Why does income per capita follow capitalism and economic freedom?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
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?

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 include it in the index, but with an inverse measure of the current one.

Originally posted by Palynka
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]

It's a shame the logical of your critiques doesn't extend to your itchy 'alert' finger.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
It's a shame the logical of your critiques doesn't extend to your itchy 'alert' finger.

By all means, point my mistakes out.

Originally posted by Palynka
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]

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 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 Palynka
By all means, point my mistakes out.

Alright. You're a petty crybaby that runs to the mods because he can't
defend himself properly. How's that for starters?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
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

Why do you believe a "large" government size implies low economic freedom?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why do you believe a "large" government size implies low economic freedom?

Answer: equal parts demagoguery and naivety.

Just my penny's worth.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
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

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.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why do you believe a "large" government size implies low economic freedom?

That was how the concept itself was created, and it is a reasonable concept, much more so than to deny it.

Originally posted by Palynka
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.

Palynka,

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 Palynka
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.

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.

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 eljefejesus
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...

Good luck with that. I tried to tell him, he's only smart for a blonde.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
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...

Lol, 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! 😵