The first is a kind of economic engineering with trade-offs and conditions and acknowledged edge-cases, the second is a brand supported by some rather culty dogma.
Which is why Italy and France have such strong economies, right? What’s really standing in the way of economic growth is that the government isn’t paying for people to get free degrees in left wing studies.
remember not to conflate a strong economy with an economy that is worth living in. you can possess minimum paid jobs in order to make profits for shareholders and never see a dime of that wealth yourself, but alas, you live in a strong economy.
Do they? PPP they all have lower disposable income than the US and they are not even at the top in Europe (including social transfers). Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands are above Norway and Sweden is even lower than France.
It’s not true Scandinavian countries have more spending power. The OECD keeps very detailed economic data. The US has the highest PPP disposable income in the OECD: https://www.statista.com/statistics/725764/oecd-household-di.... It’s about 67% higher than Sweden and Denmark.
Now you might say, but Swedes and Danes live longer and are happier. That’s true! But as far as I can tell, Americans would rather live shorter lives and have more TVs and trinkets. My parents came back from traveling in Australia. My mom was ranting for weeks about how small and close together the houses are and nobody can get really rich. We are immigrants from a third world country. All of my family members that have come here think that “making it” means living in a McMansion and driving an SUV. I don’t know if it’s something in the water, or the people who come here are just that way, or maybe a bit of both. But it’s worth contemplating that Americans are making rational choices based on their particular utility functions.
Then you pulled in "libertarian" out of nowhere. Which is an obvious set up for another strawman, so lets lean into it. Whats a "libertarian"?
You can be wrong without being a strawman. When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan.
Sometimes yes, but not always.
> but if every example you have of X is Y
Is that actually true though? Are you not assuming perfect rationality on behalf of the poster, and that they have an adequate sample size, which tends to be subject to who the individual associates with.
> it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y"
That depends on the truth of the matter.
>when you're wrong, it's a black swan.
Only if the initial guess was correct.
You may be describing appearances. That which cannot be seen does in fact exist, it just doesn't seem like it because it exists in a different realm, and how our culture is trained to think about such problems spaces.
No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
> When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan.
Either way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, I hope you don't go around proclaiming you're the arbiter of all that's right in the world.
The very thing you quoted demonstrates that mine allows for people to make errors without condemning them as deliberately weak setups.
> I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth
If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully.
Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy:
> No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
No.
> If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully.
Lets see, you deliberately trolling and being bad faith is somehow my issue. Interesting.
> Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy:
No. You lack the fundamentals.