@cosimo_bullo
@Ian_T

I blame it on all my downtime while things render at work... nothing much to do but visit the forums compulsively and write lengthy responses to stuff.

:)

Lord, bwhitz, I wish you and brianluce could just go have a couple beers and have this stuff out. Both: it's coming off as a broken record here.

@bwhitz
Definitions are the meaning of words. Words are what we use to communicate with each other. Great care is taken in our culture to maintain a reasonable and consistent standard for word meanings. When you create your own definitions, as you did with Economy means a rating system, communication becomes difficult or impossible. Words mean what words mean. It has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance.
The metaphysical stuff above is probably about as far OT as we need to take this discussion.

@KCG
Please don't patronize.

@bwhitz

Which IQ tests require regurgitation of knowledge? Stanford Binet, the most famous test doesn't, the Wechsler IQ test doesn't, even the Wonderlic, an quickie exam used to measure the intelligence of incoming NFL rookies doesn't require regurgitating knowledge. Reciting factual knowledge is useful on Jeopardy, but it has never been used as a measure of cognitive abilities as far as I know. If you know of a reputable, mainstream IQ test that's been used in the last 50 years that consists of regurgitating knowledge, please post the link.

With regard to the definition of Economy, you're insisting on your surrealistic definition "because most people would freak out at this (if they knew the bwhitz definition). Politicians and the media have to soften the description of things to not sound threatening to the general population."

Okay bwhitz, if you say so. Makes perfect sense. You should consider authoring a dictionary so you can explain to the world the real meaning of words, because it looks like most of us got it all wrong on account of those mean politicians and the liberal media.

@brianluce "And while you're at it, look up "Economy", it won't say "It's a rating system"."

That's because most people would freak out at this. Politicians and the media have to soften the description of things to not sound threatening to the general population. But, it is a rating system. Companies that are worth the most, usually do the best (or the most) business. Individuals that are worth allot (monetarily), generally do allot of work, or the work that they do is more valuable. Simple. It gets complex in the implementation like most things, but the premise it's built on is not complicated... When you have multiple individuals all contributing various degrees of work and ideas to society, they must be ranked and monetized accordingly. For example, one day of farm work is not equal to the designing and production of an automobile. If work and ideas were not ranked based on difficulty and value (and rightfully compensated) materials and resources would become imbalanced... and nobody would perform harder tasks if there was no greater compensation. A system that ranks, and rates, the value of work and performance needs to be established... an that is what an economy is.

KCG was right, you (and others) are just arguing semantics and context. I'm arguing ideas and premises. This is probably why you think I'm being contradictive when I'm really not. It also isn't an insult or anything... it's just an observation. It's not wrong, just different.

"Okay, first example I gave was your comment that IQ test are exams that test regurgitation of knowledge. No, that's not what they test. Go look it up."

Some do. Some test other things. There are many different IQ tests. Unless you are talking about a specific standardized IQ test... but then you're just arguing semantics again.

"And here's you're latest contradiction, with regard to reinvesting in the unproductive side of soceity you say:

"Yes, I think this is a good idea. But, like you said, we must be careful on how it is implemented. "

You're right, it makes sense and it's pragmatic, but you've spent the last two days arguing against this and called it "Immoral" when you said"

Nope. I was arguing against FORCED welfare... and just taking money from wealthier people and re-distributing it amongst the less wealthy for no reason. @sam_stickland brought up the "idea" of welfare, and asked if it made sense and was a good idea. Which it is... but the implementation of it is wrong. It only seems like a contradiction if you're solely looking at the semantics and not the principles or ideas behind them.

And just because you can't look something up... or because "scolars" don't agree, doesn't make it wrong. If scholars actually knew all the answers for certain, we wouldn't be facing problems with the world right now. That's why I don't quote people during debates. Quotes are great for entertainment and such... but too many people take them literally and verbatim.

@bwhitz I think too often what gets implemented is what will sound good in a media sound bite or what people feel is right in their gut. Instead, I think we should set out what we hope to achieve, then try different approaches and actually measure their success.

Ben Goldacre writes a lot on the need to do randomised trials on policy.

http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/

"They sit down to write a giant list of unanswered questions, for situations where we don’t know if an intervention works: this will be most of them. Then we filter down to questions where a randomised trial can feasibly be run. Then we do them.

This won’t cost money: it will save money, in unprecedented amounts, by permitting disinvestment in failed interventions, and it will transform the country. It’s efficient, it’s sensible, and it will never happen, because politicians are too ignorant of these simple ideas, too arrogant to have their ideologies questioned, and too scared – let’s be generous – of hard data on their good intentions."

Personally, I think that a society can be made more productive by having a level of welfare (healthcare and an unemployment 'safety net'). But you shouldn't have to take my word for it. And we shouldn't have to accept whatever - potentially badly thought out - distribution mechanism our government bureaucracies produce as the only way of doing it.

We won't figure out what works and what doesn't by discussion or haphazardly changing policy every 5 to 10 years ;) If our politicians (and us!) were prepared to implement randomised trials on different policy ideas then we could actually collect some real data and start being able to answer these questions.

We are a community of testers after all! :)

H. L. Mencken "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

@brianluce
@bwhitz

Guys, give yourself a break.
Both of you have personal opinions and views.
They are just diffrent.

@bwhitz Interestingly the British welfare state was originally supposed to make people more productive, by tackling what the Beveridge report called the five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease.

Whether it actually achieves that today is hugely debatable, but it proposes an interesting point. You said "If you take from the productive end of society and give it to the non-productive end... be it physically or intellectually, then you will run into problems and effectively stop the evolution of society if it goes unchecked."

Now what if we make an investment - using resources from a "productive end of society" - into the a "non-productive end" and use it to tackle the causes of non-productivity. Perhaps these causes are squalor, ignorance, idleness and disease? This isn't suggesting that we give free handouts to people, only that this investment is targeted at the reasons why this part of society isn't productive.

Do you believe it's possible to do such a thing? Do you believe it's helpful (to society) to do such a thing? Is this idea fundamentally flawed? Or only flawed in the way it's currently implemented?

@brianluce

You can try to read older stuff and reall more blog posts.

@brianluce
@KCG

Guys, calm down.
I many times told what loans (and resulting bubbles) are not the problem, they are solution for much mroe serious problem. Worked fuckingly well. But it is temporary solution.

@brianluce, @cbrandin
Do you really expect answers to questions when all you seem to do is quibble over semantics and call names like a child when responded to, I think its pretty obvious why you weren't answered?
I do agree with you about the deregulation that caused the housing bubble, there was also regulation put in place that forced and in some cases allowed mortgage companies to give mortgages to give people who could not afford it in the first place, under the guise of fairness, and grand liberal utopian fantasy. Eventually reality would rear its ugly head.