Capitalism

[Atilla]

What a shocker! More mudslinging from @Atilla :cheesy:

What fallacies @Atilla? You claim to understand logic, so point them out. What points of @tomorton's do you believe to have no validity?

England dervied great financial success from the Enclosure Acts, which enclosed open fields of land in the countryside, creating private property rights. This was a boon to English capitalism.

Jean Baptiste Colbert coined the term "laissez-faire". He was French. Wealthy 21th century Americans are not the only people vying for laissez-faire capitalism. Colbert and other physiocrats started it in the 17th century and was later popularized by Adam Smith. Bernard Mandeville was a Dutch physiocrat famous for his "The Fable of the Bees", from which Adam Smith drew his economic metaphor "the invisible hand". The Economist, an English newspaper, was founded in 1843 and quickly became a prominent voice for laissez-faire capitalism. See, even the English are involved in the laissez-faire movement.

You are either being obtuse or just plain stupid for not seeing the argument.

Have you read this yet article yet?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-rb...nt-bank-2015-3

The RBS collapse did not come suddenly.

It was decades in the making, and was the result of an internal culture that put the sale of questionable financial products ahead of concerns about the risk those products would create. The bank grew recklessly, overpaying for other banks that it acquired, as its balance sheet ballooned to £2.2 trillion ($3.3 trillion), larger than the entire GDP of the United Kingdom.

That growth was overseen by two CEOs who had no direct, hands-on experience of banking.

Also refers to Mrs T and the Big Bang and Self Regulation???

Go to town on applying your logic and fallacies argument to that.


Thanks

 

[tomorton]

By inference, correct me if I'm wrong, you are attributing credit to capitalism.

However, it is the NHS the medical profession which is a social government run service that surely deserves recognition. Which in turn is supported by the greater tax paying populace.

One could also argue that life expectancy is correlated to more even distribution of income and diet rather than capitalism as in some developing countries where there is uneven distribution of income people don't live that long either.


Not suggesting we do away with capitalism by the way. Just looking at improving it with respect to more transparent numeration and rewards and avoiding catastrophe of the last 5 years and trillions which you seem to have dismissed and batted away as if it was of no consequence.

Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.

 

[hhiusa]

Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.

And that is the crux of it right there. Socialist things like the NHS exist off of the back of capitalism.

What is there to go to town with @Atilla? You posted some random article about RBS. You posted some random article anout RBS. Once again you commit and a relevant conclusion fallacy. :-0

If you're going to post an article as your argument state how you believe it is relevant.

All that you have done is provide an anecdotal evidence on one company. You are also making a fallacy of composition by stating that since one company does one thing all of them do that.

 

[tomorton]

Re the global financial crisis of 2008, this is not the only place to hear that it signals the fatal weakness of capitalism and signposts its imminent inevitable death.

But what are its lasting negative effects? Which of these will persist for the long-term?

 

[Atilla]

Yes, doctors keep people alive. But the ones responsible for extending life expectancy so well are paid by the NHS. And how do UK taxpayers earn enough to pay the tax to the government to pass it on to the NHS? Without the earnings from capitalism, there wouldn't be an NHS.

Aren't we talking about capitalism claiming all externals and economic rent as due to it self whilst totally disregarding all the social costs of capitalism as belonging to someone else?

I'm afraid you can't have your argument both ways?

Pollution and carbon neutrality is one example. :idea:

 

[Atilla]

And that is the crux of it right there. Socialist things like the NHS exist off of the back of capitalism.

What is there to go to town with @Atilla? You posted some random article about RBS. You posted some random article anout RBS. Once again you commit and a relevant conclusion fallacy. :-0

If you're going to post an article as your argument state how you believe it is relevant.

All that you have done is provide an anecdotal evidence on one company. You are also making a fallacy of composition by stating that since one company does one thing all of them do that.

Are you seriously saying you can not see the relevancy of the points that article makes?

I find it very difficult to debate anything with I'm sad to say.

You say "Experience of RBS was just one". :-0 With you fantastic grasp of statistics and well read opinions I leave it to you look up or google just how many banks were bailed out during the 2007/8 crises.

"If you say anecdotal evidence of one company" this tells me you are not very well read, have no awareness of what's been happening in the market and are quite out of any serious debate.


The article says what I'm saying well enough. Why would I want to repeat the article. For your benefit I've even highlighted in red the material which highlights my point. Do you not see this?


As hard as one tries to be polite and civil with you - you take the biscuit.

 

[Atilla]

fwiw - said this before but worth repeating.

imo during the Victorian era, we were closer to pure capitalism with very little or no social services or government influence. Government only supported industry like in the case of the West India Company going to fight wars in it's interest.

Many families and even children from ages of 4 and upwards were made to work. 4 year olds were sent down small mine shafts as their tiny bodies could fit through narrow passages.

People would work 14-18 hours, underpaid and underfed and unable to have enough strengh to work longer would be beaten and called lazy toe rags. Whilst the capitalist would be fat and do very little but bugger around 20 servants.

Towards the end, the well to do who had their future guaranteed could not stomach the suffering and destitution. The country, army and industry also needed a better, smarter and stronger labour force to deliver and so people started to feel a bit of empathy to their fellow man and gradually life improved.

That improvement is also based on social policy of looking after the populace.

For capitalism to claim all advances and everything under the sun and the kitchen sink is just pure delusion.


Capitalism is like a black hole. In the end it will consume everything and disintegrate up its own little black hole. :idea:

 

[hhiusa]

Are you seriously saying you can not see the relevancy of the points that article makes?

I find it very difficult to debate anything with I'm sad to say.

You say "Experience of RBS was just one". :-0 With you fantastic grasp of statistics and well read opinions I leave it to you look up or google just how many banks were bailed out during the 2007/8 crises.

Once again you fail to quote me correctly. I said that you only posted anecdotal evidence of one company, which was RBS. Whatever you posted after that is irrelevant to my former statement. I never said that RBS was the only case. Instead of saying that someone should google something, why not provide the evidence yourself and do some leg work?

You posted one article. It was indeed anecdotal. It was a fallacy of composition. It was also a hasty generalization fallacy. Pointing to one bank or even several is not evidence enough. You are saying that because some big banks have misbehaved, that they all misbehave. Therein lies the hasty generalization. :smart:

It is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy because even if you can prove that the banks are "all" misbehaving and misappropriating funds, you have not shown that this is the fault of capitalism. Thus, it is irrelevant. The poor behavior of banks is irrelevant to as yet "unproven" faults of capitalism.

"If you say anecdotal evidence of one company" this tells me you are not very well read, have no awareness of what's been happening in the market and are quite out of any serious debate.

The article says what I'm saying well enough. Why would I want to repeat the article. For your benefit I've even highlighted in red the material which highlights my point. Do you not see this?

As hard as one tries to be polite and civil with you - you take the biscuit.

This is an ad hominem fallacy. a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his/her circumstances, or his/her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). :smart:

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Form

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Many families and even children from ages of 4 and upwards were made to work. 4 year olds were sent down small mine shafts as their tiny bodies could fit through narrow passages.

People would work 14-18 hours, underpaid and underfed and unable to have enough strengh to work longer would be beaten and called lazy toe rags. Whilst the capitalist would be fat and do very little but bugger around 20 servants.

This is an appeal to emotions fallacy. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. :smart:

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

Form
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

 

[Atilla]

Once again you fail to quote me correctly. I said that you only posted anecdotal evidence of one company, which was RBS. Whatever you posted after that is irrelevant to my former statement. I never said that RBS was the only case. Instead of saying that someone should google something, why not provide the evidence yourself and do some leg work?

You posted one article. It was indeed anecdotal. It was a fallacy of composition. It was also a hasty generalization fallacy. Pointing to one bank or even several is not evidence enough. You are saying that because some big banks have misbehaved, that they all misbehave. Therein lies the hasty generalization. :smart:

It is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy because even if you can prove that the banks are "all" misbehaving and misappropriating funds, you have not shown that this is the fault of capitalism. Thus, it is irrelevant. The poor behavior of banks is irrelevant to as yet "unproven" faults of capitalism.




This is an ad hominem fallacy. a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his/her circumstances, or his/her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). :smart:

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Form

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

This is an appeal to emotions fallacy. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. :smart:

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

Form
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

Thanks

What about the argument

That growth was overseen by two CEOs who had no direct, hands-on experience of banking.

Which Tomorton said was of no consequence and you thought it was a good point backed up with some illogical connections about managers in the health service which has no bearing on banking?

 

[hhiusa]

Pollution and carbon neutrality is one example. :idea:

I do love your fallacies.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and an irrelevant conclusion fallacy once again.

You have not proven that pollution and carbon neutrality are related to capitalism. You have also not proven that pollution and carbon emissions are less of an issue in socialism. Even if there was a comorbity between pollution and carbon emissions with capitalism, that point would be moot. Correlation does not mean causation. :smart:

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

 

[Atilla]

I do love your fallacies.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and an irrelevant conclusion fallacy once again.

You have not proven that pollution and carbon neutrality are related to capitalism. You have also not proven that pollution and carbon emissions are less of an issue in socialism. Even if there was a comorbity between pollution and carbon emissions with capitalism, that point would be moot. Correlation does not mean causation. :smart:

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

What would you consider as valid proof?

 

[hhiusa]

What would you consider as valid proof?

It is you who posited the argument. The burden of proof falls upon you. I do not need to show you how to make your own argument. A good start toward that end, would be to not make any more fallacious statements.

I did not posit your statement. I need not and will not furnish the proof for you claim.

 

[Atilla]

It is you who posited the argument. The burden of proof falls upon you. I do not need to show you how to make your own argument. A good start toward that end, would be to not make any more fallacious statements.

I did not posit your statement. I need not and will not furnish the proof for you claim.

I did not ask you to provide the proof. I asked you what you would accept as proof.

Question is what would you accept as valid proof that the system of capitalism produces externalities; costs which are not factored into the cost of production?

 

[hhiusa]

I did not ask you to provide the proof. I asked you what you would accept as proof.

Question is what would you accept as valid proof that the system of capitalism produces externalities; costs which are not factored into the cost of production?

It is not about what I will accept as proof. It is about making a logical argument. Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.

 

[Atilla]

It is not about what I will accept as proof. It is about making a logical argument. Provide some evidence that pollution is comorbid with capitalism. Secondly, provide evidence that all other market systems are not comorbid with pollution and do not lead to similar results. Thirdly, provide evidence that said correlation has a bearing upon capitalism, i.e., why this should be considered a fault. Lastly, explain your evidence. Do not just post articles that you justify your claim. Explain how each piece of your claim is supported by specific pieces from those articles. Make sure the articles are from veritable sources.

So what we discuss and debate is of no consequence but it's all about making a logical argument that meets who's criteria exactly?

What I suspect you are mixing up perhaps is that normative sciences such as sociology or economics do not lend them selves to what you may be more familiar with in positive science such as mathematics or physics.

To answer your questions one would need to write a thesis or a paper at PhD level. Even then conclusions are not likely to be conclusive as more one studies the more reports and observation one takes the greater the variances.



In conclusion - I rather sit in a dentist chair and have my wisdom tooth pulled out than discuss or debate any point with you.

That's probably no reflection on you but simply my lack of intellectual attention to detail which I have no time for right now as I enjoy my life.

 

[hhiusa]

So what we discuss and debate is of no consequence but it's all about making a logical argument that meets who's criteria exactly?

What I suspect you are mixing up perhaps is that normative sciences such as sociology or economics do not lend them selves to what you may be more familiar with in positive science such as mathematics or physics.

To answer your questions one would need to write a thesis or a paper at PhD level. Even then conclusions are not likely to be conclusive as more one studies the more reports and observation one takes the greater the variances.



In conclusion - I rather sit in a dentist chair and have my wisdom tooth pulled out than discuss or debate any point with you.

That's probably no reflection on you but simply my lack of intellectual attention to detail which I have no time for right now as I enjoy my life.

No, logic works in all fields, even the ones that you want to call norminative.

 

[itspossible]

 

[Atilla]

No, logic works in all fields, even the ones that you want to call norminative.

Erm I didn't say logic didn't work in normative sciences.

My inference is that you shouldn't be applying positive science methodology to normative sciences.

How is it possible that two people read the same sentence and derive two different meanings?

 

[hhiusa]

Erm I didn't say logic didn't work in normative sciences.

My inference is that you shouldn't be applying positive science methodology to normative sciences.

How is it possible that two people read the same sentence and derive two different meanings?

you just said the same thing. Logic is not a positive science. Positive sciences and normative sciences are based upon propositional and predicate logic. A: Positive economics is objective and fact based, while normative economics is subjective and value based. Positive economic statements do not have to be correct, but they must be able to be tested and proved or disproved.

Simply being a normative science does not preclude the use of logic. You are equivocating the meaning of proof. Do not confuse soundness with validity.

Facts do exist in normative sciences like economics.
Facts

1. There are six ways to affect supply.
2. If you decrease the money supply, inflation will be reduced.
3. If you increase the money supply, inflation will increase.

This is a logical proof; however, it does not prove when it is appropriate to implement these facts and that is where the normative aspect comes in. :smart:

Here D is the predicate functor decreases
I is the predicate functor increases
x = the money supply
y = inflation
Dx = decrease the money supply
Ix = increase the money supply
Dy = decrease inflation
Iy = increase inflation

Form
If the fed decreases the money supply, inflation will be abated.
If the fed increases the money supply, inflation will increase.
The fed decreased the money supply
Therefore, inflation will increase.

 

[Atilla]

you just said the same thing. Logic is not a positive science. Positive sciences and normative sciences are based upon propositional and predicate logic. A: Positive economics is objective and fact based, while normative economics is subjective and value based. Positive economic statements do not have to be correct, but they must be able to be tested and proved or disproved.

Simply being a normative science does not preclude the use of logic. You are equivocating the meaning of proof. Do not confuse soundness with validity.

Facts do exist in normative sciences like economics.
Facts

1. There are six ways to affect supply.
2. If you decrease the money supply, inflation will be reduced.
3. If you increase the money supply, inflation will increase.

This is a logical proof; however, it does not prove when it is appropriate to implement these facts and that is where the normative aspect comes in. :smart:

Here D is the predicate functor decreases
I is the predicate functor increases
x = the money supply
y = inflation
Dx = decrease the money supply
Ix = increase the money supply
Dy = decrease inflation
Iy = increase inflation

Form
If the fed decreases the money supply, inflation will be abated.
If the fed increases the money supply, inflation will increase.
The fed decreased the money supply
Therefore, inflation will increase.

I did not say "Logic is not a positive science."
I also said no such thing before so don't know where you get your "again" from????

I said you should not be applying positive science methodology to normative sciences.


Those facts aren't facts as you claim them. You forgot to mention the qualifying statement if all else remains the same, but sadly unlike in positive sciences, all things do not stay the same.

For example confidence is a big factor which along with the economic climate and job security determines whether people will bring their purchase decisions forward or postpone them.

This is why despite historic low interest rates not much investment going on. All that old stuff that monetarists like to shout about controlling the Ms by varying interest rates to influence inflation is not what its cut out to be.