Arcus

[Arcus]

Tom Sarbeck wrote:

@arcus asks, ‘Why such militarized language?’ I’ve been there. Try it some day.

And where is “that” exactly? Which dictatorship imprisoned and tortured you?

Admittedly I find expressions like the one in this post juvenile of the “I’m 14, and this is deep” type.

[Arcus]

Tom Sarbeck wrote:

@Arcus-political combat, usually over economic issues, is not a philosophy or political science or history classroom.

“Political combat”.. Now there’s a Clausewitzian inspired expression if I’ve ever seen one. Why such militarized language?

[Arcus]

I think you have, unwittingly perhaps, created a paradox.

Since you start with a dichotomy – that one is either weak or strong – then the weak cooperating will make them strong. And since the strong see brutalizing the weak as their categorical prerogative, they will then proceed to do just that.

That also fits quite well into the history of so called “people’s revolutions”. The oppressed become the oppressors.

[Arcus]

Both Haidt and Fiske are based on Schweder, but Fiske’s Models are easier to use to evaluate real life dilemmas because when the wrong model is used it is clearly a social faux pas.

For instance, if an acquaintance invites you to dinner you are supposed to used the communal sharing (CS) model of ethics – say thank you and compliment the food. If you use the equality matching (EM) model, ie by insisting on doing the dishes, or the market pricing (MP), ie trying to pay, it is easy to see why it went wrong. On the other hand, if you go to a restaurant using a CS or EM model you would obviously be in the wrong.

A lot of misunderstandings (see: Borat) and also political leanings are based on models, especially when one is dedicated to a subject only being applicable to one model and everything else is morally disgraceful. The best example is of course, as always, sex. A conservative/reactionary view is that it belongs to AR: the wife has a duty to her husband and must obey his wishes. The anarchist model would be CS; think free love and hippies. Feminists would argue that it belongs to EM: both parties must consent and enjoy it. The liberal model would also include MP, as in prostitution, though not to the exclusion of EM.

As for personal relationships, it is important to generally use the same type of models. Getting back to the meal above, if your spouse cooks for you under an assumption of EM, but you use an AR model, what do you think would happen..?

 

[Arcus]

The philosophical inquiry into ethics is a bit different than the anthropological/psychological inquiry into ethics. While not comparing, it’s about as related as law and criminology.

[Arcus]

The quiz is based on Haidt’s Moral Foundations: http://moralfoundations.org/

His model is a development on Scweder’s Ethics, which divided moral concerns into:

1. Autonomy: Society is made up of individuals and morality should be about freeing them to make their own choices and be free from harm. Haidt divided this into two, care/harm and fairness/reciprocity.

2. Community: Society is split into institutions such as families, tribes, clans, and nations, and morality is about loyality, respect, duty and so forth. Haidt divided this into loyality, authority and liberty.

3. Divinity: Your body is merely a vessel for the soul, which belongs to a higher being and must be protected from degradation and disgrace as this would be an insult to the higher being. Haidt called this sanctity.

While these models are good, they are a bit convoluted and I prefer Fiske’s Relational Models: http://www.rmt.ucla.edu/

As for my result:

 

 

 

[Arcus]

Well… yes. World view comes from the Germanic concept of Weltanschauung. Part and somewhat parcel to this is the idea of a Life Stance . Indeed, in Germanic countries the term religion is superseded by the term life stance, for instance my middle school class that replaced Christianity was called Life Stance and my confirmation was Life Stance neutral.

Atheism is simply a world view devoid of belief in supernatural influences on our world.

[Arcus]

@Unseen

There are a few cases to consider.

The background of the 1953 debt accords came 8 years after the war, when Germany was under occupation and management by the Allies, including having a constitution and massive social and legal reforms imposed. The country had also been split, lost territory, taken in 10% of its population as refugees, and had portions of its means of production carted off. Furthermore, it had imprisoned or executed many of those responsible for WW2.

The German debts were written down in 1953 by about 50%, from about 60%age points of GDP to 30% (from 32bDM to 16b, with a GDP of 55b). By comparison, Greece public debt stands at over 170% of GDP, and will need to be written down by 50-80%.

Greece was awarded war reparations in the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947. After the war the Greeks took 30.000 tons of machine equipment and let 18.500 rot and rust in Hamburg and shipped the rest to Piraeus. Lastly, Greece accepted further compensation in 1960 for a war time loan.

If Greece is willing to go through the same ordeal as Germany after the war – an ordeal well reserved by the Germans mind you – then they may get a similar deal. But even that won’t be enough to save Greece, and they certainly don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to blaming the Germans for their predicament.

[Arcus]

This again? Let’s look at government spending as percentage of GDP from highs in 2009/10 to lows in 2013/14, retrieved from Eurostat:

-Ireland cut from 47.6% i 2009 to 39% in 2014. Down 8.6%
-Latvia cut from 44% i 2010 to 36% i 2013. Down 8%.
-Lithuania cut from 44.9% in 2009 to 34.9% in 2014. Down 10%(!)
-The UK cut from 49.7% in 2009 to 44.4% in 2014. Down 5.3%.

What’s the trend with these countries? They faced the cuts head on and are now growing at a more healthy rate.

And what about the laggards?
-Portugal cut from 51.8% in 2010 to 49% in 2014. Down 2.8%.
-Spain cut from 45.8% in 2010 via 47.3% in 2012 to 43.6% in 2014. Down 2.2%.
-Greece cut from 54% in 2009 via 60.1%(!) in 2009, and finally went down to 49.3% in 2013. Down 4.7%.

Now take a look at GDP growth rate. Notice the correlation between timing of cuts in government expenditure and growth?

While I am absolutely not denying that Keynesian fiscal counter-cyclical stimulus works, the point of it is to save in good years and spend in bad. However, if you don’t save in good years there is nothing to spend in bad years, and this is the lesson learned. Surprisingly, even some politicians on the left are starting to understand .

[Arcus]

Yeeeeeaaah… Trying to insult and shame the largest creditor may not be the best way to gain concessions, especially with a horribly flawed historical comparison. If the austerity measures were not merely about increasing taxes and tax collection, cutting pensions, and reducing a bloated public sector, but included terms such as stringing up their past leaders by the neck, lose 10% of their territory, have their country cut in half, 50 years of military occupation, and make 20% of the population into refugees, then there may have been a point in there.

Anyway, back on planet Earth there is no way for Greece to avoid austerity. The peoples of the other European countries have already given the Greeks €1000 each and don’t want to contribute more unless the Greeks reform their country, which includes austerity. The other option is for the Greeks not to reform, which will lead even more austerity than option 1.

As for austerity having failed, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, and the UK have all cut state budgets and all are today growing at a healthy clip. So why haven’t it worked in Greece? I’ll let Olivier Blanchard explain:

Critique 3: Growth-killing structural reforms, together with fiscal austerity, have led to an economic depression
Given the dismal productivity growth record of Greece before the program, a number of structural reforms were seen as necessary, ranging from a reform of the tax administration, to reduced barriers to entry in many professions, to reforms of pensions, to reforms of collective bargaining, to reforms of the judicial system, etc.
Many of these reforms were either not implemented, or not implemented on a sufficient scale. Efforts to improve tax collection and the payment culture failed completely. There was fierce resistance to open closed sectors and professions. Only 5 of 12 planned IMF reviews under the current program were completed, and only one has been completed since mid-2013, because of the failure to implement reforms.
The decrease in output was indeed much larger than had been forecast. Multipliers were larger than initially assumed. But fiscal consolidation explains only a fraction of the output decline. Output above potential to start, political crises, inconsistent policies, insufficient reforms, Grexit fears, low business confidence, weak banks, all contributed to the outcome.

[Author]

Posts