Is it the end of capitalism? (Page 72)

LiptonCambell: Lion, i really don't get what your confusion is. The worlds worst traffic jam, that took place on the national expressway 110 in China from August 14th, 2010 till August 24th, 2010, is not continued to this day. If it were, people like david wouldn't be complaining it lasted for weeks, but years.

It was created by construction, car accidents, and an influx of transport trucks because of a failure of the railway system.

So the fact that you drove through there, 4 years later, and didn't see anything, does NOT mean it never happened.

>>>Also anecdotal evidence from eye witnesses is pretty reliable.

Jesus Christ....and you said you're teaching CRITICAL THINKING??!

China must have alot of problems if they got people like you teaching critical thought.....

Anecdotal evidence from eye witnesses is not entirely reliable; it is notoriously fallible. The degree of credence we afford to it, therefore, should be proportional to our knowledge of the reliability of such evidence. Just because Smith says it is so we should not assume unquestioningly that it is so.



Lets see what some dictionaries have to say on the subject;

"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts "
~Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal+evidence

"(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research:"
~Oxford Dictionaries, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anecdotal

"A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument, but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis. "
~Wiktionary, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anecdotal_evidence

"While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence. This is because anecdotes only ever apply to individuals or individual experiences and are subject to the biases that this brings with it. It is impossible to say that an individual anecdote is representative and it is also impossible to actually detect the real cause of the anecdote.

For instance, with life-saving medical treatments (say, pills that reduce heart-disease and subsequently lower the death rate), there are some deaths that occur whether or not the medication was taken. Therefore, if someone who is on the medication dies, you cannot tell if they would have died anyway without it — you can't prove that the medical intervention worked, or not, from the one case study. "
~Rational Wiki, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Problems

"Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy. "
~Skeptics Dictionary, http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html



But lets take a step back- lets pretend for a moment that there are no problems with anecdotal evidence- is what you experienced, anecdotal evidence? Were you an eyewitness on what happened between the dates of Aug14-24, 2010? I mean, I could go down to ground zero in New York, but that doesn't mean I witnessed 9/11, and can offer new insights on the events or even outright deny it happened at all, because I was there.

You want to talk anecdotal evidence? Talk to the people who were there those ten days. Because you causally driving through a region where something happened once doesn't mean you're an eyewitness.

ghostgeek: I hear there's a bit of bother in Hong Kong right now. Seems somebody isn't happy.

Sir Loin: Skeptics Dictionary? Come on Lipton, you can do better than that! The Skeptics Society publishes definitions to suit its own agenda, not accurate data at all.
I don't recall David saying this jam was back in 2010, in fact he said "there is a traffic jam" so please stop twisting words again. Can't you give an intelligent argument based on what is actually said? And are you seriously suggesting we send a scientist to take a look at Beijings roads to tell if there are lots of cars stopped?
Minds like yours, Lipton, are precisely the reason there is a need for minds like mine to teach critical thought.

davidk14: .

Sir Loin...

We understand you are being paid by the Chinese government...yes?

.

CoIin: It's a bit off topic, but I'd like to respond to certain comments Lipton has made above regarding so called "anecdotal evidence", not with the intention of getting dragged into another silly tug-of-war debate, but rather just to promote critical analysis in general.

I'd begin with the observation that Wireclub science fans are notorious for asserting in no uncertain terms: "Anecdotes are not evidence", or "The plural of anecdote is not evidence", or some similarly dubious pronouncement.

I think what the science fan means to say is that personal anecdotes are not the kind of thing that scientists treat as evidence for their theories. Fair enough. But science, by and large, deals with recurrent phenomena, epitomized by the motion of the heavenly bodies, say.

The problem, I think, with blithe dismissals of "anecdotal evidence" of the kind mentioned above is that the science fan is applying scientific norms and standards to non-scientific forms of inquiry, such as those conducted by the historian (Chinese traffic jams!) or in our law courts where the subject of investigation is a one-time non-recurrent event, whereby personal testimony -- anecdotes -- may constitute an important source, or even the ONLY source, of evidence. This misapplication of standards yields an absurd result : testimony is worthless!

If we're to dismiss all anecdotes then I fear we have no evidence that Socrates or Aristotle or Confucius existed. Or Buddha or Jesus. Or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Or that Christopher Columbus first conquered Mt Everest .

Lipton, you say above : "Anecdotal evidence from eye witnesses is NOT reliable. At all."

Do you realize what an extraordinary claim you're making? And it's not the first time I've seen a bewildering claim like this made Now, if you had said instead ...

"Anecdotal evidence from eye witnesses is not entirely reliable; it is notoriously fallible. The degree of credence we afford to it, therefore, should be proportional to our knowledge of the reliability of such evidence. Just because Smith says it is so we should not assume unquestioningly that it is so."

... we could all agree, shake hands, and move on to the next topic. Your claim would be wholly uncontroversial. But you appear to be saying something vastly more radical (or perhaps it was just careless wording? ). You're telling us that Smith should be IGNORED. All the Smiths of the world should be ignored! Eye witness testimony provides NO SUPPORT AT ALL to a hypothesis!

Is this really what you want to say?

(c.f. your Oxford Dictionaries citation : "... NOT NECESSARILY reliable ..." )

I think part of the confusion in all this is a failure to distinguish "Such-and-such is not ACCEPTED as evidence" from "Such-and-such is NOT evidence."

(c.f. your Rational Wiki citation : "While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence." Another bizarre remark! It's TRUE but worthless? And what does "... do not constitute evidence" mean? They ARE NOT evidence or they are not USED AS evidence? )

Now, if you Lipton are walking through the woods in Nebraska, and you see something very tall, hairy and humanlike, and granting that Bigfoot does actually exist and you've just seen one, then I'd say your subsequent breathless ( ) eyewitness report constitutes evidence that Bigfoot is real. Wouldn't you?

Now, if scientists or the local court or the Nebraska Times or Skeptic Magazine refuse to admit your testimony as evidence on the grounds that it fails to conform with their particular norms and standards for evidence acceptance, well, that's their business.

But their rejection of your testimony does not negate the objective support it provides for the Bigfoot hypothesis. After all, you did SEE him, did you not? How can a bona fide sighting NOT be evidence?

Finally, I watched the video you posted, Lipton, (Pitfalls of Thinking) or the first few minutes of it anyway. I'm not particularly impressed!

For example, we're first told of Bob who wins the lottery three days in a row. Lucky Bob! Bob's problem, though, is that he draws a dubious inference from his three wins, namely, that he will continue to win each time he plays. Tsk tsk. Silly Bob should have known to acquire a large and varied sample before drawing any tentative conclusions.

His inference may be shaky, but his "anecdotal evidence" is entirely unproblematic as far as I can see. Bob claims he bought three lottery tickets, and that he struck it rich each time. Isn't that precisely what happened? Bob's testimony is flawless.

By the way, we may snicker at Bob, but it's not clear science is in a better position than poor benighted Bob. Scientists tell us, for example, that copper conducts electricity. It's a law. And how do they "know" this? By extrapolating inductively from examined cases to unexamined cases - exactly as Bob did.

Well, how "large and varied" is the sample on which scientists base their inference? What's the ratio of pieces of copper that have been tested to ALL pieces of copper in the universe - past present and future? And what regions of the universe has it been collected from? Is their sample more large and varied than Bob's? Or less? MUCH less?

See the problem?

LiptonCambell: >>>The Skeptics Society publishes definitions to suit its own agenda, not accurate data at all.

And what IS their agenda?

" The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint."
~ http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

There you go. Their agenda is to promote critical thinking. You and the Skeptics Society share the same goals.

But if you want to throw out the skeptic society's definition, that's fine- that still leaves the other half-dozen definitions, all of which say essentially the same thing.

>>>I don't recall David saying this jam was back in 2010

Nope. He offered an article backing up his claim's, and the article referenced the events in 2010.

You DID read his article, didn't you? You didn't just throw your hands in the air, announce everything he says is a lie, and refuse to read what evidence the man presented, did you?

The article was posted.....



August 23, 2010!

>>>And are you seriously suggesting we send a scientist to take a look at Beijings roads to tell if there are lots of cars stopped?

No, I'm suggesting a tad of humility on the subject. I'm suggesting that you cannot say that it didn't happen because you were on the highway last week. I'm suggesting you trust the numerous of CHINESE news organizations that reported on it.

>>>Minds like yours, Lipton, are precisely the reason there is a need for minds like mine to teach critical thought.

Oh god imagining a world of such history revision makes my skin crawl......a place where you can deny something happened, that was well documented, because you didn't see any sign of it almost half a decade later....


And Colin, I think your comments are way off base. I'm simply saying that anecdotal evidence is worthless, not in a scientific context, but just general context- and in the context of this debate, where Lion did not experience at all what happened on the roads of Highway 110 between the dates of August 14-24, there is no anecdotal evidence to be had- they did not witness anything.

Even if you wipe away my comments on the validity of anecdotal evidence, what Lion experienced IS NOT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.

>>>Now, if you had said instead ...

Okay. I said that now.

Shake hands?

slasian: David said, "The fact is, there is no other country in the world that people from all over this planet want to live here, by the millions. This is indisputable. This is fact..."

Yes it is the fact. But what are the reasons?

See Davidk, it takes a hard work to identify the causation. I know you hate critical thinking.

America is the immigrants' heaven not because there is milk and honey on the streets (as you blatantly claim and as Hollywood depicts the 'land of the brave' America is immigrants' number one choice because there are no Americans! Everyone there is an immigrant who eventually turned to be American. The new world is a place for anybody to claim a heritage, a place, and an identity. The greatest thing about America is this. Once you get in America, you are American.

We know that America is not even in the top 10 nations with highest per capita income and we also know that there are better nations where the economic inequality is in a better state (mostly the social democrats in the Scandinavian) yet non of all these are desired by immigrants as America is.

America, seems a better place for immigrants but David, do not get me wrong, like I said Capitalism has got nothing to do with it. Yet America is a capitalist nation and didn't this mean that the system somehow works? No doubt it has worked and I had never denied it before. What I am saying is the system has reached to a critical point where it needs:

A) to be terminated
B) to be revised

I don' think you dig the bottom line here; the thing is, unless every system is fixed, changed or substituted with the ever changing attitudes of society, environmental change and technological progress, failure is almost inexorable.

I know you and your likes always go for the old motto, "if it ain't broke then don't fix it". David, Capitalism is breaking. Its flaw is simple, it has no room for economic equality and what makes this vital is that the root of all (almost) evils in the human condition can be traced to economy. Hence, in a world where economic equality is out of the question, how on earth can one have a better world, a tranquil world and above all a rational human-beings?

Systems are also the key where an 'empire's' weak link can be locked/loose in a way that determines future success/failure. The present state of the world is in no mood to tolerate economic inequality which has been the root of racism, religionism (the term might be mine), sexism and many other bed 'ism's.

And these time, the good old capitalism (which has been diverted from its original intention at least from its founders' aim and economic theory and twisted to absolutely promote the supremacy of one individual/race/color/nation over the other) has become the bogeyman of the bogeymen around the world

Edit= to the but you know politicians had never been logical they only know the acrobats of the art of talking. You can ask Lipton for sure, he is the best politician here.

Sir Loin: I may disagree with most of what Lipton says Slasian, but calling him a politician, that's a bit harsh isn't it? Politicians are the worst kind of scum on earth, I'm sure he's not that bad
Anyone with a cute kid like that must be ok really.

CoIin: .
@ Lipton

@ Slasian

@ Politicians (_!_)

Sir Loin: News Flash: It's official according to Reuters, China has just overtaken USA as the world's leading economy

LiptonCambell: That's great! China took on capitalistic traits, and look where it got them!

Sir Loin: Yep Lipton, it's got them to the position of the world's most powerful and advanced nation. Also the most cultured with richest history.
The capitalism has resulted in environmental destruction, hence the assertation that capitalism is dead.

davidk14: .

China...the most powerful? Not
China...the most advanced? Not

China...has the most poor people on the planet? Yep.
China...the most polluted air and waterways in the world? Yep.
China...leading the world in human rights violations? Yep


It's about time that China overtake something positive. With 4 times the population of the USA, it should have been economically the leader a long time ago.

.

LiptonCambell: Again, you can go back and forth as to whither or not capitalism 'caused' increased environmental damage. I'd say it was increased modernization and decrease of their rural history, personally. Hell, a lot of the problem is more Chinese have a greater standard of living, and thus, have vehicles- causing more pollution.

I've asked before for you to show me that, when embracing capitalism, there was a sharp increase of pollution in China. From your silence, I can only conclude you don't have that data.

Not to mention the 3 mile dam, as well as many other projects, was a government project- not private industry- and the push for cleaner, more environmentally friendly solutions that other nations government are driving towards, are not being pushed by the Chinese government...

davidk14: .

China is screwed in many ways. While trying to catch up with the west, China did not invest in green. They currently have over 650 coal powered electric generating stations with another 200 or so to be open within a few years. They burn 'dirty' coal because they can. They have no regulations. Same issue with their automobiles. No smog control what so ever. They have the worst pollution on the planet. Blame capitalism for the out of control ecological disaster in modern history....not. Blame those with political power. In the US, we are over regulated and in China, the word 'regulation' is not even in their vocabulary.

.

Metaverseguy: It seems like any mention of negativity towards capitalism is taboo in the US. Sure there's some good things about it, but entire books have been written on the terrible things about it. Many philanthropists are created via the wealth it creates who donate it back to the community, but is it really helping if people are working full-time jobs and can't pay all their bills?

Starbucks helps their baristas with college, but Walmart forces their employees to use government assistance when they could easily pay them more. Facebook is free, but Hobby Lobby discriminates against women bla bla bla

They should just make an income cap. Start off with something that will affect almost no one like limiting income to million dollars per year and see how it works. I think in my entire life I've probably met almost no one who is so rich that they could be on the who's who list or whose idea of money is completely different than mine where they are worried about having a 6 million dollar net worth rather than a 5 million dollar net worth. Most people don't go around announcing that they are rich a$ f&*k, have an entire room or building devoted to a gym and a vase that is worth more than I can make in an entire career.

Sure articles are written about some business owners that make them look worse than Hitler, but I'm sure a lot of them are probably pretty nice they just want to be super rich.

Sir Loin: David you're dreaming if you think USA is still the most powerful nation on earth. Sure you have 5000 nukes to China's 250 so USA could completely destroy the world (and probably would) but 250 can also make a helluva mess!
It's about time Obama stopped making comments like "I expect to be at war with China inside 20 years" Provocative statements like this are destabilising the entire world.
As for China not being an advanced country.... Which planet are you living on? Please tell me which country is more culturally or historically advanced.
Fortran, I agree with the idea of a salary cap but I feel $250,000 is a reasonable one. In my own NZ I know several people with incomes well into 7 or 8 figures, Hell, my neighbour there is 20 yrs old and has an income from farming of $10,000,000 per annum. This is not all that unusual for NZ dairying.
The million $ salary club is quite a large one in NZ business.
China's ecological problems stem from it embracing state capitalism. The govt felt the need to develop and play catchup with the west after having been invaded how many times? Britain, USA, Japan, Portugal, India... all have Chinese blood on their hands. Now they're all squealing because China has taken its rightful place as a world leader.

LiptonCambell: >>>Sure there's some good things about it, but entire books have been written on the terrible things about it.

The same can be said about Communism. Case in point, Atlas Shrugged.

>>>Many philanthropists are created via the wealth it creates who donate it back to the community, but is it really helping if people are working full-time jobs and can't pay all their bills?

I could be argued that they themselves got themselves in such a situation- by spending and living beyond their means.

Should every business owner be held responsible if their employees take on too much debt, live in an expensive side of town, or have expensive tastes? Sure,it sounds noble to insist that people should be able to live off a full-time job- but once you get it forced that business's must ensure their employees live a debt free-lifestyle, it only means the more careful and cautious people have to suffer and pay for the reckless and careless people.

You create a society that encourages people to be wasteful and selfish- because if you don't, your co-workers will.

>>>Starbucks helps their baristas with college, but Walmart forces their employees to use government assistance when they could easily pay them more.

It isn't an issue of if they could pay them more- its an issue of whether or not their employment is worth more. And, go figure, unskilled, entry level jobs do not pay well.

>>>They should just make an income cap.

Where does the money go if a business exceeds this cap?

How do you attract newer, better, or smarter talent, with this cap?

>>> limiting income to million dollars per year and see how it works.

Well, for one, investments would come to a grinding halt. No new business's, no new jobs. and no new technology- because the rich wouldn't have the income to expand.

What do you think would happen?

LiptonCambell: >>>China's ecological problems stem from it embracing state capitalism.

Again, wheres the data?

Otherwise, that's not a fact- it's a thought.

>>> The govt felt the need to develop and play catchup with the west

That doesn't justify their actions, nor does it address the issue. The Chinese Government, not Chinese business's, are causing untold harm to the environment- as well, Chinas standard of living has skyrocket, increasing pollution- you're completely ignoring these factors and assuming that it's all capitalism's fault, with no data to back you up, and refusing to address these glaring flaws in your logic.

davidk14: .

Sir Loin said:

David you're dreaming if you think USA is still the most powerful nation on earth. Sure you have 5000 nukes to China's 250 so USA could completely destroy the world (and probably would) but 250 can also make a helluva mess!

David responds:

Never mentioned nukes.



Sir Loin said:

It's about time Obama stopped making comments like "I expect to be at war with China inside 20 years" Provocative statements like this are destabilising the entire world.

David responds:

I Googled that comment and could not find it anywhere.



Sir Loin said:

As for China not being an advanced country.... Which planet are you living on? Please tell me which country is more culturally or historically advanced.

David responds

Um…the USA…Britain…France…


Sir Loin said:

Fortran, I agree with the idea of a salary cap but I feel $250,000 is a reasonable one. In my own NZ I know several people with incomes well into 7 or 8 figures, Hell, my neighbour there is 20 yrs old and has an income from farming of $10,000,000 per annum. This is not all that unusual for NZ dairying. The million $ salary club is quite a large one in NZ business.


David responds:


So….A business person hit the cap. He then shuts down his business….and lays off maybe hundreds or thousands of workers. Smart…real smart.



Sir Loin said:

China's ecological problems stem from it embracing state capitalism. The govt felt the need to develop and play catchup with the west after having been invaded how many times? Britain, USA, Japan, Portugal, India... all have Chinese blood on their hands. Now they're all squealing because China has taken its rightful place as a world leader.

David responds:

Oh…I see…now blame China’s eco-disaster on Western countries that have huge environmental restrictions on almost everything. Perfect.

.

Sir Loin: USA more culturally advanced than China? Please David tell us another one, I need the laugh.

Lipton, so it's not Chinese busineses, it's the government. Of course it's the bloody government, they own the businese, well all the major ones anyway.
There's no point me quoting data to you. You only ignore anything concrete and rubbish others opinions then twist words around to misquote me.
Actually there's not much point debating anything with either of you because you seem incapable of understanding what you read. David also misquotes anything I say.
Fuckwits!

LiptonCambell: >>>Of course it's the bloody government, they own the businese, well all the major ones anyway.

Doesn't sound like capitalism to me then....Do i need to re-post all those definitions of what capitalism is? Because no one defines it as "state run businesses"

>>>There's no point me quoting data to you.

So you DO have data to support your claims?

Show it. Lets talk about the data, not opinions. Unless you think talking about why David is a fuckwit is constructive.

>>> you seem incapable of understanding what you read.

Then indulge us- help us understand your position....

Sir Loin: Read what I and others have written if you're capable Lipton, "State Capitalism" has been mentioned several times. Yes it's still capitalism.
If you have been involved in any kind of logic, critical thought, analysis or similar you will know that providing data for a negative view point is impossible. Negative data is an oxy moron. As for my claim that state capitalism has caused the environmental problems in China. FFS! It's obvious, data is uneccessary, in fact you and David provided the proof yourselves in trying to disprove my statements. Hence my term "fuckwits"

davidk14: .

Sir Loin...you seem to be the fuckwit since you agree that the Chinese government is corrupt yet...you support it.

That makes you a true oxy-moron.


Capitalism did not create the environmental problems in China.

Capitalism can't do shit.

It needs to be used, in China's case, as state sponsored capitalism which of course is insane. Government, any government...can't do anything right. Instead of planning for future growth using environment friendly regulations, they said screw that....full speed ahead....650 coal generating plants using the cheapest and dirtiest coal on the planet with another 150 plants to open in the next year or so. Now capitalism did not do that...the Chinese did that. Cheap power.

And government can do a very few situations well. I can not name one at the moment though. Government expense is just as insane.

Key: Government = Any government


.

LiptonCambell: >>> analysis or similar you will know that providing data for a negative view point is impossible.

So you can't provide any data? I'd even settle for a graph that shows increased pollution, with a little line pointing to ''Capitalism started here"

Its starting to look like you're making your entire position up....that you came to a conclusion, and are claiming any negativity in your country is BECAUSE people didn't support your conclusion, rather than using the data to reach an objective viewpoint.

Oddly enough, you condemn capitalism for perverting China, and yet, you present facts like China having the leading economy, as a positive. Wouldn't this be a bad thing, if capitalism is a bad thing?

>>>It's obvious, data is uneccessary

Again, I disagree. In 1970, the population of China was distinctively lower, had a larger population in rural jobs, with alot lower car ownership, and alot lower standard of living. The increase in China's pollution has to do not with 'capitalism', but rather, a higher standard of living, and a refusal on the governments part to regulate it's industries. China is making the shift from rural, to urban. Ontop of that, the increased population has led to increased food production- which has led to land destruction. The United States puts aside 1 million acres of land for preservation, across over 6,000 national parks. China has 5 national parks.

Clearly data is a necessity in this debate, and since you insist you have some, you should present it- I'm having a hard time finding any long term statistics.

liptoncambell's Picture