are these *western* Europeans?  Or just filthy slavs...
>
> In the EU?

Yes. Eastern Europe, less the former USSR and parts of Yugoslavia but
plus the Baltics are members.

> Anyway looking at just the UK, per year, about 1 in 6,600 become US
> citizens, while 1 in 100,000 US citizens become UK citizens, IIRC.
>
> So a UK citizen is much more likely to become a US citizen than vice versa.

15 - 1 Big difference.



>
> --
> Jared

[Lee Ayrton]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:56:56 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

>
> Yes, but are these *western* Europeans? Or just filthy slavs...

Right. Back into the bozo bin you go.

[()]

A large part of it is simply due to the fact that the population of
the US is about 5 times bigger than that of the UK. (If this is not
clear, imagine that there are only 2 countries in the world, equally
desirable, equal birth and death rates, but the population of country
A is twice as big as that of B. If the population of A stays twice as
much that of B, the net migration must be 0, but as a percentage of
the population the emigration rate of A will be half of that of B.) I
know a couple of Americans who use their Italian citizenship inherited
from their grandfather to work in the UK. How do you account for this?
I also know some who believe that they would lose their US citizenship
if they became British citizen, and there is no way to convince them
otherwise.

[Jared]

Your comments seem rather silly due to ignoring what I _just wrote_
above about the EU vs. the US - the EU and US are of similar size, and
we see the same 15 - 1 ratio.

There is no reason that the net migration rate must be zero. If you make
a random assumption, you can deduce things which are of no particular
interest because they aren't going to happen.

You could just as well say that if the emigration rate is the same, then
the net migration will _not_ be zero, and populations will _not_ remain
2 : 1.

In fact, we presumably _in the actual world_ have a case where the
emigration rates are not the same, and net migration is not zero either.

--
Jared

[Charles Bishop]

In article <a2cgsh...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:

>ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <a28jan...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>
>>>"An armed society is a polite society." It seems to be at the heart
>>>of some libertarian thought that giving a gun to everyone is an
>>>important part of evolving towards a free society.
>>
>>I doubt very much if that is the only governing principle. That is I don't
>>think a libertarian society would be build only on everyone having guns.
>>There are two versions of libertarianism that I'm familiar with.
>>
>>The first is with a limited government that includes courts, national
>>military and police. The second is refered to as anarchistic capitalism or
>>some such, and I'm not sure what their form would take so I can't address
>>that. Each time I talked with one of them it seemed as if some form of
>>limited government was included, it just wasn't called that. If Dr.
>>Friedman were here he could perhaps fill me in.
>>
>>So, for the limited government version - In no way would that result in a
>>Somalia. Picking and choosing one slogan and saying that's the whole of
>>the policies seems dishonest somehow.
>
>I was thinking of the L Neil Smith, Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love"
>end-state and Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned". These are all in your
>second category.

Don't remember enough of either of the fictional accounts to comment.

>
>In the latter, the government of New Mexico becomes a tourist
>attraction.

And, I don't understand the thought processes that brought you here.

Just to reiterate, using Somalia as an example of a limited government
libertarian society is dishonest in a discussion. I'd need more
information on the current situation in Somalia to know if it approximates
a anarchist form of libertarianism.

--
charles

[()]

About 40000 of the 900000 are not from the EU (Russia, former SU,
Ukraine, Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia and a few others), then from the EU,
there are about 10000 Poles and 5000 Romanians.

[()]

What I replied to was about the UK and the US.

> There is no reason that the net migration rate must be zero. If you make
> a random assumption, you can deduce things which are of no particular
> interest because they aren't going to happen.

It is not a random assumption. If the two countries are equally
desirable then the population should not tend migrate from one to the
other. In any case, it was just a simplified example to illustrate
that the ratio of people emigrating compared to the total population
is the wrong measure to use.