AKingsbury

https://mastodon.social/@AlexanderKingsbury

One thing I will promise; I never block anyone just because I may disagree with or dislike their words. Because the only people who do are cowards. Want to attack me? Fine. If you think that makes the world a better place, go ahead; you cannot hurt me with your words.

Public Key

npub182ruma6z5ylfumske4kcxlz2v5dzpmgtgstnxkax7485rknu8pdqulpm8s

NIP-05 Address

alexanderkingsbury_at_mastodon.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsr4p7d7ap2z057dctv6mvr039x2x3qa595g9entwn02n6pmf7rskswuk2lf

Author Public Key

npub182ruma6z5ylfumske4kcxlz2v5dzpmgtgstnxkax7485rknu8pdqulpm8s

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-08-04 20:01:39

- reply

Yep; very common response. Simple, baseless personal attacks because someone can't or won't actually address the issue or the points made. But, as with others, I thank you for making the situation and the quality of discourse you provide clear.

2024-08-02 21:36:47

- reply

You accuse me of this "who uses the follower only function to sealion without it showing on their public profiles". I don't even know what that function is, but feel free to ascribe to me more acumen than I actually possess.
I find it sad, in a way, that people respond to actual attempts at discussion with nothing more than personal attacks and namecalling. I am thankful to you for making clear the sort of conversation you provide.

2024-05-24 00:06:22

- reply

Frankly, I find that for every ten people who talk about how bad capitalism is, at least nine of them struggle to provide any real definition for it.

2024-05-23 01:08:01

- reply

You can "admit" whatever you want; that's not the point of acknowledging the truth of the situation. If coincidence didn't imply causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc wouldn't be a fallacy anyone would bother pointing out.

2024-05-22 11:00:45

- reply

You can dismiss the idea that correlation implies causation all you want, but that's the cornerstone of many observational techniques. Again, correlation does not PROVE causation, but the very fact that people even bother pointing this relationship out should point you in the direction that it does IMPLY it. If it didn't imply it, if it didn't suggest it, there would be no need to bring the relationship up.

2024-05-22 08:17:28

- reply

The most obvious choice would be "Free to Choose".

2024-05-22 08:11:39

- reply

Primarily, economists.

2024-05-22 00:35:16

- reply

Yes, more correlation through time absolutely does provide stronger evidence. It does not provide absolute evidence, but that's not the same thing.
It would be deeply arrogant of me to claim that I had performed anything worth calling an "analysis". Fortunately, other have, an they do account for many variables. My understanding of the situation does account for other variables, yes.

2024-05-21 08:43:53

- reply

A very common claim, but incorrect. Correlation absolutely does imply causation. The correct assertion is that correlation does not PROVE causation.
But when the same correlation is found, time and time again, through time and space, that provides stronger and stronger evidence. Is it ABSOLUTE proof? No, but again, that's never going to happen. At some point, any sane person is going to grasp the difference between the parachute and the clothing.

2024-05-21 01:35:47

- reply

Yet again, because, time and again, where we find humans flourishing the most, we find capitalism. It is the only viable economic system that does not require that we violate basic human rights.

2024-05-21 01:12:14

- reply

I am saying it is necessary but insufficient in order to have a society where human flourishing is maximized.

2024-05-21 00:23:38

- reply

Again, I never claimed it was THE common or deciding factor. I'm not sure how else to say that. If a condition were THE deciding factor, it would be necessary and sufficient in and of itself.

2024-05-20 10:20:39

- reply

Yes, it's a common factor. Not a SUFFICIENT one; again, it alone does not lead to prosperity. It's kind of like how people who wear parachutes tend to survive falling from the sky. Does EVERYONE? No. Are there rare counterexamples? At least one. Are you going to jump from a plane with no parachute?
There's a difference between something being a common factor and it being a sufficient guarantee in and of itself.

2024-05-20 08:55:39

- reply

I don't account for ALL of them; I don't believe anyone does, or even can. I try to account for the significant ones. For example, you point to technology, and rightly so. But many examples make clear; simply having technology does not lead to prosperity. Access to healthcare alone does not lead to prosperity. Etc. Does capitalism alone lead to prosperity? No, but it is a common factor; places that practice capitalism or adopt it improve.

2024-05-19 22:39:00

- reply

"And I would add: better FOR WHOM."
For humanity, as I said. I won't claim, and I don't think anyone reasonable will, that the benefits have been evenly distributed across time and space. But there are plenty of benefits that have also come to the global south; and not a few issues are caused there by markets not being free enough. If you're interested, there's an interesting interview available with Magatte Wade.

2024-05-19 21:29:35

- reply

I never claimed there were any two nations that had the same starting conditions. If you want absolute proof, you're going to be sorely disappointed, and not just on this question; there is no absolute proof of ANYTHING.

2024-05-19 14:30:39

- reply

There are a variety of ways, but perhaps the most obvious is to look at the dominant economic systems in different places. There was plenty of technology in communist russia, for example.

2024-05-19 14:17:43

- reply

Sound like a potentially worthwhile exercise, if you're actually interested in having such a conversation.

2024-05-19 14:16:59

- reply

I'm simply trying to illustrate to you that there are plenty of cases where free markets lead to better outcomes.

2024-05-19 13:54:43

- reply

Well, free markets do lead to a degree of growth; some certainly see that as a benefit. But there are other clear and obvious advantages as well.
There's a local man here who goes door to door and sells burritos and tamales. I'm going to go waaaaaaay out on a limb and guess he isn't actually licensed to do so. Are you prepared to say that anyone but the license people would be better off if he were caught and fined? Maybe even jailed?

2024-05-19 13:43:09

- reply

Well, I'm neither wealthy, nor particularly right-wing. I do think that history makes it pretty clear that free markets and capitalism, on average, lead to much better outcomes for humanity than anything else we've tried. By a WIDE margin.
I mean, technically, I am wealthy....taken on a worldwide and historical scale. But, then again, so are you.

2024-05-19 13:33:46

- reply

It can certainly seems, sometimes, as if a given thing does not have much immediate economic value, or even that it ever will, to many or most. That's a criticism many level at many forms of research. Some of us are very reluctant to strongly judge most such decisions.
Few would argue that capitalism does not involve any poor choices. Many argue that it results in superior outcomes when compared with any viable alternative.