Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[Gustaf]

No one is saying the Chinese model is the best one, but it's also pretty clear that most of the suffering in China stems, not from capitalism, but from an oppressive, still nominally Communist, government.

That is pure crap.  Suffering comes from poverty, from having to work a lot, having to move far from home for work, being confined in factory towns/encampments, etc.  The vast majority of people in China couldn't care less about free speech (which obviously doesn't exist for working-class people under capitalism either, anyway), or 'political rights'.  Their suffering comes from their boss, not from the CPC.

You don't think things like having to work a lot or being confined in a town stem from lack of political rights? Then I don't think you know much about what goes on in China. Then again, it's well established that you choose to ignore what goes on in most parts of the world so it's not much of a surprise.

HINT: I'm not referring to freedom of speech here.

[Velasco]

Argh.

Does no one here understand how correlations work? Seriously, people.

"Black Americans are generally poorer than White Americans"

"Obama is not poor!"

I want to cry.

Also, China is not economically free. That left-wingers still claim this is bizarre. And Chile went dictatorship-->market economy-->democracy.

I disliked your personal attitude towards people with different views from yours since the beginning. Anyways I tried to discuss leaving aside your obvious disdain and, let's say it, intolerance.

Jesus. I don't get why people join political forums if they cannot handle being questioned. If pointing out what your views are and how they are at odds with reality makes you uncomfortable you should probably change them.

I can handle with it, but I can't stand your claim that I'm insulting Mao's victims because I have a different opinion. I think that you're not discussing in a straight way, so I quit.

[Gustaf]

Argh.

Does no one here understand how correlations work? Seriously, people.

"Black Americans are generally poorer than White Americans"

"Obama is not poor!"

I want to cry.

Also, China is not economically free. That left-wingers still claim this is bizarre. And Chile went dictatorship-->market economy-->democracy.

I disliked your personal attitude towards people with different views from yours since the beginning. Anyways I tried to discuss leaving aside your obvious disdain and, let's say it, intolerance.

Jesus. I don't get why people join political forums if they cannot handle being questioned. If pointing out what your views are and how they are at odds with reality makes you uncomfortable you should probably change them.

I can handle with it, but I can't stand your claim that I'm insulting Mao's victims because I have a different opinion. I think that you're not discussing in a straight way, so I quit.

Look, this is not about views. It's about understanding how correlations and statistics work. Several people on here don't seem to. If you were being humble about that (perhaps asking how it works instead of claiming to disprove it) I'd be equally humble back. But don't shoot the messenger. It really isn't my fault if people want to discuss something in an arrogant and self-righteous manner without actually understanding what they're talking about.

I can be a very patient teacher to anyone who wants to actually learn anything but it's pretty clear that you don't want to learn anything because you don't want to change your views.

If you aren't insulting Mao's victims, then what's the problem? Just show me why your views aren't offensive (which shouldn't be hard if they aren't).

And then, of course, give some data to back up your assertions and then show how even having one such example would amount to an actual refutation of the thesis in the original article.

If the problem here is not you being wrong but my "attitude" none of the above ought to be particularly hard for you, should it?

[Velasco]

You can't say that I'm arrogant after reading your last post. I would try to find more data to back my points of view if this was useful. Since I had to waste my time correcting your misconceptions about my points of view, I got tired. On the other hand I have no problem learning from other people. And let me say you a thing, I tend to respect more personal attitudes than ideologies, when it's about judging people. Since I see that your attitude is related with your personal bias, I prefer another sort of teachers, regardless schools of thought and all of that.

[Gustaf]

You can't say that I'm arrogant after reading your last post. I would try to find more data to back my points of view if this was useful. Since I had to waste my time correcting your misconceptions about my points of view, I got tired. On the other hand I have no problem learning from other people. And let me say you a thing, I tend to respect more personal attitudes than ideologies, when it's about judging people. Since I see that your attitude is related with your personal bias, I prefer another sort of teachers, regardless schools of thought and all of that.

I don't see that I have brought forth any misconceptions of your views. It would rather appear that you haven't thought through your positions very well. You claimed that globalization had not been good for a lot of Chinese people. This naturally implies that you think they were better off under Mao. Then you seemed to say that they were about as badly off (since those are different bad extremes at either side of some ideal middle ground). I can only base my interpretation on what you say and that is sufficiently bizarre that I can't really rule anything out.

Again, none of that is my fault.

Knowing some of the basics of correlation analysis, Chinese history and logic of argumentation doesn't make me arrogant. There are plenty of things I don't know much about. There are also plenty of threads in which I don't post. Since correlation analysis does not seem to be your strong suite, you'll just have to take my word for there being a positive correlation there - I don't try and tell others how it is when I actually have no idea about it. It'd be weird if I went around in this thread pretending to also not understand how to make a correlation analysis or pretending to also be ignorant about economic development in China. Why would I do that?

[Velasco]

Misconception again. You are arguing in maniquean terms. When I say that many Chinese people are not living and working in good conditions, this not implies that Cultural Revolution was a wonderful era.

It's easy to understand that Maoist approaches to economics and the present-day capitalism in China are opposite extremes, or at least very distant concepts. On the other hand I mentioned probable middle ways, not ideal ones. You can argue that CPC excercises an oppresive rule, but the economy is capitalist nowadays, unless you think that China is developing a completely new concept. I can't see any bizarre theory here. When you argue that it's because it does not fit with your bias. It's a clear example of arrogance, sorry.


Please, don't talk me about correlations when you're making yours to fit with your own conceptions about economic freedom and capitalism. I'm not trying to give lessons, I simply expressed some opinions and you are free to disagree. It's arrogant trying to tell other persons where they are able to post, regardless of any other considerations. Are you calling me ignorant simply because I dare to disagree with you? Come on, if this is not arrogance tell me what.  I'll never understand what type of correlation do you pretend to realize when you're discussing in these terms. I'm really tired of this. Stop now.

[Gustaf]

Your thinking seems to be a bit muddled. When you say globalization has been bad for China, this implies they would have been better off without it. It's unclear throughout this discussion whether you grasp this distinction.

If one claims that Obama has been bad for the US economy, it's not sufficient to say that the US economy is currently bad. One must also show that it is now worse than it was before Obama took office. And then one must make a convincing argument for how this worse state is actually caused by Obama. In the same way, your statement that China has a capitalist economy and that people there are suffering (which might be true to some extent) does not prove the point you want to make. Your failure to articulate this indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of how this type of analysis is made.

I'm not calling you ignorant because you disagree with me. I'm calling you ignorant because you don't seem to understand how one goes about analyzing causal relationships, which is the foundation of the scientific method. You also seem to be unaware of China's economic development.

If there is something that you don't actually understand about my position, feel free to ask about specifics. I try to be as clear as I can. But I'm not going to drop a discussion because it's uncomfortable or because there is disagreement. Again, if you think that you're right and the problem is merely that I'm being a jerk, prove me wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult. If the problem is that you can't admit to being wrong or at least ignorant about this subject, it won't help you any to run away from it.

[Gustaf]

Your thinking seems to be a bit muddled. When you say globalization has been bad for China, this implies they would have been better off without it. It's unclear throughout this discussion whether you grasp this distinction.

Jesus Christ, can you see the difference between claiming that globalization was bad for China as a whole with my actual claim, what is that some people become marginalized as a consequence? I can't believe that you are so maniquean or unable to understand the difference between the part and the totality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since I mentioned twice or so the incredible increase of the Chinese GDP, your argumentation is illogical. Don't talk me about scientifical method when you don't make distinctions between the different parts of the picture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not in possesion of the Absolute Truth. Are you? I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if someone is able to demonstrate that my points are wrong, totally or partially. As I'm saying in repeated times, it's impossible to debate when one part doesn't understand what is stating the other and also claims ignorance. Sorry, but in these conditions I can't.

So, let's look at what you actually said about China's economic development, which was this:

By the way, it's undeniable that the economic growth has been spectacular, but not all people lives better now; this only affects to the rich people and the emerging middle class, not to the great contingent working in semi-slavery conditions.

You clearly seem to be saying that most people in China are not better off now than they were during Mao. That was your claim and that was the one I refuted.

I naturally responded to this, making clear what my interpretation was:

Please provide proof about most Chinese people not having had an increase in welfare and living conditions. I've never met a Chinese who thought that. Especially the ones who remember the starvation of the Mao years.

You then responded with a long post about poor working conditions in China. Not a word about how you of course think the years under Mao were bad. Not a word about how most people got it better. Not even a qualifier about talking about only some people being marginalized. Naturally, I assume that you're still maintaining your original claim - that most Chinese people are no better off now than they were under Mao.

Not until your next post do you acknowledge that things were bad before as well but then only  as different extremes. You even say

Living and working conditions affect people and you can't argue that the average Chinese worker has a great standard of living.

So, you have throughout been saying that most people in China have not benefited from globalization. That is, to be blunt, a retarded claim. It is about as stupid as saying that the Earth is flat and demonstrates profound ignorance. And, again, it is insulting to all those people who suffered enormously under the old system to tell them that they were better off dead than with double or triple real wages. I've tried to be polite by asking you to provide some evidence for your idea about the Earth being flat rather than dismissing you from the start but your continuous dodging is wearing down my patience a bit.

And, of course, not even the very limited claim that some people might be worse off is something you've actually provided any support for. I have shown you that the poor has seen their living conditions go up a lot. You have yet to provide any data showing any group in China being worse off as a result of globalization.

You're spending an awful lot of time complaining about the discussion rather than actually discussing. You mentioned absolute truth. See, this is an empirical discussion. The question is something like "Have people in China generally benefited from globalization and freer markets?" There is a correct answer to that question which you seem to be unaware of. I don't possess that answer by virtue of me being a really smart guy. I possess it the same way I know the Earth revolves around the Sun or that Paris lies in France. It's just basic facts known to anyone who has looked into this field.

[Politico]

You are destroying him, Gus.

[Velasco]

Jesus, you're more bigot than I thought. Why not a condemnation of the Manchurian Dinasty? What about the Mings? You are making this a great off-topic and  I didn't make comparisons with the Mao era, I was talking about China nowadays. I'm boring to tell you that I stated that some people are better, but you insist to deny that most of the people lives under conditions that in other places are unnacceptable. I'm not saying that historical comparisons are not pertinent, but in this case you are clearly diverting the attention and distorting the facts to your convenience. You have the bad manners of a fanatic. And, worsening the things, you try to customize them with a varnish of supposed knowledge. Don't make me laugh, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This seems to be the fact that disgusts you. Why on Earth are you unable to accept the facts ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Your inability to accept the facts (many people in China have poor working conditions) drives you to insulting attitudes. You go again into the argument of the Mao's regime, because you are unable to admit that certain things like globalization have their bright and dark sides. Your partiality only allows you to see the bright side and prevents you for any criticism. This is not about my supposedly retarded theories, this is about your fanaticism. It's useless trying to argument with a person who is convinced about the Absolute Truth. Pure bigotry.

I have read enough stupidities. You are ignored from now on, I think that my patience reached its limit.

[Gustaf]

Huh? I never denied that there are poor working conditions in China. Surely, you're not really this thick. If you want to evaluate whether globalization has been good for China you need to compare the situation before with the situation after.

If you give a poor person $1 you can say "he is poor now, so giving him $1 was bad for him" But that'd be kind of stupid. If you want to prove your point you must, as I stated several times, prove that people got it worse due to globalization. For example, you need to prove that working conditions in China were better before than they are now. That's why the historical comparison with China before the opening up of the economy is relevant.

Have you never studied anything? There is no fact here that I have not accepted. I explicitly pointed out that many people in China suffer a lot. The question is not that, but whether this is due to the economic reforms they undertook. That's like, what, elementary school level of understanding!

[opebo]

You are destroying him, Gus.

This guy?



Yes, Gustaf is always giving that guy a heck of a beating.

[Gustaf]

You are destroying him, Gus.

This guy?



Yes, Gustaf is always giving that guy a heck of a beating.

It's not me not understanding his argument, it's the poor guy himself who isn't.

[Velasco]

You are destroying him, Gus.

This guy?



Yes, Gustaf is always giving that guy a heck of a beating.

Who is the straw man, opebo?

Gustaf is an intolerant and fanatic argumentator and he was clearly bullying me. I made a terrible mistake answering his posts yesterday since I've realized that he was using dirty hackish tricks: distorting the previous poster's statements in an attempt to ridiculize them; aggresive and insulting language and so on. I'm happy having him in my ignore list but I'd like to state that kind of attitudes are unacceptable in a civilized place of debate. I won't bother myself reporting the various insults of that person, but in my opinion the last part of this thread would be better deleted. I don't mark the rules anyway, and I don't want nothing to do with this disgusting thread and poster. I must learn the lesson that it's useless to fall in provocations.

[Gustaf]

Haha, what? Jesus. If you can't defend your positions, don't come to a forum devoted to political discussion. I've given you more patience and polite hearing than your level of argumentation deserved and you've consistently failed to offer any analysis or arguments for your stance.

You're not going to get anywhere by running away from your own shortcomings and sulking about them.

[opebo]

Who is the straw man, opebo?

Gustaf is an intolerant and fanatic argumentator and he was clearly bullying me. I made a terrible mistake answering his posts yesterday since I've realized that he was using dirty hackish tricks: distorting the previous poster's statements in an attempt to ridiculize them;

Yeah that is precisely what is meant by 'straw man argument', Velasco - he sets up a 'straw man' in place of you by mischaracterizing your position, and then knocks it down.  He always does that.

aggresive and insulting language and so on.

Yes, he always does that too.

I'm on your side Velasco, it is a waste of time to argue with the guy, he's just trolling.

[Velasco]

It's a tactic that I've seen before. I was a fool trying to debate with such persons. Thank you for the link, I didn't know the English expressions. So "straw man" and "Aunt Sally". That's funny.

[Gustaf]

It'd be interesting to see an actual example of how I strawmanned him in this thread. I guess actually giving arguments instead of trashtalking is beneath you two gentlemen?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm sure I'll be accused of bias, but I'll say that Gustaf's characterization of andi's argument was essentially spot-on. If you claim that globalization has not benefitted the lower-class of China, you really need to compare their station today to their station before the advent of globalization in China.

[Velasco]

    I'm sure I'll be accused of bias, but I'll say that Gustaf's characterization of andi's argument was essentially spot-on. If you claim that globalization has not benefitted the lower-class of China, you really need to compare their station today to their station before the advent of globalization in China.

Since Gustaf reached a certain point is his trolling scale, It really doesn't matter who do you agree in the discussion. I respect other people's bias, I hate bullies and trolls. Gustaf muddled the debate in a form that all opinions are unrecognizable. Certain people like him must be kept at bay.

[opebo]

     I'm sure I'll be accused of bias, but I'll say that Gustaf's characterization of andi's argument was essentially spot-on. If you claim that globalization has not benefitted the lower-class of China, you really need to compare their station today to their station before the advent of globalization in China.

No doubt people have different idea of 'benefit', PiT.  I think nearly everyone might agree that the agricultural and domestic market loosening which occurred in the very late 70s through late 80s showed uncontroversial benefits (more calories, vitamins, etc.), but what has happened since is highly debatable in terms of subjective value.

After all, is one better off to be a minion of vast forces in a suburban labor camp or a peasant?  In all honesty, I don't think the answer is clear, even if quantitatively the former is 'better off' according to some calculations.

[Gustaf]

    I'm sure I'll be accused of bias, but I'll say that Gustaf's characterization of andi's argument was essentially spot-on. If you claim that globalization has not benefitted the lower-class of China, you really need to compare their station today to their station before the advent of globalization in China.

Since Gustaf reached a certain point is his trolling scale, It really doesn't matter who do you agree in the discussion. I respect other people's bias, I hate bullies and trolls. Gustaf muddled the debate in a form that all opinions are unrecognizable. Certain people like him must be kept at bay.

It's amusing how you consider me a bigoted bully, yet is already referring to me as "certain people who must be kept at bay"

It's funny to me that some people hide behind the notion that debate is bad, instead of actually arguing for their point.