[the_optimist]

It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.

[matthewdgreen]

The key element here is that the power exchange in this case goes both ways. The corporations do favors for the administration (sometimes outright corrupt payments and sometimes useful favors, like promoting certain kinds of content in the media, or firing employees who speak up.) And in exchange the companies get regulatory favors. While all economic distortions can be problematic — national champion companies probably have tradeoffs - this is a form of distortion that hurts citizens both by distorting the market, and also by distorting the democratic environment by which citizens might correct the problems.

[munificent]

All snakes have scales, so there is a 100% correlation between being a snake and having scales.

That does not imply that fish are snakes. Nor does the presence of scaled fish invalidate the observation that having scales is a defining attribute of snakes (it's just not a sufficient attribute to define snakes).

[cousin_it]

For correlation to be 1, it's not enough that all snakes have scales. You also need all scaly animals to be snakes.

Here's a toy example. Imagine three equally sized groups of animals: scaly snakes, scaly fish, and scaleless fish. (So all snakes have scales, but not all scaly animals are snakes.) That's three data points (1,1) (0,1) (0,0) with probability 1/3 each. The correlation between snake and scaly comes out as 1/2.

You can also see it geometrically. The only way correlation can be 1 is if all points lie on a straight line. But in this case it's a triangle.

[the_optimist]

You’re looking for the logical argument here, not the statistical one. You sampled from snakes and said there is a 100% correlation with being a snake (notwithstanding the counterarg in an adjacent comment about scale-free snakes).

I am noting that the logical argument does not hold in the provided definition. If “some” attributes hold in a definition, you are expanding the definitional set, not reducing it, and thus creating a low-res definition. That is why I said: ‘this is a poor definition.’

[oasisaimlessly]

> there is a 100% correlation between being a snake and having scales.

That's a strange definition of "correlation" that you're using.

[TylerE]

That’s not accurate either. Scaleless snakes, thigh a rare mutation, do exist as genetic mutants.

https://www.morphmarket.com/morphpedia/corn-snakes/scaleless...

[tdeck]

That's because it's not a definition, it's simply a summary of a description of one characteristic.

[stale2002]

So then you agree that the original post that called this "text book fascism" was wrong, as this is just one very vague, and only slightly correlated property.

This can be bad without invoking godwin's law.