[General Battuta]

Indeed. 'Nonsense' is not an emotional term. It means 'does not make sense'. (It even has specific further definitions in biology, as opposed to missense!)

The Webster's definition is really pretty bad, since ad hominem specifically means arguments about character or individual quality rather than the quality of reasoning.

[MP-Ryan]

And that statement was designed to point out a flaw in the Political Compass's scale and analysis of political figures, requiring me to use its definitions. Sure, socialist policies may expand opportunities and therefore freedom in one sense, but by the definitions of that scale they decrease it by increasing government intervention* (at least, the state-administered forms do). I'm not arguing in favor of that logic, but I have to use it in that case.

*: Although, that piece of information came from MP-Ryan, and I accepted it because it seemed the only conceivable explanation for the placement of our political figures. There is some chance it's wrong, but that would just mean their analysis of politicians is even more skewed than I thought.

That doesn't rescue you're argument, because you're still using some bastardized notion of what a two-axis scale is supposed to represent.

Putting aside the scale for a moment, the reason your statement that capitalist societies are freer than socialist societies is nonsense centers around three key problems:
1.  You haven't define 'freedom,' except by virtue of tautological reasoning.
2.  It's prefaced with the statement that "all other thing being equal," a measure which is impossible to ascribe a historical root for, as there are no possible comparators, rendering the statement nonsense from it's very beginning (*note: reasons why a L/R comparison scale is useless for cross-national/cultural/temporal comparisons generally, because the plot points are forever shifting and they're based on subjective interpretation).
3.  You appear to be using economic systems as a measure of freedom of social life, when the two are not strongly correlated (e.g. China is in many ways a very successful capitalist society, economically-speaking; however, degree of social freedom from perceived negative intervention in the lives of its citizenry by the government is also very low).

[Apollo]

Indeed. 'Nonsense' is not an emotional term. It means 'does not make sense'. (It even has specific further definitions in biology, as opposed to missense!)

It is an emotional appeal, because it's a loaded word that makes no attempt to explain why something is bad. "Boy, there's a nonsense statement grounded in nothing." is not a logical argument. It basically means "this is wrong because it doesn't make sense".

The Webster's definition is really pretty bad, since ad hominem specifically means arguments about character or individual quality rather than the quality of reasoning.

The term has often been used to mean both.

The sentence is nonsense in the same way that "All things being equal, apples are better than oranges" is nonsense.

It's a opinion that requires such a massively detailed definition of what you are comparing, how all things can be equal, and what your criterion for better are that it is completely pointless.

In Compass-speak the up/down axis measures government intervention. Since most forms of socialism use government economic intervention, that statement in largely correct in that particular context.

[General Battuta]

Indeed. 'Nonsense' is not an emotional term. It means 'does not make sense'. (It even has specific further definitions in biology, as opposed to missense!)

It is an emotional appeal, because it's a loaded word that makes no attempt to explain why something is bad. "Boy, there's a nonsense statement grounded in nothing." is not a logical argument. It basically means "this is wrong because it doesn't make sense".

That is exactly what it means, which is why it is not an emotional appeal, but instead a logical argument. 'Sense' versus 'non sense' is a logical state; A = A is sensible, whereas A = !A is not. Kara and I have both explained why more than once, now.

The Webster's definition is really pretty bad, since ad hominem specifically means arguments about character or individual quality rather than the quality of reasoning.

The term has often been used to mean both.

Incorrectly.

[General Battuta]

Quit bickering about ad hominem arguments. You both know full well I'd have banned anyone who made one.

This should have been the final word on the topic.

e: Why are we talking about the political compass in this thread instead of any of the interesting topics that came up on the first page

[General Battuta]

There's so much cool **** to talk about being utterly wasted in this thread that I'm tempted to start a new thread about political economy. I've been reading a bunch of books on the history of finance and the connection between state, bank, and market, and it's mind-boggling how little of the fundamental economics of the world people (myself included) actually understand.

None of the extant lay or political discourse on socialism and the role of the government in markets is ever going to go anywhere because people only recognize concepts like 'freedom' and 'competition' as buzzwords. I don't think your average American even understands fractional reserve banking.

[Apollo]

That doesn't rescue you're argument, because you're still using some bastardized notion of what a two-axis scale is supposed to represent.
Putting aside the scale for a moment, the reason your statement that capitalist societies are freer than socialist societies is nonsense centers around three key problems:

My comment applies only to freedom in the scale sense, so we can't put it aside.

1.  You haven't define 'freedom,' except by virtue of tautological reasoning.

I'm using freedom in the same way the Political Compass uses libertarian; that is, absence of government intervention. I have repeatedly said as much.

2.  It's prefaced with the statement that "all other thing being equal," a measure which is impossible to ascribe a historical root for, as there are no possible comparators, rendering the statement nonsense from it's very beginning (*note: reasons why a L/R comparison scale is useless for cross-national/cultural/temporal comparisons generally, because the plot points are forever shifting and they're based on subjective interpretation).

It is theoretically possible for a capitalist and a welfare capitalist society to exist that, outside of economic policies and their consequences, are identical. Welfare capitalism is not a form of socialism (despite what a lot of rightists think), but it uses some socialist ideas.

These consequences would be far-reaching and pervasive, but they would not change the fact that, on paper, the welfare capitalist society would have a higher level of government intervention than the capitalist one. Since the Compass's U/D axis measures government intervention, this would make the former more authoritarian than the latter.

3.  You appear to be using economic systems as a measure of freedom of social life, when the two are not strongly correlated (e.g. China is in many ways a very successful capitalist society, economically-speaking; however, degree of social freedom from perceived negative intervention in the lives of its citizenry by the government is also very low).

You have repeatedly stated that entitlements are a form of government intervention, and that redistribution is an economic policy. However, entitlements are both. They are also a common type of left-wing policy.

The Compass puts social views and views on government intervention in the same category (as it should).

That is exactly what it means, which is why it is not an emotional appeal, but instead a logical argument. 'Sense' versus 'non sense' is a logical state; A = A is sensible, whereas A = !A is not. Kara and I have both explained why more than once, now.

You did explain why, but only after I called your first post out for not explaining anything whatsoever.

A statement is not logical unless it actually explains its reasoning or attempts to disprove an opposing argument with an explanation. "Nonsense" does not, in and of itself, say anything rational or useful.

The term has often been used to mean both.

Incorrectly.

You might not like it, but that's one definition of ad hominem. Many words have more than one meaning.

There's so much cool **** to talk about being utterly wasted in this thread that I'm tempted to start a new thread about political economy. I've been reading a bunch of books on the history of finance and the connection between state, bank, and market, and it's mind-boggling how little of the fundamental economics of the world people (myself included) actually understand.

None of the extant lay or political discourse on socialism and the role of the government in markets is ever going to go anywhere because people only recognize concepts like 'freedom' and 'competition' as buzzwords. I don't think your average American even understands fractional reserve banking.

I agree that this thread has been derailed pretty badly.

[General Battuta]

That is exactly what it means, which is why it is not an emotional appeal, but instead a logical argument. 'Sense' versus 'non sense' is a logical state; A = A is sensible, whereas A = !A is not. Kara and I have both explained why more than once, now.

You did explain why, but only after I called your first post out for not explaining anything whatsoever.

A statement is not logical unless it actually explains its reasoning or attempts to disprove an opposing argument with an explanation. "Nonsense" does not, in and of itself, say anything rational or useful.

It says something rational and useful, which you just quoted. 'A = !A is not sense' is a rational and useful statement.

The term has often been used to mean both.

Incorrectly.

You might not like it, but that's one definition of ad hominem. Many words have more than one meaning.

It has very little to do with whether or not I like it, and everything to do with the fact that ad hominem means something, and you have misunderstood what it means. This has produced a series of dull, pedantic, uninteresting posts (on both our parts) that have prevented us from engaging with any of the really interesting topics here. Worse yet is the fact that ad hominem arguments are bad form, in debate in general and on HLP and in particular, and by accusing me of making one, you make it necessary for me to defend myself against that accusation. As long as you continue to defend your misunderstanding, you're making an argument about my quality as a debater, and, post Kara's interjection, making an argument for having me banned. You know what that's called? Hopefully the answer's clear by now.

e post fact: The dictionary entry is just wrong. There's nothing else to it; it's just a badly written definition. They ****ed it up. The wiktionary and wikipedia definitions are both much better.

I agree that this thread has been derailed pretty badly.

And the solution is right here:

Quit bickering about ad hominem arguments.

[The E]

Apollo: Whatever your definition of ad hominem is, it is not the one we're using here. No amount of insistence on your part will change that.

This is a friendly reminder to drop that particular topic. The next reminder will not be friendly, but an actual warning.

[Apollo]

It says something rational and useful, which you just quoted. 'A = !A is not sense' is a rational and useful statement.

Only in mathematics. Otherwise, you must provide additional explanation.

It has very little to do with whether or not I like it, and everything to do with the fact that ad hominem means something, and you have misunderstood what it means. This has produced a series of dull, pedantic, uninteresting posts (on both our parts) that have prevented us from engaging with any of the really interesting topics here. Worse yet is the fact that ad hominem arguments are bad form, in debate in general and on HLP and in particular, and by accusing me of making one, you make it necessary for me to defend myself against that accusation. As long as you continue to defend your misunderstanding, you're making an argument about my quality as a debater, and, post Kara's interjection, making an argument for having me banned. You know what that's called? Hopefully the answer's clear by now.

Again, the dictionary disagrees with you. Give one reason why your definitions override its definitions.

You are correct about the original meaning of ad hominem. You are incorrect about that being the only definition. Words change over time. Ghetto, vandal, and liberal all have modern meanings that are quite different than their original ones.

As long as you continue to defend your misunderstanding, you're making an argument about my quality as a debater, and, post Kara's interjection, making an argument for having me banned. You know what that's called? Hopefully the answer's clear by now.

I am questioning the quality of one of your posts, but that is not the logical basis of my argument. Therefore, I am not using ad hominem.

I am also not arguing that you be banned, because your ad hominem did not use any personal attacks.

Apollo: Whatever your definition of ad hominem is, it is not the one we're using here. No amount of insistence on your part will change that.

This is a friendly reminder to drop that particular topic. The next reminder will not be friendly, but an actual warning.

In that case this will be my last post on the subject, although I'm certainly not asking you to ban him.

[The E]

It is astonishing how you manage to misinterpret a direct warning to you, Apollo.

EDIT: Just to be clear here: "ad hominem" means " personal attack". There is no other relevant definition of the term that is applicable here, or anywhere for that matter. An "ad hominem that does not use a personal attack" is per definition a nonsensical statement.

[Mars]

There's so much cool **** to talk about being utterly wasted in this thread that I'm tempted to start a new thread about political economy. I've been reading a bunch of books on the history of finance and the connection between state, bank, and market, and it's mind-boggling how little of the fundamental economics of the world people (myself included) actually understand.

None of the extant lay or political discourse on socialism and the role of the government in markets is ever going to go anywhere because people only recognize concepts like 'freedom' and 'competition' as buzzwords. I don't think your average American even understands fractional reserve banking.

I am very curious about the subject but am very much a laymen. I have some basic background on political science but none in economics. Do you have any recommended reading?

[General Battuta]

Right now I'm reading 'The Ascent of Money' by Niall Ferguson, a bit of a righty and probably a galloping racist as well. It's shallow in some areas and certainly has an ideological slant, but it's not a bad primer, and the gaps can be filled in.

[Mr. Vega]

I will also again recommend Debunking Economics by Steve Keen as a blow-by-blow about why the brand of economics taught in most universities and advocated by politicians has absolutely no connection to the real world and often embraces logically fallacious propositions as a matter of faith. To convince you of that he has to explain clearly what the basic ideas are (and how economies actually work in the real world), so it works as a great introduction to economics as well.

[Luis Dias]

It is astonishing how you manage to misinterpret a direct warning to you, Apollo.

EDIT: Just to be clear here: "ad hominem" means " personal attack". There is no other relevant definition of the term that is applicable here, or anywhere for that matter. An "ad hominem that does not use a personal attack" is per definition a nonsensical statement.

Now come on The E, was it really necessary for you to engage in an ad hominem like that against Apollo?

[font size=5]Do I need to place trololol or sarcasm quotes in that last sentence?[/font]

I think this conversation derailed somewhat, and I wanted to get back on track by responding to mr Vega.

One: I hate to go all Marxist, but um, if you're going to fully automate manufacturing and stuff, you still need to find some way to pay your consumers, otherwise there's no one to buy all these wonderful goods.

This is the very basis of the problem. Of course! Notice however how current Austrians do not believe this: they believe that markets and economies work from the top to the bottom, the economy is supply-based, rather than demand-based. New or Post Keynesians think this is ludicrous, and we do have (unfortunately) enough evidence by now on who's right about this question, at the cost of millions of people suffering otherwise unnecessary unemployment and poverty.

The luddites said in the 1800s that machines would throw everyone out of work...didn't happen. Productivity increased and they found something else for the workers to do. That America is experiencing such a massive structural job shortage (beyond the effects of the recession) is simply because the industry was shipped overseas (which the robotics boom will hopefully bring back). I'm not saying that what you're predicting can't happen or won't eventually happen, but each time someone predicts it I'm reminded of how many times it's been wrong.

This is the most important and most interesting caveat to all of the above conversation. I also had acknowledged it in my third point (this all happened before and we are all okay now). But as I also said, those revolutions did not end employment, but they did change the nature of nations and states: the creation of the welfare state. So we can also ponder what is to come when the next revolution starts to kick ass in our economies. What kind of fundamental shift has to happen so we can still say the economy is for the better for the people and not just feudalism under a new guise.

Two; Here's my counter: does capital need to be so highly concentrated now? Ignoring the fact that the current level of wealth inequality is totally unprecedented and can probably only occur in an economy totally dominated by the rentier class, I need to ask whether why you need capital concentrated in a society with such high productivity and per-capita income. You could argue it was necessary a century ago for wealth to be concentrated in such few hands so heavy industry could be built up in the first place and there just wasn't enough on hand at the time if you scattered it, but now? Is this really the most efficient arrangement?

The question is not if it is "necessary", but rather if it is moral, if it is growing and if the trend is unstoppable. According to most capitalists, it isn't a very big moral issue, and I really do not see many things that can stop the trend. Even with a preposterous rise in wealth taxes, what drives this trend is Globalisation, concentration of means of production to the big fishes of the world, the frictionless nature of the internet and finance, AIs, etc. So even if you were right in saying it's not the most efficient status, it's possibly the most inevitable.

Three: Milton Friedman, hoo boy...where to start? I want you to find and read Debunking Economics by Steve Keen. Amongst many other things, it chronicles how Friedman and Lucas repopularized Neo-Classical beliefs about money and markets in the 1970s after Keynes had pointed out that they didn't hold up once you include the issue of an uncertain future in the model. They got around this issue by assuming that people could predict the future -literally, that was their assumption- and called this theory "Rational Expectations". Reading Keen explain each step of their reasoning is laugh-out-loud funny - it's like reading the economic equivalent of the witch burning scene in Monty Python in the Holy Grail. I hate to break it to you, but only the craziest Austrians like von Mises and Rothbard top him in the use of woo.

Ok, now stop there immediately. You'd do better than reading one book and declaring one of the most well regarded economist of the 20th century as a "joke" or something. Perhaps you'd do better to read more books than contrarian ones. Milton's work was astounding, and his monetarist views, while not entirely correct, they were mostly correct, regarding the role of the currency in the Great Depression and how the Fed could have stopped it short if it understood currency better. You should also be aware that this criticism of Milton is what was behind the quick reaction of Bernanke and co. in 2008's crash and prevented a second Great Depression despite the fact that the crash was worse. I disagree with Friedman on lots of things, but if you read a book calling his theories "quackery" then you are just being misinformed.

One more thing. While it sounds silly to say people "predict the future", that's exactly what people do everyday, and especially economic agents. This is what is the crux of the economic theories of people like Hayek and so on and you should know better. The idea is this. We all make predictions and we mostly fail about them, because predicting the future is incredibly difficult. However, when the only economic agent allowed to predict the future and plan the economy accordingly is the state, it is bound to failure, precisely because predicting what does not yet exist is pretty much almost impossible. However, if you decentralize this predicting business to free individual economic agents, they will all make somewhat different predictions, and some of them will be right, some will not. The system then rewards those who were right, giving them more capital so they can invest more than those who failed. Basic free markets' ideology. So please try not to read too much into other people's caricatures of what Friedman said.

[Mr. Vega]

I've read about three million books on economics for fun and am familiar with both sides (though I confess that the unwillingness of neoclassicals to represent the most basic facts that don't fit their preconceptions is starting to make me want to rather stab my skull with an ice pick rather than read any more of their stuff); Keen's book was merely the most specific and most detailed attack on Friedman's arguments. I can throw down with you on this if you'd like  .

Friedman accused Keynes of building a theory on "crude psychology" (HIS WORDS) and betting on the irrationality of individuals. This is utterly false. Keynes did not ascribe market failures to irrationality.  For a rational actor to make a rational decision he/she needs the information necessary to make a rational calculation. When it come to predicting the future, that information often does not exist. You can't predict what the interest rate will be in ten years and you don't even know the odds or statistical distribution of it (if such a distribution even exists). That was what Keynes meant by uncertainty as opposed to risk. But you still have to make decisions like whether to borrow to fund projects as if you could make a rational judgement as to its viability ten years down the line.

So, Keynes asks, what do rational actors do when they don't have the information needed to make a rational decision? They have to guess somehow, and usually adopt several "conventions" for doing so. Number one, they try to extrapolate the future from the present. For instance, if house prices have been rising for five years, investors project them to continue to rise if there is no available evidence to the contrary. Number two, "knowing our own individual judgement to be worthless, we endeavor to fall back on the judgement of the rest of the world, which is perhaps better informed." This is further exacerbated by the fact that businesses that are too conservative relative to the market during a boom are pressured by their shareholders to raise their profit margins up to the level of the less prudent crowd. So you can get results that look like herd thinking by starting with rational individuals, simply by adding the fact that the future is uncertain. You can look up any number of empirical studies that support this conclusion. Neoclassical economists are trained to ignore all of this. It's beat into their heads that all predictive errors are random and not systemic, and that the effect of uncertainty is negligible (if its existence even enters their minds).

However, if you decentralize this predicting business to free individual economic agents, they will all make somewhat different predictions, and some of them will be right, some will not. The system then rewards those who were right, giving them more capital so they can invest more than those who failed. Basic free markets' ideology.

You fall into this trap. The possibility of systemic error does not even occur to you. What if 90% of them are wrong, and the result is a depression which also wipes out the income of the 10% who were right?

Also, the fed was not responsable for the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by a debt deflation process. Distress selling and spending cuts by overindebted businesses caused a massive fall in prices which resulted in the real value of their debts rising despite repayment, which triggered further cuts in spending and price falls. This fact is blindingly obvious when you look at the US GDP and debt data from 1929 to 1933- nominal debt fell sharply, the debt/GDP ratio (which measures the ability of the economy to pay the debt) still rose because output fell more than debt. That adhering to the gold standard denied the fed the ability to try to hold off that deflation by injecting money into the banks' reserve vaults does not change the fact that it would not have worked. That money would have sat in the bank vaults while everyone frantically tried to repay their debts. The same reason that QE by Japan's central bank during the lost decade did absolutely nothing - when you have a financial collapse cause by too much private debt that cash you've created will just sit in the reserve vaults of the banks while the economy is deleveraging. The only thing that would have prevented the Great Depression would have been what prevented a depression in 1970 (run on the commercial paper market), 1975 (collapse of the REITs along with numerous bank failures), and 1990 (final collapse of the Savings and Loans industry amid the wreckage of the '87 crash), all serious financial crises that came much closer to disaster than most people remember- massive fiscal stimulus to replace the demand being removed for debt repayment by the private sector, combined with lender-of-last resort interventions by the Fed to insure that no critical financial institutions went bankrupt and liquidated.

But what do I know? I just read one book and now I think I know everything, don't I?

"In general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions." -Milton Friedman (yes, he really said that)

And don't even get me started on Friedman's theory of money.

[Ypoknons]

I am very curious about the subject but am very much a laymen. I have some basic background on political science but none in economics. Do you have any recommended reading?

How about a common Economics 101 textbook or a iTunes U (or equivalent) course from a legit university (macroeconomics that is)? Even if you end up disagreeing with everything taught, as Mr. Vegas claims, you should at least pick up a few tools for analysis and understand where a number of academics are coming from.

(Changed Mr. Vegas "has" to Mr. Vegas "claims")

[Mr. Vega]

I never suggested that that be the only book he ever reads.

I would also recommend The Wealth of Nations and Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money but that's probably too much for a beginner to slog through.

[Lorric]

Funny video I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrGdEwV-efs