[RonPaulalways]

RonPaulalways wrote:
So they would be willing to impose an extremely intrusive social order on unwilling individuals based on some belief that this would decrease the risk in their life? I believe they would see such a course of action as increasing the chance of conflict and decreasing the quality of life, both of which would increase the risk in their life.


They would not be unwilling because at that point, before the society is constructed and the lives are lived, they would not know where they end up, at the top or at the bottom. Hence, it is a rational decision for all of them to make the bottom as comfortable as possible.

To me it's self-evident that a society that imposes such a draconian and intrusive social order on unwilling people would result in more conflict and therefore far more risk for each individual, not less. It's a rational decision for all of them to not create a social order that leads to constant tension and control of members.

RonPaulalways wrote:
I said that the welfare state would make a country poorer than it otherwise would be, thus increasing the chance of being destroyed. I never said it would lead to poverty.


A chance which is completely negligible.

I disagree, I think the chance is real as the last 2 centuries of warfare has shown. Major wars are devastating events.

RonPaulalways wrote:
It is actually not an absurd notion at all. All other things being equal, the stronger the national defense, the safer a country is from foreign threats.

I think your dismissal of such an obvious point is what's absurd.


Yes, because it is simply irrelevant. The age of conquest is over.

This is a dangerous and careless assumption. When the equilibrium changes, and it will change, we have no idea what a world without US supremacy will look like.

It is a strong correlation, but it is not absolute which could be taken as a hint that the USE of wealth might influence its efficacy in prolonging life expectancy. And such a use could for example be the smart use Singapore makes of its money or the larger western welfare state. But it is obviously not wealth alone that makes you live long.

I never said it was wealth alone that determined life expectancy, I said it was a very important factor, and showed a strong correlation. Even welfare is dependent on the wealth of a nation, with wealthier nations being able to afford more welfare spending more comfortably. Wealth is important for the well-being of a people, that's the only point I made.

RonPaulalways wrote:
Upholding the law is a good place to start for gaining stability. There is very little law and order in African states. I'd favor law enforcement over costly welfare schemes as a means of attaining stability for a poor African state.


So you would rather spend the money on more policy instead of eliminating the source of crime which is poverty among parts of the population?

By reducing crime, the economy will be helped by reducing losses from theft, and making people feel safe enough to invest and build businesses.

Effective enforcement of laws is cheaper than expensive welfare schemes and deals with the crime and criminals itself, rather than going after some assumed source.

RonPaulalways wrote:
You claim you didn't ignore my post, yet in your response you clearly indicate that you ignored my post.

I propose cutting social spending by 80% to Singapore's level, and you respond saying that we can't eliminate social spending.

One more time, I am suggesting we cut social spending by 80% to South-Korean/Singapore/etc's levels. Let's try it for a few decades, and if it works, let's take my suggestion and eliminate social welfare altogether. If it doesn't work we can go back to bankrupting the West with social spending.

Just respond to the part in bold, as that's the crux of my proposal.

So how bout it, willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?


That's hilarious. AGAIN, for the third time. If your experiment of cutting expenditure by 80% Singaporean style was successful, that wouldn't be proof that cutting it completely would be evenly successful because their welfare system still hinges on state intervention, just on smarter one. Hence, a complete reduction would be suicidal even if, again, your experiment was successful.

So for the third time, you refuse to answer my question. Notice the parts in bold, you completely ignored them, AGAIN.

This is not how to contribute constructively to a debate. Your recalcitrance is very immature and it is this type of attitude you're displaying now towards me that leads to discussions like this deterioriating into name-calling and senseless back-and-forth attacks.

Are you or are you not willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?

[Order]

To me it's self-evident that a society that imposes such a draconian and intrusive social order on unwilling people would result in more conflict and therefore far more risk for each individual, not less. It's a rational decision for all of them to not create a social order that leads to constant tension and control of members.

If they agree to it, they would have no reason to complain, right? And if they agree to it, there is no reason that it would later cause tension.

This is a dangerous and careless assumption. When the equilibrium changes, and it will change, we have no idea what a world without US supremacy will look like.

What reasons do we have to think it will be very different in a negative way?

I never said it was wealth alone that determined life expectancy, I said it was a very important factor, and showed a strong correlation. Even welfare is dependent on the wealth of a nation, with wealthier nations being able to afford more welfare spending more comfortably. Wealth is important for the well-being of a people, that's the only point I made.

Then your point is common-sensical to the extent of being meaningless and certainly not an argument for libertarianism.

By reducing crime, the economy will be helped by reducing losses from theft, and making people feel safe enough to invest and build businesses.

Effective enforcement of laws is cheaper than expensive welfare schemes and deals with the crime and criminals itself, rather than going after some assumed source.

Just curing the symptoms will hardly result in long-lasting successes. If locking up was the solution, the US should be the safest country in the world.

So for the third time, you refuse to answer my question. Notice the parts in bold, you completely ignored them, AGAIN.

This is not how to contribute constructively to a debate. Your recalcitrance is very immature and it is this type of attitude you're displaying now towards me that leads to discussions like this deterioriating into name-calling and senseless back-and-forth attacks.

Are you or are you not willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?

WTF are you talking about. I gave you an answer three times that was completely appropriate. I said I am not against spending less money more effectively. That means it would be ok to cut social spending if we are able to institute a system that is as effective as Singapore's. Just to make sure, the answer is the sentence in bold. That is the sentence before the last sentence. Now three sentences ago.
And once again, even if such an experiment was successful, it wouldn't be proof that no spending at all is a good idea.

[ingliz]

Ronald:

...that a society that imposes such a draconian and intrusive social order on unwilling people

But are the people unwilling? In the US, every election cycle, the people vote in "big government", big spending, welfare liberals. Your argument is very silly.

You witter on about government non-intervention and lower social spending bringing prosperity to all but, surprise, surprise, when I look up the figures for your chosen example, Hong Kong, only the wealthy have benefited from lower government spending. The bottom 1/3 of Hong Kong society is getting poorer. And not just relatively poorer, but poorer in absolute terms as their income is falling and even your precious middle class are being squeezed. Why are you so blind? The HK government has been forced to intervene in recent years because the increasing wealth disparity and decreasing social mobility has led to civil unrest, 500,000 citzens rioted in 2003. Social pressures for increased welfare from your "unwilling" people will inevitably mean the HK freemarket experiment fails. I would say it has already failed as a $6.5 billion stimulus package is hardly laissez faire.

[grassroots1]

Calling democracy 'draconian' is not just excessive, it's downright false. No one is instituting control, that's the point, it's a collective decision-making system. How else do you propose that we make decisions as a group? The fact is that 'government' in one form or another WILL exist AT LEAST at the points when people feel they need to work together.

[RonPaulalways]

RonPaulalways wrote:
To me it's self-evident that a society that imposes such a draconian and intrusive social order on unwilling people would result in more conflict and therefore far more risk for each individual, not less. It's a rational decision for all of them to not create a social order that leads to constant tension and control of members.


If they agree to it, they would have no reason to complain, right? And if they agree to it, there is no reason that it would later cause tension.

It won't be unanimous consent. There will be those who disagree. That is the point of government run welfare: it is imposed on the unwilling. Otherwise government wouldn't be needed to organize it.

RonPaulalways wrote:
This is a dangerous and careless assumption. When the equilibrium changes, and it will change, we have no idea what a world without US supremacy will look like.


What reasons do we have to think it will be very different in a negative way?

Human nature. The chaotic nature of the universe. History.

Quote:
I never said it was wealth alone that determined life expectancy, I said it was a very important factor, and showed a strong correlation. Even welfare is dependent on the wealth of a nation, with wealthier nations being able to afford more welfare spending more comfortably. Wealth is important for the well-being of a people, that's the only point I made.


Then your point is common-sensical to the extent of being meaningless and certainly not an argument for libertarianism.

If libertarianism increases wealth, and wealth increases life expectancy, then libertarianism increases life expectancy.

Quote:
By reducing crime, the economy will be helped by reducing losses from theft, and making people feel safe enough to invest and build businesses.

Effective enforcement of laws is cheaper than expensive welfare schemes and deals with the crime and criminals itself, rather than going after some assumed source.


Just curing the symptoms will hardly result in long-lasting successes.

Crime is not just a symptom, it is a major cause of economic malaise.

If locking up was the solution, the US should be the safest country in the world.

US is quite safe. Locking criminals up is an effective way to deter crime and create a safe environment for people to build lives for themselves.

As far as why the US crime rate isn't the lowest in the world: 70% of people in US prisons are blacks. Demographics explains why US has a higher crime rate than Europe.

Quote:
So for the third time, you refuse to answer my question. Notice the parts in bold, you completely ignored them, AGAIN.

This is not how to contribute constructively to a debate. Your recalcitrance is very immature and it is this type of attitude you're displaying now towards me that leads to discussions like this deterioriating into name-calling and senseless back-and-forth attacks.

Are you or are you not willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?


WTF are you talking about. I gave you an answer three times that was completely appropriate. I said I am not against spending less money more effectively. That means it would be ok to cut social spending if we are able to institute a system that is as effective as Singapore's.

My frustration with your conduct is entirely appropriate. You didn't actually say that you'd agree to cuts in social spending until this post. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Now that you have: good, that's all I wanted to hear. So we're in agreement.

[Order]

It won't be unanimous consent. There will be those who disagree. That is the point of government run welfare: it is imposed on the unwilling. Otherwise government wouldn't be needed to organize it.

Ok, you are simply not listening. I have lined out a million times why it would be rational for them to consent to it in the first place. And if they consent they are duty-bound to oblige, hence their later resistance would be immoral. If you don't want to listen to my arguments, why are we talking? As you said yourself, the small minority of wanderers that doesn't consent can leave or keep wandering.

Human nature. The chaotic nature of the universe. History.

That is an "argument" for pretty much anything. Weak.

If libertarianism increases wealth, and wealth increases life expectancy, then libertarianism increases life expectancy.

If it doesn't increase it automatically but only if channeled by states in a certain way then it is not an argument for libertarianism. And we have established that there is not a simply correlation from no social spending to higher life expectancy. As I said, not an argument for libertarianism per se, just for somehow increasing wealth and using it efficiently for health care. No evidence at all that no state intervention at all would be a smart idea.

Crime is not just a symptom, it is a major cause of economic malaise.

Sure, it can be symptom and cause, a vicious circle.

US is quite safe. Locking criminals up is an effective way to deter crime and create a safe environment for people to build lives for themselves.

As far as why the US crime rate isn't the lowest in the world: 70% of people in US prisons are blacks. Demographics explains why US has a higher crime rate than Europe.

So blacks are more criminal by nature? Ever considered there may be underlying social causes why they are more criminal, related to their economic situation?
More than 1% (!!) of the US population is in prison. 24% of the world's prison population. At the same time the US have a ridiculously high homicide rate compared to other countries while the number of other crimes is not greatly different. I really can't see the connection you are talking about.

My frustration with your conduct is entirely appropriate. You didn't actually say that you'd agree to cuts in social spending until this post. Why are you pretending otherwise?

I said in my first post I wouldn't mind more effective spending of money as in the Singaporean case. The same answer you were happy with in the end.

[ingliz]

If libertarianism increases wealth, and wealth increases life expectancy, then libertarianism increases life expectancy.

You have no way of knowing if libertarianism increases wealth and so arguing that it increases life expectancy is very silly.

As there has never been a modern industrial libertarian state to compare to the industrial welfare states and even your example of libertarianism in action, Hong Kong, is a weak welfare state and not libertarian you really have no argument. Comparing past performance of near 'laissez faire' states which became modern welfare states shows next to no difference in averaged GDP growth. Using the US, where stats are abundant, actually shows the welfare state economy faring slightly better than its laissez faire forbear.

[RonPaulalways]

RonPaulalways wrote:
It won't be unanimous consent. There will be those who disagree. That is the point of government run welfare: it is imposed on the unwilling. Otherwise government wouldn't be needed to organize it.


Ok, you are simply not listening. I have lined out a million times why it would be rational for them to consent to it in the first place.

You've lined out a theory that makes no sense. Why would the strong among them choose to bind themselves into a co-dependent relationship with the weak, when they can simply choose solely the other strong individuals as partners in a co-op insurance plan. Their premiums would decrease if they only had healthy hard working individuals as members of their insurance plan, so it would be in their rational self-interest to exclude the weak.

Your assertion that a universal welfare plan is a 'rational' choice for them seems completely unfounded to me.

Quote:
Human nature. The chaotic nature of the universe. History.


That is an "argument" for pretty much anything. Weak.

I don't think my argument is weak. I think your argument that we can rest assured that there will be no wars or conquest in the future is weak.

Quote:
If libertarianism increases wealth, and wealth increases life expectancy, then libertarianism increases life expectancy.


If it doesn't increase it automatically but only if channeled by states in a certain way then it is not an argument for libertarianism.

We don't know that, since there are no nations with absolutely no welfare. All we know is a strong correlation between low social spending and growth in wealth.

And we have established that there is not a simply correlation from no social spending to higher life expectancy.

We have established a correlation between low social spending and the fastest economic growth rates in the world.

Quote:
US is quite safe. Locking criminals up is an effective way to deter crime and create a safe environment for people to build lives for themselves.

As far as why the US crime rate isn't the lowest in the world: 70% of people in US prisons are blacks. Demographics explains why US has a higher crime rate than Europe.


So blacks are more criminal by nature? Ever considered there may be underlying social causes why they are more criminal, related to their economic situation?

Why blacks are more likely to commit crime is irrelevant to my point. All I know is that the correlation exists in many countries in the world and I'm sure blacks would dominate prison figures in Europe too if there were as many of them there.

Quote:
My frustration with your conduct is entirely appropriate. You didn't actually say that you'd agree to cuts in social spending until this post. Why are you pretending otherwise?


I said in my first post I wouldn't mind more effective spending of money as in the Singaporean case. The same answer you were happy with in the end.

You wrote in your first post:

I am not against using money in a more sophisticated manner.

I didn't take that as a direct response. If it was intended as a response to my question, then I take back my complaint.

[ingliz]

Does social spending deter economic growth? Lindert

Through careful statistical techniques, the author finds that those countries that spend the most on social programs do not grow the slowest, Why? The author presents some intriguing answers.

While they may differ on the magnitude, politicians and scholars agree that serious economic costs arise from today's social spending, particularly progressive taxes and transfer programs, The expansion of tax-based social transfers, and indeed social spending in general, costs a significant part of a country's national product. Even worse, professionals guess that each dollar of transfer payments costs the rest of society not only that dollar but an additional $0.50 to $1.30. The most extravagant published guess puts the total cost at $2.49 for each dollar transferred.

Economists claim they find these net losses of national output - called "deadweight losses" because they are not removed by gains to anybody - both in computer simulations of the economy and in statistical regressions designed to analyze the behavior of individual households. One would expect that such large losses would leave conspicuous marks on the overall growth record. We should see either a Darwinian survival of only those governments that converge toward lower levels of social transfers or clear losses in economic growth for countries whose governments re-distribute heavily.

Neither symptom shows up, however, in the recent experience of industrialized democracies, either in simple correlations or when the computer is used to analyze the influences of many variables at once. Why not? What happened to the well-known heavy costs of government redistribution, on which so many seem to agree?

Social Spending and Economic Growth, an interview with Peter Lindert

Q. Then what did your statistical results show?

A. Statistical results showed that the difference, other things equal, between 10 percent of GDP going into social transfers, as in the social programs in the United States or Japan, and 33 percent, as in Sweden, is indistinguishable from zero.

Q. So the conclusion, therefore, is that it has no consequence?

A. It has no consequence for GDP.

Q. For the growth or the level of GDP?

A. Either one.

[Order]

You've lined out a theory that makes no sense. Why would the strong among them choose to bind themselves into a co-dependent relationship with the weak, when they can simply choose solely the other strong individuals as partners in a co-op insurance plan. Their premiums would decrease if they only had healthy hard working individuals as members of their insurance plan, so it would be in their rational self-interest to exclude the weak.

Your assertion that a universal welfare plan is a 'rational' choice for them seems completely unfounded to me.

Because the strong can't know whether they will always be strong or whether their descendants who have to live in that society afterwards will be strong too.

I don't think my argument is weak. I think your argument that we can rest assured that there will be no wars or conquest in the future is weak.

Well, how about this. In today's world conquering land has no economic benefits anymore because the most important resources in post-industrial societies are not material anymore. Conquering agricultural land is not a successful strategy for enrichment as it was in the past millennias. Also, major war disrupts strongly interdependent economic systems and is therefore detrimental for everybody involved.

We have established a correlation between low social spending and the fastest economic growth rates in the world.

Yes, but not correlation between no social spending and greater life expectancy in those fast-growing states. And you would need to show that for your growth argument to have any relevance. Right now my interpretation that their system is simply more efficient is equally valid.

Why blacks are more likely to commit crime is irrelevant to my point. All I know is that the correlation exists in many countries in the world and I'm sure blacks would dominate prison figures in Europe too if there were as many of them there.

No, it is extremely important for your point for if it is not their blackness that produces crime, you can't argue that the problem would similarly exist in Europe. If it is their socio-economic status or other country-dependent social factors your argument collapses. Do you believe that there is something inherent to having darker skin that makes your more crime-prone?
And why did you ignore my point concerning the success of the US' imprisonment strategies?

[ingliz]

Growing Public, Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century; Peter H Lindert

Lindert's Argument Fleshed out

Contrary to political theory of the free-market devotees, in the real world the welfare states have not simply increased social programs by raising direct taxes on productive people and turned it over to people, who choose not to work – taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. No government dares do so. Instead the welfare states, by designing their tax-systems, have carefully controlled the disincentives to work. Financing the welfare state is not only a question of taxation but also of what types of taxes and how they are structured. Welfare state governments have chosen types of taxes that minimise or eliminate any damage to growth. European high-budget countries do not have higher average rates of taxation on capital income, not risking capital flight, and they have been cautious about double taxation of dividends. They have relied on income taxes and consumption taxes, including tax on addiction goods.

The welfare states are not free lunch tables. They have fine tuned the work incentives of their welfare programs, including social spending programs that make people more productive, some with cumulative return over decades and generations: for instance public education, support for childcare and making it possible for women to work, public health programmes and to a smaller degree activation schemes for the unemployed.

Taking all historical experiences as a single experiment, the richer the country, the more it tends to transfer to the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unemployed. So far, any negative feedback from social programs to productivity levels, or productivity growth, remains well hidden....No Darwinian mechanism has punished the bigger spenders.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
You've lined out a theory that makes no sense. Why would the strong among them choose to bind themselves into a co-dependent relationship with the weak, when they can simply choose solely the other strong individuals as partners in a co-op insurance plan. Their premiums would decrease if they only had healthy hard working individuals as members of their insurance plan, so it would be in their rational self-interest to exclude the weak.

Your assertion that a universal welfare plan is a 'rational' choice for them seems completely unfounded to me.


Because the strong can't know whether they will always be strong or whether their descendants who have to live in that society afterwards will be strong too.

Even if they don't know if they'll always be strong, it's still in their best interest to join in a co-dependent relationship with only those who are strong at the time. Even if some of them get sick in the subsequent years, odds are their premiums will still be lower than if they had accepted all the sick/weak people into their coop at the beginning.

And I don't think they'll be thinking about whether their descendants will be strong or not for two reasons:

1) They'll be too concerned about their immediate situation and their own life and doing everything they can to maximize their advantage.

2) A social contract can't bind the unborn. A social obligation the unborn haven't agreed to can't be thrust onto them by their ancestors. That would be the same principle as children being forced to pay their grandparents' debt, or being punished for their crimes.

Quote:
I don't think my argument is weak. I think your argument that we can rest assured that there will be no wars or conquest in the future is weak.


Well, how about this. In today's world conquering land has no economic benefits anymore because the most important resources in post-industrial societies are not material anymore.

I'm not going to respond to this as it's off tangent and we can go on for pages sharing our theories without anything being resolved. I simply think it's absurd to not make having a strong national defense a high priority. We can agree to disagree.

Quote:
We have established a correlation between low social spending and the fastest economic growth rates in the world.


Yes, but not correlation between no social spending and greater life expectancy in those fast-growing states.

There are no nations with no social spending. The developed nations with the fastest growing economies in the world though also happen to have the lowest social spending.

And you would need to show that for your growth argument to have any relevance. Right now my interpretation that their system is simply more efficient is equally valid.

No I wouldn't. If X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z. Wealth is strongly correlated with life expectancy. Low social spending is correlated with a higher rate of growth for wealth. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that low social spending will lead to a higher rate of increase for life expectancy.

Quote:
Why blacks are more likely to commit crime is irrelevant to my point. All I know is that the correlation exists in many countries in the world and I'm sure blacks would dominate prison figures in Europe too if there were as many of them there.


No, it is extremely important for your point for if it is not their blackness that produces crime, you can't argue that the problem would similarly exist in Europe.

Again, you ignore my comment pointing out that the correlation exists in many countries in the world, not just America.

And why did you ignore my point concerning the success of the US' imprisonment strategies?

I directly addressed it by bringing up US's demographic differences with Europe.

[ingliz]

Ronald:

Low social spending is correlated with a higher rate of growth for wealth. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that low social spending will lead to a higher rate of increase for life expectancy.

Wrong!

Ignore my posts if you want to but your argument does not hold up against the empirical evidence. You waffle on producing practically no 'facts' to back up your position and what few you have produced have been comprehensively refuted. Sticking your fingers in your ears and talking over the evidence just makes you look foolish.

The growth rates for the Asian tigers are no better than Stalinist Russia, also once the envy of the world's economies. I could use your argument and the USSR's figures to argue collectivism is correlated with higher rates of economic growth - You would say I was talking out of my arse: Why do you think you're not?

[RonPaulalways]

Ingliz, I provided comprehensive facts.

The Asian tigers have led the world in economic growth these past five decades. Unlike Stalinist Russia, they haven't relied on slave labor, and therefore their
economic model is sustainable.

The Asian tigers have very low social spending levels.

Singapore for example spends, as a percentage of GDP, less than a quarter what the US does on public health care:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/200 ... _heal.html

Same thing with South Korea. South Korea's government spends, as a percentage of GDP, the least of any OECD country on health care:



^ As you can see, China spends, as a percentage of GDP, even less on health care.

South Korea has the lowest social spending, as a percentage of GDP, of any OECD country:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/37/31613113.xls

And not surprisingly, South Korea's economy has absolutely boomed these last 30 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea

The economy of South Korea is a highly developed[1] trillion dollar economy that is the fourth largest in Asia and 13th largest in the world. It sustained double-digit economic growth for decades, growing faster than any other major economy in the 20th century.

[ingliz]

South Korea's life expectancy figures are even lower than Malta's, a welfare state which also has a lower GDP per capita - how do you account for that?

[RonPaulalways]

South Korea's life expectancy is very high, at 21st in the world, and has increased dramatically these last 50 years. Malta is a wealthy state that started off much richer than South Korea 50 years ago. South Korea has closed the income gap and has almost closed the life expectancy gap.

[ingliz]

Malta was a British colony 50 years ago

GNP per capita 1960 (constant 1995 US$)

Malta - $1275

S. Korea - $1321

Singapore - $2776

Hong Kong - $3021



http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gnp/gnp_capita.TXT

[Order]

Even if they don't know if they'll always be strong, it's still in their best interest to join in a co-dependent relationship with only those who are strong at the time. Even if some of them get sick in the subsequent years, odds are their premiums will still be lower than if they had accepted all the sick/weak people into their coop at the beginning.

And I don't think they'll be thinking about whether their descendants will be strong or not for two reasons:

1) They'll be too concerned about their immediate situation and their own life and doing everything they can to maximize their advantage.

2) A social contract can't bind the unborn. A social obligation the unborn haven't agreed to can't be thrust onto them by their ancestors. That would be the same principle as children being forced to pay their grandparents' debt, or being punished for their crimes.

I guess we have to agree to disagree about this too. No point repeating our entrenched positions.

No I wouldn't. If X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z. Wealth is strongly correlated with life expectancy. Low social spending is correlated with a higher rate of growth for wealth. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that low social spending will lead to a higher rate of increase for life expectancy.

But it doesn't follow that no social spending would mean even higher life expectancy. There is no proof that no social spending would work. As you correctly say it has never happened, hence you can't really prove that point by just asserting, you have no evidence. There is a qualitative gap between having no spending and low spending. The argument that Singapore works so well because it has a really sophisticated welfare system is equally valid.

Again, you ignore my comment pointing out that the correlation exists in many countries in the world, not just America.

That's why I wrote:
"No, it is extremely important for your point for if it is not their blackness that produces crime, you can't argue that the problem would similarly exist in Europe. If it is their socio-economic status or other country-dependent social factors your argument collapses. Do you believe that there is something inherent to having darker skin that makes your more crime-prone?"
Just because it exists in more countries doesn't prove that it is not also social factors in those other countries which are responsible for the higher propensity to crime. Except if you think that dark-skinned people are inherently criminal. Do you?

[RonPaulalways]

Malta was a British colony 50 years ago

GNP per capita 1960 (constant 1995 US$)

Malta - $1275

S. Korea - $1321

I don't know how those stats were tabulated, but Malta had a per capita GDP more than two times higher than South Korea in 1960:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/e ... &date=1960

Malta: $409.36 per capita

Korea, South: $155.67 per capita

But it doesn't follow that no social spending would mean even higher life expectancy. There is no proof that no social spending would work.

As I mentioned earlier a couple times, I am not able to, or trying to, prove any thing, just explain why I believe what I do. The fact that those countries that had the lowest social spending of any nation had the fastest economic growth rates leads to me believe that it is not efficiency of welfare programs that is to credit, as you propose, but the absence of a large part of the government welfare budget.

If welfare helps a nation do better, and those nations' success is simply due to having efficient welfare programs, then it would follow that having an efficient AND larger welfare program would benefit the nation even more, yet the fastest growing economies all have very low social spending. I think you're making a logical leap to assume it's the 'sophistication' of their welfare programs that has helped these nations, when the only thing that statistics show is that spend much less on welfare. We have no idea if their welfare is sophisticated, or well managed, only that it doesn't take up much of their budget.

Maybe it's not the welfare that has made these nations' people prosper, but economic growth.

Just because it exists in more countries doesn't prove that it is not also social factors in those other countries which are responsible for the higher propensity to crime. Except if you think that dark-skinned people are inherently criminal. Do you?

Why would these social factors uniquely affect blacks, and not other minority populations?

Again, I never said I can prove any thing, just explaining why I believe that Europe would have higher crime rates if it had similar demographics as the US.

I think it's unlikely that it's just a coincidence that blacks living in western countries around the world have higher crime rates, and I don't believe it's due to racism that non-black populations uniquely subject blacks to (and not the other minority groups).

I think it's African culture/people itself that makes their population have more people that tend towards crime.

[Order]

We have no idea if their welfare is sophisticated, or well managed, only that it doesn't take up much of their budget.

I posted sources earlier about the functioning of Singapore's system. No leap of logic involved.

Why would these social factors uniquely affect blacks, and not other minority populations?

Doesn't it? But ok, let us assume for the moment it was really the case, would it explain the vast differences? At the moment "they" are about 12% of the population. France has a population of 65 000 000. Of those about 4 millions are black. That is about 6%. Shouldn't they show at least some similar symptoms, maybe half the US's problems with crime? Half the prison population? But France is far from that and the murder rate for example is lower than in homogeneous South Korea.