The most common fallacy of journalism, and one of the most common fallacies of the human brain in general, is the assumption that whatever is happening at the moment will continue to happen forever. That has been the implicit assumption of the hyperventilating coverage of the miserable Obamacare rollout. (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine Online).
A great companion piece to the Begala post from ealier today and one which has inspired a new tag-"Hyperventilating Media."
Of course, this is more than just a fallacy of journalism as Chait aptly notes. It is indeed a fallacy of the human brain that plays perfectly into the adolescent taunting of the Right. Fallacy is their bedrock after all so Democrats need to remember this and simply be patient. Long term, nearly all of the items on the Democratic wish list will end up as the law of the land as reality will dictate necessity.
And it will be with the help of Republicans!
12 comments:
That's pretty funny that Chait should inspire "hyperventilating media" as that is about as self descriptive as he is capable of!
The most common fallacy of journalism, and one of the most common fallacies of the human brain in general, is the assumption that whatever is happening at the moment will continue to happen forever.
Like, say, that tyranny cannot happen in this country? Or that our government can continue deficit spending without causing a financial collapse?
No one here is arguing that Obamacare will fail because of problems with the web site. Nor is anyone I've heard or read. (Except maybe your distorted straw man version.) Even if the web site had worked perfectly, our argument would have remained unchanged: the math does not add up. (You know, it's that thing that Nikto said, "they HAVE to charge more. You can't get something for nothing.")
The web site problems are merely a symptom of a much deeper ideological problem: Damn the facts, Ramming Speed!!!
Fallacy is their bedrock
Projection and ad hominem in a self-contradictory 4 word sentence. Now that's concentrated!
Be sure to check the links on the following question to see why it is projection:
Is "false" equal to "truth"? (278 days without an answer and counting, see here for background)
Also see this. It is based on years of Mark's behavior. Notice how many of them are logical fallacies.
Speaking of hyperventilating, here is how Mark's mental illness approach can go wrong.
Or that our government can continue deficit spending without causing a financial collapse?
This comment can clear up a number of issues so it's worthy of my time. What exactly is NMN's understanding of US monetary Policy? Is NMN capable of admitting error? Who is Brave Sir Robin?
The idea that the US faces financial collapse because of its current level of spending (or just about any other level, for that matter) is false. Fundamentally, it's not true because what we would face is inflation, not financial collapse, which could be corrected. We control our money supply. We owe ourselves...a concept you completely fail to understand...and the nature of our debt is much more complex than you seem to understand. In terms of inflation woes, QE and high levels of spending have failed to result in doomsday scenarios predicted by you and other spending hystericals. In fact, the dollar is valued higher these days, hence the lower cost of oil. In our history, our debt has been higher, our spending has been higher and we have not collapsed.
Your error in thinking runs even deeper than this as you fail to note the assets (land, energy) owned by the federal government, our solid revenue stream, and $16 trillion (and growing) economy. Our assets in total far exceed our debt so your proselytizing about spending is completely irrational. In fact, we could spend more than current levels and increase economic growth. Of course, you and other conservatives don't want this to happen because that would mean you would be (gasp!) proven wrong. It's about emotion, not facts, at this point.
So, evince:) your understanding of US macroeconomic policy. No links. Just your own knowledge. Let's see if you are willing to admit error in front of the four people that read comments. Speaking of those four people, I think you should place your assertion about spending and financial collapse on debate.org and give it a real test away from your posse who will agree with everything say (despite the evidence) and be contrary to me because they are adolescent I've issued this challenge before and you have refused. Let's see how well you do with rules of debate and structure in front of a wider audience that has no prejudice towards either one of us. Then we'll know who truly is "Brave Sir Robin."
The economy is not an 'asset' for the federal government, as it cannot liquidate it in any manner.
Inflation, if caused by 'printing money' cannot be corrected without financial collapse once it gets to the point that it has papered over the financial collapse that would have been caused by debt - numbers and math, you don't seem to understand. You place your faith in gimmickry and lies.
We do not owe ourselves money. Don't know how many times this has to be explained to you to get through your thick head - it is impossible to owe yourself money.
Debate.org is not a forum for discovering fact and truth. This has also been explained to you before. The formal rules of debate are set up to follow the rules and 'win' the debate - not discover facts and truth. Why do you accuse others of 'just wanting to win' and then insist they go to a forum that only measures who 'wins'?
Breakdown of US debt...
Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
Take note of the line items which we owe ourselves. These are the facts, GD, and why it is largely pointless to have these sorts of discussions with you.
Is there a web site out there that "discovers facts and the truth?" I suppose in the bubble, there is one or two:)
Take note of the line items which we owe ourselves
It would have been better if you had highlighted which ones you refer to - as I don't want to assume you are referring to something you are not.
But, let's assume you only meant the debt 'owed' to US government entities by the US government itself...
Which by the way is giving you too much credit because when you try to call the entirety of the US economy part of the governments assets then you most assuredly could consider debt to US households to by the US government as debt to ourselves.....
So...these?
The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
Are debts to ourselves? Like I said, we've been over this before. It's an accounting fiction. One entity cannot owe money to itself.
I particularly like the amount 'owed' to the treasury. You know what that really means? The treasury printed up $1.63 trillion dollars to give to the US government. That's nice, print money when you don't have enough. That wasn't $1.63 trillion sitting around, backed by bullion, or involved in trade or part of an actual working economy. Nope, conjured out of thin air. You know what happens when you just print up money and toss it into an economy? Yup, inflation. Remember Weimar Germany?
And you just wave your hand and state that the solution to inflation caused by printing too much money is to 'control it'? Do you know how you control such inflation? Yup, austerity programs. Hmmm. Seems like you've been a great crusader against austerity programs for quite a while.
The only bubble around here is the bubble of fantasy economics and math that you permanently reside in.
What exactly is NMN's understanding of US monetary Policy?
GD covered it well. No need to add anything but what I'm writing below.
Is NMN capable of admitting error?
When presented with valid evidence and sound reasoning which gives the simplest explanation which best fits all the available evidence, yes, I change my mind. In your case, everything prior to "yes" is something you are very, very bad at.
Who is Brave Sir Robin?
C'mon Mark! You've seen the video before! It's this kind of thing that keep reinforcing the conclusion that you "forget" everything you don't like.
We owe ourselves
This reminds me of an old joke: "Tonto, it looks like we're surrounded by hostile indians. What will we do now?" "What you mean we, white man?"
There is no such thing as a debt "we" owe to "ourselves". If my son borrows some money, you could say that the debt is one that my family (we) owes to ourselves. But to do that, you have to ignore the fact that he is a separate person from me, and the debt owed is between two individuals.
The same is true on a larger scale.
U.S. Household debt is money owed by various families to someone other than the family. If those household tried to say "this debt is owed to all of us, therefore we don't have to pay it", then the person/company to whom the money is owed has every right to sue for payment, and deserves to win!
U.S. Treasury debt is money loaned to the government (I'm assuming T-bills here) by individuals. That money is owed to those individuals. The government cannot say "this is debt owed to us, therefore we don't have to pay it." Well, they could, but if they did, would you or anybody else ever "buy" another T-bill again? Only if you're very, very stupid, or just want to use it as a way to throw money at the government.
The Social Security Trust Fund is money paid (owed) only to those who qualify, and collected from everyone else. These are almost always two different groups of people. It is not—as you try to pretend—merely one person moving money from pocket to pocket.
By definition, a debt is something owed by one person or entity to another different person or entity. The closest you can get to a debt being owed to the same person/entity is if someone is in charge of two different entities (like a personal bank account and their own business, or a budget with two different categories). If money is borrowed from the personal account by the business, or one budget item borrows money from another, you can rightfully say that the person owes money to themselves, but it is still a debt which is owed between two different entities (the bank accounts or the budget categories).
That different persons/entities detail is fundamental to the definition of debt. If there is no differentiation, there is no debt, only transfers. There can be planned transfers for the future, but if there is no differentiation, then there is no compulsion to do those transfers.
So if you insist on removing the differentiation, then two things become true:
1) There is no debt owed, therefore money does not have to be transferred.
2) There is no such thing as private property. All assets are owned by the collective. This is known as Socialism.
So which is it, Mark? There is a difference and debt is real? Or there is no difference—thus no debt—and socialism is the law of the land?
Well, let's see...
No response to the comparison between our debt and our assets
No response to how hysteria to QE proved unfounded in terms of inflation
No response to the challenge issued to debate without a posse in a forum with a wider audience where you can't act like an adolescent asshole and must follow rules.
More psychotic bullshit about socialism.
Exhibit A as to why it's pointless to engage in these conversations. At least I have answers to my questions, though.
No response to the comparison between our debt and our assets
Let's see here:
The economy is not an 'asset' for the federal government, as it cannot liquidate it in any manner.
Oh, gee. That was the Very FIRST Line after your comment!!! If Mark doesn't want to see it, it doesn't exist. Then we're wrong for not writing what we did write. And you wonder why you can't convince us of anything.
As for the rest of your comment, it was pure unsupported gainsaying. (Gee, didn't I just link to an example of that kind of thinking?) Monty Python is satire Mark, not an instruction manual! Why do you keep trying to make it real?
I answered your questions, Mark. How about you answer mine? You know, those questions like:
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (285 days and counting)
Is the Constitution law? (317 days and counting)
Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? (Started 128 days ago and counting)
Exhibit A as to why it's pointless to engage in these conversations.
The Standard Responses of Markadelphia, #2
The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
Mark will now return to standard response #1:
The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
Post a Comment