Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[Gustaf]

I worked with this guy last Summer, he's an interesting guy.

There is previous research, IIRC, arguing that freer markets leads to more interaction with different types of people and thus increases tolerance in general.

[Gustaf]

I like the ad hominem approach of saying that because the auhtor is gay we can't trust his analysis as a professional scientist on issues that have to do with gay people. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

Anyway, here's the theoretical thrust of the paper:

"Why expect such a relation? For reasons developed further in the next section, the basic idea is that economic freedom entails both market institutions of a certain kind – in particular an equal and predictable legal system that, among other things, de facto protects private property – and market processes that affect the way people think and feel about others. Market institutions offer a framework under which it becomes less risky with good faith in unknown members of various groups different from one’s own. Market processes imply interaction and exchange with people different from oneself, which, under equal and predictable institutions, can lead to a realization that differences need not pose a threat and to increased understanding; they also make intolerance come at a cost, in that rejection of groups of people for other reasons than low productivity lowers profits for firms and the well-being of consumers. These are, we propose, the main mechanisms that speak in favor of a positive relationship. However, there is also the possibility of a negative relationship, if markets bring about greed and a perception that certain groups benefit in an unfair way from market exchange (see Hirschman 1982). The empirical analysis must be brought in to shed light on the direction of a relationship." (my emphasis)

[Gustaf]

Oh, and here are the control variables used:

"Real GDP per capita, Education, Young population share, Urban population share, Family values, Religious fractionalization, Ethnic fractionalization, Religion Catholic, Religion Muslim, Civil liberties, Political rights, Net income Gini and a set of geographical dummies."

I don't have time to really go in-depth on this right now, but I don't see anything wrong with it. It seems controlled for a lot of stuff, the theoretical argument makes sense.

[Gustaf]

You could make the same argument with strong states, national states, welfare states, secularism or any of all the other things which to large degree defines the West.

Presumably that's why they control for geography among other things? Unless you actually mean it in a more philosophical sense, in which case I'd be inclined to agree.

Torie, if you look at my previous post, inequality is one of the control variables used. Which might, I guess, in itself pose some problems. Also at least one of the specifications did suggest that smaller government actually led to less tolerance.

So the paper is not mainly an attack on the welfare state or on social democracy, but rather, I think, a defense of the basic concept of free market capitalism.

Gully, feel free to elaborate.

[Gustaf]

I shall elaborate later but for now I will just ask: If it is the case that market economics and trade help boost tolerance towards, say, homosexuals why was it the golden era of laissez faire capitalism (ie. the late 19th Century) was the era that some of the worst oppression towards homosexuals in the history of western society? In fact, it was the era that thanks to Kraft-Ebbing, saw the disemanation of "homosexuality" as concept as distinct to "heterosexuality" and was conceived as primarily biological in nature (with "homosexuality" being seen often as due to faulty biology).

And if the first statement is in fact the case, why was it that the movement for homosexual rights (or at least in US terms the post-stonewall movement) grew out of social tendencies which were ranged from very hostile to at least indifferent towards "Capitalism" as it actually existed at the time?

Both you and Redalgo seem to misunderstand the way regression analysis is used. No one is claiming that economic freedom determines tolerance. There is hardly any such relation existing  in any social science.

Calling the 19th century a golden era for capitalism is a bit dubious, even though I know it's popular to do so. The mechanism through which values change would probably have a bit of a lag as well. But, more importantly, see the above paragraph of mine. That is why you run a regression instead of looking at a single example.

That pro-gay rights movements did not love capitalism seems highly irrelevant to the research question, since it doesn't affect the mechanism they propose in any way.

[Gustaf]

'Economic Freedom' is a piece of political language and a statement about values and so on, and so is not a useful description of anything. 'Tolerance' is also not exactly an objective concept. Which makes this a project like this - no matter how many factors are 'controlled' for - a hilarious waste of time and other resources. The logic isn't so very far off some of the less edifying Marxist approaches to social sciences popular in the 1970s...

Well, that's another line of attack, of course. But you'd have to specifically argue that the variables they use do not reflect those things. I think they seem like decent enough proxies for what I would mean by those terms. What do you disagree with precisely?

Gully, the point is to find whether economic freedom (as defined in this study) leads to more tolerance. Why wouldn't that be worthwhile? If it isn't, do you think all social science is worthless because it can't establish causal relationships that are 100% determined?

If you're not talking about economic freedom as defined in the study your whole point seems quite irrelevant, wouldn't you say? If it is merely that something else that you might call something else didn't have that effect, well...

The mechanism they describe is one of increased contact with other people. That would take time to have an effect, especially to alter values that are deep-rooted. You also would have to consider other factors, of course.

You can't seriously argue that social sciences must assume that intentions are all that matter??? Like, if I say the actions of the Catholic church helped cause the Reformation, would it be a valid counter-argument to say that the Catholic church did not want the reformation to happen? This is even worse, actually, because the gay rights movement got nothing to do with their mechanism. Your observation does in no way contradict their model. Do you see that?

[Gustaf]

I shall elaborate later but for now I will just ask: If it is the case that market economics and trade help boost tolerance towards, say, homosexuals why was it the golden era of laissez faire capitalism (ie. the late 19th Century) was the era that some of the worst oppression towards homosexuals in the history of western society? In fact, it was the era that thanks to Kraft-Ebbing, saw the disemanation of "homosexuality" as concept as distinct to "heterosexuality" and was conceived as primarily biological in nature (with "homosexuality" being seen often as due to faulty biology).

And if the first statement is in fact the case, why was it that the movement for homosexual rights (or at least in US terms the post-stonewall movement) grew out of social tendencies which were ranged from very hostile to at least indifferent towards "Capitalism" as it actually existed at the time?

Both you and Redalgo seem to misunderstand the way regression analysis is used. No one is claiming that economic freedom determines tolerance. There is hardly any such relation existing  in any social science.

Calling the 19th century a golden era for capitalism is a bit dubious, even though I know it's popular to do so. The mechanism through which values change would probably have a bit of a lag as well. But, more importantly, see the above paragraph of mine. That is why you run a regression instead of looking at a single example.

That pro-gay rights movements did not love capitalism seems highly irrelevant to the research question, since it doesn't affect the mechanism they propose in any way.

I would agree with you. The 19th Century was not an era of economic freedom by any means, despite the surge of industry; there were still tariffs internationally and locally. There was little social mobility, little opportunity for those further down the scale to 'own.'

Post-War however tariffs fell, markets opened and capitalism as a tangeable concept filtered downward; there was opportunity.

Now of course, the other two variables are the welfare state and it would be interesting to see an analysis of that impact, and also secularism; social attitudes surveys link increased secularisation in the public sphere (or conversely, less identification with religion) to more tolerant attidues on sexuality, race, disability and women. In fact tolerance of homosexuality is intrinsically linked to the woman's rights movement; the impact of which forced a reassessment of what was acceptable masculinity.

Quite an interesting read.

I believe both religion, Gini coefficient and size of public sector are included as control variables in this study.

We've had this discussion before but I've seen contradicting evidence on the link between religion and tolerance on things other than homosexuality.

[Gustaf]

'Economic Freedom' is a piece of political language and a statement about values and so on, and so is not a useful description of anything. 'Tolerance' is also not exactly an objective concept. Which makes this a project like this - no matter how many factors are 'controlled' for - a hilarious waste of time and other resources. The logic isn't so very far off some of the less edifying Marxist approaches to social sciences popular in the 1970s...

Well, that's another line of attack, of course. But you'd have to specifically argue that the variables they use do not reflect those things. I think they seem like decent enough proxies for what I would mean by those terms. What do you disagree with precisely?

Gully, the point is to find whether economic freedom (as defined in this study) leads to more tolerance. Why wouldn't that be worthwhile? If it isn't, do you think all social science is worthless because it can't establish causal relationships that are 100% determined?

No; don't be silly. Though I will say again that I don't believe in social "science". However, are you seriously suggesting that "freedom" is a measurable concept? (And please no strawmen-type responses). Especially "Economic freedom"? Nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. It's meaningless nonsense. And meaningless ideological nonsense at that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is that an effect of economic freedom? And btw, here lets not forget the first great example of cross-continental oceanic trade (clearly this brought a great deal of tolerance to the world).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a completely and utterly absurd analogy. That is Libertas' level of debating. You surely see the difference between an ideologically driven movement and the accidental consequences of such a movement?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm saying your mechanism is a lot of balls. Give me reasons telling me why it isn't?

Eh. You don't come off as being interested in serious debate if you're going to hold up slave-trade as a relevant point.

I have to conclude that you either are trying to troll me or have no idea what this is about.

If you want to call the independent variable used in this regression something other than economic freedom, propose an alternative name. It is a largely insubstantial point and I get the impression that you're pushing that point simply because you couldn't be bothered to read beyond the headline. The things referred to here as economic freedom are real and important and discussing them is a good thing, regardless of what you want to call it.

It's not my mechanism, it's the mechanism of the paper. You have not yet offered any criticism of the mechanism (nor even demonstrating that you've actually understood it) so I don't think there is any need to defend it yet - there is, after all, an actual paper doing that already.

There is a difference between a movement and the consequences of it, yes. That was my point. Your argument seemed to be that if group A wants X, it is impossible for X to be caused by things that A dislikes. If I want ice-cream but I dislike black people it is impossible for ice-cream to be produced by black people. That is such a deluded way of thinking that I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

I guess if you're claiming that things can only happen as intended outcomes caused by rational, deliberate action from human beings I guess that makes sense, but I didn't think anyone (least of all you) believed that.

If you want another analogy, how about industrialism helped give rise to socialism, yet socialists didn't like industrialists?

[Gustaf]

The phrase economic freedom, in the context of market freedom, as right-wingers like to call it, is as meaningless as the phrase "freedom to own slaves".

And no, it doesn't. The arguments for that idea aren't particularly strong.

I think you'll find that just saying that doesn't actually make it so. Can you construct an actual argument?

[Gustaf]

You mean that if people are tolerant they are more tolerant? That's probably true but a tad trivial.

[Gustaf]

'Economic Freedom' = Wealth? (In which case, and excuse the ProgRock reference,: 'You who are rich and whose troubles are few/May come around to my point of view.')

Obviously Free Markets don't necessarily foster tolerance. If anything the way anti-immigrant sentiments and a certain brand of right-wing neoliberal politics have been converging in certain parts of Europe should show that the idea is nonsensical.

No need to apologize. This forum needs more prog rock references.

Of course the fact that your post was absolutely correct is another reason not to apologize.

I don't get how you can criticize the term without reading the article? It doesn't equal wealth.

And that anti-immigrant parties sometimes have right-wing views on economics does not show that the idea is nonsensical. Does no one here understand regression analysis?

[Gustaf]

I would also argue, actually, that the the neo-liberal "globalization" of economic markets creates conditions that foster inequality, divisiveness, suspicion, xenophobia, an increase in religious bigotry, ethnic clashes, and other oh-so-wonderful things.

This is more evident when you consider that conditions for the poor and working classes of much of the world have not improved, but have overall deteriorated since the age of globalization, deregulation, and privatization began.

But hey, a small portion of the world's population have improved their standing enormously, so it's all good, right?

The first paragraph is precisely what the paper seems to disprove. The second paragraph is false and indicates that you haven't followed economic history very much (if at all). It's also quite horrid that you want to condemn millions upon millions of poor people in the world to go back to starvation just because you were too intellectually lazy to look up how they actually live.

The third paragraph is technically true though, I suppose.

[Gustaf]

I love right-wing technocratic attempts to be "scientific" about "free markets"-specifically in trying to objectively prove that "free markets" are superior to anything and everything else.

Be my guest and disprove it.

[Gustaf]

Really, market economy does not imply necessarily tolerance or freedom. Look at China nowadays or Chile in the period 1973-1990. Both are fine examples of "free" market economy with horrible records in tolerance. In the first country we have a curious mix between the worst characteristics of capitalism and communism. Chile was an economic "experiment" sponsored by Milton Friedman and those Chicago Boys; everybody knows that freedom, in the actual meaning of the word, was out of question.

Another question is if a liberalization of the economy and the trade markets is good or bad. It's true that many countries around the world have improved, but the results are very different if we look at single economies. Compare Argentina under the "ultraliberal" Carlos Menem with Brazil under Lula. On the other hand macroeconomics is not always a good measuring system. Other socio-economic indicators like the Human Development Index must be kept in mind. It's well known that the Gulf countries are wealthy but not very good at tolerance. I suppose that they are "free" economies.

I think that tolerance (I prefer acceptance, but that doesn't matter) is related with social and economic development but not necessarily with concrete economic doctrines, at least not with Milton Friedman's.

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.

And Argentina has never pursued liberal policies. Looking up Menem he certainly does not seem to prove your point very convincingly.

[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.

And Argentina has never pursued liberal policies. Looking up Menem he certainly does not seem to prove your point very convincingly.

Don't complain. I didn't wrote that China had a "free"economy, I questioned the concept of freedom applied to economics. By the way, where did you read any mention to black Americans? I know perfectly what happened in Chile after 1990 and Menem policies are generally regarded as "neoliberal", do you have another opinion? Feel free to elaborate some argumentation, maybe I will change my mind if you're convincing enough. Argh, those right-wingers or centrists or whatever...

You said that China has a market economy. I'm not sure what definition of market economy and free economy you're using though.

Maybe you didn't understand my example. You're trying to disprove correlation with examples. That's not how it works.

Well, first off, Menem's policies did seem to initially spur growth. Secondly, the main failure of Argentina had to do with macro policies (currency especially) rather than micro policies. Maybe most importantly I'm a bit skeptical about a Peronist being a proper liberal. Argentina has been a very illiberal country over the last century so I can't help but doubt that one man and his agenda eradicated all of that in a term.

[Gustaf]

You said that China has a market economy. I'm not sure what definition of market economy and free economy you're using though.

You didn't understand me because you relate "free" with "market economy". That's the system of common places that rules in our world, I know. I wrote "deregulated market economy" if I remember well. On the other hand I think that market economy may be more free or less free, but unlike certain people, I don't think that freedom is related to deregulation. I think more in questions like fairness, equal opportunities and limitations to great corporations. Maybe I'm a left-winger on certain issues, yeah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course Peronists are not liberal, ideologically speaking. They're populist and oportunistic above all, sometimes right-wing like Menem, sometimes left-wing or so like Kirchner. But you know well the difference between being socially or economically liberal. I regard privatization and deregulation as economically liberal policies and certainly Cavallo was an economic neoliberal. You are right about the currency but Menem did more things in these years, most of them drove to the disaster and the unlucky De La Rua paid the broken dishes.

So, how is China's economy a deregulated market economy then?

How did Menem's liberal policies drive the country to disaster? The thing that certainly was bad for Argentina was the set of illiberal policies that pushed the country from one of the richest in the world to the state it was in when Menem took over.

I guess I found the example amusing, since Argentina is a classic example in economic history of how regulating the economy is a bad idea.

[Gustaf]

China is deregulated until the point that the Govenment's concerns are safe. Look at the labour market, for example. Do you think that China after Den Xiao Ping is still a planned economy in the Soviet sense? I'd say that enterprises have a considerable room for maneuvre, when the national security and the internal order are not in question.

About Menem it's pretty clear that the unreal currency system affected to the productive and exporting sectors and didn't help to fight the inflation rates. Privatizations were made quickly and it's the general impression that the companies were sold at a loss. The emblem is YPF, the oil company, that was sold to the Spanish Repsol and was nationalized again by Cristina Fernández with, say, bad manners.

When Menem took the office the situation was pretty bad. After years of currency bubble came the Corralito. I'd say that this is not a good record.

Many tend to forget that regulation and social market economy worked well in Europe for so many years. In Argentina played factors like corruption, clientelar webs and other particularities that made modernization impossible, despite the great potential and resources of the country. On the other hand I can't see how we can avoid another Lehman brothers or how can we fight against money laundering or drug and arms traffics without a certain regulation, this time at an international level. Maybe abolishing fiscal paradises could help too.

I'll start with the easy part. I think you're mixing apples and oranges when it comes to Latin America. I understand that in a Latin American context what you call liberal often means 'entrenched elites stealing public money'. That's obviously not good, but few normal liberals would support that. In fact, those are the kind of things that would generally lower a country's score when it comes to economic freedom, as used in this paper (which remains amusingly removed from this entire thread for some reason). In a similar vein, 'regulation' is a very vague term. Some regulations are required for a free market economy to work. Others are just oppressive tools to help corrupt government officials extract rents.

As for China...

"The State Constitution of 1982 specified that the state is to guide the country's economic development by making broad decisions on economic priorities and policies, and that the State Council, which exercises executive control, was to direct its subordinate bodies in preparing and implementing the national economic plan and the state budget. A major portion of the government system (bureaucracy) is devoted to managing the economy in a top-down chain of command with all but a few of the more than 100 ministries, commissions, administrations, bureaus, academies, and corporations under the State Council being concerned with economic matters."

" Economic plans and policies are implemented by a variety of direct and indirect control mechanisms. Direct control is exercised by designating specific physical output quotas and supply allocations for some goods and services. Indirect instruments—also called "economic levers"—operate by affecting market incentives. These included levying taxes, setting prices for products and supplies, allocating investment funds, monitoring and controlling financial transactions by the banking system, and controlling the allocation of key resources, such as skilled labor, electric power, transportation, steel, and chemicals (including fertilizers)."

And so on. My ex's uncle was running a Chinese company, until the government decided the sector needed consolidation and shut down all small businesses within it. It's a country where people aren't allowed to move freely within its own borders. Foreigners can't buy stock there. Etc, etc.

If you think China is a market economy comparable to a Western nation, you're very mistaken. It's not as centrally planned as it was back under Mao, sure. They allow some market mechanisms, which explains why the people there are immensely better off now (China's move towards market economy is one of the greatest strikes against global poverty in the last several decades). But it is still nowhere near our level of economic freedom.

[Gustaf]

Huh? That corruption is not linked to an ideology was precisely my point. You mentioned selling companies at a loss, that's typically a sign of corruption rather than some principle of liberalism.

Economic freedom doesn't mean "no regulation" nor does it mean "selling government assets to oligarchs in corrupt deals"

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.

[Gustaf]

This doesn't cite any hard facts. China's GDP per capita over the last 30 years has gone up by a factor of 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China).

You're arguing that while the average went up 2 000 % most people did not gain anything. That's an extraordinary claim, one that I assume is based not on wishful thinking or ideological rigour but on some actual facts.

Of course, no one is claiming that poor people in China have it great. I've been there, so I'm well aware. But I've also met Chinese people who had to eat their cats as children because they were starving. Here is another fun fact:

"Widespread famine occurred, especially in rural areas, according to 1982 census figures, and the death rate climbed from 1.2 percent in 1958 to 1.5 percent in 1959, 2.5 percent in 1960, and then dropped back to 1.4 percent in 1961. From 1958 to 1961, over 14 million people apparently died of starvation, and the number of reported births was about 23 million fewer than under normal conditions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#First_Five-Year_Plan.2C_1953-57

Your claim is that this was somehow better for the Chinese people than their current situation, but I'm still lacking any data or objective research backing up this claim.

I'll note though, that it IS true that many rural people in China are suffering a lot. One of the main reasons for this is precisely over-regulation though - namely, that they aren't allowed to move to the cities where all the prospects are and when they still do they thus end up being illegal immigrants in their own country, without rights to social welfare.

Here is another study for you: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220389908422604

"Per capita disposable incomes more than tripled in the cities and almost quadrupled in the rural areas."

The article shows that the gap between urban and rural areas in terms of income was lower in 1996 (2.02) than it was in 1978 (2.46) and also that the share of people living below the poverty line in rural China fell from 1988 to 1995. In 1995 the number of poor people in China (in absolute terms) was 70 million, compared to 270 million in 1978. That's 200 million people leaving poverty. It also points out that one of the reasons for the persistent inequality is the government policies being biased in favour of urban areas.

I could find more studies but I've seen no actual research backing up your claim.

[Gustaf]

I think you're moving the goal posts now. Your original claim, at least as I understood it, was that globalization and economic freedom is not always a good thing for a country and you proved this by pointing to China.

I firstly pointed out that you can't rebut a correlation with an example, which I assume you accepted since you didn't respond to it.

Secondly, I pointed out that China isn't really a free market economy.

Thirdly, I pointed out that if you want to prove that deregulation has been bad for China you can't point out that there are poor people there. You have to prove that they are worse off than they were before. And that you have yet to do, probably because it simply isn't the case.

I frankly think it's a bit insulting to the victims of Mao to claim the suffering they endured as an extreme which is somehow comparable to the extraordinary improvement in living conditions the Chinese have experienced over the last few decades.

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.

[Gustaf]

I think you're moving the goal posts now. Your original claim, at least as I understood it, was that globalization and economic freedom is not always a good thing for a country and you proved this by pointing to China.

I mantain that claim. Globalization and the present-day forms of capitalism tend to marginalize sizeable sectors of the population. That's the reason why I put the example of the textile industry workers. On the other hand marginalized people usually don't appear in macro-economic statistics like GDP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This discussion is becoming circular and not constructive, i.e., useless. I have to come back again to the same arguments because of your misconceptions. My point was that deregulation is not good for everybody. I mentioned people who are richer now and "emerging middle classes". Some people are worse than before simply because they are marginalized by the economic processes and by the Chinese authorities, as you pointed before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another misconception and this time unacceptable. If you think that I'm insulting Mao's victims or defending the old regime, I'll have to think that you have a simplistic vision of the world or that you are distorting my attempts of argumentation to fit with your views and prejudices.

In my opinion the sufferings of wide sectors of the Chinese population are caused by the opressive nature of the political regime together with the economic processes, capitalists in their nature. China is a capitalist economy living together with a bureaucratic government machine, still nominally communist.

I think that I'm not going to follow with this discussion, Gustaf. I hate walking in circles.

 

So, you make a claim, I disprove it and your response is a) to maintain it and b) to run away from the debate?

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.

See, the discussion isn't walking in circles. I've moved it forward by producing evidence and analysis supporting my position. You aren't able to do so, because your view here is not based on reality and it is in part a bit morally reprehensive which makes it hard for you to defend it in a straight manner.

You claimed that current China, the best situation the people of that country has ever had, and  the Maoist era were extremes at opposite ends. I pointed out that that's pretty offensive to the people who had to suffer Mao's oppression. You're perfectly free to explain how it isn't, if you can. But don't act as if that is unfair from me.

Marginalized people do appear in the statistics I gave you above, which look at trends for low-income people and at income inequality. Show me a statistic indicating that, say, the bottom decile in China is poorer now than in 1980. Since you're so convinced of your opinion I assume you have read such a fact at some point because you wouldn't base your views on nothing but ideological dogma, would you?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.