Obama, the anti-war government nig- the uh...

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I am wanting is something similar to (but not this exact statement):

"The Gold Standard caused a giant income gap from 1850 to 1920 and it supported by X information and X laws that were passed a bit after 1850."

I didn't say that. My point would be closer to "The gold standard doesn't protect against massive wealth inequality", unfortunately, I thought the gold standard went back closer to the time of the industrial revolution, where wealth inequality would have been even more exceptional.

Mairuzu's point about the massive influx of immigrants increasing the gap, in America, back then is probably relevant to the period you are talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I could not find anything on the Ginni index that went back before 1970 and I did not bother looking at Wikipedia. Even then, Wikipedia does not go back before 1950.

the measure didn't exist before the 60s and records on these sorts of demographic or statistical things didn't start to be collected on a massive scale until, idk, ww2?

the specific stuff you are looking for doesn't exist outside of projections. You would probably have to contact people directly to access the type of stuff you are looking for, unless someone has specifically done the projections about the specific thing you are looking for.

I'll do the triple post because I missed replying to something similar to this with Mairuzu earlier and it has sort of come up again.

[ugh, I was going to write this whole long parable thing, but I can't be bothered, so the shortened version:]

Paul's views, and sort of extreme libertarianism in general, are like, being on a boat and seeing someone drowning, and determining that you can't save them, not because it is too risky, not because you can't for any reason, but because you shouldn't, it is just not your job to help this person, especially if they are drowning because of mistake they made.

/spam

yeah republicans can back this douche but Herman cain, the man who did nothing..,well we can't back him becausee makes sense and hey, the people seem to actually care about what he's sayin. lol global leaders runnin this country not the declaration of independence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD, the whole reason we have government regulation today is because "voting with dollars" utterly failed to protect the public interest during the "golden age" that Ron Paul seeks to emulate.

As Jon Stewart astutely pointed out in his interview with Rand Paul: government regulation didn't form in a vacuum, there was a valid social context to why this came about.

Inimalist pretty much replied with what I was going to.

I want to move away from direct regulation and put laws in place for how the commercial regulators should operate. And entire industry dedicated to various areas of regulation already exists an in a robust form. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act could equally apply to regulators. Criminal prosecution could occur if there is corruption in their regulation. Basically, regulate the regulators but don't regulate.

I cannot take credit for that idea: that came from Penn Jillete.

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't say that.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. My intentions are not to back you into a fact corner and say, "AHA! Gotcha, b*tch!"

I tried to make that as obvious as possible with me, "I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says".

My point is to get some information on a gold standard to see why it is not all it is cracked up to be. My macroecon professor gave a huge-ass lecture/presentation on why a gold backed standard is not a good idea in this modern world and he gave a shit ton of reasons. I don't remember most of them, lol. But, I was wanting to get to the meat of why Ron Paul's "heyday" golden age isn't really...all that golden.

Originally posted by inimalist
My point would be closer to "The gold standard doesn't protect against massive wealth inequality", unfortunately, I thought the gold standard went back closer to the time of the industrial revolution, where wealth inequality would have been even more exceptional.

Well...the gold standard was used as far back as the 1790s when they passed the Mint and Coinage act. We should be able to see some data on exactly what you're looking for but the data itself does not go back very far so we can only have informed speculation. I don't think we incorporated income into our censuses until the last century. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
Mairuzu's point about the massive influx of immigrants increasing the gap, in America, back then is probably relevant to the period you are talking about.

Oh shit, you're right. I should have thought of that considering my great grandparents, on my father's side, where those immigrants. 😬

Originally posted by inimalist
the measure didn't exist before the 60s and records on these sorts of demographic or statistical things didn't start to be collected on a massive scale until, idk, ww2?

Oh no, I know that. I was talking about the Ginni index, specifically, not extending before 1970 on all the places I looked.

The Ginni Index started being used in the early 50s, iirc.

Before the GI, there is still things like the census information we can pull from. But I do not think income data was collected before ......1920? 1930? Well, possibly that census information was not collected until after the Great Depression. I am speculating, of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
the specific stuff you are looking for doesn't exist outside of projections. You would probably have to contact people directly to access the type of stuff you are looking for, unless someone has specifically done the projections about the specific thing you are looking for.

Possibly. But some comparisons exist in text books and are common knowledge to economists and political pundits. The latter makes it their business to know stuff like that for talking points.

I am quite sure an analysis of income has been done and projected well passed 1920 (going in reverse). Someone has to have done it...

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll do the triple post because I missed replying to something similar to this with Mairuzu earlier and it has sort of come up again.

[ugh, I was going to write this whole long parable thing, but I can't be bothered, so the shortened version:]

Paul's views, and sort of extreme libertarianism in general, are like, being on a boat and seeing someone drowning, and determining that you can't save them, not because it is too risky, not because you can't for any reason, but because you shouldn't, it is just not your job to help this person, especially if they are drowning because of mistake they made.

/spam

Actually, your example is quite good. Except that the person WOULD help the other person. It is the government that would not help the person. Basically, Paul would say, "That person in the boat shouldn't call the FBI to help a drowning person. That's how the system is run now. The person should get up and help them of their own accord IF they want to. There should be no legal obligation to do so."

Your example is definitely Randian but it is not in line with Ron Paul's "let the person, don't have the government force choices" approach to policy.

If we were to extend the metaphor inimalist used it wouldn't be the FBI they cannot call to help, it would be the crew of the boat that is forbidden from saving anyone on their ship. History also tells us that in practice the person would be left to drown and that only Libertarians are really okay with that (Conservatives are at least upset).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If we were to extend the metaphor inimalist used it wouldn't be the FBI they cannot call to help, it would be the crew of the boat that is forbidden from saving anyone on their ship. History also tells us that in practice the person would be left to drown and that only Libertarians are really okay with that (Conservatives are at least upset).

It's like...you don't have the slightest clue what a "libertarian" actually is.

"Taking the scores on these cognitive and emotional measures into account, Haidt and his colleagues note, 'Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.'"

"I find Haidt’s account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality. It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

How does this translate into inimalists though experiment? Easy: the libertarian will calmly and logically asses the situation and see if it is safe to save the drowning person. The liberal will jump in, head first, without thinking. The conservative will do the same a the liberal...if the person drowning is not gay.

What I found interesting about that article was how it talked about how liberals respond much more emotionally, than rationally, to moral situations and the like. This fits well with the irrational knee-jerking we have seen with the Zimmerman and Martin situation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's like...you don't have the slightest clue what a "libertarian" actually is.

"Taking the scores on these cognitive and emotional measures into account, Haidt and his colleagues note, 'Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.'"

"I find Haidt’s account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality. It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

How does this translate into inimalists though experiment? Easy: the libertarian will calmly and logically asses the situation and see if it is safe to save the drowning person. The liberal will jump in, head first, without thinking. The conservative will do the same a the liberal...if the person drowning is not gay.

Liberal: People drowning is bad, thus I'll advocate that boats like this should have rails to limit the number of people who fall over and the crew should make sure at least one of them knows how to save a drowning person in case someone falls over nonetheless.

Conservative: People drowning is bad, thus I'll personally save him and try to get my buddies to join in.

Libertarian: Saving people who are going to drown will only encourage others to drown themselves, thus I'll write a self-satisfied blog post about how its such a terrible, unjustifiable crime that the captain delayed the trip by five minutes to save that person.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When did Haidt make that study? That doesn't sound at all like Paulites.

Libertarians are devoted anti-empiricists. The whole point of Austrian economics is that facts are another form of communism. For them the fact that predictions don't match reality means that reality is wrong about itself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, your example is quite good. Except that the person WOULD help the other person. It is the government that would not help the person. Basically, Paul would say, "That person in the boat shouldn't call the FBI to help a drowning person. That's how the system is run now. The person should get up and help them of their own accord IF they want to. There should be no legal obligation to do so."

Your example is definitely Randian but it is not in line with Ron Paul's "let the person, don't have the government force choices" approach to policy.

this is why I wanted to do a longer parable...

its not as literal as you make it. the people on the boat are meant to represent the collective will of the people, not individuals. The point is that, we as a society are saying, we shouldn't do anything to help you, though you might get lucky and convince someone to, but hey, its probably your own fault anyways.

its meant to be a metaphor, not a thought experiment. A large degree of what I object to with libertarian philosohpy is the idea that they oppose things that demonstrably raise standard of living based on the fact they don't think that is what the role of the state is. Sure, its nice to have principles, but the idea that it is better to sacrifice a certain portion of the population to the whims of the market or other individuals when we could easily do something about it doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's like...you don't have the slightest clue what a "libertarian" actually is.

"Taking the scores on these cognitive and emotional measures into account, Haidt and his colleagues note, 'Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.'"

"I find Haidt’s account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality. It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

How does this translate into inimalists though experiment? Easy: the libertarian will calmly and logically asses the situation and see if it is safe to save the drowning person. The liberal will jump in, head first, without thinking. The conservative will do the same a the liberal...if the person drowning is not gay.

What I found interesting about that article was how it talked about how liberals respond much more emotionally, than rationally, to moral situations and the like. This fits well with the irrational knee-jerking we have seen with the Zimmerman and Martin situation.

ya... again, not meant to be a literal scenario, but a metaphor for how society as a whole, as represented by the policies of the state, is willing to let people die because it feels they shouldn't help.

Universal health coverage, for instance, is a shouldn't help situation, as it is something that is both possible and beneficial, yet opposed by libertarians on the ground that it is something government shouldn't do.

also, going to the actual article's abstract:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1665934

Libertarians are an increasingly vocal ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they are understudied compared to liberals and conservatives. Much of what is known about libertarians is based on the writing of libertarian intellectuals and political leaders, rather than surveying libertarians in the general population. Across three studies, 15 measures, and a large web-based sample (N = 152,239), we sought to understand the morality of selfdescribed libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. We found that, compared to liberals and conservatives, libertarians show 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles, 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style, and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of psychological predispositions in the organization of political attitudes.

This would suggest libertarians would be the least likely to jump in, were the situation literal.

(an N over 150 000?)

Originally posted by inimalist
This would suggest libertarians would be the least likely to jump in, were the situation literal.

(an N over 150 000?)

Not at all. That's non sequitur to jumping in and saving someone. Just because they do not wish to rely on others for help and vice versa, does not mean they are less likely to jump in and save a drowning person. On the contrary, they would probably arrive at their decision to save the person faster than the other two.

Why? Because the ol' train morality question was posed to libertarians and they were quicker to answer and had less problems making the decision: save 5 by killing one.

Yes, a lot of it was web-based feedback. Good stuff. The interwebz are useful for more than porn and arguing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Libertarians are devoted anti-empiricists. The whole point of Austrian economics is that facts are another form of communism. For them the fact that predictions don't match reality means that reality is wrong about itself.

From that study, it would appear that you are wrong about that, as well: they seem to be the strongest empiricists of all three groups: thinking rationally, pragmatically, and fact based rather than emotionally.

No wonder you loathe libertarians so much: you have no clue what they really are about and the things you thought they were about, they weren't about at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not at all. That's non sequitur to jumping in and saving someone. Just because they do not wish to rely on others for help and vice versa, does not mean they are less likely to jump in and save a drowning person. On the contrary, they would probably arrive at their decision to save the person faster than the other two.

Why? Because the ol' train morality question was posed to libertarians and they were quicker to answer and had less problems making the decision: save 5 by killing one.

Yes, a lot of it was web-based feedback. Good stuff. The interwebz are useful for more than porn and arguing.

I know, it was more tongue in cheek than anything

also, you might not be able to say anything about the speed, as the gravity of such a situation blah blah blah, experimental validity and real world generalization, yadda yadda.

The web based thing doesn't strike me as an issue, with an N of 150000, even a large spread of scores will produce minuscule standard deviations, making it much more likely that they would find differences between the groups that may not exist outside of such statistical measures (idk, I'd have to actually find the article and see what the distributions were like, and I don't care about it all that much)

Originally posted by dadudemon
From that study, it would appear that you are wrong about that, as well: they seem to be the strongest empiricists of all three groups: thinking rationally, pragmatically, and fact based rather than emotionally.

I just want to point out, thinking "non-emotionally" is not the same as thinking effectively or being a better decision maker.

Quite the opposite in fact, people with damage to the emotional areas of the brain make very poor decisions. Logic and emotion aren't opposites.

Originally posted by inimalist
I just want to point out, thinking "non-emotionally" is not the same as thinking effectively or being a better decision maker.

I do not believe I said the opposite nor did I imply it.

"Thinking effectively" is an extremely subjective statement, by the way. It is almost completely meaningless. But, generally, a non-emotional response to a decision is also not the same thing as making pragmatic and logical decisions.

Originally posted by inimalist
Quite the opposite in fact, people with damage to the emotional areas of the brain make very poor decisions. Logic and emotion aren't opposites.

They were not void of emotions, on average. Quite the opposite. They just didn't score as high as the other two groups in the "emotional decisions making" process.

Additionally, emotional decision making can be quite bad in the same way that someone may lack logic or fact based decisions. In other words, it is a two-way street.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, you might not be able to say anything about the speed, as the gravity of such a situation blah blah blah, experimental validity and real world generalization, yadda yadda.

Oh, I know. Just the same as seeing a gun in a room may not make people more violent, despite the study showing they had more violent thoughts with the gun present. It is a bit of a jump in both cases to assume the study results begat seemingly consequential actions to those thoughts and decisions.

Originally posted by inimalist
The web based thing doesn't strike me as an issue, with an N of 150000, even a large spread of scores will produce minuscule standard deviations, making it much more likely that they would find differences between the groups that may not exist outside of such statistical measures (idk, I'd have to actually find the article and see what the distributions were like, and I don't care about it all that much)

Well, as I have pointed out to SC on multiple occasions, Libertarians are an extremely diverse group. So there would be several flavors of libertarians that would be obvious deviations. That might get lost in the label "libertarianism" at some point and skew the results. I am quite certain that there are libetarians whose emotions rule just about every decision they make: they are not logical, nor are they pragmatic. They could be easily lumped in with the most extreme liberals. These "voices" get lost in that sea. Those voices may also skew the results and libertarians may also be more cold and calculating than it seems.

It cannot be known unless we knew all the data and could talk to all 150,000 individuals. Well, maybe not all of them...just a random sample (learned that this semester in stats....lol).

Had a few giggles so far about the drowning person example haermm