Regardless there is just something about seeing a spoiled little brat who thought she was above the law and money could buy her way out of any legal trouble, get dealt the crushing blow that, "No, you stupid b!tch, you aren't special. You're just like every one of us. Get in line and deal with it. Welcome to the real world kid."
And no, I won't claim that it is beneath me to derive joy from this.
The judge who ordered her back should be given a medal.
7 comments:
I was pissed when i heard she was let out... but the warm fuzzies in my heart came back when i read this :) Thanks Cap'n!
That makes my whole week. Mebbe even my whole month.
Yeah, it was good to see her get dealt a blow. She could have just had 23 days in jail, but now she has to spend the full 45 I believe.
I wish I had those billions to (though I don't know if Paris has access to all them, since it has to be divided up in that family I believe). I do actually intend to become a billionaire or at least multimillionaire :) I love entrepreneurship, so I will do it somehow :)
BTW, this is a random question, but regarding that UN Human Development Index, exactly why is it so unreliable an indicator of a nation's well-being? And which is the better one, real GDP or GDP per capita or something? The reason I ask is because I am engaged in an argument with a socialist on a forum and he used the UN thing to claim Sweden has a great economy or something. I told him it isn't a reliable indicator of a nation's health, but then I realized I don't know exactly WHY this is. He is one of those "the Scandinavian countries are so great" types.
Well it's not exactly an unreliable indicator of a nation's well- being. There is a strong correlation between the traditional GDP or Income Per Capita and the HDI. Most western nations have high HDI measures and GDP per capita.
The only real difference I've seen in the HDI and other traditional measures of standards of living is that is that it always consistently puts socialist/European counties ahead of the US. And I truly do believe this, it is nothing more than a measure put forth by the UN and the socialists that work there as a way to "claim" socialist countries in Europe are just as good as America.
The only problem I have with this is it incorporates some intangible metrics;
Literacy?
Equality among women?
Health care expednitures?
How exactly do you measure this or more importantly, how does this translate into higher standards of living as a more accurate measure than income per capita?
The problem is the more variables you incorporate into a measure that gauges "standards of living" the less reliable and interpretive it becomes.
I like GDP per capita simply because it is one measure. Also I like it because it focuses on what inevtiably everybody wants, WEALTH.
A leftist/socialist will quickly abandon their hatred for money once you are able to transfer it from rich folk.
Anyway, about the only thing I can give you as ammo is the anecdotal evidence (which I admit is bad) is that every, EVERY Swede/Finlander/Icelander I have met has complained about the costs of living and never agreed that their standards of living are as high as the US. Now, there could be some Scandinavians that have lived both here and there and would contest otherwise, and would then certainly change my opinion, but as of yet, I've never heard one Scandinavian claim their standard of living are better. Ergo, I'm prone to believe the HDI is a bunch of make-believe leftist hogwash.
Coolbeans, thanks for the info. Yeah, he is a pain, some political science major who concentrated on socialism. Keep making those graphs, they make good ammo.
Sweden's per-capita GDP is way below US levels. Norway is slightly higher than the US, but Norway is also the world's third largest oil exporter in a country of about 4.6 million people. Think of it as "The Beverly Hillbillies" except with socialists; sometimes you strike it so lucky with natural resources that not even Socialism can screw it all up.
Another interesting thing is the Big Mac Index, released regularly by The Economist. As of February 2007, the cost of a Big Mac in the US was $3.22, while the cost of a Big Mac in Norway was $6.63 in US dollars. When stuff costs twice as much in Norway as it does in the US, it makes Norway's 10% per-capita GDP advantage dry up real fast.
Per capita GDP is superior to the HDI because the HDI reflects the levels of specific goods or services, while per capita GDP reflects everything that people wish to purchase. If I purchase some capital to start a business, the HDI is not significantly impacted, but if I spend that same money to enroll in a school, the HDI gets a big boost. Which thing is "better" for me is as subjective as my own preferences, so a measure of well-being that arbitrarily assigns greater weight to one or the other is seriously flawed.
However, tracking either HDI or GDP over a period of time can be misleading as well. It could be that the people living in the US in year X have 10% GDP growth per year until year Y, but per-capita GDP remains unchanged (or even shrinks) if a large number of low-income immigrants enter the country between year X and year Y. Does Norway have a large immigrant population? No. Does the US? Absolutely. Just something else to consider.
As for Paris Hilton, I find Schadenfreude to be one of life's finer pleasures.
Capitalist Pig,
I currently live in Norway. Although I have never lived in the US, I have been there many times and have lived in London for 9 years and grew up in Sydney. I can tell you that the cost of living here is outrageous and that the "standard of living" is not higher than either Australia, the UK or the US (from what I've seen and read). However, the HDI does not seek to measure simply standard of living. It seeks to measure the broader idea of quality of life. Now it gets tricky. When we talk about number of hours of work versus number of hours of leisure time, or quality of public education, or life expectancy, or quality of public health care, or violence / murders per capita, then Western European countries, particularly Scandinavia, wins hands down. The question is what an individual places more value on, for example, more leisure time or more cash. I personally prefer the Anglo-Saxon model and am therefore getting the hell out of this dreadful socialist paradise. However, you can always ask your socialist blogger friend if he actually understands what makes the 4 Scandi countries (Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden) and Finland (which is a Nordic country, not Scandinavian) actually tick. Iceland: is basically one big hedge fund whose economy will implode as soon as the credit crunch hits. The level of debt there that the banks currently hold is more than the government could cover if they had to try and bail them out. Norway: completely supported by oil and peripheral industries, has a very limited number of medium sized companies, does not encourage private sector research, chases away innovation and wealth with stupid taxes and a socialist attitude to wealth. When the oil runs out, and admittedly this will take some time and then they have the Petroleum Fund to fall back on, the economy will transform back into the peasant economy it was before the 70's. The reason socialism still survives here is that they have never been through a socialist induced crisis (e.g. UK in the 70's) to make them realise that socialism actually destroys wealth rather than creates it. Things would be much better here if they simply kept all the socialist policies and simply admitted that "hey guys, this is costing us a fortune, and it is running down our country's wealth, and we really should prepare for the future, but hey, who cares ?!? we are so rich it just doesn't matter !!". And then everyone here could just enjoy their wealth instead of feeling guilty about it and inflicting massive wealth transfers on those who would like to work a little harder/smarter and earn just a little more money (those evil capitalist pigs!). Sweden: long history of free market system and wealth creation, which is being destoyed by the socialist policies and the past 30 years. However, a more liberal (UK definition) government has been elected and things are looking a bit better. Also, their system is not as socialist as some try to make out (although very high taxes). Denmark and Finland: you'll have to look into these yourself, but with a bit of research you can easily debunk the myth that these places are properly functioning economies based on a socialist model. In short, if anyone tries to tell you that the "Nordic Model" is something magical, you can tell them that this is a load of sh*t. There is nothing special about the way the economies are run up in this part of the world, other than that they have freer labour markets than, say, France (although Mr. Sarkozy will be changing all that pretty soon I hope!). Another aspect of life here is that it is VERY dull, which in my view should be included in the HDI. So, if you are the sort of person that just wants to do OK, have a pretty easy life, not earn a great deal of money, but not be poor either, then the Scandi/Nordic countries are for you. But with the huge cost of living (particularly in Norway) your standard of living will be more like Spain (or even lower). One other thing to remember when talking to a socialist who believes "Europe" is so much better is that ALL European economies are market economies. They all function based on the principals of capitalism and therefore they all create wealth. With the exception of North Korea and Cuba (and some in Norway!) no one actually believes that socialism is a viable option in regards to running an economy. Socialism is an ideology which has been defeated by the facts of capitalism. The only question that remains is how to make sure that everyone can take part in capitalism ...
Post a Comment