Originally posted by eljefejesusHaha, you've got to love it when people try to be logical and fail miserably. 😵
I'd rather not know you fantisize about such things, but thanks for sharing.
As far as the actual debate,
why do you now say that your "claim was never that big government is better." How is that consistent with your critique of the index? Wasn't that a central part of your critique of the index? That small government somehow does not crow out inv ...[text shortened]... wn internal conflicts than any actual shrieking typing. Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?
My critique of the inclusion of GS was based on the fact that it doesn't mean much about economic freedom. That's why it shouldn't be included.
Let me stress this out for you:
If I thought that "big government is better" then I would want to include it in the index, but with an inverse measure of the current one.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's a shame the logical of your critiques doesn't extend to your itchy 'alert' finger.
Haha, you've got to love it when people try to be logical and fail miserably. 😵
My critique of the inclusion of GS was based on the fact that it doesn't mean much about economic freedom. That's why it shouldn't be included.
Let me stress this out for you:
If I thought that "big government is better" then I would want to [b]include it in the index, but with an inverse measure of the current one.[/b]
Originally posted by PalynkaSo that's why you keep doing that; you enjoy failing miserable at being logical.
Haha, you've got to love it when people try to be logical and fail miserably. 😵
My critique of the inclusion of GS was based on the fact that it doesn't mean much about economic freedom. That's why it shouldn't be included.
Let me stress this out for you:
If I thought that "big government is better" then I would want to [b]include it in the index, but with an inverse measure of the current one.[/b]
Well try to make your position on government size clear, you think it exists in a vacuum and has zero correlation to growth then? Or else, what exactly is your evolving position on the effects of government size on growth? Not ever a drag?
Notice the the freedom index is nonlinear and punishes huge governments much more than medium size governments. Furthermore, government goods are credit under other factors such as property rights and financial freedom.
I am sure you love it when people can support their positions and I look forward to you doing the same in regards to taking a position of the phantom non-existance of the importance of government size in your arguments.
Oh and here, as you continue to seek to critique something in the index, you may want to actually see if you find it largely persuasive or not.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf
Originally posted by eljefejesusWhy do you believe a "large" government size implies low economic freedom?
So that's why you keep doing that; you enjoy failing miserable at being logical.
Well try to make your position on government size clear, you think it exists in a vacuum and has zero correlation to growth then? Or else, what exactly is your evolving position on the effects of government size on growth? Not ever a drag?
Notice the the freedom inde ...[text shortened]... u find it largely persuasive or not.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf
Originally posted by eljefejesusJesus, are you stupid?
So that's why you keep doing that; you enjoy failing miserable at being logical.
Well try to make your position on government size clear, you think it exists in a vacuum and has zero correlation to growth then? Or else, what exactly is your evolving position on the effects of government size on growth? Not ever a drag?
Notice the the freedom inde ...[text shortened]... u find it largely persuasive or not.
http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf
The non-linearity has nothing to do with the top 10 and bottom 10 on government size being a mix of developed and underdeveloped countries. In fact, the non-linearity only strengthens my argument! It would exarcebate the differences if they were important.
Originally posted by PalynkaPalynka,
Jesus, are you stupid?
The non-linearity has nothing to do with the top 10 and bottom 10 on government size being a mix of developed and underdeveloped countries. In fact, the non-linearity only strengthens my argument! It would exarcebate the differences if they were important.
don't be petty and defensive. the non-linearity demonstrates the law of decreasing marginal returns, demonstrates the growing complexity of managing such large economies, and makes the correlation more acceptable to anyone who isn't so emotionally caught up in the debate to ignore facts and resort to desperate name-calling.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo, petty Palynnka, you still refuse to acknowledge something you probably already know to be true, that government spending causes inflationary pressurse, leads to higher interest rates, and crowds out investment as people choose government bonds and to otherwise allocate their money towards government debt as opposed to in more productive ventures.
Jesus, are you stupid?
The non-linearity has nothing to do with the top 10 and bottom 10 on government size being a mix of developed and underdeveloped countries. In fact, the non-linearity only strengthens my argument! It would exarcebate the differences if they were important.
You must know statistics decently well what with your own economic studies you could not have gone far without statistics, so come on, it should be obvious to you that just because some variable do not perfectly correlate does not mean that if you run a test or regression you will not see the level of correlation/certainty...
Originally posted by eljefejesusGood luck with that. I tried to tell him, he's only smart for a blonde.
So, petty Palynnka, you still refuse to acknowledge something you probably already know to be true, that government spending causes inflationary pressurse, leads to higher interest rates, and crowds out investment as people choose government bonds and to otherwise allocate their money towards government debt as opposed to in more productive ventures.
...[text shortened]... mean that if you run a test or regression you will not see the level of correlation/certainty...
Originally posted by eljefejesusLol, now you contradict yourself. First you tell us to look at the table of the index and oogle out a correlation, but now you accuse me for doing the same for a sub-category! 😵
So, petty Palynnka, you still refuse to acknowledge something you probably already know to be true, that government spending causes inflationary pressurse, leads to higher interest rates, and crowds out investment as people choose government bonds and to otherwise allocate their money towards government debt as opposed to in more productive ventures.
...[text shortened]... mean that if you run a test or regression you will not see the level of correlation/certainty...