Comments for Running Yellow Lights http://pretnetus.wordpress.com Economics, Politics, and Philosophy Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:51:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Another Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by lettrist http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/another-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations/#comment-185 lettrist Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:51:51 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=85#comment-185 If you only count "freedom" in terms of domestic jobs, business contracts, and civil liberties, etc. you are only getting half the picture. The other side is how much freedom you take away from others, presumably, to increase your own stock of wealth. Colonial Britain was a relatively free society if you lived in the motherland. But its coercive power extended further than its shoreline. A good question would be, How would you count neo-colonalism in the Freedom Index? I agree South Korea would spend money more on defense if it were not for the US. How much money we do not know. But tell me this. Why does US military spending to "protect" South Korea count as a + for the US in terms of Freedom and in terms of GDP? See what I mean? The indexes used for this econometric study do not take into account the power imbalances inherent in international relations. My blog is utopiaorbust.wordpress.com If you only count “freedom” in terms of domestic jobs, business contracts, and civil liberties, etc. you are only getting half the picture. The other side is how much freedom you take away from others, presumably, to increase your own stock of wealth. Colonial Britain was a relatively free society if you lived in the motherland. But its coercive power extended further than its shoreline. A good question would be, How would you count neo-colonalism in the Freedom Index?

I agree South Korea would spend money more on defense if it were not for the US. How much money we do not know. But tell me this. Why does US military spending to “protect” South Korea count as a + for the US in terms of Freedom and in terms of GDP? See what I mean? The indexes used for this econometric study do not take into account the power imbalances inherent in international relations.

My blog is utopiaorbust.wordpress.com

]]> Comment on Another Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by pretnetus http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/another-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations/#comment-184 pretnetus Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:50:37 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=85#comment-184 Measuring coercion would be a far more subjective task than measuring political or economic freedom. Notwithstanding concerns about whether "wage-slaves" are actually economically "free", it is relatively unambiguous whether or not a government is involving itself in an economy or the press (for example), at least as far as researches can reliably collect data for that type of thing. There would be far more disagreement over what constitutes coercion in foreign policy. Was America coercive in interceding in Iraq? Most would say yes, but what about in World War II? I can see an argument that OPEC isn't necessarily coercive by nature either; it is, after all, a willful, agreed restriction taking place between the countries. You could call it a restriction of economic freedom within the country, but it is only coercive to other countries inasmuch as we are entitled to buy their oil, which I think is hardly self evident. In fact, if we were able to come up with a working "power index" as I believe you would intend it, it wouldn't surprise me at all of its coefficient were negative. America plows a significant portion of its GDP into defense, which is money the private sector could have been using on research, development, and/or capital accumulation instead. It is true that the military occasionally poops out some technology that has some application in the everyday lives of an American, I seriously doubt this outweighs what the private sector would have provided instead. For a tangible demonstration of what I mean, look at South Korea or Japan. We're busy running around the world using our coercive power, including protecting them from North Korea, and to a lesser extent, China, while they can sit back, relax, and use the money they would have spent protecting themselves on designing better cars. Measuring coercion would be a far more subjective task than measuring political or economic freedom. Notwithstanding concerns about whether “wage-slaves” are actually economically “free”, it is relatively unambiguous whether or not a government is involving itself in an economy or the press (for example), at least as far as researches can reliably collect data for that type of thing. There would be far more disagreement over what constitutes coercion in foreign policy. Was America coercive in interceding in Iraq? Most would say yes, but what about in World War II? I can see an argument that OPEC isn’t necessarily coercive by nature either; it is, after all, a willful, agreed restriction taking place between the countries. You could call it a restriction of economic freedom within the country, but it is only coercive to other countries inasmuch as we are entitled to buy their oil, which I think is hardly self evident.

In fact, if we were able to come up with a working “power index” as I believe you would intend it, it wouldn’t surprise me at all of its coefficient were negative. America plows a significant portion of its GDP into defense, which is money the private sector could have been using on research, development, and/or capital accumulation instead. It is true that the military occasionally poops out some technology that has some application in the everyday lives of an American, I seriously doubt this outweighs what the private sector would have provided instead. For a tangible demonstration of what I mean, look at South Korea or Japan. We’re busy running around the world using our coercive power, including protecting them from North Korea, and to a lesser extent, China, while they can sit back, relax, and use the money they would have spent protecting themselves on designing better cars.

]]> Comment on Another Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by lettrist http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/another-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations/#comment-183 lettrist Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:01:57 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=85#comment-183 There should be a "power index" too to measure the amount of coercion each nation uses in relation to others. For example, oil rich countries with lots of reserves would have a higher power relation to those who have lower reserves. This also would reflect their standing within OPEC. Other countries like the US could be measured in terms of military spending per capita. I would bet the more "powerful" the country the more wealthy they tend to be. The question then would be which came first, power or wealth. There should be a “power index” too to measure the amount of coercion each nation uses in relation to others. For example, oil rich countries with lots of reserves would have a higher power relation to those who have lower reserves. This also would reflect their standing within OPEC.

Other countries like the US could be measured in terms of military spending per capita.

I would bet the more “powerful” the country the more wealthy they tend to be. The question then would be which came first, power or wealth.

]]> Comment on My only investment advice ever by Health Care: The New Castle in the Air « Running Yellow Lights http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/my-only-investment-advice-ever/#comment-176 Health Care: The New Castle in the Air « Running Yellow Lights Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:48:27 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=165#comment-176 [...] Care: The New Castle in the Air Back on September 25th, I advised anyone reading this blog to get out of the stock market ASAP and to put any assets they [...] [...] Care: The New Castle in the Air Back on September 25th, I advised anyone reading this blog to get out of the stock market ASAP and to put any assets they [...]

]]> Comment on Is Freedom of Association Fascism? by pretnetus http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/is-freedom-of-association-fascism/#comment-173 pretnetus Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:17:27 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=198#comment-173 I wasn't looking to make a backhanded comment against public broadcasting. Some supporters of public broadcasting did call it "censorship", which is an example of the "positive" freedom of expression mindset I'm attacking. Whether or we should cut spending, increase it, or keep it the same is an entirely different question. I wasn’t looking to make a backhanded comment against public broadcasting. Some supporters of public broadcasting did call it “censorship”, which is an example of the “positive” freedom of expression mindset I’m attacking. Whether or we should cut spending, increase it, or keep it the same is an entirely different question.

]]> Comment on Is Freedom of Association Fascism? by Dwight Bobson http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/is-freedom-of-association-fascism/#comment-172 Dwight Bobson Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:14:27 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=198#comment-172 RE: "...that failing to increase funding for public broadcasting is censorship. All of these arguments make the preposterous assumption that Freedom of Expression is somehow an entitlement rather than a protection from government coercion. ..." The issue here misses the point, which is NOT censorship. The kick-back has to do with the perceived motivation for the attempt to stop funding for public broadcasting. In 1994, Gingrich said that he wanted to kill Big Bird. The attack was ideological, not a funding issue. The other issue has to do with having some of the 100 million+ viewers\listeners' tax dollars spent for something that they support, vis a vis the general waste and pork projects that far excede the 11% of federal funding that makes up the total (primarily private) support of public broadcassting's funding. RE: “…that failing to increase funding for public broadcasting is censorship. All of these arguments make the preposterous assumption that Freedom of Expression is somehow an entitlement rather than a protection from government coercion. …”
The issue here misses the point, which is NOT censorship. The kick-back has to do with the perceived motivation for the attempt to stop funding for public broadcasting. In 1994, Gingrich said that he wanted to kill Big Bird. The attack was ideological, not a funding issue. The other issue has to do with having some of the 100 million+ viewers\listeners’ tax dollars spent for something that they support, vis a vis the general waste and pork projects that far excede the 11% of federal funding that makes up the total (primarily private) support of public broadcassting’s funding.

]]> Comment on Realigning the Union by Kevin Murphy http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/realigning-the-union/#comment-169 Kevin Murphy Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:49:30 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=179#comment-169 I'm fairly sure that the newly created more propserous, urban states would wind up susidizing the economies of the poorer, rural states through federal tax dollars. Also, you may find that Vermont doesn't seem to fit either type of state and may need a category of its own. I’m fairly sure that the newly created more propserous, urban states would wind up susidizing the economies of the poorer, rural states through federal tax dollars. Also, you may find that Vermont doesn’t seem to fit either type of state and may need a category of its own.

]]> Comment on Realigning the Union by Hon Most Rev Dr Cesidio Tallini http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/realigning-the-union/#comment-148 Hon Most Rev Dr Cesidio Tallini Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:45:33 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=179#comment-148 You might be interested in this book... http://book.ilination.net ...and in this website: http://ilination.net Other people have told me that perhaps Staten Island should join our Independent Long Island (ILI) movement, and you seem to have a point. The important thing is that we work together, so we can achieve some of the goals without feeling like a threat to those that desire nothing but the status quo. Join us! You might be interested in this book…

http://book.ilination.net

…and in this website:

http://ilination.net

Other people have told me that perhaps Staten Island should join our Independent Long Island (ILI) movement, and you seem to have a point.

The important thing is that we work together, so we can achieve some of the goals without feeling like a threat to those that desire nothing but the status quo. Join us!

]]> Comment on False Probabilities in FiveThirtyEight by pretnetus http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/false-probabilities-in-fivethirtyeight/#comment-144 pretnetus Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:17:14 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=149#comment-144 <i>You clearly don’t understand that going up in the polls by 1% for someone slightly in the lead will increase his chance of winning by far more then 1%. Therefore going from a couple of point behind to almost a double digit lead will vastly improve your chance of winning. Even intuitively you should be convinced this must be true.</i> Duh? Nothing I said suggests that. Has anyone read what I wrote before assuming it's wrong and I have no idea what I'm talking about? Can anyone explain how election results can <i>possibly</i> be Gaussian given what we know about how the distribution behaves? The win percentages are further biased by not including those unpredictable events that will occur between now and election day. You clearly don’t understand that going up in the polls by 1% for someone slightly in the lead will increase his chance of winning by far more then 1%. Therefore going from a couple of point behind to almost a double digit lead will vastly improve your chance of winning. Even intuitively you should be convinced this must be true.

Duh? Nothing I said suggests that.

Has anyone read what I wrote before assuming it’s wrong and I have no idea what I’m talking about? Can anyone explain how election results can possibly be Gaussian given what we know about how the distribution behaves?
The win percentages are further biased by not including those unpredictable events that will occur between now and election day.

]]> Comment on False Probabilities in FiveThirtyEight by Steve http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/false-probabilities-in-fivethirtyeight/#comment-143 Steve Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:09:35 +0000 http://pretnetus.wordpress.com/?p=149#comment-143 Costa, I am pleased by your reply, because the first comment that you responded to, the one you disagreed with, was posted by "Scott," not "Steve." And the one you agreed with was the one posted by "Steve," also known as me. Sweet! Costa,

I am pleased by your reply, because the first comment that you responded to, the one you disagreed with, was posted by “Scott,” not “Steve.” And the one you agreed with was the one posted by “Steve,” also known as me. Sweet!

]]>