Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Septentrionalis — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:55:57 -0000

So tell me, what's the trade balance for Iowa, or for Osaka? Please include capital flows.

That's why comparing things at the nation-state level makes sense; despite the BEA's best efforts, it's the smallest unit for which we have estimates that are worth the electrons they're posted with.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

TP — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:11:12 -0000

A map of what the UN Fallacy might look like if all US states were nation-states:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/...

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Sean — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:05:19 -0000

Contrary to the excerpts below, as far as i know there is no consensus or convincing evidence of 'convergence' between better- and worse-off countries: this is still a debate in macroeconomics is it not? [Note that if you assume poorer countries have growth rates higher than richer ones in proportion to the gap then convergence is inevitable - albeit that the time period depends on the extent of the difference in initial levels and rates]

"Er, are we supposed to draw any kind of lessons from the fact that relatively undeveloped countries have higher growth rates than developed countries? OF COURSE they do. And 10 year olds grow faster than 40 year olds. Why is this supposed to be surprising or interesting?"

"Economies grow fastest when they SUCK."

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

xorgnz — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:07:13 -0000

Interesting. Sounds like a variant on the general appeal to authority fallacy, I guess..

Members of a class C can be meaningfully compared based on class-common criteria.
Body X identifies group A as a member of class C.
Body X identifies group B as a member of class C.

Ergo, A and B can be compared on class-common criteria.

Such a common fallacy, though - appears in status evaluation, too..

Person A judges person B's status based on person A's status criteria.
Person A assumes that personal status criteria, or personal perception of 'absolute' criteria (so, 50s high school stereotypes).

Fallacy is that person A appeals to own authority, or to perceived zeitgeist authority.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:59:45 -0000

Caliban,

That sounds more like a faith-based affirmation than an argument based on facts.

China's economy doesn't "suck," these days.

They are exporting products like cars and electronics now...

...and without constant loans from China, America's economy would collapse.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

John Thacker — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:49:01 -0000

America’s economy has never grown as fast as China’s is growing now.

And yet it grew at a 5% annual rate in the first quarter. Funny that you don't mention the overall annual rate, merely the one quarter.

The only time we came close was when FDR was running America.

When, of course, the debt to GDP ratio was MUCH higher than it is even now. I thought you were concerned about debt?

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Caliban Darklock — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:25:27 -0000

Monkyboy, you seem to be missing something.

Economies grow fastest when they SUCK.

Imagine that Alice makes $50 an hour and Bob makes $5 an hour. At the end of the year, they both get a $5 an hour raise. Alice's growth rate is 10%. Bob's is 100%.

So why doesn't Alice want to switch places with Bob?

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:21:30 -0000

The point is, Julian...

America's economy has never grown as fast as China's is growing now.

The only time we came close was when FDR was running America.

Maybe an actual industrial policy for America is the way to go?

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Julian Sanchez — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:14:35 -0000

Er, are we supposed to draw any kind of lessons from the fact that relatively undeveloped countries have higher growth rates than developed countries? OF COURSE they do. And 10 year olds grow faster than 40 year olds. Why is this supposed to be surprising or interesting?

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:29:47 -0000

Not trying to be obtuse, Tino,

I used historical sales figures for the S-Class of around 50,000 a year worldwide.

My Chinese sales figures are for the first quarter of this year.

Your American sales figures are for last month.

Which numbers to use for comparison?

It would seem we would need last month's S-Class sales in China...

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Tino — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:11:26 -0000

Mercedes-Benz USA reports that in September 2006, they sold 2,357 S-classes in the USA (see press release: http://tinyurl.com/sf6js ). S-classes are selling in 2006 at about twice the rate at which they sold in 2005.

I find monkyboy's logic interesting: when he thinks that the Chinese consume more expensive cars than do Americans, he cites this as evidence that the Chinese are pulling ahead; but when it's pointed out that the US consumes expensive cars at at least three times the rate of China, then *that* indicates that the US is on the skids.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:43:30 -0000

Maybe, Eric,

But that would mean that no other S-Class cars are sold anywhere else in the world...(Mercedes makes about 50,000 of them a year).

And that doesn't mean the S-Classes were sold to people who could actually afford them in America.

Americans and their government have been spending more than they earn recently.

Chinese workers save about 35% percent of their income.

That's why China can afford to give America billions of dollars a year in welfare payments so we stay afloat.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Jussi Hämäläinen — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:34:13 -0000

If not, why do we compare the U.S. to Liechtenstein, Mauritius, or Sweden?

Because the political unit where one resides is not inconsequential.Suppose that one, when looking at the economy and the social condition of Brazil, wholly removed from consideration the poor Northeast,Rio,the favelas and so forth and only looked at the prosperous Southeast?Brazil would look pretty good,right?

The problem with this line of thinking is that the poor can still vote (for Lula,for example).In fact,in an increasingly mobile and armed world, they can do lots of things,thus making their problems - yours.

I call this the "Other Than That,How Was The Play,Mrs. Lincoln" - fallacy.Nation states matter because people still expect them to matter.You might not care about Iowa, but Iowa may still care about you.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Eric H — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:11:52 -0000

That means they sold as many S-class cars in the first quarter in China as they sell per month in the US.

And as Japan discovered, it's a lot easier to catch up from way behind than to maintain a lead.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Max — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:53:10 -0000

The UN fallacy is that a collection of governments, many of them undemocratic or downright thuggish, self assemble into a moral force representing the people of the world.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:02:32 -0000

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto:

"DaimlerChrysler said the Mercedes-Benz S-Class maintained its lead position in China's luxury car segment with sales of more that 2,300 units."

http://tinyurl.com/txgyz

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

Francois Tremblay — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:37:04 -0000

"There are more Chinese than Americans who can afford an S class these days, k."

Someone flunked Statistics 101...

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:21:30 -0000

Ouch...

1.6% real growth rate for America's economy now...and all of it financed by debt.

http://bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp306a.htm

I think our Pacer just ran out of gas.

There are more Chinese than Americans who can afford an S class these days, k.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

kanthony — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:57:59 -0000

Not so sure about that…

We have a per capita GDP more than 6x that of the Chinese. I’m not convinced that many of them can afford to drive S classes with those wages. I suspect a great number of them would have a difficulty filling the tank.

Today, the US still manages to churn out corporations like Microsoft, Google and Salesforce.com, they manufactured my Plasma TVs. Don’t get me wrong, I love my TVs… but I’m struggling to understand how that puts them a few car lengths behind.

You can play Chicken Little if you like.

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:44:56 -0000

Actually, kanthony,

China is near the top of the list I linked to.

Think of the American economy as an AMC Pacer weezing along in the slow lane and the Chinese economy as the S class just a few car lengths back and signalling to pass...

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

kanthony — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:53:01 -0000

(monkeyboy, an apt name)

Your comparing relative economic growth static’s without any context – this is precisely what Will is warning against. Why is this relevant?

Put another way, why should I care if you’re driving a Miata at 100 mph, while I’m 10,000 miles ahead of you, doing 35 in an S class?

Re: Fallacy Nomination: The United Nations Fallacy

monkyboy — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:47:00 -0000

What a relief for the Republicans...

Will has saved them from having to explain why America's economy is growing so much slower than the economies of such economic powerhouses like the Gaza Strip, Angola and Cuba:

http://tinyurl.com/yc4sxj