Here.
The narrative is more important than the facts. People like the narrative because it pleases them. Not because it’s true. Truth is elusive.
But evidence and facts do matter.
So when someone says the TARP was central to preventing disaster, don’t disagree. Don’t talk about how evil and anti-democratic it was to give the Secretary of the Treasury a $700 billion blank check with no accountability, a check he said he needed desperately and urgently because he needed to do x and then a week or so later, he did y. No, bring that up later. Instead, say the simple most important four words in the language of debate.
How do you know?
Simple. How do you know? What evidence do have for the claim? Always a good question.
Share
{ 32 comments }
Ah, Kling. I was hoping for some Schwarzenegger.
“Commando 2: Capitol Hill”
Ah, Kling. I was hoping for some Schwarzenegger.
“Commando 2: Capitol Hill”
Great point.
Great point.
Incidentally, in Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism book, he mentions the narrative and its power over people, a la Sorel…I’m not sure it’s any more of a “liberal” thing than it is any other statist penchant, but seeing the roots of it is interesting.
Incidentally, in Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism book, he mentions the narrative and its power over people, a la Sorel…I’m not sure it’s any more of a “liberal” thing than it is any other statist penchant, but seeing the roots of it is interesting.
A check? I thought he wanted a bazooka in his pocket….which he wasn’t going to use.
A check? I thought he wanted a bazooka in his pocket….which he wasn’t going to use.
Along the same lines, the question, Why would you assume that?
By way of example, from Keynes’ “General Theory of Employment”;
If follows, therefore, that, if the consumption psychology of the community is such that they will choose to consume, e.g. nine-tenths of an increment of income, then the multiplier k is 10, and the total employment caused by (e.g.) increased public works will be ten times the primary employment provided by the public works themselves, assuming no reduction of investment in other directions.”
So, why on earth should we assume that a massive redistribution of resources to public works would not reduce investment in other directions?
And since I’m on a roll, one more…
Unless the psychological propensities of the public are different from what we are supposing, we have here established the law that increased employment for investment must necessarily stimulate the industries producing for consumption and thus lead to a total increase of employment which is a multiple of the primary employment required by the investment itself.
1. Laws are not establish on the basis of suppositions.
2. “Public works” does not equal “investment”.
Along the same lines, the question, Why would you assume that?
By way of example, from Keynes’ “General Theory of Employment”;
If follows, therefore, that, if the consumption psychology of the community is such that they will choose to consume, e.g. nine-tenths of an increment of income, then the multiplier k is 10, and the total employment caused by (e.g.) increased public works will be ten times the primary employment provided by the public works themselves, assuming no reduction of investment in other directions.”
So, why on earth should we assume that a massive redistribution of resources to public works would not reduce investment in other directions?
And since I’m on a roll, one more…
Unless the psychological propensities of the public are different from what we are supposing, we have here established the law that increased employment for investment must necessarily stimulate the industries producing for consumption and thus lead to a total increase of employment which is a multiple of the primary employment required by the investment itself.
1. Laws are not establish on the basis of suppositions.
2. “Public works” does not equal “investment”.
a great lesson passed down
McCloskey on “how do you know?”:
Ask it of every paper you write and you’ll get tenure; ask it of every paragraph and you’ll become a distinguished economist; ask it, as Milton does, of every sentence you write and you can look forward to renting a tux or buying a gown for Stockholm in December.
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/milton.php
a great lesson passed down
McCloskey on “how do you know?”:
Ask it of every paper you write and you’ll get tenure; ask it of every paragraph and you’ll become a distinguished economist; ask it, as Milton does, of every sentence you write and you can look forward to renting a tux or buying a gown for Stockholm in December.
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/editorials/milton.php
According to TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, the IG discloses that the New York Federal Reserve did not believe that AIG’s credit-default swap counterparties posed a systemic financial risk.
According to TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, the IG discloses that the New York Federal Reserve did not believe that AIG’s credit-default swap counterparties posed a systemic financial risk.
you could answer I know because The Economist says so…http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.c…and The Economist editors could say they know because the Secretary of the Treasury says so.
you could answer I know because The Economist says so…http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.c…and The Economist editors could say they know because the Secretary of the Treasury says so.
I think that’s a good question.
Unfortunately, too many people think they do know and it usually sounds something like, “Well, I can’t even imagine. The financial system would have collapsed. Things would have been much worse. Are you stupid enough to think we’d be as well off as we are now if we let these massive banks fail?”
And then they stop thinking about and go on about their busy lives.
I think that’s a good question.
Unfortunately, too many people think they do know and it usually sounds something like, “Well, I can’t even imagine. The financial system would have collapsed. Things would have been much worse. Are you stupid enough to think we’d be as well off as we are now if we let these massive banks fail?”
And then they stop thinking about and go on about their busy lives.
We should ask loudly, how do our representatives know that their legislation will help, or solve anything? The legislative language is less important than the research that supposedly tells them that the legislation will be of good effect.
The Congress and Obama should proudly present their careful research that supports their proposed rearrangement of healthcare. Obama is a Harvard trained law professor. He should be up to it.
Where is the policy paper, Obama’s/Congress’s research on healthcare reform?
We should ask loudly, how do our representatives know that their legislation will help, or solve anything? The legislative language is less important than the research that supposedly tells them that the legislation will be of good effect.
The Congress and Obama should proudly present their careful research that supports their proposed rearrangement of healthcare. Obama is a Harvard trained law professor. He should be up to it.
Where is the policy paper, Obama’s/Congress’s research on healthcare reform?
From a pure ROI perspective, I have to ask, is Tim Geithner retarded?
I’m fairly certain the answer is yes.
Jon Najarian does the math in Barron’s:
Duh.
[The World's Worst Trader?, Barron's, Monday, Nov. 16, 2009]
From a pure ROI perspective, I have to ask, is Tim Geithner retarded?
I’m fairly certain the answer is yes.
Jon Najarian does the math in Barron’s:
Duh.
[The World's Worst Trader?, Barron's, Monday, Nov. 16, 2009]
It’s always a great question. It’s the same one I ask when some one tries to tell me the superiority of unregulated markets or of a supposed libertarian society. How do you know?
It’s always a great question. It’s the same one I ask when some one tries to tell me the superiority of unregulated markets or of a supposed libertarian society. How do you know?
Re; “libertarian society”.
Just speaking for me, but I don’t give a rat’s nads about “society”. I just imagine being free from the exploitation of the politicians. How do I know that would be a good thing? Well, I would be deciding for myself how to spend the 40% of what I create that they take from me. How do I know that I could make better choices for myself than they make for me? Confidence. Confidence in my own abilities. Confidence in the character of my neighbors. Confidence in the character of the productive class, and a complete lack of confidence in the character of the political class.
Re; “libertarian society”.
Just speaking for me, but I don’t give a rat’s nads about “society”. I just imagine being free from the exploitation of the politicians. How do I know that would be a good thing? Well, I would be deciding for myself how to spend the 40% of what I create that they take from me. How do I know that I could make better choices for myself than they make for me? Confidence. Confidence in my own abilities. Confidence in the character of my neighbors. Confidence in the character of the productive class, and a complete lack of confidence in the character of the political class.
Reason and evidence. I’m sure any number of people here could give you a laundry list of books and articles detailing both of those, starting with the works of the namesake of this website.
The difference is that libertarians are proposing that some central authority “do something”. We admit we don’t know what’s best for each individual, and so we don’t advocate some grand policy.
For that reason, we don’t need to answer, “How do you know?” We’re proclaiming right up front, “We don’t know.”
“aren’t proposing” … sigh
Anyone confirmed yet whether Muirgeo is a government agent?
Muirgeo is the devil. Oh – him and Paul Krugman.
Libertarian: “Liberty is superior”
Muirdope: “How do you know?”
???