4 ms·

France economic policy doesn't look so bad if you compare it to other failed policies and look at them in a myopic way. So they throw in a graph with life expe

by laut 17y ago

France economic policy doesn't look so bad if you compare it to other failed policies and look at them in a myopic way. So they throw in a graph with life expectancy and total public spending as a % of GDP. France ranks high on both (compared to the few other selected countries). Oh great. But correlation does not mean causation. Let's look at the country with the highest life expectancy in the world: Andorra. So do they have high taxes like in France? Anyone care to guess how much income tax they have in Andorra? ;) The Economists seems to me like a magazine like any other. Just like a tabloid they write whatever sells.

anigbrowl 17y ago
Oh please. Only ~75,000 people live in Andorra and 80% of their economy derives from tourism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra. You might as well compare the USA with Brunei.
timr 17y ago
"correlation does not mean causation" Stop saying that. First, you're saying it wrong: correlation does not imply cause. Second, you're misinterpreting the implication: a correlation certainly could indicate a causal relationship, but it doesn't have to indicate a causal relationship. In other words, you're not making an argument, unless you show that there's a reason that a causal relationship should be discounted. In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental.
- laut 17y ago
  Yes, that should have been "imply". Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker. So with that out of the way do you think there is anything wrong with "correlation does not imply causation"? Denmark has high government spending too. But the average life expectancy is rather low compared to other similar countries. "In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental." Why?
  - timr 17y ago
    Well, why not? Maybe the French spend it on different, more effective things than the Danes. Maybe the French have better health care. Maybe the French have better food. Maybe you're totally wrong about the statistics. I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment. All I know for sure, is that "correlation does not imply cause" is not an argument. We study correlations because when we find them, they usually point the way to interesting phenomena. If we discounted the meaning of every correlation as mere coincidence, there would be no point in searching for them at all.
    - laut 17y ago
      First of all in this case I don't think there is a correlation between government spending and life expectancy. A graph with 3 selected countries and two bars is not a correlation. It is not scientific either. I'll quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation : "establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship". Do you think this is wrong? You cannot infer causations simply from correlating numbers. Numbers can give you ideas and you can then build a hypothesis that you can test. I am not saying every correlation is a coincidence, I am saying that there are limits to what you can conclude based on correlations. Have you read about falsification and Karl Popper?
  - mattchew 17y ago
    "In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental." Why? Because it is common sense! If you spend money on public health you are making people healthier. Why do you think they call it public health? More money, more health. It's really very simple, don't you understand basic arithmetic? Here's an interesting link (from 2000, sorry about that): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_ca...
    - anigbrowl 17y ago

by laut 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

Oh please. Only ~75,000 people live in Andorra and 80% of their economy derives from tourism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra. You might as well compare the USA with Brunei.

timr 17y ago

"correlation does not mean causation" Stop saying that. First, you're saying it wrong: correlation does not imply cause. Second, you're misinterpreting the implication: a correlation certainly could indicate a causal relationship, but it doesn't have to indicate a causal relationship. In other words, you're not making an argument, unless you show that there's a reason that a causal relationship should be discounted. In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental.

laut 17y ago
Yes, that should have been "imply". Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker. So with that out of the way do you think there is anything wrong with "correlation does not imply causation"? Denmark has high government spending too. But the average life expectancy is rather low compared to other similar countries. "In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental." Why?
- timr 17y ago
  Well, why not? Maybe the French spend it on different, more effective things than the Danes. Maybe the French have better health care. Maybe the French have better food. Maybe you're totally wrong about the statistics. I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment. All I know for sure, is that "correlation does not imply cause" is not an argument. We study correlations because when we find them, they usually point the way to interesting phenomena. If we discounted the meaning of every correlation as mere coincidence, there would be no point in searching for them at all.
  - laut 17y ago
    First of all in this case I don't think there is a correlation between government spending and life expectancy. A graph with 3 selected countries and two bars is not a correlation. It is not scientific either. I'll quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation : "establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship". Do you think this is wrong? You cannot infer causations simply from correlating numbers. Numbers can give you ideas and you can then build a hypothesis that you can test. I am not saying every correlation is a coincidence, I am saying that there are limits to what you can conclude based on correlations. Have you read about falsification and Karl Popper?
- mattchew 17y ago
  "In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental." Why? Because it is common sense! If you spend money on public health you are making people healthier. Why do you think they call it public health? More money, more health. It's really very simple, don't you understand basic arithmetic? Here's an interesting link (from 2000, sorry about that): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_ca...
  - anigbrowl 17y ago