National Success

== Preamble == Pro glosses over some vital context. I misinterpreted some of his arguments, which is why sufficient responses didn't come until R3. I stated in the comments WHY I messed up these contentions, and that he could extend R4 to 8,000 characters if he wanted to, but he chose not to, which isn't my fault. == Democracy == Pro argues that Democracy is insufficient to cause national success: a) The government doesn't need to know the exact parameters of scarcity and demand when it's apparent which direction policy should go toward. This goes back to my healthcare example, in which its obvious that demand outstrips supply, so policy should obviously increase supply. b) The individual vote doesn't make "no" difference; it makes little difference. But, it doesn't take much effort to know what benefits one's own self interest, so deciding who to vote for isn't a significant problem -- specialization then takes care of the rest. c) I accidentally dropped this, but I can't respond now. == Arguments == 1. Sampling Bias: Pro asserts that Sweden is actually different than the US: The point is that the distinctions between the US and Sweden are negligible. According to Pro's own sources, both Sweden and the US are involved with telecommunications, motor vehicles, and steel -- the only difference being petroleum. Apparently Pro didn't look too hard at his own evidence... 2. Jurisdictional Competition: i) Theory Pro states that immigration is significant due to a larger tax base: A 13% larger tax base is negligible when compared to the importance of domestic voters and their influence on public policy. ii) Examples -- Individuals: Pro cites legal barriers: On average, African immigrants typically have higher levels of education and income than even Americans, thus demonstrating that impoverished Africans are not the ones moving around [1]. Poverty is still a significant barrier here. Pro agrees that legal and linguistic barriers might be a factor, but misses the point: Pro's econometric model did not account for these distinctions, so his side of the argument hasn't been substantiated, which is the point. I cited a general average, but did not claim a conclusion from that alone. Instead, I used it to show that Pro's statistical rigor is lacking. Examples -- Corporations: Pro wonders why policy doesn't stimulate competition: Policy does stimulate competition; however, competition does little to stimulate policy. The main influence is derived from popular support, which happens to coincide with competitive practices in some cases. Pro thinks that democracy is evidence for jurisdictional competition: No, if democracy wins, that means jurisdictional competition has a minor effect on what influences public policy. Pro says lackluster competitive measures unveils democracy's weakness: This doesn't apply because some services make nations more competitive in many cases. Government expenditure in education, infrastructure, and the labor market make a country more competitive, which is also in line with popular support. 3. Market Growth: i) Theory Actually, the net effect can be vaguely measured, for it can be pinpointed where money is being extracted. If a contraction of one industry is less important than the enlargement of another, then the overall effect is positive. Also, governments don't ignore prices, which is precisely why they don't fail. ii) Examples Pro misrepresents my contention: I actually said that Pro's model is invalid because it doesn't account for certain variables, outlined in earlier rounds. Pro says his model's accuracy is proof of the state's uselessness: Well, I can't bring up a new argument here, so I have to just drop this one. 3,743 Characters used -- not including this sentence and sources. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...