npts2020

Well, theology is certainly not any part of scientific philosophy.

Only if you consider theology to be philosophy.

How about something more like the frequency with which each is not successfully prosecuted for their crimes? These guys seem to think criminality is more widespread in the upper class, with many of their crimes simply overlooked or "not worth prosecuting". One of the things they point out is the following where more than 1 in 20 of the world's richest people are involved; The release of the ‘Panama Papers’ last year suggests that more than 14,000 banks, law firms, company incorporators and other ‘middlemen’ acted in league with law firm Mossack Fonseca to get away with tax fraud on a monumental scale and to avoid a range of other legal duties. Many of the world’s wealthiest people are alleged to be involved, including 12 current and former world leaders and 128 politicians and public officials from around the globe. Those implicated include: 29 billionaires featured in Forbes Magazine’s list of the world’s 500 richest people, 33 people and companies blacklisted by the US Government because they had done business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organisations or ‘rogue nations’ including North Korea, Close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who allegedly horded $2 billion through shadow companies, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who owned an offshore firm that held millions of dollars in Icelandic bank bonds during the country’s financial crisis, Offshore companies controlled by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the King of Saudi Arabia, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who was revered for his anti-corruption stance, and The family of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the father of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the children of the President of Azerbaijan.

I would like to see some statistics about this. As a percentage it wouldn't take very many wealthy crooks to skew it toward the upper class and I can think of a number of those folks just off the top of my head.

I guess Zelensky isn't really a dictator now or he would be a great friend and role model for our President.

I heard the President wants to issue a million of these. Just what America needs, a million more robber barons...

Pretty funny, the Canadian home crowd booed the US national anthem before the US/Canada hockey game. Guess they just don't understand that Big Brother is going give them what they want, even if they don't want it.

All true but I would argue two things. Firstly, I think China was already becoming less isolationist (largely necessitated by having to import foodstuffs to avoid famines which previously had been fairly commonplace) by that point and may well have gone the same path eventually, anyway, since the Communists saw that foreign trade was necessary. Secondly, if one concedes China is still a centralized economy (if not, when did it stop being one?) then it seems to me, one of the most remarkable economic transitions in history is due to central planning. BTW I would also point out that few nations have the same governance and policies they had several decades previously, especially dynamic ones.

AFAIK, no but we are talking about a process that might take millions of years for the right conditions to take place as well.

Have you looked at other robotic arms already being made? Here is a pretty good discussion of the various types and their uses > https://howtorobot.com/expert-insight/robotic-arms . Admittedly, it is a commercial site selling robotics but the explanation of the different kinds might be of use and you can see how they look after being built.

or cloning?

I would like to see a reference for any of this. I was always under the impression that Chairman Mao was beginning to end that isolation (mostly imposed by western colonial powers IMO) with his trade deal with President Nixon.

I see, so the Chinese no longer use central planning or a you saying there are no longer famines in the world for the Chinese to avoid?

That's kind of the point, even in the most ethical of regimes there will be grey areas where right and wrong are not easily delineated. Having spent a pretty good portion of my life on and around farms, I am not particularly shocked by the slaughter of an animal for food but that seems to be the biggest reason a lot of vegetarians I know don't eat meat and fits into the above narrative of emotions ruling the day. However, that was never a major influence on my decision to become and remain a vegetarian for the past several decades.

It also depends on what your metrics for "success" are. Using China as an example, there were fairly frequent famines there in which millions of people died, the last being in the very early 1960's. I bet most of the people doing food distribution worldwide would call that successful but that isn't a metric I typically see economists use much.