View Single Post
Old 11-25-2011, 04:52 AM   #89
5th Gear Member
noid's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 1,017
I'll try to do this in chronological order:

Funny you would quote Marx, almost as if I could have predicted. You seemingly forgot to mention the Weber status groups: working class (manual labour), middle class (educated/occupational), and agricultural (peasantry/feudalism). What you will realize is that we have an acceleration of low wage job loses, and an inflow of middle class jobs. Lets not forget no one is limited in either becoming the owner of factors of production, nor are they limited to having stake in a company that does.

The reason the Swedish people pay high taxes is because of the left wing parties pre 2006, ever wonder why they have switched to right wing and why they have been recently reelected?

Character assassination? I wasn't aware people needed reassurance. If saying someone is speaking the way a left leaning person would, is the same thing as calling him a communist, I dont even.

Furthermore you make it sound like you are defending yourself, as if you are scared to be called a communist? If you (or anyone) is a communist, I feel like they should be able to defend themselves just as much as a liberal, conservative or a fascist.

Capitalism is the enemy of the state of any pure communist system, there is no profit, what are you talking about? Do you rather mean a heavily taxed socialist economy?

When you write differentiate between classical liberals (conservatives) and modern liberals (liberal party) to minimize confusion.

If you are worried about lobbying you should look into the Canadian council of chief executives.

- What exactly do you think the government can do? Look at the list of companies they represent and straight faced (e-style) tell me you really think they couldn't leverage their assets in a way that would undoubtedly hurt Canadians.

Since when is lobbying perfect competition? Classic liberals believe in MINIMAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Meaning in a ideal state the government would not intervene in such matters. Making your argument moot.

The world trade organization, hardly has any power, it is a by product of government intervention, you realize the government in which your company resides must represent you at the WTO (companies dont represent themselves). Putting tariffs on the united states will mean much worse for your country then for the united states anyways, lets not forget by the time a WTO case is settled protected infant industries 'grow up' before any anti measures can be taken. Overall again this argument is moot. If you dont believe in companies being persons then check out ron paul, the rightest leaning republican of all (He is what the united states needs) he even talked about it during one of the presidential candidate debates, I couldn't agree more. Neither could small government.

What the hell are you talking about? Is Volvo, Saab, H&M or other manufacturing companies government owned? Does the government give handouts to Swedish people to buy these cars? Er???

You are getting perfect competition, and government corporate protection heavily confused.

Are you inferring a center leaning conservative government is fascist? A conservative government is a classical liberal government who idealistically strives for individual libertarianism.


Socialism, takes the wealth of the many and distributes it through broad social programs. They exploit you in the name of others, while exploiting others in the name of you, therefore essentially you are exploiting yourselves. Sweden has their own model which is conveniently called the Swedish model, wherein minimum income is not nationally enforced, it is created in every industry, VIA collective trade agreements. Arguably, if it weren't for these collective agreements individual employee's would have more leeway in negotiating for higher pay. Again there is a reason they now have a conservative government.

Communism fails from the get-go although it has never been purely implemented, it can not effectively suppress the desire of people to better their standards, and will always be faced with corruption.

The public is holding the bag? You mean the government is forced to bail them out? Support classic liberal ideology and you wont have that problem, they will fail and be replaced with something efficient.

The part you were supposed to grasp from memo pps23 is that the american government controlled the majority of the military production during ww2, and at the end was left with half the worlds wealth with a tiny population. THAT is where the problem lies. The problems you are seeing are not a by product of classical liberalism.

The more you close up a society the more it becomes dependent on the companies within, that is when big government will grant human rights to companies.

Example my textbook uses? Seriously? What the hell are you talking about. I just told you, Take the increase in GDP per capita and the GINI index wealth distribution chart, and you will see that consumption, investment, government expenditures, and net imports has increased the standard of living for Canadians tremendously and consistently.

I think you misunderstood me, and you are having a hard time grasping econometrics, the response variable is y, a transformation in x (the explanatory variable) only changes the shape of the curve. Changing the response variable changes variance, distribution, and shape. I think you are also having a hard time understanding what manipulation by transformation means, it is not the manipulation of the data set (which I am sure is sound), it is the manipulation of the response or explanatory variable, to make the output of your model suggest what you want, while still retaining the same data set. In turn this visually will trick people into correlating what he is saying. To confirm his correlations I need the coefficient of determination to be able to tell you if it is a good model or not. My guess by the amount of transformations he has done, is that the variation explained by the model is likely a minority.

The beautiful thing about statistics and inference is that you can manipulate the data however you want to say virtually whatever you want, after all, he could argue his R2 is large, another person can claim the same number is small to them small, who is right? Neither its statistics. Correlation =/= causation

Last edited by noid; 11-25-2011 at 04:59 AM.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote