Well, why don’t you take Sam up on his suggestion, 'luci, and dig up some counter cites? That way we can all judge the merits of the competing data and draw some conclusions…and stuff. Debate, and all that rot…ehe? Take your time old boy…let’s see some really juicy stuff!
-XT
Why don’t you? I stopped accepting homework assignments when I left college, which would be 1967. I rather prefer it.
My point is not that such refutation is at my fingertips, only that it likely exists. Because economics is not cut and dried, it is an interpretive study. Not a thing wrong with that, so long as we recognize that and respond accordingly.
And, in truth, economics bores me to tears. I am currently trying to slog through Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money, and I feel as though I were doing penance for sins contemplated, but never actually committed,
Why WOULD I? I’m not a lefty, and I am not disputing Sam’s cites. Most likely, I wouldn’t agree with any lefty type cites I found, so why would I go to the trouble to look them up…for you?
Heck, if you don’t want too, then that’s fine by me. It’s your argument after all…feel free to concede the point through inaction, if that’s what you want to do. Or, maybe some other 'doper of a like mind to your own will bail you out and do the donkey work for you.
Gods…the irony! I need a new irony meter AND a new keyboard now…
-XT
Hear, hear!
So when are you running for office?
Which totally avoids the question of the thread. What does “conservative” mean anyway? I’m a rule-of-law conservationist, which I used to think was conservative, but the GOP has no respect for my core beliefs.
Because he’s an accommodater by nature. He defers to Congress. He ran on that too.
The sick irony is, if Obama presented a strong policy hand, he’d have higher approval ratings. Heck, W Bush ran this country into a sewage ditch, but he had self-confidence to spare, & he was reelected.
Exactly. Calling yourself a conservative these days is about as meaningful as calling yourself a christian.
You’re probably right, except for the parts I’ve bolded. You’re a Canadian. What’s “low as possible” to you is still “radical socialism” down here. By USA standards, Alberta is a socialist economy with an overgrown Medicare program.
I agree that we need to keep our budget under control, but in this country, which is not your country, that means actually raising taxes & not promising a free lunch.
Which is full of outliers, & therefore non-predictive.
Well, that depends on how much the price of health care inflates, Sam. A dollar has no constant value in purchasing health care, as we have learned to our dismay down here.
No, Sam, I mean the curriculum is outdated.
Again, Sam, you show your ignorance of the USA. The right wing abolished welfare, full stop–with the fully willing help of Obama’s wing of the Democratic Party–over a decade ago. And nobody in Washington is going to bring it back.
But here’s the kicker: The GOP is opposed to even indexing the minimum wage to inflation. That’s what the Democratic victory was about in 2006. In my state, we had a referendum to get an indexed minimum wage passed statewide in case the Dems didn’t take Congress. And I kept running into these stupid youth who listened to–I dunno, maybe their GOP parents, the free-market fundie econ instructors at the local college, or Rusty Limbaugh–saying how it was a horrible inflationary thing–not to let the minimum wage continue to decrease in real purchasing power. Good thing we let those *over *30 vote.
Sam, my point is, you think you’re so right-wing, but in this country, your policies’d damn near be a Bill Clinton Democrat. Slightly further to the Huffington left, I bet. Our righties are dealing with numbers completely unlike yours, & they, not the left, are the main driver of deficit spending. So, really, please, Sam, STOP TRYING TO HELP.
All of which means the Klein gov’t was 10,000 times smarter than even our “left” down here. Really, you only think the GOP is like you. Tell me, do you think the Iranian right is like you?
I didn’t think you were accusing me of lying - I was just annoyed with your lame ‘debating’ technique, which goes something like this:
“I’m guessing you’re wrong, so I’m going to dismiss your argument. But no, I’m not going to bother to actually check. I’m way beyond having to do that at this point in my life. Would you mind doing my work for me and researching the other point of view, so you can rebut yourself and I can agree?”
This is pretty funny, you accusing me of ignorance, when you also say:
Is that what you think? Did you even bother to check?
The Fraser Institute compiles a list of provinces and U.S. States, ranking them by overall economic freedom. This measure is a mix of taxes, regulations, and size and scope of government.
The top 10 in North America:
Socialist paradise, huh?
You would have been right if you had said that about any other Canadian province as most the rest of them wound up at the very bottom of the list after all other U.S. states. Ontario does manage to beat New York for 47th place. People often don’t realize what an incredible outlier Alberta really is.
In ALL countries, and not just your country, it can actually mean just holding spending below the rate of GDP growth. There’s no magic in this, you know.
Raising taxes is a lousy idea, because if there’s one thing we’ve learned from American politicians is that if you give them more tax revenue, they’ll find a way to spend it. The United States government does NOT have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. If raising taxes was the key to balancing the budget, then governments around the world with high tax rates would be running surpluses, and governments with low tax rates would be running deficits. But in fact, the reverse is more often true. Higher taxes translates into bigger government, and bigger government generally tends to mean bigger deficits as a percentage of GDP, because the government is bigger as a percentage of GDP.
As for my ignorance of American welfare reform - sorry, that dog won’t hunt either. I know exactly what was done, by whom, and when. But you on the other hand seem to have a view of Alberta bordering on caricature.
Sam, Sam, Sam. Is there anyone in your province who does not qualify for Medicare?
No?
Then you are to the left of every single state in the USA. On that issue. Which is my point. By Canadian standards, you’re far far to the classical-liberal right. But we have different definitions down here. Here in the Ozarks, you’d be a Leninist.
I see. So… public health care means socialism?
I guess those Republicans calling Obama a socialist aren’t wrong then.
We may be further to the left on health care (we don’t have a choice - it’s a federal program, but we’re taking steps in the right direction), but on just about every other measure, we’re to the right of just about everyone else in North America.
By the way, not all health care is public in Canada. Dentistry is mostly private. non-essential services like chiropractic and podiatry are not covered. Prescription drugs are not covered, except in a medicaid-style program for the very poorest who are on social assistance. Canada is generally moving towards delisting about 5-10% of necessary treatments from the public plan, in order to contain costs and manage waiting times. Most working Canadians have private insurance plans to cover the things our provincial health care programs do not cover.
Not quite the socialist paradise you were thinking of.
Anyway, about that index of economic freedom - it’s a great document. Prepared jointly by the Fraser Institute in Canada (a free-market institution, for elucidator’s full disclosure purposes), and the National Center for Policy Analysis in the U.S. It’s full of interesting charts and tables. I recommend reading Chapter 3, “The Relationship between Economic
Freedom & Economic Well-Being”, because it reinforces the point I made in an earlier message - contrary to what liberals think, economic freedom is positively correlated with economic well-being, in both the U.S. and Canada. Maybe tax increases aren’t so necessary for fiscal health after all…
Not quite. Actually, not even close. I’m reasonably sure there is another point of view, because this is economics, not rocket surgery. And while I appreciate the opportunity to throw myself headlong into Canadian sociology and economics in order to rebut a poster on a message board, well, thanks but no thanks.
For instance, are there special conditions in Alberta that may not be universally shared? For instance, you are pleased that, fortunately, the majority of Alberta’s citizens are conservative. Lucky you. To a lefty, that suggests that the majority are reasonably well off, such people tend to be conservative. Well, duh.
You only mention it offhandedly, as a happy fact, serendipitous. But couldn’t that as easily be the crucial fact, the defining circumstance? And if such be the case, then your glowing (and crowing!) certainty becomes suspect, if special conditions need to be present. then it may not be the eternal verity of conservative economics that is the crucial factor, but the conditions on the ground.
Taken at face value, and surrendering all your points, you have proven that the conservative principles you champion are, in the case of Alberta, most excellent. If we grant that, does that mean that conservative principles are universally and essentially superior? You think so, and I think not. But then, you already did think so, didn’t you?
When I come across economic studies which prove the universal wonder of my political principles, I get suspicious, been burned before, and I don’t much like it. You seem innocent of such truculent skepticism, you are not plagued with doubt. Perhaps you are the better for it, I place a high value on doubt, a value that may not, in fact, be valid.
You could scratch one itch for me easily, you can explain why the citizens of Alberta are conservative. Is it because they have more money, or because they are smarter? Or is that the same thing?
In this case, there are an awful lot of hard numbers to work with, and I’ve linked to them. In fact most of my discussion did not draw any sort of hypotheticals about mechanisms - I mostly just said, “We did A, and B resulted. Here are the numbers.”
Does the ‘well, duh’ mean that you think it’s self-evident that wealthier people tend to be more conservative? This is one of those liberal tropes that just won’t die, I guess. The fact is, rural Alberta is more conservative than the cities, and the most liberal place in Alberta is Edmonton, which has even elected an NDP mayor and is the only location in Alberta that tends to elect liberals and NDP to various offices. Edmonton has an average per-capita income about $1500 higher than rural Alberta, and the region of the city containing the most support for the left is the richest part of the city.
Certainly you always have to look at confounding factors. But the problem for this argument is that similar reforms carried out around the world have similar effect. Ontario followed Alberta’s lead in reforming welfare, and got the same results.
In the last message, I posted a link to the Fraser institute’s report on economic freedom. In Chapter 3, they plot economic freedom against economic performance, and found a strong, statistically significant relationship between the size of government and economic health. Not just in Canadian provinces, but in U.S. states. In most cases, the states that have lower taxes, lower regulations, and smaller government also have higher GDP growth.
In a message before that, I posted the results of government-slashing efforts in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand. In every case, GDP growth increased dramatically after the size of government was reduced.
In that same message, I posted data for EVERY OECD country, plotting size of government against GDP growth. I even posted a link to the scatter plot of the raw data in case you didn’t trust the regression analysis. Again, there was a strong, statistically significant (99% confidence) trend that appeared - the smaller the government, the better the economy performed.
So much for your “Alberta is special” theory.
One thing I haven’t mentioned in the comparison between the right-wing Alberta and the left-wing BC performance difference in the 1990’s - since then, the NDP party was clobbered in the polls, losing all but two seats in the government. A new, pro-business Liberal government was elected. It cut taxes 25% across the board, and BC now has the second lowest personal taxes in Canada, after Alberta. It also cut business taxes, and cut various business subsidies at the same time to pay for the tax cuts.
The result? Tax revenues are actually up because of rapid economic growth, and the budget was balanced in 2006. BC’s economy was in much better shape by then than it was under the NDP.
Yes, in general I do think so. All the data backs me up, too. And doesn’t the experience of BC (and Ireland, and the UK, and New Zealand) kind of bring the point home? Unlike us special Albertans, they tried it both ways. And in every case, when they reduced the size of their government and lowered taxes, their economic condition improved. Do you have an explanation for that?
The reason I said “in general” in my last paragraph is because I’m always willing to listen on an individual case basis. You might be able to convince me that there are special cases were more government works better in certain places at certain times. The scatter plot I linked to earlier certainly shows some outliers where big government and high growth occurred at the same time.
But yes, I will admit that in general I think freedom works better than slavery, that markets work better than governments, that real innovation is driven by competition, that lower taxes create more economic activity, and that governments are lousy at allocating the resources of a country efficiently. I believe this because for the last 30 years I have been using my own eyes and brain to examine the real-world results of socialism and big government as compared to capitalism, and I’ve seen nothing to convince me that these general principles are not true.
Gee, it almost sounds like you’re trying to bait me. Hey, how come the citizens of Massachusetts are more liberal than those in Texas? Are they poorer? Or just dumber?
Albertans are pretty well off today, but Alberta was just as conservative when we had no money. It’s a cultural thing, just like it is in Texas. The west was settled by adventurous, self-reliant people, and immigration to this area was disproportionately composed of groups fleeing the excesses of government in Europe (religious minorities like the Mennonites and Dukabors, for example). Alberta has been a very rural province, and rural populations tend to be more conservative than urban populations.
Also, Alberta has always been far from the seats of power in eastern Canada, so we’ve been more skeptical of central authority and less likely to buy into the promises federal governments tend to make. We’ve also usually gotten the short end of the stick from the central government as distant, minority populations often do, and are therefore less supportive of big federal government. Americans should understand that. You had a revolution over it.
Calgary is probably the most conservative large city in North America, but it has nothing to do with wealth (although Calgarians are now quite wealthy in general, they weren’t always so, but they were always conservative). Calgary has always considered itself a kind of self-reliant city full of cowboys and oil men. This is the home of the Calgary Stampede, after all. Lots of big cowboy hats in Calgary. The people there have a lot of pride in their ability to take care of themselves. Conservatism in Calgary is inextricably bound to the roots of their culture.
I fear we are no longer posting, Sam, but dueling avalanches. Further, there being no other participants, we have long ceased to be of any interest to anyone else. How are you, I am fine, the weather here is nice, and you are wrong.
Boiled down, I fear you are trying to elevate (or degrade) economics into a deterministic science. It is not, nor is there any prospect that it will become so. There is an element of the irrational about it, and that element is us. A couple of notes:
Yes, you did, but it might have better been stated as “We did A, and B happened”
Those are facts, not opinions. When you say that B “resulted”, as a direct consequence of A, you are on somewhat shakier ground. Dat ol’ debbil post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In physics, no such problem exists, you perform the experiment, and what happens is what is.
No such certainty is possible in economics. In physics, you can experiment, obtain data, and definitively prove or disprove a theory. But not in economics. Even less can you use economic theory to prove a political philosophy
You are at great pains to prove something about something called “small government”, as opposed to “big government”, but these terms have no definitions. Undaunted, you assert that the case is proven, small government, whatever the hell that is, is preferable to big government, whatever the hell that is.
Your prime target for big government baditude are social programs, esp welfare. But when it gets down to it, what do we do with all these useless people? We have never had enough work for everybody, and will likely have even less. So what do you do with them? We’ll take them, I suppose, but they’ll have to learn English!
Just couldn’t help it, could you? Probably thought better for a moment, but surrendered to temptation. Of course I’m in favor of slavery, I disagree with you, what else could it be? Tsk.
Well, that certainly settles that! I’ve done much the same for about 40 years, does that mean I win? No? More’s the pity, If only I had used my eyes and brain, like you had, I would agree? Sam, please. I got my faults, its a long list, but dumbass ain’t on it.
But enough.
Huh. Funny that I don’t seem to hear you making that argument when appealing to the authority of Paul Krugman, or swallowing whole the economic rationale for the ‘stimulus’ or Keynesianism in general. When you can find an economist who agrees with you, you seem to have no problem asserting your arguments in terms of the economics. But when the economic data refutes what you want to believe, suddenly it’s all mysterious and arcane and subject to interpretation, and therefore inconclusive.
How convenient.
Nonsense, and rubbish. In physics you often have to control for dependent variables and take care to make sure that you have your cause and effect straight. That’s why physicists take classes in statistical methods and the proper design of experiments.
And I didn’t just claim that B happened without data to back that up. I linked to actual analysis of the results of welfare reform in Alberta, trying to determine things like whether the people who were kicked off it simply fled the province, or starved to death, or wound up on some other form of social assistance. Did you not bother to read any of that?
In the case of the argument in general about government size vs economic performance, I linked to data with a big enough sample size for the trend to be statistically significant. I made no claim about WHY countries with smaller governments seem to perform better, I simply linked to data showing that they do.
Do you realize the same can be said for global warming? The arguments you are using against ‘economists’ are the same kinds of arguments the deniers of global warming use. Are you comfortable with that? Or are you willing to accept that things like measured trends with high confidence intervals are good proxies for the facts?
You aren’t paying attention again. In all the data I’ve posted, I was comparing smallER government against largER government. Since there’s no absolute thing called “small government”, all you can do is compare relative sizes.
Here’s that scatter plot again: OECD Economic Growth as a Function of Government Size
Here’s a Scatter Plot of CO2 concentration vs temperature. This data is the main justification for Global Warming theories.
I would like to you give me a coherent argument why the second scatter plot is conclusive data that justifies taking drastic worldwide action to curb global warming, while the first one is just ‘meaningless statistics’ and subject to vague arguments about errors in interpretation.
See, I’m at least intellectually honest with myself. I started out as a skeptic of global warming, because of the history of wild exaggerations by the environmental movement. But when I looked at the actual scientific data, I had to admit that it exists, and change my belief system.
Can you do the same?
Actually, my prime target against big government is NOT social programs. I just happen to have been talking about welfare reform in this thread. Big government is a drag on the economy for many, many reasons. Deadweight costs of taxation, distortion of prices, the introduction of economic inefficiency through directed subsidies and taxes, corruption, regulatory capture by special interests, the cost of carrying debt, the inability of central planners to attain the information they need to make rational decisions, moral hazards created by government intervention, etc. There are many, many reasons why larger government damages the economic growth of a country.
As for never having enough work for everybody… Really? The data shows that the majority of people who went off welfare in Alberta found jobs. In fact, the data suggests that the sudden availability of a new labor pool stimulated job creation. You say the big bad Republicans completely destroyed welfare in the U.S., but until the current recession unemployment was at historic lows.
In addition, this graph from the U.S. census data shows that both the poverty rate and the number of people in absolute povery declined dramatically after the passage of welfare reform. I will grant that this was during a period of economic growth, so some decline is to be expected. But if you compare the slope to the decline in poverty in the last economic cycle, you can see that poverty declined slightly faster and bottomed out lower than in the previous cycle.
Now, this IS an area where you have to be careful about interpreting a single graph, because many other factors could be at play (house prices, immigration, changes in demographics and the composition of the labor pool, etc). However, the data represented by this graph certainly does not indicate that there was a major spike in poverty as a result of welfare reform. Perhaps you have other data to suggest that it did?
Also, I have never, ever argued against social assistance for the truly destitute, and the government of Alberta and the government of the United States continues to support both. You have plenty of low-income support programs. Alberta has AISH and other assistance programs. Welfare reform isn’t about kicking the disabled out of their wheelchairs and into the gutter - it’s about providing the right set of incentives to insure that people who are capable of working go back to work.
I never said you were dumb. But I’m not sure how much effort you’ve actually put into really diggging into the data and trying to validate your preconceived notions. Most people I meet, on both the right and left, have their beliefs, and a set of talking points they use to defend their beliefs, but that’s usually about it.
You may in fact have a brain full of hard data from a lifetime of deep study into the causes of various social problems. But you haven’t exhibited it in this thread. Your arguments have been more about sophistry and attempting to use general ‘logic’ and a priori assumptions and guesses to make your case rather than refuting my data with your own.
Don’t want to play nice? Ok dokey.
So, I’m a dupe for thinking that maybe Mr. Keynes and Mr. Krugman may know what they are talking about? I seem to be in abundant good company there, since Keynesian economics are rather well accepted in the community of economic academics. Am I wrong about that? And, of course, Krugman got that silly little prize…
You imply hypocrisy of the left (Gosh, where have I heard that before…?) in general and me in particular for refusing (so you claim) irrefutable economic fact. But in the same breath you express contempt for economic science as it stands, with Keynes very much in the orthodox canon.
Well, which is it, Sam? Is the economics that agrees with your philosophy somehow kosher, and the rest is not?
How convenient indeed, Mr. Kettle.
Look, Sam, I’m not even saying you’re wrong. I’m suggesting that you may have overestimated the significance of all this. You present this data as though its final, authoritative proof, case closed, nothing more to see here.
And yet, in other venues, the debates continue. Even though such absolute and irrefutable proof exists, the fools don’t listen. Why is that, Sam? Such a breakthrough as this, you’d think it would be trumpeted to the skies. Is it the liberal media, suppressing the truth? Why haven’t such men as Krugman and others simply thrown themselves upon your mercy, blubbering for your forgiveness? Are they all stubborn fools, or might it be they have good and sound reasons?
The debate is over, the issue is settled with incontrovertible proof, and few seem to have noticed. How very odd.
