The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

Personally I don't really see evolution as an objectively beneficial process, except insofar as when evolution comes to about to counteract a limitation. And if that limitation is corruption, then you're basically saying that we need corruption so we have an incentive to counteract corruption.

Oh, I don't see evolution as an objectively teleological process either.

And you're right that my argument is tautological, but I don't see that as a problem. Information and communications theory have produced pretty compelling arguments that corruption (or noise) is instrumental in allowing complex systems to reorganize themselves - to evolve, in other words.

I also think that your reasoning would suggest that societies with high rates of corruption would in general be more complex or more highly developed than those with low rates of corruption, when in general the opposite seems to hold true.

Just to reiterate, I'm differentiating local, or concrete, corruption (i.e. a politician using campaign funds for private purposes) from abstract corruption, which isn't verifiable but rather vaguely discernible by taking into account a network of competing and shifting factors.

From my perspective, a country like the United States seems highly complex and also highly corrupt; but it also has to operate/evolve at an enormous pace in order to handle this corruption (which doesn't always mean combating corruption). The manipulation of the market that led to the 2008 crisis can't really be reduced to the doings of a few canny brokers; it stems from structural details that were already there to begin with. After 2008, our financial markets have evolved to combat this kind of exploitation, but I'm sure the only more episodes such as this will arise in the future.

That isn't something that we can forestall; but hopefully it is something that won't be so tremendous that it prevents the system from reorganizing and continuing.

I suppose I might be able to buy the argument that accepting a certain degree of corruption is a necessary stage a society needs to pass through in order to to put in place countermeasures against its future development. But it also seems obvious then that casting your votes for the least corrupt candidate (and most vehemently anti-corruption candidate) would be the best way to bring about a progression from that stage onto the next.

I agree, and I'm not saying you should vote for the most corrupt candidate. My original appeal to complexity and corruption had to do with Sanders's vague accusations that the "system is corrupt." Well, sure - this tells me nothing. If we're talking about corrupt candidates, Hillary may very well be corrupt in certain regards, but I think she's better equipped than Donald to handle the kind of complex scenarios that may very likely emerge in the future.

I don't think corruption is something that any advanced society can evaporate entirely. Given that every system (as far as we know) must make an arbitrary distinction in order to separate itself from its environment, every system is logically prone to manifestations of corruption. The potentiality for corruption situates it as a virtual component of any given system (i.e. it's always there, even if no social actor is exploiting it).

 

[Dak]

I don't think I explicitly state enough that I'm not against principles of care. I just don't think government is a good vehicle for providing care. Institutions that are tasked with a limited amount of related missions will outperform those overburdened with many disparate missions. This is one of the arguments against having the military perform humanitarian missions or police functions. It degrades the fighting effectiveness of the force in exchange for aggressive policing and uncaring transfers of stuff. An answer of "everything" to the question "what do we want from government?" is misguided, even were economics and history not arrayed against it.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Oh, I don't see evolution as an objectively teleological process either.

And you're right that my argument is tautological, but I don't see that as a problem. Information and communications theory have produced pretty compelling arguments that corruption (or noise) is instrumental in allowing complex systems to reorganize themselves - to evolve, in other words.

The problem with the tautology of the argument is that if evolution isn't necessary or desirable then corruption is also neither necessary nor desirable, even if we accept that corruption does play a role in stimulating re-organisation.

Just to reiterate, I'm differentiating local, or concrete, corruption (i.e. a politician using campaign funds for private purposes) from abstract corruption, which isn't verifiable but rather vaguely discernible by taking into account a network of competing and shifting factors.

From my perspective, a country like the United States seems highly complex and also highly corrupt; but it also has to operate/evolve at an enormous pace in order to handle this corruption (which doesn't always mean combating corruption). The manipulation of the market that led to the 2008 crisis can't really be reduced to the doings of a few canny brokers; it stems from structural details that were already there to begin with. After 2008, our financial markets have evolved to combat this kind of exploitation, but I'm sure the only more episodes such as this will arise in the future.

That isn't something that we can forestall; but hopefully it is something that won't be so tremendous that it prevents the system from reorganizing and continuing.

I suppose I can agree with the idea that the forms of corruption extant in more developed countries are more sophisticated and therefore more difficult to prove as illegitimate. I disagree with the idea that sophisticated forms of corruption can't be inhibited or forestalled, however, by policies designed to increase government and corporate transparency, thereby making it easier for commentators and prosecutors to prove the illegality of individual instances of corrupt conduct.

I agree, and I'm not saying you should vote for the most corrupt candidate. My original appeal to complexity and corruption had to do with Sanders's vague accusations that the "system is corrupt." Well, sure - this tells me nothing.

Okay, would it have told you more if Sanders had said "the system is too corrupt"? In practice it comes to the same thing.

I don't think corruption is something that any advanced society can evaporate entirely. Given that every system (as far as we know) must make an arbitrary distinction in order to separate itself from its environment, every system is logically prone to manifestations of corruption. The potentiality for corruption situates it as a virtual component of any given system (i.e. it's always there, even if no social actor is exploiting it).

The same could be said of crime, but nevertheless we expect the police to counteract it. The fact that it can't be eradicated completely, and that even doing so would be no guarantee of continuing to be able to do so, isn't some kind of scathing argument to undermine the whole system of law and order.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I don't think I explicitly state enough that I'm not against principles of care. I just don't think government is a good vehicle for providing care. Institutions that are tasked with a limited amount of related missions will outperform those overburdened with many disparate missions. This is one of the arguments against having the military perform humanitarian missions or police functions. It degrades the fighting effectiveness of the force in exchange for aggressive policing and uncaring transfers of stuff. An answer of "everything" to the question "what do we want from government?" is misguided, even were economics and history not arrayed against it.

I agree with the final sentence - having the government run everything would be just as misguided as having the private sector run everything.

As to the government being a poorer provider of care than the private sector though, one need only compare the outcomes and efficiency of European state provided healthcare systems to the US model to find that this is far from the truth. You pay more and you die more.

 

[Dak]

As to the government being a poorer provider of care than the private sector though, one need only compare the outcomes and efficiency of European state provided healthcare systems to the US model to find that this is far from the truth. You pay more and you die more.

The US model isn't "state provided" in the same sense, but it is one of the most subsidized/regulated sectors in the country. Comparing deaths doesn't help much without controls for demographics, lifestyles, etc. The US leads the way in cancer care but has an "epidemic" of heart disease and diabetes - diseases which major US minority groups (blacks and hispanics) are at higher risk for - minority groups which are underrepresented in comparison in European countries.

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem with the tautology of the argument is that if evolution isn't necessary or desirable then corruption is also neither necessary nor desirable, even if we accept that corruption does play a role in stimulating re-organisation.

I'm not sure I follow here.

Evolution isn't necessarily in any metaphysical sense, as far as I'm concerned... but it is a compelling argument for the differentiation of species. It isn't necessary or metaphysically determined, it simply is. This being the case, there also simply is corruption. It's a functional component of systems. Take mutation in the genome, for instance. Mutations happen, and they either persist (thereby providing a blueprint for new biological traits) or they disappear. There's nothing inherently better or worse about them, but they still happen. And they can have monumental impacts on the evolutionary history of species. They're a functional component, that's all.

I suppose I can agree with the idea that the forms of corruption extant in more developed countries are more sophisticated and therefore more difficult to prove as illegitimate. I disagree with the idea that sophisticated forms of corruption can't be inhibited or forestalled, however, by policies designed to increase government and corporate transparency, thereby making it easier for commentators and prosecutors to prove the illegality of individual instances of corrupt conduct.

Some probably can be forestalled, but we'll never be able to forestall every possible manifestation of corruption.

Okay, would it have told you more if Sanders had said "the system is too corrupt"? In practice it comes to the same thing.

Haha, probably not. His emphasis on "the system" is what bugs me. His entire platform was premised on a promise (I like how that sounds) that he was never going to be able to fulfill.

Now Clinton has picked up some of Sanders's economic policies, which bugs me a little. But it's all part of the neoliberal-individualist fantasy, and democrats are obsessed with it as much as republicans.

The same could be said of crime, but nevertheless we expect the police to counteract it. The fact that it can't be eradicated completely, and that even doing so would be no guarantee of continuing to be able to do so, isn't some kind of scathing argument to undermine the whole system of law and order.

Which I wasn't trying to do; but policing has nothing to do with counteracting any complex sources of criminal behavior. It's a practical means of combating localized episodes.

The complex, abstract sources that indirectly lead to criminal behavior can't be effectively counteracted by local police forces, and it would be silly to suggest that they could. In effect, that's what Sanders was proposing (to my ears). He wanted to police "the system," but really his efforts would probably amount to a slight redistribution and the prosecution of those who exploit systemic oversights. In other words, his proposed fix wasn't really a fix.

This isn't to say that those who commit financial crimes shouldn't be prosecuted - they should. But this doesn't amount to curing the system's potential for corruption, only the episodes of corruption that we know about and the people involved in them.

 

[Internally Deformed]

The US model isn't "state provided" in the same sense, but it is one of the most subsidized/regulated sectors in the country. Comparing deaths doesn't help much without controls for demographics, lifestyles, etc. The US leads the way in cancer care but has an "epidemic" of heart disease and diabetes - diseases which major US minority groups (blacks and hispanics) are at higher risk for - minority groups which are underrepresented in comparison in European countries.

It's true that the US system is state subsidised, and it's also true that the UK system (for instance) incorporates some private care. The difference is that the proportion of private to state care in the US is far more heavily weighted to the former. That it also requires state subsidisation is simply an indication of its gross inefficiency.

When I say you die more, what I mean is that by most measures outcomes for the average patient are inferior in the US to most other western countries, which is even more staggering given how much you pay for your healthcare.

 

[Dak]

It's true that the US system is state subsidised, and it's also true that the UK system (for instance) incorporates some private care. The difference is that the proportion of private to state care in the US is far more heavily weighted to the former. That it also requires state subsidisation is simply an indication of its gross inefficiency.

When I say you die more, what I mean is that by most measures outcomes for the average patient are inferior in the US to most other western countries, which is even more staggering given how much you pay for your healthcare.

Patient outcomes are at least equally dependent on the patient. The United States has a lot of very unhealthy people. Not all cost is a result of subsidization or medical corp greed - a lot of it is because patients refuse to live healthy lifestyles, even after encountering physical consequences.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'm not sure I follow here.

Evolution isn't necessarily in any metaphysical sense, as far as I'm concerned... but it is a compelling argument for the differentiation of species. It isn't necessary or metaphysically determined, it simply is. This being the case, there also simply is corruption. It's a functional component of systems. Take mutation in the genome, for instance. Mutations happen, and they either persist (thereby providing a blueprint for new biological traits) or they disappear. There's nothing inherently better or worse about them, but they still happen. And they can have monumental impacts on the evolutionary history of species. They're a functional component, that's all.

What you're discounting here is that the rate of evolution varies from society to society just as it does from species to species. Not every society is equally corrupt, and there is no reason to accept the current level of corruption as unalterable simply because some corruption is inevitable.

Some probably can be forestalled, but we'll never be able to forestall every possible manifestation of corruption.

Agreed, but I don't see the relevance.

Haha, probably not. His emphasis on "the system" is what bugs me. His entire platform was premised on a promise (I like how that sounds) that he was never going to be able to fulfill.

Now Clinton has picked up some of Sanders's economic policies, which bugs me a little. But it's all part of the neoliberal-individualist fantasy, and democrats are obsessed with it as much as republicans.

I actually think that describing the system as corrupt actually fits in very neatly with your previous point about overt corruption vs covert corruption. Corruption in the US is covert, precisely because the system has been altered to protect those who act corruptly, i.e. the corruption is reflected within the system. The extent to which he would in practice be able to alter that is debatable, but it would be difficult to argue that were the system less corrupt, the country would not be better off.

Corruption manifests itself as powerful people making poorer decisions on our behalf for self-interested reasons.

Which I wasn't trying to do; but policing has nothing to do with counteracting any complex sources of criminal behavior. It's a practical means of combating localized episodes.

The complex, abstract sources that indirectly lead to criminal behavior can't be effectively counteracted by local police forces, and it would be silly to suggest that they could. In effect, that's what Sanders was proposing (to my ears). He wanted to police "the system," but really his efforts would probably amount to a slight redistribution and the prosecution of those who exploit systemic oversights. In other words, his proposed fix wasn't really a fix.

This isn't to say that those who commit financial crimes shouldn't be prosecuted - they should. But this doesn't amount to curing the system's potential for corruption, only the episodes of corruption that we know about and the people involved in them.

Ultimately the "complex, abstract sources" that lead to both corruption and crime are the same; a certain percentage of people will always act in their own best interest and against the interests of others if given the opportunity to do so with impunity. You're right that the police can't change that, and neither could Sanders, but I don't think either propose to. What Sanders was suggesting - as I understood it - was to make the system less compatible with unpunishable or undetectable corrupt practice.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Patient outcomes are at least equally dependent on the patient. The United States has a lot of very unhealthy people. Not all cost is a result of subsidization or medical corp greed - a lot of it is because patients refuse to live healthy lifestyles, even after encountering physical consequences.

What I mean is this: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...national-survey--u-s--leads-in-medical-errors

You're right that poor lifestyle makes this worse, though.

 

[Dak]

What I mean is this: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...national-survey--u-s--leads-in-medical-errors

You're right that poor lifestyle makes this worse, though.

That is a patient perception survey, not comparisons of verified errors, and it doesn't control for differences in the amount of testing done or number of prescriptions. It also compares vary disparate populations - not controlling for any demographics. It specifically only tells us what people feel or remember (or think they remember). This is important within its own context, but only insofar as it spurs more rigorous research.

On the Donald Trump incoherence thing:

http://digg.com/video/donald-trump-linguistics-answer-question

 

[Internally Deformed]

That is a patient perception survey, not comparisons of verified errors, and it doesn't control for differences in the amount of testing done or number of prescriptions. It also compares vary disparate populations - not controlling for any demographics. It specifically only tells us what people feel or remember (or think they remember). This is important within its own context, but only insofar as it spurs more rigorous research.

These are all developed western countries being surveyed, so they should be pretty comparable. As to the demographics, that would only be significant in the case of a too small sample size, or if some of the countries there had a population of significantly higher average age than the others (and my guess would be that Germany and Austria would be likely to have the highest average age out of that group). Perception would only be an issue here if you wanted to argue that the US had a level of dissatisfaction about healthcare disproportionate to the actual situation, which raises its own set of issues. As to the amount of testing done or number of prescriptions, you have a point, although endemic over prescription and over testing are both consequences of a for-profit healthcare system, which is after all what we're discussing.

 

[Einherjar86]

What you're discounting here is that the rate of evolution varies from society to society just as it does from species to species. Not every society is equally corrupt, and there is no reason to accept the current level of corruption as unalterable simply because some corruption is inevitable.

Agreed, but I don't see the relevance.

I actually think that describing the system as corrupt actually fits in very neatly with your previous point about overt corruption vs covert corruption. Corruption in the US is covert, precisely because the system has been altered to protect those who act corruptly, i.e. the corruption is reflected within the system. The extent to which he would in practice be able to alter that is debatable, but it would be difficult to argue that were the system less corrupt, the country would not be better off.

Corruption manifests itself as powerful people making poorer decisions on our behalf for self-interested reasons.

Ultimately the "complex, abstract sources" that lead to both corruption and crime are the same; a certain percentage of people will always act in their own best interest and against the interests of others if given the opportunity to do so with impunity. You're right that the police can't change that, and neither could Sanders, but I don't think either propose to. What Sanders was suggesting - as I understood it - was to make the system less compatible with unpunishable or undetectable corrupt practice.

Moving this to Dakryn's thread as it's getting away from actual news.

 

[Internally Deformed]

On the Donald Trump incoherence thing:

http://digg.com/video/donald-trump-linguistics-answer-question

Really good video. Usually skeptical about linguistics, but that was done very well. The conclusion is particularly important.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm going a few pages back but did some of you actually say W was a weak leader? Weak shouldn't even be associated with the mans name. To date, he is the biggest victim of the left wing media, by far. That's about the same time the virus that is todays/modern progressivism really started gaining power and preading. What a coincidence, right? Those are the same people who loved to push the "BUSH IS UNEDUCATED", BUSH IS DUMB" nonsense. The man graduated from Harvard and is the only president that has a MBA degree. I;ve never seen anyone get eviscerated by the media as hard as that man. That's about the same time i started to realize what was going on with this countries political system ... infected by left wing poison.

And re: the look on his face in the classroom. What in the world was wrong with how he handled it? He was reading a fucking book to a bunch of 3rd grade children when they told him that planes crashed into the World Trade Center and that America is under attack. What kind of look was he supposed to have on his face? Was he supposed to break down and start crying? Or maybe flip a desk or two? I thought he handled it perfectly fine.

Its just sad that the propaganda from out here even blindfolds people on the other side of the world too. Goes to show that they need to be purged from our countries political system.

 

[Dak]

W is probably average intellectually. MBAs aren't crazy difficult and his BA was in History. He was pretty clearly a puppet imo.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So you agree that he wasn't dumb or uneducated, right?

a puppet for who, if you dont mind me asking? I'm guessing you're gonna go with Cheney, right?

 

[Dak]

So you agree that he wasn't dumb or uneducated, right?

a puppet for who, if you dont mind me asking? I'm guessing you're gonna go with Cheney, right?

Well I think the average person is dumb . But not uneducated, by definition.

I think Cheney was pulling some of those strings but he was still acting for broader interests than simply his own - although he very clearly was working for his own as well. A perceptive person can tell Cheney is quite malevolently intelligent just by looking at his eyes. I know that sounds like some mystico-bs but it's true.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think it's safe to credit Cheney and Rumsfeld with at least the Iraq War. Those two had worked closely together for decades, were at the peak of their power during the Bush admin, and both strongly supported the war. Rumsfeld authorized a lot of misleading intelligence "analysis" that facilitated the decision to enter the war. And of course there's Cheney's involvement with Halliburton.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Well I think the average person is dumb . But not uneducated, by definition.

I think Cheney was pulling some of those strings but he was still acting for broader interests than simply his own - although he very clearly was working for his own as well. A perceptive person can tell Cheney is quite malevolently intelligent just by looking at his eyes. I know that sounds like some mystico-bs but it's true.

While i definitely don't agree with W being a puppet president(or even coming close to being one), i pretty much agree with the post above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/magazine/the-final-insult-in-the-bush-cheney-marriage.html?_r=1