Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/debate/2013-03-10"
< User:Woozle | debate
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(killed ALL extra question-marks -- let's see if they come back...) |
(today's batch -- not complete) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The formatting is still ugly, but at least you can leave other branches closed while you "follow" a thread from point to point. | The formatting is still ugly, but at least you can leave other branches closed while you "follow" a thread from point to point. | ||
| − | I split off several sub-threads that were tangential to the issue of Whole Foods. | + | I have split off several sub-threads that were tangential to the issue of Whole Foods. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{#tree: | {{#tree: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 11: | ||
****** (Woozle) Yes -- the government. And we want a similar system for GMO. | ****** (Woozle) Yes -- the government. And we want a similar system for GMO. | ||
****** (Woozle) Note that "Organic" is a selling-point, so stores have an incentive to use it; the government oversight is only needed to prevent them from using it when it's not true. GMO, conversely, is a sales liability, so we have to create some kind of artificial incentive for them to use it. | ****** (Woozle) Note that "Organic" is a selling-point, so stores have an incentive to use it; the government oversight is only needed to prevent them from using it when it's not true. GMO, conversely, is a sales liability, so we have to create some kind of artificial incentive for them to use it. | ||
| + | ***** (Noel) it was when the USDA stepped in that the organic labeling got influenced by lobbyists. | ||
| + | ****** (Woozle) The lobbyists will try to influence whoever has the decisionmaking power. A small organization is easier to influence than the federal government. | ||
| + | ****** (Noel) The [certification] labels have the incentive of having a good reputation; otherwise, they are worthless. | ||
| + | ******* (Woozle) They can also succeed by peddling influence. | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) Higher education has the same incentive; Ivy League schools can accept everyone (all they'd need is to hire more teachers and buy more classroom space) but they don't because they know there's more money to be had if they maintain a good reputation. | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) Higher education can be vulnerable to the same influences -- witness Bob Jones University and [[Liberty University]], both of which are indoctrination centers for religious fundamentalism. Long-established institutions have considerable mass and inertia to protect them, but they are hardly immune; given current trends, it is only a matter of time before they become tools of the plutonomy (there are many who would argue that they already are). | ||
*** (Noel) Whole Foods has always been a leader in labeling (for those who have never stepped foot in one of them, they label the origins of the food they sell). GMO labeling is something I had been expecting them to start at some point. Their customers want such labeling so its in their interests to have such labeling. | *** (Noel) Whole Foods has always been a leader in labeling (for those who have never stepped foot in one of them, they label the origins of the food they sell). GMO labeling is something I had been expecting them to start at some point. Their customers want such labeling so its in their interests to have such labeling. | ||
**** (Woozle) If they believe it is beneficial, why oppose laws which would bring this benefit to everyone? Just saying it's their "stance" (to want to do it themselves rather than be required to) isn't an argument. | **** (Woozle) If they believe it is beneficial, why oppose laws which would bring this benefit to everyone? Just saying it's their "stance" (to want to do it themselves rather than be required to) isn't an argument. | ||
| + | ***** (Noel) Watch the praxgirl videos. In short, it's because different people value different things at different times. If a grocer thought (even rationally if they have numbers to back it up) that spending effort doing something else will lead to more affordable food for their customers and larger profits, why should they be forced to label their foods? IOW, labeling would increase their chances of going out of business until they're able to take care of other things first. | ||
| + | ***** (Noel) I've noticed in my area, many grocers have taken WF's lead and started labeling. | ||
*** (Noel) WRT [[Obamacare]], it's the exact same stance. AFAIK, Whole Foods provides very good healthcare benefits. | *** (Noel) WRT [[Obamacare]], it's the exact same stance. AFAIK, Whole Foods provides very good healthcare benefits. | ||
**** (Woozle) The healthcare provided by Whole Foods to its employees is largely irrelevant; the point is that their chairman opposed healthcare for the rest of us -- on dishonest grounds -- and suggested many steps which would have made the problem worse. ([[2009-08-11 The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare|CEO's letter in WSJ]]) | **** (Woozle) The healthcare provided by Whole Foods to its employees is largely irrelevant; the point is that their chairman opposed healthcare for the rest of us -- on dishonest grounds -- and suggested many steps which would have made the problem worse. ([[2009-08-11 The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare|CEO's letter in WSJ]]) | ||
| Line 24: | Line 30: | ||
******** (Noel) If you want WF not to be 'evil', write them an email stating what you mean by 'evil' and asking them to stop. | ******** (Noel) If you want WF not to be 'evil', write them an email stating what you mean by 'evil' and asking them to stop. | ||
********* (Woozle) We probably should have mailed a copy of [http://wiki.hypertwins.org/Open_Letter_to_Whole_Foods_Chapel_Hill this] to WF HQ, instead of just to the store we used to frequent. If you think it might be worth trying to re-open the dialogue at this late date (considering that Mackey continues to dig in and repeat long-debunked claims), I'm willing to give it a try. | ********* (Woozle) We probably should have mailed a copy of [http://wiki.hypertwins.org/Open_Letter_to_Whole_Foods_Chapel_Hill this] to WF HQ, instead of just to the store we used to frequent. If you think it might be worth trying to re-open the dialogue at this late date (considering that Mackey continues to dig in and repeat long-debunked claims), I'm willing to give it a try. | ||
| + | ********** (Noel) What are the long-debunked claims that Mackey espouses? | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) [[2009-08-11 The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare/woozle|Here]] are the ones I had time to address: | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) 1. ''"Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)."'' | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) 2. ''"Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."'' | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) 3. ''"Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines."'' | ||
| + | ********** (Noel) The author of the letter thinks it ought to be fixed by taking from those who have more than they... | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) The best intelligence on Obamacare, at the time of writing, is that it would be deficit-neutral. It would not be taking from anyone. | ||
| + | ********** (Noel) ...while I and others think it ought to be fixed by removing frictions in the market... | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) "Removing frictions in the market" does nothing to improve the quality of service when the easiest way to make a profit is to not provide the service. This is the case for any kind of insurance. | ||
| + | *********** (Noel) i.e. that it's state involvement that is making it broken. | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) If that's the case, then why does state-run healthcare generally do a better job than privately-run? | ||
******** (Noel) What sort of strong-arm tactics has WF used? Or is it conjectural as opposed to the known tactics of your co-op? | ******** (Noel) What sort of strong-arm tactics has WF used? Or is it conjectural as opposed to the known tactics of your co-op? | ||
********* (Woozle) Not entirely conjectural, but I can't quickly put my hands on any specific evidence. | ********* (Woozle) Not entirely conjectural, but I can't quickly put my hands on any specific evidence. | ||
| + | ********** (Noel) Until you find such evidence, do you agree to drop this belief? | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) The question is moot; challenged, I have found some of the evidence I remember seeing: | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) "National sponsors like Organic Valley and Nature's Path have been threatened by Whole Foods and United Natural Foods that if they continue to support the Organic Consumers Association they will suffer repercussions in the marketplace..." ([http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20465.cfm source]) | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) buying up the competition and closing them down ([http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/business/15food.html?_r=0 source]) | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) firing workers who attempt to form unions, while paying low wages; gagging shareholders ([http://michaelbluejay.com/misc/wholefoods.html collection of sources]) | ||
****** (Woozle) Just saying that it's their "stance" doesn't justify it. | ****** (Woozle) Just saying that it's their "stance" doesn't justify it. | ||
** (laura watkins) Actually the Whole Foods guy is infamous for deliberately forcing out (and buying up) of other companies providing similar services. Mostly older, community-based ones, basically the people who established and defined the organic food movement. It's the Walmart model of corporate behavior. .. So, yes, he "provides jobs," but so did all the places that are now gone. .. And they were primarily local, which feeds money back into the community, instead of sending it off to - is it Dallas? | ** (laura watkins) Actually the Whole Foods guy is infamous for deliberately forcing out (and buying up) of other companies providing similar services. Mostly older, community-based ones, basically the people who established and defined the organic food movement. It's the Walmart model of corporate behavior. .. So, yes, he "provides jobs," but so did all the places that are now gone. .. And they were primarily local, which feeds money back into the community, instead of sending it off to - is it Dallas? | ||
| Line 55: | Line 77: | ||
********* (Noel) You might think such an action is irrational just as I might think boycotting is irrational, but that's neither here nor there because it's their actual action that counts. | ********* (Noel) You might think such an action is irrational just as I might think boycotting is irrational, but that's neither here nor there because it's their actual action that counts. | ||
********** (Woozle) So, you're arguing that we can determine that a community is gaining wealth from WF simply because they shop there, even if they are doing so for irrational reasons? | ********** (Woozle) So, you're arguing that we can determine that a community is gaining wealth from WF simply because they shop there, even if they are doing so for irrational reasons? | ||
| + | *********** (Noel) I'm saying that the fact that people in the community shop at WF is rational by (their) definition. | ||
| + | ************ (Noel) Praxeology - Episode 5 - The Rationality of Action covers this -- it's less than three minutes long so please watch it. ([[bookstop]]) | ||
| + | ************* (Woozle) The first words in that episode are "Human action is necessarily always rational." So yes, you are claiming this, and it is false. | ||
| + | ************* (Woozle) The video is clearly attempting an Orwellian redefinition of the words necessary to have this conversation, especially "[[rational]]". | ||
| + | ************ (Woozle) How is that relevant? | ||
** (laura watkins) WF's prices are a scandal - if you are lucky enough to live in a place with viable alternatives you get to see how badly they jack things up. *** (laura watkins) And they aren't even that good a source of organic stuff, since you have to seek it out from among the equally-pricy glossy non-organic stuff. | ** (laura watkins) WF's prices are a scandal - if you are lucky enough to live in a place with viable alternatives you get to see how badly they jack things up. *** (laura watkins) And they aren't even that good a source of organic stuff, since you have to seek it out from among the equally-pricy glossy non-organic stuff. | ||
*** (laura watkins) Which is all to say, I have no liking or trust for the guy - just another Texas corporate creep. | *** (laura watkins) Which is all to say, I have no liking or trust for the guy - just another Texas corporate creep. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 106: | ||
************* (Noel) Oh, only when essential resources are scarce. Why only essential resources? | ************* (Noel) Oh, only when essential resources are scarce. Why only essential resources? | ||
************** (Woozle) Because if they're nonessential, then I don't feel compelled to earn money in order to obtain them; I can say "ennh" and walk away. | ************** (Woozle) Because if they're nonessential, then I don't feel compelled to earn money in order to obtain them; I can say "ennh" and walk away. | ||
| + | *************** (Noel) So you weren't compelled to earn money to buy your computer? Or do you consider a computer to be essential? | ||
| + | **************** (Woozle) If a computer weren't essential ''to me'' for earning money, then I would consider it to be recreational in nature, and I wouldn't feel compelled to earn money just in order to buy or maintain it. | ||
| + | **************** (Noel) If so, again, computers have been made affordable to a broad population (and becoming even more affordable still) due to free markets driving prices lower through greater efficiency. | ||
| + | ***************** (Woozle) To the extent that owning a computer can move or keep people out of poverty, it is meaningful to say that lower prices for computers have been helpful against poverty. However, I dispute the notion that this progress has been driven by "free markets", since that phrase is ambiguous. Are we talking about (a) a lack of regulation? (b) a lack of central planning? (c) a market in which anyone has the freedom to compete? | ||
| + | ****************** (Woozle) To the extent that "free market" is the opposite of "government-run market or enterprise", keep in mind that the internet -- which is a large portion of what makes it possible to earn a living with a computer -- was largely a creation of the government. | ||
************* (Noel) if 'essential' includes food, that means that the vast majority of farmers are coercive since money is used in food trade. It would also mean that in order not to be coercive, farmers would have to barter. Since money makes trade much more efficient (eg a carrot farmer need not look for someone willing to accept 100 carrots for, say, a computer), that would mean far fewer people in the world would be fed. Note that humanity has been able to feed far more people today than it has in its entire history, otherwise population wouldn't continue to grow. | ************* (Noel) if 'essential' includes food, that means that the vast majority of farmers are coercive since money is used in food trade. It would also mean that in order not to be coercive, farmers would have to barter. Since money makes trade much more efficient (eg a carrot farmer need not look for someone willing to accept 100 carrots for, say, a computer), that would mean far fewer people in the world would be fed. Note that humanity has been able to feed far more people today than it has in its entire history, otherwise population wouldn't continue to grow. | ||
*********** (Noel) You said a company is publicly traded therefore it's playing the stock market. A company that's publicly traded must IPO. | *********** (Noel) You said a company is publicly traded therefore it's playing the stock market. A company that's publicly traded must IPO. | ||
| Line 93: | Line 125: | ||
***** (Noel) one episode mentions all the wealth around the world. [...] Such wealth accumulation happens because of cooperation. People can specialize in something then trade. By doing so, in aggregate, they're able to produce more than if they did everything themselves. Such specialization can be seen in lots of industries (eg Data Engineer, Configuration Manager, Software Engineer in Test, etc in the software industry; there's even specialization by product (eg Perforce experts, Oracle experts, etc)). [This constitutes two observations] predicted by praxeology theory: wealth accumulation and specialization. | ***** (Noel) one episode mentions all the wealth around the world. [...] Such wealth accumulation happens because of cooperation. People can specialize in something then trade. By doing so, in aggregate, they're able to produce more than if they did everything themselves. Such specialization can be seen in lots of industries (eg Data Engineer, Configuration Manager, Software Engineer in Test, etc in the software industry; there's even specialization by product (eg Perforce experts, Oracle experts, etc)). [This constitutes two observations] predicted by praxeology theory: wealth accumulation and specialization. | ||
****** (Woozle) Nope; that's a ''[[wikipedia:post-hoc|post-hoc]]'' explanation for a pre-existing phenomenon. In order to test a hypothesis, you have to (a) suggest the consequences of an action, (b) take the action or find instances where the action is taking place, and (c) observe the results | ****** (Woozle) Nope; that's a ''[[wikipedia:post-hoc|post-hoc]]'' explanation for a pre-existing phenomenon. In order to test a hypothesis, you have to (a) suggest the consequences of an action, (b) take the action or find instances where the action is taking place, and (c) observe the results | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) Are you now arguing, opposite to your argument before, that hard sciences require reproducibility? | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) No, I am maintaining my stance that it does. | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) In order for Praxeology to be a post-hoc explanation, the creators would have had to start from pre-existing phenomenon and work their way backwards to basic axioms. | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) Isn't that exactly what they do? "praxeology [uses] a method of acquiring knowledge that does not rely on observation but on discursive reasoning." | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) Also, praxeology was started in 1882, long before the massive specialization we see today and certainly long before automobiles, computers, and cell phones were affordable to a broad population. .. So, we've seen instances of wealth being created and of specialization happening after praxeology was created and we can observe the results. | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) This is highly bogus reasoning. The existence of praxeology at a certain time does not imply that later events were due to its application. | ||
***** (Noel) [T]hink about the General Theory of Relativity. That arose from conclusions logically derived from a set of axioms. And now we're able to make observations that confirm that theory (and other observations not predicted by that theory). | ***** (Noel) [T]hink about the General Theory of Relativity. That arose from conclusions logically derived from a set of axioms. And now we're able to make observations that confirm that theory (and other observations not predicted by that theory). | ||
****** (Woozle) "Confirm that theory" is the key. The numbers match the predictions to the limits of precision. What predictions does Praxeology make? | ****** (Woozle) "Confirm that theory" is the key. The numbers match the predictions to the limits of precision. What predictions does Praxeology make? | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) The observations that confirm relativity match its predictions extremely well. The observations that haven't been predicted by relativity are way off from its predictions. | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) There are no observations which imply that relativity is less accurate than simple Newtonian mechanics. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no observations which are "way off" from the predictions of relativity. | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) Praxeology doesn't make predictions with numbers. | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) That's fine; I'm not asking for numbers. I'm asking what predictions it makes, and how/if they have been tested. | ||
| + | ******* (Noel) How accurate are climate model predictions (and delve deep into this including what they mean by 'confidence interval' and how broad those 'confidence intervals' are)? | ||
| + | ******** (Woozle) I don't know, but their predictions have clearly provided more utility than any opposing hypotheses. | ||
***** (Woozle) My hypothesis has been validated, given the evidence I have absorbed so far. If you can suggest where I might find evidence that might invalidate it, please feel free to offer it. | ***** (Woozle) My hypothesis has been validated, given the evidence I have absorbed so far. If you can suggest where I might find evidence that might invalidate it, please feel free to offer it. | ||
****** (Noel) your hypothesis was "Praxeology is basically the idea that we can make conclusions about economics without testing them in the real world". Praxeology is separate from economics so, no, your hypothesis wasn't validated. | ****** (Noel) your hypothesis was "Praxeology is basically the idea that we can make conclusions about economics without testing them in the real world". Praxeology is separate from economics so, no, your hypothesis wasn't validated. | ||
******* (Woozle) Praxeology is an extension of economics into the field of human psychology (with regard to purposeful action). Hypothesis stands. | ******* (Woozle) Praxeology is an extension of economics into the field of human psychology (with regard to purposeful action). Hypothesis stands. | ||
******** (Noel) Praxeology started out in economics and became its own study. It's also separate from psychology -- one of the early videos goes over the differences (ie psychology tries to explain the 'why' of the action whereas praxeology just accepts the action as-is). Hypothesis invalidated. | ******** (Noel) Praxeology started out in economics and became its own study. It's also separate from psychology -- one of the early videos goes over the differences (ie psychology tries to explain the 'why' of the action whereas praxeology just accepts the action as-is). Hypothesis invalidated. | ||
| − | ********* (Woozle) If praxeology isn't about economics, then why do you keep raising it in contexts having to do with economics? | + | ********* (Woozle) If praxeology isn't about economics, then why do you keep raising it in contexts having to do with economics? If it started out in economics, how is it no longer about economics? |
| − | ********* ( | + | ********** (Noel) praxeology is about human action. Human action is important to economics, but it's important in other areas as well. |
* (David Whitlock) the problem is that the regulations suffer from inconsistent enforcement. | * (David Whitlock) the problem is that the regulations suffer from inconsistent enforcement. | ||
| Line 118: | Line 162: | ||
******* (Noel) I might even say that organic is less sustainable than modern agriculture considering the output. | ******* (Noel) I might even say that organic is less sustainable than modern agriculture considering the output. | ||
******** (Woozle) Organic yields are as high or higher than conventional agriculture, over the long run. | ******** (Woozle) Organic yields are as high or higher than conventional agriculture, over the long run. | ||
| + | ********* (Noel) Can you point to evidence supporting this especially evidence supporting the hypothesis that we can feed the current population on organic food? | ||
| + | ********** (Woozle) The evidence I've seen is that conventional leads to long-term degradation of the soil (which is bad if the population is dense enough that you need every spare acre to grow food) and doesn't reliably produce higher yields -- though in some circumstances it may be necessary as a transitional measure, largely for economic reasons: | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) [http://grist.org/article/2011-03-25-rodale-data-show-organic-just-as-productive-better-at-building/ Rodale: organic just as productive] | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) [http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html Union of Concerned Scientists]: mainly about GMO in particular, not conventional in general | ||
| + | |||
| + | ********** (Noel) Or do you mean that sustainability includes a decreased population? | ||
| + | *********** (Woozle) It does, but that point neither supports nor contradicts my argument. | ||
******* (Woozle) Health is a sustainability factor, as is taste. | ******* (Woozle) Health is a sustainability factor, as is taste. | ||
**** (Noel) it has just come to my attention that the label was diluted due to the USDA and the influence lobbyists have over it. | **** (Noel) it has just come to my attention that the label was diluted due to the USDA and the influence lobbyists have over it. | ||
***** (Woozle) Indeed. | ***** (Woozle) Indeed. | ||
| + | * (Noel) Is it rational for you to continue asking me questions that are already answered in the videos or questions that are senseless if one had a better understanding of praxeology?? | ||
}} | }} | ||