Avarice567

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHntki_HkRw] I notice in this video, about 20 minutes in or so, Stefan and Lawrence say that WW2 didn't end the Depression, but then what did?

OMG, I can't wait for your video on Scandinavia. Out of all the argument out there, that one deserves to be debunked the most. Question though - Are you going to debunk every aspect of Scandinavia that others applaud, or just the economics of that area?

I see you've taken my criticism to heart, Stefan. Thank you so much for the change in format!

Wow, this is all very interesting. It begs a more in depth analysis.Culd you be more precise in what you think the problem is? What about things like poverty, ability to excel economically, freedom?

I guess the proper question is why are scandinvian countries bad models to replicate? Any good articles that shed light on this?

I guess there isn't any evidence against UHC?

Am I wrong in believing that life expectancy and infant mortality are irrelevant to a discussion of healthcare?

In a debate. Life expectancy and infant mortality rate is an extremely popular argument in favor of UHC.

Also, I keep hearing bring up life expectancy and infant mortality rate. I just tell them that neither of those things are related to healthcare, rather lifestyle choices. Can anyone go any more in depth than I?

I'm not interested in moral arguments. I need links to studies and the like. Also, what's the story behind Great Britain having the best surgeons in the world? Is it true?

Thanks guys. This is a good stuff.

I would just like to hear arguments against Krugman's views, consolidated in one thread. Thank you.

Thank you for hijacking my thread . . . .

How do free markets lead to feudalism? And if so, how can the free market correct this? Here's an interesting article from Dan Sullivan: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

So you don't think capitalism's unrestrained emphasis on work (as opposed to freedom) is going to produce violence in people? Just inquiring. Why would it produce violence and not innovation?

There are plenty of objective essay-like writings available from others. For example, the writings of Murray Rothbard make many of the same points that Stefan makes, in a careful reasoned way without the toilet jokes. Stef has his own strengths though. I think he's astonishingly good at looking beyond the small details and seeing the big picture. And he can convey that picture very clearly to those who have the right background to understand it. I recall a video which discussed how the freedom movement needed to become more effective, and that it could do so by adopting some of the tactics used by religious movements. Sorry, I can't find the video (I'm not even sure if it was by Stef, or whether it was one of his interviews, or whether it was by someone else). Anyway, one of those tactics was to maintain motivation amongst the faithful by providing a place for them to gather together regularly, to hear a sermon that will keep them motivated. And Stefan certainly does that. Ya, that's like what i said. Stefan is preaching to the the choir. However, I do acknowledge that a reason for this is like Nathan said: our opponents will come up with any excuse to ideologically shield themselves. I'm just really frustrated.

"I've found that whenever you show or share a video to someone, this could be a video by Richard Dawkins to a theist, or a video by Stef to a statist, or a video by any particular expert in any particular area to someone who is at best very skeptical and at worst, very resistent to changing their mind about things, they will always latch on to one particular mistake or percieved error that has very little if any bearing on the overall point being made. People will find any one single thing to say "oh this guy is wrong about this so he's got no credibility at all therefore I can continue believing this bullshit" which is often times ironic." I've considered this as well.

"NASA started out private? That's not my argument. My argument was that NASA recruited many of its original engineers from non-bureaucratic sources, and had about a generation of fair successes before the statist rot set in." My apologies. Still, I'd like to know where you got this information, or was it something you inferred because it was NASA's beginning, ergo they would have had to recruit from private sources?

My opponent mentioned how Finland was #1 in education. I retorted with the fact that Finland only comes out #1 on the PISA test, and that they've abstained from the TIMSS test.

In my opinion, for our sake. I don't mean this to offend. I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's pretty hard to convince anybody of anything from just referring them to his videos. The primary reason for this I believe is because Stefan often times comes off like a politician, or a biased activist(which is what he is, really). His rhetotical style bounces from educational to outright biased sounding. His videos only sound pleasing to those who already agree with him. Compunding this is the fact that it's often hard to trace and substantiate his arguments. I was watching his Bankers, Busts, and hitory video. Great video. Two problems though. First: broken link. Second: Unsubstantiated arguments that seemingly require esoteric knowledge, for example, where does it say that NASA started out private? I used this in an argument, and totally got creamed. I guess what I'm asking for is a more objective presentation, and more inbuilt cititations, like an essay. However, perhaps the problem is me. Perhaps I shouldn't be using Stefan's material for educational purposes. rather I should be doing my own research.

I looked up second best and market failures in wikipedia. Turns out there's actually theory around these two concepts.

Oh, and externalities. He also mentioned externalities.

I ask because I got into a debate with a pretty knowledgeable Fin. His arguments against the free-market were lack of perfect information, second best, and 'market failure'. To his credit, that's more than most liberals are capable of coming up with.

Less so Norway, because it has oil. Still though, all these countries should be failing. How do they have better education than us too? I want in-depth, statististcal stuff.

Specifically?