I'd like to start this post with a quote. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams
Fallacies are simply the widely held beliefs of the people and tend to fail when put to the test, including some that collapse like a house of cards and others where the truth turns out to be the direct opposite of what has been so often asserted. Many economic policies involve the fallacy of composition, as politicians come to the aid of some particular group, industry, state or other special interest, representing the benefits to them as if they were net benefits to society, rather than essentially robbing "Peter to pay Paul". Many local governments, for example, follow policies designed to attract either new businesses or higher-income people, both of which are expected to provide more local tax revenues. Whole neighborhoods have been demolished and "redeveloped" with upscale housing and shopping malls as a means of "revitalizing" the community. Since policies imposed by government are not voluntary transactions, like those of the marketplace, zero-sum and negative-sum operations can continue indefinitely. Here is another example: One of the ****ing claims against the insecticide DDT, during the successful campaign to get it banned in many parts of the world, was that it caused cancer. In places where DDT had been widely used, cancer rates had in fact gone up. Many of these were countries subject to devastating ravages of malaria, which killed off vast numbers of people. In the wake of using DDT, which killed mosquitoes that transmitted malaria, that disease was drastically reduced, almost to the vanishing point in some places. Now millions of people, who would have otherwise died young, lived long enough to get cancer in their later years, but the DDT did not cause the cancer, and its banning led to a resurgence of malaria that took millions of lives around the world.
Now this is just a basic summary of what I personally think about the fallacies of the United States and/or the world. What do you guys think about it?
I'd say one of the biggest myths in economics is that GDP is a good indicator of the wealth of a country. America for example is held in high regard as a healthy economy because it has a high GDP. But when you take into account the proportion of the GDP which is created by things which don't actually do anything for people's standard of living, like military expenditure, and short term borrowing, it falls very far down the world rankings.
I don't know why everyone here is obsessed with fallacies.
Welcome to WEPR.
If they are fallacies, then wouldn't that mean that arguments that are fallacies, crumble when put to the test?
Yes, what is your point. A poor argument is a poor argument.
If I say that if Socialism works in Sweden and it'll work in the US, that may be a fallacy but it still stands strong.
It's a fallacy not because your proposition - that socialism would work in the US because it works in Sweden, is fundamentally unsound, but the logical leap you are making without thinking of contextual differences between the two countries. An argument has to contain not just a solid premise but solid reasoning behind that premise.
Capitalism where you can invest your money in goods. Socialism doesn't restrict that.
This is A condition for capitalism. But this is not the only one. In capitalistic free market, you don't have any government spending and government is not involved in trade (except for military and police spending). This is in contrast with socialism.
This is A condition for capitalism. But this is not the only one. In capitalistic free market, you don't have any government spending and government is not involved in trade (except for military and police spending). This is in contrast with socialism.
That's Libertarianism.
Capitalism basically means that the government does not control production. Basically, not much regulation.
Socialism basically means that the government regulates production. Basically, heavy regulation.
Communism is where the government controls production.
@Kevin, In your above post, I think you have yourself made the distinction between Capitalism and Socialism.
If X is a component of Capitalism and not a component of Socialism or if Y is a component of Socialism and not a component of Capitalism, then Capitalism =/= Socialism. The two are not equivalent. So the statement, Capitalism is Socialism is false, because they are not equivalent.
If X is a component of Capitalism and not a component of Socialism or if Y is a component of Socialism and not a component of Capitalism, then Capitalism =/= Socialism. The two are not equivalent. So the statement, Capitalism is Socialism is false, because they are not equivalent.
Socialism is Capitalism in the sense that both control the production, just one more than the other. You can have Socialism with very little control over the production, as long as it is regulated.
Socialism is Capitalism in the sense that both control the production, just one more than the other. You can have Socialism with very little control over the production, as long as it is regulated.
Geniuses are idiots in the sense that they are both people, just one is more smart than the other.
