User talk:GeeJayK

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, GeeJayK!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What makes citing rightist heterodox economists okay but not leftist heterodox economists?[edit]

Out of curiosity, what's the difference? Vee (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee I don't get your point, there are good heterodox economists on both sides, like Dani Rodrik (left) and Randall Holcombe (right). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I was of the impression that you seemed to consider leftist heterodox economics crankery in its entirety, as opposed to rightist heterodox economics. I must've been mistaken. My apologies. Vee (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vee Don't worry, no hard feelings. My problem with heterodox economics on the left is, in fact, the same that I have of those on the right: they spend way too much time studying older authors instead of coming up with new ideas. Physicists don't spend too much time (as far as I'm aware) reading Principa Mathematica. That's why I think reading stuff like Wealth of the Nations, Das Kapital, General Theory, etc... while not being a bad idea, is not as good as reading an actual modern textbook. Also, both post-keynesian economists and Austrians follow a similar methodology that I can't agree with.
If you wanna check, I've criticized Austrians on this site many times. Indeed, my first article here was on Walter Block, and right now, while I'm working on the Great Depression article, I criticized the Austrian business cycle theory, just to give you two examples. Even when it comes to Friedrich Hayek, by far the best Austrian, I think his legacy as an economist is mixed, and I think he's better as a political philosopher. I've written a bit about it on the Austrian school article too and I'll probably write on Hayek's own article in the future. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I will do so. I admit I may have been blinded by bias here. Thank you for the suggestions. Vee (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I am curious to what makes Dani Rodrik left exactly? Isn’t his field primarily in the focus of international economics, globalization, etc? If he works from a heterodox school — his academic profiles seem to significantly downplay it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb There are perhaps better examples then him on the good, left-leaning, heterodox approach, like Thomas Palley, but I still see Rodrik as someone on the center-left on the field. His views on industrial policy are usually considered to be on the left. I believe he even said emerging markets must devalue their currencies to compete with rich countries, which is something that most mainstream economists will strongly disagree with. Also, as far as I'm aware he's a also mild critic of globalization, but I'm not very familiar with this part of his work. I also remember reading one article by him on Project Syndicate (not academic then) where he criticized the orthodox approach on fighting inflation. Two years ago he also organized a book called "Combating Inequality", one of the best books I read this year. Not saying, of course, that the left has monopoly on fighting inequality (indeed, some authors on the center-right, like Mankiw and Acemoglu also wrote chapters on this book), but it is overall a left-leaning book, with many other economists affiliated with the left (Saez, Zucman, etc) and even some philosophers, like Scanlon also writing chapters for it, explaining why inequality matters, although I admit I'm not super familiar with their work outside this book. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Although, granted, if you believe that in order to be on the left you need to be anti-capitalist, then he's not on the left. John Roemer is probably the most famous example of a modern anticapitalist economist, but I don't know anything about his work. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I see, yeah. Thank you for clarifying. I have heard of Roemer before I think his name occasionally comes up in sources on Analytical Marxism. I think I have a few of his works on a reading list. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC).


Some user by the name of VeryLazyPizza recently vandalized an article, so I gave them a slap on the wrist. I suspect that they might be a ban evader, but I'm not certain, so could you please look into it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Luigifan18 I don't remember seeing this pattern of vandalism here before, so I'm not sure if they're evading. Anyway, nine ours is ok for a block. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure if I would have blocked them at all (or blocked them for one hour) if I didn't suspect them of ban evading. @Plutocow did ban an account named "LazyPizza" yesterday IIRC. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I just double-checked. The vandalism was on the Ted Cruz page, it was vandalized by a user calling themselves "LazyPizza" yesterday, and it got vandalized by an IP shortly before the VeryLazyPizza edits (Plutocow blocked that IP address). Not only that, all three instances of wandalism were essentially transphobia and STD mudslinging. There's definitely a pattern of vandalism here… I think my initial hunch of ban evasion was correct. I'm going to go ahead with a full block now. I also protected the Ted Cruz page, because seriously, that's three wandal strikes in two days. What a headache. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
…Never mind, @Plutocow beat me to it. Looks like my work is done for the time being. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


Peruvian media is overwhelmingly right-leaning due to the wealth of the people who own it which has been largely gained through neoliberalism, and a cursory Google search shows that Diario Correjo and Ojos are explicitly right-wing sources (I am somewhat decent at reading Spanish). Castillo's support mainly comes from poor indigenous farmers, who haven't benefited at all from Peru's wealth. Castillo's main goals besides replacing the constitution were largely to lower poverty. He actually came from a poor background, which for Latin American leaders and especially Peruvian ones is rare. Due to Peru's constitution however, by the time he came into power, he was basically powerless as any time he did anything that would remotely threaten the status quo, Congress would impeach him and force him to either move right or lose power. Ultimately, by the third time this happened he must have snapped, and decided he'd rather confront the problem directly rather than compromise with a Congress so reactionary that even a center-right president wasn't good enough for them. The reason why I don't call it a coup was because it wasn't a naked power grab; it was an attempt to prevent his powers from being undemocratically removed, and his goals weren't to become dictator but rather to run new Senate elections and to have a more democratic constitution; if that's a coup, then it's more in line with the Carnation Revolution than January 6th. Still, as I said, I disagree with his actions, as due to the constitution that could have only ended in disaster and essentially empowered the right wing in that country. But still, it's reductive to assume that legal means right in this case, and while what he did was pragmatically a mistake it's easy to see where he's coming from. The Fujimori-era constitution makes it as difficult as possible to change anything in Peru, and as long as it remains in place their indigenous population is going to continue to be poor as the wealth from Peru's resources goes pretty much exclusively to white people. Plutocow (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Trying not to quote mine you, sorry if I failed at that. This will probably be my only post on the subject, but feel free to leave another message, I promise you I'll read your answer. First thing, I don't think calling the press "biased" is an argument to be honest (as you might know from our previous conversations, I don't care a lot about bias, as long as the information is accurate and it's not obvious slant). That's what Donald Trump supporters say after all. Castillo's support doesn't come from anywhere; he's extremely unpopular. The Gini Index in Peru is dropping, so I'd say that the poor are indeed in a better situation right now [1] Also, let's not forget that the Congress is elected by the people, just like Castillo; it indeed represents the people better than him, since he only got like 10% of the votes. I can respect the idea that what the Congress was doing was just constitutional hardballWikipedia, but at least they had the law on their side. Castillo didn't have the right to dissolve the Congress. It wasn't a countercoup, most analysts thought that he could even survive this impeachment attempt. It doesn't matter, when you try to dissolve the Congress without the law on your side it is a coup attempt. The Carnation Revolution overthrown a dictatorship, while Peru, despite all it's flaws, is still a democracy. One last thing, I'm sorry for suggesting that you couldn't read in Spanish. That was indeed rude from my part. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess part of it is I'm not really fond of the democracy/dictatorship binary. There's no perfect democracy, which would be defined as every person having an equal vote; things like money and social influence will always get in the way. Similarly, there's no "perfect" dictatorship either, even the most repressive dictator still needs support from the military. I could declare myself dictator of Minnesota right now, but it's meaningless if no one recognizes my power. Plus, there are unclear cases, for example, where would you put a country like Morocco or Lebanon on a democracy/dictatorship binary? So countries exist on a spectrum between democracy and authoritarianism rather than being one or the other; for example, the U.S. is considered a democracy but has antidemocratic aspects like the Electoral College, which can (and has in 1824) completely overrule the popular vote, and while Cuba is largely authoritarian, they did allow their citizenry to influence and then vote on their 2022 family code. So, with Peru, I'm less concerned about whether or not it's a democracy and more whether specific aspects are democratic or not. If, for instance, Trump won the 2020 election because all the electors from California voted for Trump, even though it would be legal for them to do this and the U.S. would still be a democracy by most measures, you would likely call bullshit. Pointing out bias in this case is relevant mostly because these publications have a conflict of interest in this situation. Overall, we can agree that what Castillo did was ill-advised, as it was clear that he would not have enough support to accomplish what he was trying to do, but I guess I'm sick of seeing Western media outlets misrepresent the situation and compare it to things like January 6th, one particularly stupid article claimed "Pedro Castillo was impeached for "moral incapacity", the same offense that Fujimori was impeached for", which, aside from the attempt to equate Castillo and Fujimori and ignoring what "moral incapacity" means, also ignores that that same impeachment reason was used on Martín Vizcarra in a case that was controversial to say the least. It's also disheartening how Chile also recently failed to replace their Pinochet-era constitution after the Western media again was pointlessly fearmongering about it because maybe it could've meant more Chileans having access to their country's resources rather than trans-national corporations. Overall though, the equating of "anti-constitutional" to "bad" is a problem here, as Peru's constitution isn't comparable to the U.S.'s as it was designed to make it as difficult as possible to change anything from a dictatorship-era, and even if it technically fits the definition of a democracy Peru will never be truly democratic until it rids itself of the shackles of that constitution. Plutocow (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The Gini index is a poor inequality measure courtesy of The Guardian. It doesn't matter what your total income is if you're spending "30-50% of that on rent" to quote the article. Vee (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
It is because we're trying to measure inequality. Anyway, we can use poverty rate too. [2]. Things are getting better in Peru. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
That's also a bad measure because the threshold is arbitrary; $6.85 a day is not enough money to get enough food. Anyway, if any spectators are interested, this is the only article from the Western media that I could find that I feel gives a fair account of what just happened in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Things are still bad=/=things aren't getting better. Point is, 64% of the population earned less than this in 2001. Less than 20 years after, it's less than 30%. I went to Peru ten years ago and I was astonished with all the poverty I saw even on Cuzco, a relatively "rich" city. This year, my sister went there and she could see the difference. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
And how much of it are they spending on rent and necessities? Why should they be forced to spend that money on rent and necessities in the first place, instead of housing and necessities being socially guaranteed? What makes this just? Vee (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Given inflation, that's not really much, and the really poor areas of Peru are the rural and indigenous areas rather than the cities. "Things are getting better" is meaningless when many people still can't afford enough food, not to mention that institutional racism and forced displacement by corporations are still huge problems for the indigenous population in Peru. Castillo seemed like he might have been able to change this, but sadly that's not the way things worked out. Plutocow (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC)I didn't say anything about fairness, Vee, that's another debate. What I said is that Peruvians are getting richer and the distribution of income is getting more even. The country's income per capita is still rather low, the problem there is the lack of resources, they need economic growth in order to solve problems like the ones you've mentioned[3]. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells
Peru has plenty of natural resources, the problem is that transnational corporations take advantage of most of them, and the few Peruvians that benefit are largely white. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Where every lie is true 04:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
How's come it's not much? These values are adjusted by inflation. 20 years ago, the measure was 2 dollars per day. I know the rural areas are still poor, but the population overall is still getting richer. Castillo couldn't resolve the issue because his policies were not based on evidence, and because he is an authoritarian, populist bigot. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Or maybe because he was dealing with an intractable legislature that viewed him as the second coming of Josef Stalin. Either way, none of this answers the question of how much they're spending on rent and necessities. Vee (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, in order to spend on those things, they need to economic growth first. They were achieving it at a rather fast pace. If you're talking about the Baumol Effect, I'd suggest this study [4]. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)This is probably your most reductive take thus far. There are several reasons why Castillo wasn't able to accomplish much. One is his political inexperience, as he was basically an outsider, and many of his appointments were probably ill advised. Another one is the constant squabbling with Congress, which as Barack Obama will tell you isn't conducive to getting anything done. Finally, since Congress could impeach him at any time for any reason, he couldn't really do anything that would upset them, and had to compromise twice to hold on to power and probably would have had to do it a third time he didn't decide to basically end his political career. But saying it was because "his policies were not based on evidence" is reductive when, well, he wasn't able to implement those policies in the first place. Also, I feel like you calling him a "bigot" is poisoning the well here, he is homophobic but even with a different president things wouldn't really be different in that regard since Peru is still overwhelmingly socially conservative. Still, it's worth noting that in Peru, Castillo was the target of a lot of bigotry himself for his indigenous background; remember, this is the country that was committing genocide against the indigenous population less than 25 years ago, so I feel labeling him "bigot" as if that makes him special in a country like Peru is reductive and irrelevant to this conversation. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted to how Pluto says something like “this isn’t much because people still can’t afford food making more then what is set as poverty rate” is met with “but’s the rate is adjusted for inflation and the standard used to be way lower!”. Like that just feels almost intentional to miss the point. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misread my post. I was answering when they said "Given inflation, that's not really much." My answer to this point was economic growth. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, hunger is not a major problem in Peru. [5] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Nah. In re-reading the post, the point about economic growth seems more of an after-thought as a “besides” to anticipate any potential responses. Pluto’s point was that standard is arbitrary, that making more than $6.89 a day doesn’t guarantee you can afford food. Any point about inflation, or whether or not hunger is a major problem in Peru isn’t actually addressing Pluto’s argument. It’s an irrelevant premise. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Then you're reading it wrong again. The UN decides that this is the poverty line IIRC. Pluto said (as far as I understood) that the sharp drop on poverty is not that relevant because 6.89 bucks is worth less than it used to 20 years ago. That's not correct because the values are adjusted. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Also, none of GeeJayK's arguments have really addressed the point of how it's the indigenous population that is especially suffering under Peru's current system. The closest is him saying "I know the rural areas are still poor, but the population overall is still getting richer", which doesn't really address the problem here, especially with the very real possibility a Fujimori could regain power which would be really bad for the indigenous population. Plutocow (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
How are they suffering if their income is rising and the country is getting more equal? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The mention of inflation is in regards to the cost of living becoming higher, I don’t think Pluto was referencing whether the standard itself was adjusted to inflation though they can correct me on that. The standard being decided by the UN doesn’t make it any less arbitrary, and the point about the overall population gets into some fallacy of composition territory. There are people who are still struggling in peru, and you can’t use national trends to infer individual benefits. That’s the ecological inference fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)At this point I'm inclined to call intellectual dishonesty. You fucking admitted the rural areas were still poor. The vast majority of indigenous people in Peru live in rural areas. Plus, country-wide stats can't be used to extrapolate how a specific group is doing; as an example just because New Hampshire is getting wealthier doesn't mean the same thing is happening in West Virginia. You can't reduce an entire country to just one single stat. Plutocow (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Did you miss the study I posted here[6]? The entire population benefits from growth, I think that was clear. You're free to show data that shows that the indigenous people are not getting richer too. Do you have it? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb You're mistaking inflation with cost of living. Although intricated, these are not the same. See the study I posted on the Baumol Effect. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Clicking the posted study and finding a general neoliberal economic argument that’s locked behind a paywall with nothing actually related to addressing the indigenous population in Peru is really fucking telling of the intellectual honesty here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC) Being the only one that is actually capable of posting peer-reviewd studies here indeed says a lot about it. I'm sorry. Reality has a neoliberal bias. If you want to help the poor, make the economy grow. Again, you're the one suggesting that the indigenous population are not benefiting from the economic growth (theory tells that the entire population benefits from it). You're free to post a good study that contradicts mine. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 04:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC)That study has nothing to do with the indigenous population in Peru. And while it's hard to find a good source that doesn't rely on a flawed metric like the poverty line, indigenous poverty has been increasing in the last few years, largely as a result of the pandemic but it's not like things are improving from there, not to mention that many of them are being displaced by corporations. It's clear that indigenous Peruvians aren't benefiting from Peru's economic growth the same way that the white urban population is, and institutional racism is still a huge problem in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, I've already answer this. The entire population should be doing better thanks to the economic growth, including indigenous population. According to your own link, the poverty was also dropping among them before the pandemic, so I believe your data supports my conclusion. I don't see how it's clear that "indigenous Peruvians aren't benefiting from Peru's economic growth the same way that the white urban population is". Can you explain? Because now I'm inclined to say you are acting in bad faith. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Also, "the entire population benefits from economic growth" is reductive because due to things like institutional racism and generational wealth, not everyone will benefit in the same way. Also, it's worth noting that China, while capitalist, hasn't exactly played by the neoliberal playbook yet still managed to see a huge poverty reduction (well, by the same measures other countries have supposedly reduced poverty). But in Peru's case, people are literally being displaced by unregulated corporations, so how neoliberalism is benefitting them is anyone's guess. Plutocow (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, the study I linked used the poverty line measurement, which I admitted was flawed. Also, even if life is improving for indigenous Peruvians as you claimed, that doesn't really matter when so many are still poor, a 1% improvement is basically meaningless then. I feel like you're trying to argue more based off technicalities rather than the actual situation on the ground. Plutocow (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem is, according to your own link, poverty dropped from 70% to 20% in less than 15 years, it's not a a 1% improvement. That's a jawdropping drop of 70%. Even if the metric if flawed it's still very hard to say that things haven't improved. I'll ask again, do you have an actual study arguing that things haven't got better for them over the past 15-20 years? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)And it should be obvious that the Indigenous population isn't gaining wealth at the same rate as the white urban population, I mean, to say otherwise would be denying the effects of institutional racism. For a US example, are New Hampshire and Mississippi gaining wealth at the same rate? Has the poverty rate in Mississippi been decreasing for black people at the same rate as it has for white people? I feel like this should be an obvious point but I will find citations if necessary. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Once again, you are missing the bigger picture here. If the poverty rate doesn't include all the people who are poor, then it's fallacious to assume that everyone not included in the poverty line is not poor. Furthermore, even if they are "less poor", they are still, well, poor, and income ignores factors like environmental destruction and displacement that are giving the indigenous people a hard time. Third, that they're doing slightly better now than they were under a regime that was actively committing genocide against them isn't exactly an impressive accomplishment. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK in response to that initial comment. Oh god where I start with this.

  1. No one stated that cost of living and inflation were one and the same, to allege someone as confusing the two carries the social implicature that they did state they were the same — given that’s not the case this argument is a strawman fallacy.
  2. If the citation doesn’t address the specific demographic and problem being talked about it is not a relevant citation and is thus a red herring fallacy. If I start citing a tangentially related nasa article in an argument about climatology that doesn’t necessitate that my argument is now more credible then whatever my opponent is talking about; that is especially not the case when the study in question doesn’t even address my opponents point. Sources don’t fix a fallacious argument.
  3. No, reality does not have any sort of ideological bias that’s naturalistically absurd. The external world doesn’t come pre-formed to what the correct human values are. That’s metaphysical nonsense.

Rural indigenous low-income people in Peru are not interchangeable with some arbitrarily defined economic construct of “the poor” to infer general properties to the larger set as being reducible to a narrower subset within that set is a logical fallacy. There is no burden of proof on Pluto to treat your conclusion as the null hypothesis in this context. Your argument isn’t made stronger and less fallacious simply because evidence for a different conclusion has yet to be provided. Also demanding evidence for a negative is getting into some extremely unreasonable territory here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Irrelevant.
  2. You don't know how research is done on social sciences and I'm not going to educate you on the subject, though I can recommend you some books. Anyway, Plutocow posted a link showing how poverty dropped among indigenous people there
  3. It's a joke, it's one of our pages: fun:real world. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Given that OSD has a literal degree in psychology and works in a lab, I think you, a policy wonk, shouldn't be lecturing him on how social science work is done. Vee (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Plutocow While not a study, this one was written by my favorite living South American economist. You should read it, even if you disagree with his conclusions. I'm reading it right now and I'm finding it very interesting. He answers some of your questions, including environmental destruction (which is kinda of moving the goalpost since, as far as I understood, we were talking about wealth. Of course it would be fallacious to assume that everyone not included in the poverty line is not poor. But as far as theory goes, everyone is doing better. Probably a lot better considering how fast Peru grew over the last few decades. Again, do you have a study arguing otherwise? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Plutocow and OnlySortaDumb My argument is simple: Peru grew a lot over the last 2 decades. The theory says that this should be good for every group. You guys, as far as I understand, said that this might not have happened to indigenous people. Do you have any evidence on that? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
No, I think their argument was that the improvement was so marginal as to be practically meaningless. Nothing you have said or cited has addressed this. Vee (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a 70% drop is far from meaningless, and again, theory says that it shouldn't meaningless, considering how fast the growth was. Do you have any evidence that it was meaningless? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)The article agrees with me that rural indigenous Peruvians have not seen the same benefits that other Peruvians have from globalization, so I dunno why we're still arguing this. I don't see how environmental destruction is moving the goalposts since number one, I repeatedly brought up displacement, a related issue, and number two a huge part of my point is how statistics can't entirely represent the situation on the ground. Also, I don't exactly appreciate you saying my link "show[ed] how poverty dropped among indigenous people there" without mentioning the caveats. Additionally, you still haven't really focused on how indigenous people are actually doing on the ground. Plutocow (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, Vee's argument was clearly referring to how $6.85 a day is still poverty wages and you haven't made an attempt to show that poverty (actual poverty, not defined by an arbitrary threshold) has gone down among Peru's indigenous population. Plutocow (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Plutocow did we mention globalization? I was thinking more about macroeconomic stability and secure property rights. Yeah, they are still poor, but far less poor then they were until not so long ago. My argument is that they are probably quite better than before, considering the economic growth on Peru over the last 20 years. If things continue, they'll probably be a lot richer within a generation. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I literally hold a degree in a social science; there is no need to educate me here. I have aced advanced courses within the social science department at my university. This entire response to what I stated about bad inferences amounts to a ad hominem fallacy. You are not addressing what my actual point is, or what anyone’s point really is. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nah, that's just argument from authority, you're pretty bad on the subject. I'll repeate myself again. Theory says that everyone profits from growth. Therefore, the indigenous people probably profited from it too. Do you have any evidence that they aren't considerably better now than they were 20 years ago? Or maybe that theory is wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's a response to a blatant bad faith ad hom. OSD's degree has no actual relevance to his argument that your cites are nothing more than a red herring. Vee (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
That's because he's still arguing that we need to analyze the indigenous population (we can, and we did, they are better off now). But that doesn't mean we can't assume that they aren't wealthier now, since there's a solid theory saying that they should be. If something works for over a hundred of countries, it probably work for relatively small groups too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)20 years ago was just after the end of the genocidal Fujimori regime so you're equating multiple factors here, not to mention once again asking us to prove a negative. Also, I don't care if indigenous Peruvians are making four dollars a day or eight dollars a day when either way that's poverty wages. Arguing about whether their lives technically improved loses sight of the bigger picture, which I have tried to tell you multiple times. Plutocow (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Also gee your source does not actually demonstrate that all groups benefit because that would be conceptually absurd for any academic to claim in earnest. You posted a study that showed that “the poor” benefits from economic growth. That doesn’t define all possible demographics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC) No, I'm not asking you guys to prove a negative, I'm asking you guys to prove that the theory (growth generally benefits everyone), is wrong. You're the ones denying what evidence says. Why could the Peruvian indigenous people be exceptions? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 05:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Using a broader example here, despite hundreds of years of economic growth black generational wealth is still significantly dwarfed by white generational wealth and there are still incredibly poor areas like the Mississippi River Delta and several inner-city ghettos. The market simply can't act as a long-term equalizer when institutional racism is present, and institutional racism is still a huge problem in Peru as it is in the rest of Latin America and if we're being honest the entire world. Plutocow (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
“ If something works for over a hundred of countries, it probably work for relatively small groups too” is actually like a clear demonstration of a statistical fallacy that I already made reference to [7] - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You cannot make inferences about subsets sharing the same properties of the populations they are found within. It’s totally possible for trends for individual groups within the larger population to be effected differently then what the population aggregate suggests. Given everything that Pluto has been saying so far there is strong reason to suggest why a good number of indigenous people wouldn’t be represented in these statistics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC) @Plutocow I'm pretty sure that the quality of life of these groups is also better now than it was 100 years ago. I'm not saying that advances aren't needed, but that things are getting better. Again, you're free to compare data from 100 years ago and now.
@OnlySortaDumb, so do you have any evidence that theory is incorrect and that the these people didn't benefit from the economic growth, like they should? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
|@Plutocow and OnlySortaDumb I'll ask once again. The theory says that the poor benefit from growth. Why could we be facing an exception? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
To build off Pluto’s point about generational wealth if you were measure it looking at the American population as a whole the average rate of growth will be biased by the demographics who experience most of that growth. Everyone may be benefiting technically, but not to the same degree. So that rate of growth in terms of wealth by generation is not going to be the same for everyone; and you can’t disprove that there isn’t a subset that isn’t experiencing much of any growth at all. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Once again, you're missing the larger point. Of course, medical and technological advances have made life technically better over the past 100 years, but black wealth has stayed consistently behind white wealth and that's not a problem that will go away on its own. One of the flaws of neoliberalism is that it doesn't take systemic racism into account, which is something the market cannot solve and will only perpetuate. As long as indigenous wealth doesn't rise at the same rate as the rest of the country, these problems will remain, which is why what Castillo (yay, bringing this back to somewhat of the original topic) wanted to do was so important. Plutocow (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure I understood your pos, Sorta, but inequality is also dropping in Peru. So, the poor are actually benefiting more than the rich. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Again, you're looking at a single statistic that covers an entire population. Just because inequality between white Peruvians is going down doesn't mean the inequality between white and indigenous people is going down. You essentially made the same fallacy again by equating "the poor" in Peru with specifically the indigenous poor in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s not required of me to prove that the ecological fallacy you are making is in fact, a thing. Asking to provide evidence that a theory is incorrect is again asking for a negative, but even then the theory you are referencing is NOT making the claim that any one who is classified as poor is experiencing a benefit to an equal degree as anyone else in the same demographic. (Nor is it even suggesting an impossibility for anyone to not benefit). You are imposing a fallacious conclusion on your source that it isn’t providing. I know economists are not as dumb to push the argument you are making. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) This "holy market solves everything" approach kind of ignores intersectional analysis and structural inequities that result in problems like racial gaps in intergenerational wealth and systemic land displacement. The indigenous wouldn't need to be sold their land back if it wasn't stolen from them at the behest of market forces in the first place. Vee (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC) According to my source:

. What we do learn is that growth generally does benefit the poor as much as everyone else, so that the growth-enhancing policies of good rule of law, fiscal discipline, and openness to international trade should be at the center of successful poverty reduction strategies

So, yeah, they recommend policies that were pursuit in Peru. Didn't they work? That's my question. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Keyword here is "generally". It's not stating that this is some 100% hard law like E=mc^2. Plutocow (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow but no one said that. Do you have any evidence that this did not apply to Peru and they are an exception, however?

According to this other study:

Incomes in the poorest two quintiles on average increase at the same rate as overall average incomes. This is because, in a global dataset spanning 118 countries over the past four decades, changes in the share of income of the poorest quintiles are generally small and uncorrelated with changes in average income. The variation in changes in quintile shares is also small relative to the variation in growth in average incomes, implying that the latter accounts for most of the variation in income growth in the poorest quintiles. These findings hold across most regions and time periods and when conditioning on a variety of country-level factors that may matter for growth and inequality changes. This evidence confirms the central importance of economic growth for poverty reduction and illustrates the difficulty of identifying specific macroeconomic policies that are significantly associated with the relative growth rates of those in the poorest quintiles.

One of the countries they study? Peru. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, we run into the same problem of equating the poor in Peru with the indigenous poor, once again you are missing the larger picture of inequality, and once again no matter what I say you keep just reverting to the same argument of "growth benefits everyone, prove it didn't benefit the indigenous people of Peru!" Despite me trying to bring up larger issues like displacement, institutional racism, and environmental destruction and even trying to look at the larger picture or the situation on the ground as opposed to a few numbers with flawed metrics, you seemingly ignore everything and just retreat to that same argument. It's really getting tiring at this point. Plutocow (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, all the poor should be benefited (and you link on statista suggest that this happened). I agree with you there's still a lot to be done, even a hardcore neoliberal like de Soto agrees if you, but I'm talking about one single aspect here: wealth. We don't have any reason to believe that the growth wasn't good for them. Did the end of Fujimori's dictatorship helped? Probably. But so did growth, or at least that's what should have happened. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Can the indigenous Peruvian people be an exception? Yes. But I don't think it's me that should prove that. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Plutocow You're trying to talk about the big picture. That's fine, we can do it. But that wasn't my point here. I'm talking about only one variable, wealth, and I believe that you guys could at least bring some studies to back your claims. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)But it doesn't say all the poor benefited, just that the poor as a whole did, and for example just because the U.S.'s economy is growing doesn't mean that the economy of West Virginia is growing. Like really, the source does not say that every single poor person benefited or every single subgroup of the poor benefited and you are asking us here to prove the negative. I mean, come on. That's like me saying "generally, rolling a six-sided die will give you a number less than six" and then me asking you to prove that the die I just rolled isn't less than six. It doesn't work that way and if you're not willing to put in the work to prove a point which the article you cited is not arguing, then we're done here. I'm trying to talk a bit more broadly than wealth, since wealth alone can't indicate everything about how a group is doing and the metrics of measuring it are often flawed, but you're the one who reverts to only talking about wealth. Plutocow (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Someone: “two and two makes four”. Gee: “Do you have a study to back up your claims?”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(EC)Yeah, I already understood that. But again, I don't think there's any reason to believ ~a priori that the indigenous Peruvian people didn't benefit from the economic growth there. I believe that I'm not the one that should prove that they could be exceptions. Well, I'm going to sleep. Believe it or not, I enjoyed debating with you guys. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 06:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb, Well, at least I posted sources proving my points. I'm still waiting for a source that suggests that the Peruvian indigenous people might be exceptions and haven't profit from the remarkable economic growth on Peru. If you want another one, focusing only on Peru, have it [8]:

Our analysis strongly suggests that the openness to international trade and macroeconomic stability that have sustained strong economic growth and poverty reduction in Peru have been consistent with the narrowing of postcolonial ethnic inequalities. It would thus be ideal that any policy strategy to further reduce ethnic-related gaps preserves Peru’s growth policy pillars and concentrates on Pareto-efficient reforms.

GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Referring to the indigenous population as "exceptions" suggests you do not know how a category mistake works. No one stated they were "exceptions" to any pre-conceived rule. The allegation is that applying these facts regarding how economic growth benefits the poor to the concerns that Pluto is talking about is a misapplication. No one here is required to provide an external peer-reviewed study alleging that YOU in particular are making a category mistake. No researchers is providing scientific studies on the specific rhetorical strategies you use. Our claims are sufficiently evidenced by this entire conversation. Three users are observing the exact same conceptual error and are making reference to it. Explaining exactly what's wrong with your reasoning in this circumstances, and you are not addressing that allegation at all. As per usual you just make up a position for anyone accusing you of making a fallacy, and demanding that they prove to you this imaginary conclusion you have applied to them. No one is fooled by this behavior except maybe you because I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not doing this intentionally. But that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. The uncharitable interpretation is that you are purposely being intellectually dishonest and manipulative. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
So, since you proved you're wrong you changed your argument (again). Q.E.D. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Pluto isn’t really talking about income gains that the lowest-income earners make whenever a nation experiences economic growth. Which is the narrow “benefit” you are referring to. Pluto is making reference to ethnic displacement, systematic racism, and unequal gains experienced by the indigenous rural population. This isn’t addressed by the sources you provide, and this is relevant to the topic of Castillo given his platform focus on indigenous inequality.
You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to make this a conversation about growth and property rights so you can whip out the scholarly sources and feel superior. That is not an charitable or honest engagement with Pluto. Overall benefits to large demographics does not tell you specifics about individual subgroups. This is stats 101 territory. Regardless the specifics that Pluto is referring to isn’t even being addressed. What does economic growth have to do with ethnic displacement? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

According to their first post "he Fujimori-era constitution makes it as difficult as possible to change anything in Peru, and as long as it remains in place their indigenous population is going to continue to be poor as the wealth from Peru's resources goes pretty much exclusively to white people." I believe I proved that this is not happening. The indigenous people in Peru is not going to continue to be poor for long if the current economic growth remains. Also, as my last study suggested, mestizos are now richer than whites in Peru. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't at all change my argument I been consistently making reference to the fallacy of division/composition/the ecological fallacy/category mistakes literally this whole time. You can use the find function and find I have been making this exact argument literally this whole freaking time. It also an argument that Pluto has been making to you just not referring to the fallacies by name, but explaining to you why the evidence you provided does not support the conclusion that indigenous people only make gains with economic growth. Ethnic displacement is something they experience alongside economic growth, no one would call that a benefit, and if populations are being displaced out of a given territory there is reason to suspect they may not be represented in national statistics – especially the case if they feel the need to leave the country. Pluto does not want to talk about abstract population aggregates, they want to address what real people actually experience on the ground and why that's politically relevant to the conversation and is not dismissible by any notion of income gains or poverty reduction for the countries poor via economic growth.
You provided evidence in regards to how a larger demographic experiences gains with economic growth, and you made reference to poverty reduction happening within indigenous communities when compared to an arbitrarily set poverty line. That doesn't disprove the notion that indigenous people may still be relatively poor when compared to the white population and that the gains they received isn't as dramatic as it is for the white population or as dramatic as it should be from a ethical standpoint. Really we should be comparing economic gains between low-income demographics divided by race, instead of looking solely at low-income people as a whole or even just specifically low-income indigenous people. We should also be taking a more relativistic approach in measuring poverty instead of looking solely on whether or not a population meets and arbitrarily set poverty-line. As Vee and Pluto have alluded to some people can still be financially struggling or even unable to afford to feed their families, and yet still be above the poverty-line. The rate of poverty decline is highly sensitive to how you decide to measure it, and if the measurement isn't externally valid then it's not sufficient or valid evidence to accurately represent a real reduction. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC).
At this point you're consciously lying after being proved wrong, that wasn't your point when the conversation started. I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The statista source states that the poverty rate for the indigenous community in 2020 was at 32.4 % compared to the 20% rate in 2019. There is a ten percent difference there with the rate being the highest it has ever been since 2012. We can probably chalk that up to the lack of economic growth due to the pandemic, but the well being of the indigenous communities isn't reducible to this one statistic and their relative poverty rate to the white population isn't shown to be growing at the same rate as the white population based on these numbers. We also just have to assume that this operational definition for poverty is externally valid in this context in order to assume it accurately reflects the lived experiences of indigenous people in poverty. Given everything that Pluto has alluded to in regards to systematic racism and ethnic displacement – the fact that many people may still be very much poor despite living above this line suggests we have no reason to run with this assumption that this operational definition is undoubtedly valid. I do not doubt that this rate has a causal relation to economic growth, but I share Pluto's skepticism here. A skepticism frankly you don't seem to really understand. Economic suffering and it's reduction is not purely reflected in a number representing poverty rates. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Show me evidence of my supposed lie. Give me quotes that show I contradict myself. I'll wait. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Smoking in NZ[edit]

Saw your edit comment. I am a smoker and a NZer but I am in my early 40's so not effected by this new legislation. Problem is we already have issues with shops being robbed, with weapons, and tobacco products are a high priority. I figure this will make the problem worse and the black market stronger. Also they are lowering the nicotine content which is fucking stupid because it'll mean people will smoke more. Nicotine isn't the problem - its all the other shit so less nicotine will make no difference to peoples health. All in all a bold move but may end with some serious unintended consequences. Acei9 01:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a ridiculously stupid policy. NZ is gonna learn why the US had to repeal a whole-ass Constitutional Amendment that one time. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 01:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you guys. The only thing working in favor of this policy is the fact that NZ is really fucking geographically isolated, so it might be difficult for dealers to sell tobacco there. But IMO focusing on education would work better than what NZ just did. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Tobacco prices here have been rising consistently for the last 20 years or so. As they go up, the black market gets bigger and robberies get more frequent. Acei9 01:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
But anyway I just walked out of my office into the yard and had me a delicious nicotine hit from my lovely cigarettes. Acei9 01:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


Welcome to the prestigious position of RW Moderator. I'd tell you what Moderators do, but you've been here for a while, so I'll instead assume that you know what you signed up for. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yo congrats GJK. You'll do a great job, I'm sure! -- Techpriest (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A guy who insults the competence of fellow RW editors/social scientists for disagreeing with him is now mod. Why? Vee (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Cuz people voted for him. One doesn’t have to agree with the mob on all political issues to be a good mod. RWRW is still pretty popular and won his way onto the alternate list this year. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations and welcome to the team! I am glad to have you aboard. Spud (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


So it seems you know your cosmology. It's my favourite topic. The last few months I have been delving into the math/physics of infinity. It all started when I had to drive two and a half hours from Auckland back to where I live after a Pixies concert. Both my phones had run out of juice so I started thinking abut the Infinite Hotel Paradox while driving the lonely backroads at 1am on a Saturday morning. I've been thinking more on infinity and the mathematical concept zero. Zero is beautiful, infinity is messy. If you can zero out an equation then you have something elegant. If you equation ends in infinity you have done something wrong and it's messy. I have been thinking about how this applies to Multiverse Theory and I think I can zero it out instead of it being infinite...Acei9 04:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ace McWickedWell, I know a thing or two about cosmlogy (defintely more than I know about Astronomy), but it's not my best topic, not because I don't love it, but because I know were my comparative advantages lie and I don't have all that time to study it, unfortunately. Yeah, zero is an amazing thing. If you like cosmology and these math thought experiments, you might like this one. Given that:
  • Time is infinite
  • The infinite monkey theorem
  • Quantum Mechanics
A new universe might arise trillions of years in the future. I think The Five Ages of the Universe covers it a bit, but I'm not sure. Things get even more interesting when you consider that anything that can happen will therefore happen (p=1) before that. Now, does that mean that everything imaginable will happen? A new world where you are the sole ruler? A sequel of your life? If this is possible, it will happen. Probably many times. In other words, if this is correct (so far there is no hard evidence, just speculation as far as I know), we are kinda eternal and we don't even have to fear death, since we might not even have this conversation right now and one of us could be just a Boltzmann brain, like I said on the Bar. Statistically, this is actually likely. Don't tell the user Machina that though... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
How about... the sum total energy of the universe is 0. All perfectly in balance by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (Hawking Radiation is a good example of this balance). In Multiverse theory there are an infinite number of universes where an infinite number of things happen - literally anything that can happen must happen . If this is the case the a multiverse would also create an infinite number of universes where there are no multiverses/multiverse theory isn't true - lets call this negative-infinity. So we have positive-infinity + negative-infinity We have just reduced the net energy of a multiverse to zero. Therefor the 1st Law of TD is absolute. I started thinking about this half drunk on the couch one evening and just ran with it. Acei9 00:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm drunk right now and I could understand what you said despite reading it three times. Maybe I should drink more? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It’s 10:42am Sunday morning here. I have a belly full of opiates (provided legitimately by prescription I should add) and knocking back hard cider with coffee on the side. I already yelled at some seagulls on the beach earlier and stole a packet of chewing gum from the supermarket. I’m in fine shape this foul morning. You should come over to my place for a drink, we can plot and plan. Acei9 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Not a bad deal, always wanted to go to NZ. Though leaving my family right now would be a bit hard... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)