4 ms·

Wait, wait. You're the one that claimed that India was a "highly equal society" - the burden of proof is on you. Your numbers are comparing India with the US,

by badsock 11y ago

Wait, wait. You're the one that claimed that India was a "highly equal society" - the burden of proof is on you. Your numbers are comparing India with the US, which is an unequal society, so you haven't provided it yet. And you really believe that you've "debunked" my claims by referencing what happens to a pure mathematical abstraction? I'm not even sure how to address that. You can't honestly believe that models have influence over reality, and not the other way around? And I'm not claiming that inequality is bad. It's necessary, for example, to accommodate risk. All I've said is that it matters how much inequality there is, and having too much distorts things. The only claim I've made as to what constitutes too much is the level found in aristocratic societies. Are you arguing the opposite, that the degree of inequality has no great effect on a society? Or that the repercussions aren't negative as a country approaches the level that is marked by the formation of an aristocracy?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I shouldn't have said "highly equal", since that implies some sort of absolute standard of equality. It's certainly more equal than the US or UK, and according to all the statistics we've both cited except for CIA Gini, is comparable to France or other non-Scandinavian euro nations. You made a mathematical claim about a mathematical construct (incentive): From a motivational standpoint, of course the incentives of a great reward matter. But there has to be a reason for everyone from 2nd place downward to participate. I gave a mathematical response. If you don't believe that incentives govern behavior, then why did you bring them up and make incorrect claims about them? The only argument I make is that I've seen no convincing evidence that inequality matters much. At best I've seen a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things. Even left wing types don't find such evidence very convincing, or at least they don't after I replace the X axis with "% single mothers" or "% black people" (increasing both the r^2 and social unacceptability of the conclusion).
- badsock 11y ago
  Well, in my mind you've exemplified perfectly what's wrong with libertarians: they believe models over reality. What else would let them so ardently believe in an economic system that's never been actually demonstrated to work. You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve will increase motivation for everyone on it, and that: "Now that your claims about incentives and your conflation of poverty and inequality are debunked[...]" Have you considered the possibility that in the actual world the curve doesn't strictly conform to the mathematical one? That it flattens early, or that the whole thing is translated downward? Or that it's not a Pareto curve but one that is similar? Or that (as has a lot of evidence behind it) that socially-based incentives are sensitive to relative inequality, not absolute? I pointed to an abstraction for illustration, and you made claims based on that abstraction and called it proof of the real world. This is economics: there's no such thing as "debunking", there's no such thing as "proof". There's evidence, and there's models that maybe explain some aspects of it better than others, from a very narrow view. Models can't demonstrate anything, all they can do is suggest experiments to be carried out in the actual world, at which point what happens there trumps any claims that they may have made. The only thing we really have is comparative studies, across nations and through time. Everything else is just fooling ourselves with our own metaphors. So when you discard the only thing that we've got as "a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things", what exactly are going going to replace that with, your theories? It must be nice to live in such a simple world.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    There's no arguing with someone who believes economics to be an a priori formal science.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve No, I didn't. The pareto curve is not the reward curve, which is what we were discussing. Have you considered the possibility that in the actual world the curve doesn't strictly conform to the mathematical one? I was explicitly assuming your hypothetical was true, and showing it doesn't support your conclusion. That's a conditional claim. I pointed to an abstraction for illustration, and you made claims based on that abstraction and called it proof of the real world. No, I called it proof that your argument is bunk. If you want to make an argument based on some complicated theory of socially-based incentives, you need to actually cite such things. So when you discard the only thing that we've got as "a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things", what exactly are going going to replace that with, your theories? Tell me; if I can dig up a graph with a better r^2 and a different label on the X axis, will you change your views on inequality? I.e., if I show you this graph, will you say "oops, I'm wrong, inequality is not the issue, I guess $new_x_axis_label is the real problem here?" (Note that I will of course make $new_x_axis_label something socially unacceptable.) If not, then your argument is simply dishonest. You are criticizing me for being unpersuaded by evidence that you would also find unpersuasive.

by badsock 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I shouldn't have said "highly equal", since that implies some sort of absolute standard of equality. It's certainly more equal than the US or UK, and according to all the statistics we've both cited except for CIA Gini, is comparable to France or other non-Scandinavian euro nations. You made a mathematical claim about a mathematical construct (incentive): From a motivational standpoint, of course the incentives of a great reward matter. But there has to be a reason for everyone from 2nd place downward to participate. I gave a mathematical response. If you don't believe that incentives govern behavior, then why did you bring them up and make incorrect claims about them? The only argument I make is that I've seen no convincing evidence that inequality matters much. At best I've seen a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things. Even left wing types don't find such evidence very convincing, or at least they don't after I replace the X axis with "% single mothers" or "% black people" (increasing both the r^2 and social unacceptability of the conclusion).

badsock 11y ago
Well, in my mind you've exemplified perfectly what's wrong with libertarians: they believe models over reality. What else would let them so ardently believe in an economic system that's never been actually demonstrated to work. You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve will increase motivation for everyone on it, and that: "Now that your claims about incentives and your conflation of poverty and inequality are debunked[...]" Have you considered the possibility that in the actual world the curve doesn't strictly conform to the mathematical one? That it flattens early, or that the whole thing is translated downward? Or that it's not a Pareto curve but one that is similar? Or that (as has a lot of evidence behind it) that socially-based incentives are sensitive to relative inequality, not absolute? I pointed to an abstraction for illustration, and you made claims based on that abstraction and called it proof of the real world. This is economics: there's no such thing as "debunking", there's no such thing as "proof". There's evidence, and there's models that maybe explain some aspects of it better than others, from a very narrow view. Models can't demonstrate anything, all they can do is suggest experiments to be carried out in the actual world, at which point what happens there trumps any claims that they may have made. The only thing we really have is comparative studies, across nations and through time. Everything else is just fooling ourselves with our own metaphors. So when you discard the only thing that we've got as "a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things", what exactly are going going to replace that with, your theories? It must be nice to live in such a simple world.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  There's no arguing with someone who believes economics to be an a priori formal science.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You argue that, by mathematical definition, a steepening Pareto curve No, I didn't. The pareto curve is not the reward curve, which is what we were discussing. Have you considered the possibility that in the actual world the curve doesn't strictly conform to the mathematical one? I was explicitly assuming your hypothetical was true, and showing it doesn't support your conclusion. That's a conditional claim. I pointed to an abstraction for illustration, and you made claims based on that abstraction and called it proof of the real world. No, I called it proof that your argument is bunk. If you want to make an argument based on some complicated theory of socially-based incentives, you need to actually cite such things. So when you discard the only thing that we've got as "a few cross-country correlations between inequality and other bad things", what exactly are going going to replace that with, your theories? Tell me; if I can dig up a graph with a better r^2 and a different label on the X axis, will you change your views on inequality? I.e., if I show you this graph, will you say "oops, I'm wrong, inequality is not the issue, I guess $new_x_axis_label is the real problem here?" (Note that I will of course make $new_x_axis_label something socially unacceptable.) If not, then your argument is simply dishonest. You are criticizing me for being unpersuaded by evidence that you would also find unpersuasive.