A Tax Increase - This Was Not Supposed To Happen!
An old Dutch proverb says, "We grow too soon old and too late smart." That proverb is quite appropriate as "Dear Leader" President Barack Hussein Obama's "fiscal cliff deal" actually increased taxes on his supporters. As Joseph Curl provided some quotes in The Washington Times:…
Article comments
76 - clav
...or we can reframe the discussion along the lines of:
Absolutely everything Warren says notwithstanding, is there anything to the claim that the fiscal cliff deal will raise taxes on the middle class, and if so is this necessarily a bad thing; and more broadly, who is the deal good and bad for?
Nice idea, Doc. The problem is, if we were each to seek out the serious sources (not the Foxes or CNNs) on each side for analysis and interpretation, what we would end up with would be a left opinion and a right opinion (though probably on a higher plane), at which point we'd all revert to our partisan views and nothing would get settled.
That's how US politics operate.
77 - Jet Gardner
#74 Doc you have been patient with him and where has it gotten you?
No one but his three man possy has gotten through, s0 I've been dealing with him on his level and where has it gotten me?
Nowhere to both questions.
On his other latest article I pointed out the blatant copying of someone else's work using an identically key-worded sentence that was critial to his argument and he came back with a childish retort about the use of the word "the"
78 - Igor
IMO it's hopeless to use Warrens article as anything but a suggestion of a topic to discuss.
From that point forward, one might respond to other peoples points that you agree with or not.
79 - Dr Dreadful
The problem is, if we were each to seek out the serious sources (not the Foxes or CNNs) on each side for analysis and interpretation, what we would end up with would be a left opinion and a right opinion
Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from "sides" rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
80 - Dung Honter
"Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from "sides" rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics."
I think he's getting at something deeper. How you 'logically' account for things ultimately depends on what weights you give items in the social contract. Some people love a big soft cuddly government security blanket and will gladly devote 50% or more of the produce of their life towards that end. To others, myself included, I don't ask or need much from the government. Basically my only interaction is when they're playing nanny telling me I can't do things I'd otherwise choose to do and when they send me bills... neither of which I find very endearing. The big worker protections like unemployment and minimum wage have rarely applied as I've been in business or self employed most of my working life and I've proven perfectly capable of saving and planning for my own kids/retirement/healthcare/rainy day without government doing it for me. If I had a look at the social contract I'd strike out lots of the major provisions, keep a few of the basic physical safety and security ones, and gladly sign and pay for what I agreed to. Until I get that option expect me to continue to come here and bitch.
81 - clav
Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from "sides" rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics.
Your implication being that everyone who knows "a bit about taxation and economics" would all be on the same page and wouldn't be on different "sides of the issues.
Would that the world of human beings were that straightforward. Forget the world, would that just the Dismal Science were that straightforward and uncomplicated.
But it isn't.
82 - Dr Dreadful
Your implication being that everyone who knows "a bit about taxation and economics" would all be on the same page and wouldn't be on different "sides of the issues.
Not at all. Naturally everyone's opinion of what should be done about the economy is going to be infused with their personal political ideologies. My hope is rather that more attention can be paid to those who actually know what they're talking about rather than those who prefer to simply shake their fists at the problem.
[/hopeless romantic]
83 - clav
But my point was that "those who 'know' what they're talking about" are themselves divided, if you define as those who know what they;re talking about as the economists with real training at recognized institutions and who also hold some recognition awards in the field. Such individuals exist on both sides of the fiscal questions facing us.
Now, if you define those who know what they're talking about as those who agree with your favorite economic guru, then yes, what you're wishing for would preclude all but one overall definition of "good" economics, but in reality, there are at least two (in reality more) very different schools of economic thought which offer different (but seemingly viable) approaches to resolution of today's problems.
84 - troll
...what makes you think that academically trained economists know what they're talking about any more than the next life-coach you're going to meet on the subway?
do you think that Stiglitz' (eg) economic theory and policy proposals aren't ideologically based/tainted?
consider: Warren makes an art of bias while tauting an advanced degree in statistics - ironical or diabolical?...only his confessor knows - along with his hair dresser and the shadow
personally I find this 'pathological persona' and particularly its paranoid aspects far more interesting than the so-called political content of his articles
85 - Doug Hunter
#84
Truth told, even at risk of sounding like one of those nutty 'anti-science' right wingers. Excellent.
Large swaths of science and scientific studies (especially of the type applicable to political discourse including economics and the social sciences) are simply manifestations of the preexisting opinions of the author (or those funding the study)... the bias tends to stick out like a sore thumb which leads me to a quandary. Is the average person so dense they can't see through this (or more likely the average person doesn't actually read the science and just assumes as they've been trained that scientists are near infallible) or does something about extra years of schooling give scientists a false sense of intellectual superiority and they actually believe what they're writing can't be seen through by the common people or as a final alternative perhaps the scientists just aren't that clever themselves. In any case, it seems to work. Warren would indeed be an interesting case study.
86 - Baronius
The masses are ignorant and polarized; the experts are learned and polarized.
Due diligence, then?
Drop the fist-in-the-air nonsense. Use terminology correctly yourself and, where possible, nudge the conversation toward correct terminology. Look at what the experts say - they may be hitting consistently to the left or to the right of the target, but at least we can avoid sources who aren't even hitting the side of the barn. Recognize that both sides have a bias, and factor it in when considering their (and your) analysis.
87 - Dr Dreadful
The masses are ignorant and polarized; the experts are learned and polarized.
But be mindful of the possibility that the masses' assessment of the learned as polarized may arise from ignorance.
Due diligence, then?
Absolutely.
88 - Dr Dreadful
or does something about extra years of schooling give scientists a false sense of intellectual superiority and they actually believe what they're writing can't be seen through by the common people
Doug, I think that is a common conceit: the very learned are, after all, human like the rest of us.
and they actually believe what they're writing can't be seen through by the common people or as a final alternative perhaps the scientists just aren't that clever themselves.
In that case, they're very easy to see through if you know what you're looking for. One scientist who emphatically did not fall into that category was Carl Sagan, and IMO every child should be introduced, as soon as they're intellectually able, to his Baloney Detection Kit. If they can't see through bullshit after mastering that, they deserve everything that's spoonfed to them.
89 - clav
...what makes you think that academically trained economists know what they're talking about any more than the next life-coach you're going to meet on the subway?
I don't necessarily, but you have to set a standard somewhere, and it would seem the academics are at least better versed in the arcane science of economics than the masses, n'est-çe pas?
90 - Doug Hunter
#88 Enjoyed the link, this one seems pertinent:
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Replace science with life and you're getting close.
#89 Or conversely, economists have been forged into hammers therefore every problem appears as a nail. Sometimes it takes the masses to know they're being screwed instead.
91 - Baronius
Social sciences aren't self-correcting. There's rarely a Galileo-dropping-rocks moment in them. Economics and military history are more prone to those kind of moments than, say, sociology, but everyone's got his own interpretation of them.
I agree with Clavos about the merits of study. I also agree with Doug partially, that a certain school of thought in economics will see every problem as solvable by a tax cut, tax hike, trade deal, trade war, whatever their "thing" is. You'll die waiting for 100% agreement in a social science, but you can get insights from looking at the works of a few experts you trust. You can't be cowed by the fact that the other guy can cite his own experts.
Doug mentions the problem with arguments from authority. But the thing is, we all make reference to experts who know things we don't. It's the old problem that no one knows how many people there really are in China, but I don't even know that China exists. I think you have to approach the social sciences carefully, not looking for the answers you want to hear but looking for systems that (a) match your understanding of the world and (b) have a reasonable explanation for the historical evidence. That is, you need to make sure that your thinking is (a) internally consistent, and (b) consistent with reality. And the less-familiar you are with a field, the more you have to test the possible schools of thought.
92 - Glenn Contrarian
But be mindful of the possibility that the masses' assessment of the learned as polarized may arise from ignorance.
Hence the conservatives' absurd refusal to listen to the 98% of the experts who are telling them that yes, AGW is real.
93 - troll
...clav - last time I was playing dominos with the masses she told me that the dismal science's modern models are based on suicidal assumptions and reminded me who it was who beleived that the fundamentals of the economy were sound - right up to the crash
being well versed while aesthetically pleasing might not be the best foundation for a standard
94 - clav
Point taken troll.
So...
We can't rely on the masses;
And we can't rely on the experts...
And there is no god...
We're effed...
So let's party!
95 - troll
And be excellent to each other!
sounds good!
...you first
96 - clav
:)
Ah, troll, you sly ol' devil, you!