The Failure of the American Democratic Party...

[Simon_Jester]

Do you or do you not feel silly now?

LOL U MAED A FUNNAH

I had help.

Seriously, when you want to upbraid someone else for being ignorant and illogical, it really helps to make sure the facts in all your own examples and analogies are true.

How is it a fallacy to say "X is not Y?"

SirNitram (as usual) didn't bother making an argument. He just put out an unsupported assertion. (And is now running away, again. Why does he consistently refuse to actually debate issues?)

Running away from what? You never asked him to explain.

Actually...

Nit? Could you please explain in detail how the Bush stimulus package wasn't Keynesian? I'm not 100% confident I believe you myself. I don't think you've committed any FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY crap, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Dude, eskimo is not the preferred nomenclature, Inuit, please.

Sorry. Too late to fix it now. I was using it as a generic term for Native Americans who live in arctic environments, and looking it up that does include some non-Inuit groups, but that's just lawyering. The real explanation is "I didn't think very hard." I wanted some group that was extremely non-Scottish, and that's where I stopped thinking.

...Wait, is "Eskimo" actively insulting? Not just... outdated?

Crap. Sorry.

I just missed the edit window, but the reason his statement is a fallacy is he did not simply say "X is not Y".

He said "Dubya's Stimulus [was] economically laughable, not Keyesnian."

You can have Keyesnian policies that are economically laughable: too little, too late, for example, wouldn't help much. Proposing a tiny little stimulus or a slight reduction in interest rates as a solution to a major recession would probably be laughable.

But, that would be a poor implementation, not a completely different idea.

Thing is, "laughable, and not Keynesian" would be totally reasonable. "Laughable, not Keynesian" can be interpreted to mean that this guy thinks "laughable" and "Keynesian" are mutually exclusive... but I think that's really, really over-lawyering the argument.

Come on, do we have to make a mindless CONCESSION ACCEPTED spam out of this? Doesn't it make more sense to go "well, he thinks it was some laughable idiot-parody of Keynesianism, which is why it didn't work?"

I know this kind of thing is why people make fun of me for trying to interpret other people's arguments in ways that make sense. I don't really care. I'd rather talk about matters of substance than bitch about someone for forgetting the word "and" in a sentence.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah it is considered to be somewhat racist, not that I figure you did it on purpose.

[Phantasee]

Inuit are not First Nations (which we prefer over Native Americans), and Eskimo is an offensive term, yes. Somehow Edmonton's CFL team has kept the name, but any use outside of that specific context is very offensive.

[fgalkin]

Yeah it is considered to be somewhat racist, not that I figure you did it on purpose.

Only in Canada, where all the "Eskimos" are actually Inuit. I have been led to believe that "Eskimo" is still used in Alaska as it is inclusive of both Inuit and Yupik.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Aaron MkII]

Does that somehow make it less offensive?

[fgalkin]

Does that somehow make it less offensive?

Yes, as it is used by the actual people to refer to themselves, although I admit that it is falling out of favored.

I imagine the situation is rather similar to the word "Negro" or "Colored"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Aaron MkII]

All right then.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah it is considered to be somewhat racist, not that I figure you did it on purpose.

Inuit are not First Nations (which we prefer over Native Americans), and Eskimo is an offensive term, yes. Somehow Edmonton's CFL team has kept the name, but any use outside of that specific context is very offensive.

I will note in my defense that this issue doesn't get nearly the same attention south of the 49th parallel. Probably because the Inuit, by and large, don't live in the United States.

(The natives of Alaska include some Inuit, I think, but also other groups that it would be inaccurate to call "Inuit" just as it would be inaccurate to call the Germans "French.")

Seriously, when you want to upbraid someone else for being ignorant and illogical, it really helps to make sure the facts in all your own examples and analogies are true.

I picked the two of them precisely because they aren't actually Scottish, though both played some on tv ("Braveheart" and "Highlander" are the examples I had in mind).

That's my way of acknowledging that the Bush and Obama packages may indeed not be true Keynesian policies; that the no-true scotsman fallacy is a weak and informal fallacy (which is what you said too).

Okay, now you tell me...

Heh.

Doesn't it make more sense to go "well, he thinks it was some laughable idiot-parody of Keynesianism, which is why it didn't work?"

Look back at the core point though:

The idea that all of Obama's acts are center-right are darkly amusing. Because of course 'stimulus' is center-right, they love them Keynesianism. Oh wait, they hate it with the burning fire of ten thousand suns.

In other words, "Obama isn't all center-right because he did a stimulus package".

My reply mentioned that George Bush did a stimulus package as well. I'm sure we all agree that President Bush was on the political right. Therefore, a stimulus is not inconsistent with being center-right.

Actually, compared to the Tea Party his domestic policies were toward the right wing of center-right. He favored tax cuts but not total dismantling of federal agencies. He made basically no progress on social agenda issues, but didn't engage in much active rollback. Deliberate acts of union-busting were limited. Where his policies had negative impact on minorities (don't get me started on No Child Left Behind), or where they led to corporatization of government, they were usually pretty bipartisan policies actually. There were no shortage of Democrats willing to sign on with the idea of handing off lots of government functions to private contractors.

So, by American standards, toward the right end of center-right, and left of the "far right" positions of the Tea Party. Most of whom call for things Bush never did and never, so far as I know, seriously considered doing. Now, you can call that a judgment on American standards if you like- Heaven knows I do.

If George W. Bush was as far to the right as the Republican Party went, the American people would be a lot better off today. Or at least less bad.

He replied that the Bush stimulus was no true Keynesian stimulus. This I disputed by pointing to the definition (in the second part of that post). It might have been shitty stimulus, but it was still stimulus.

Stimulus may not always be Keynesian. I wouldn't say that without boning up on what Keynes actually thought about the role of stimulus in Depression-type economic conditions. Personally, I don't think you should either...

[Aaron MkII]

It's cool man, don't worry about it.

[D.Turtle]

According to the NCPA:

•The CBO report projects Social Security revenues will no longer be sufficient to fund all promised benefits beginning in 2019 – only a one year delay over the Trustees’ projection of 2018.

•The CBO report projects a long-term deficit that is approximately 20 percent smaller than the program’s Trustees’ projection of an $10.4 trillion unfunded liability.

•This means, barring fundamental reform, the government will need to raise taxes, slash benefits or significantly increase the debt to keep its promises to retirees – even under CBO’s slightly smaller projections.

Problem - No one wants to fix it, no one has a serious plan for fixing it. So in 6 or 7 years depending on whether you go by the SS trust fund actuaries or the CBO, benefit cuts, tax raises, borrowing, or some combination of the above will need to happen.

So, according to that a 8 trillion dollar unfunded liability! Sounds huge doesn't it? Except that that is 8 trillion dollars over 75 years or so. Which turns out to be roughly 100 billion dollars a year. Which is, what 0.7 % or so of GDP? Sounds unsolvable! And thats to fund the program for the next 75 years!

How could that problem ever be solved? Easiest fix: Lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Tada, problem solved. Or, don't do anything, then catastrophe will strike and Social Security benefits will drop precipitously by 15% across the board! Oh my GOD! The end is nigh!

Edit: I wonder what the result would be if one were to look at the 75 year horizon for the US budget? What would be the hole there? A quadrillion dollars or more? That measure is hilariously useless.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, Social Security benefits dropping 15% across the board would be a pretty serious problem. There are a lot of old poor people. Removing the cap would make more sense.

[D.Turtle]

Well, duh it would hurt. But 15% is far from DESTRUCTION OF THE US! DOOM! CATASTROPHE! RUN FOR THE HILLS! PRAY TO GOD AND GET OUT YOUR GUNS!

Edit: Oh, hey, why don't you fix Social Security yourself. Here are some options scored by the CBO. Your goal is to reach a total of 0.6 in savings (so +0.6). Can you do it?

[aerius]

Well, duh it would hurt. But 15% is far from DESTRUCTION OF THE US! DOOM! CATASTROPHE! RUN FOR THE HILLS! PRAY TO GOD AND GET OUT YOUR GUNS!

Where did I ever say it was an unsolvable problem that'll doom everyone you stupid fuck?
Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't. Asshole.

[Simon_Jester]

The main reason Social Security is in danger is that while its expenses may only be about 5% of GDP, they're something like a quarter of the federal budget, at a time when the government's income only covers about two thirds of its expenses. If Social Security is preserved inviolate, it becomes a lot harder to find anywhere else to cut the budget and... fuck Grover Norquist with a pineapple.

[D.Turtle]

Where did I ever say it was an unsolvable problem that'll doom everyone you stupid fuck?
Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't. Asshole.

I'll happily (continue) being an asshole if it means idiots screeching about Social security would finally shut the fuck up.

The main reason Social Security is in danger is that while its expenses may only be about 5% of GDP, they're something like a quarter of the federal budget, at a time when the government's income only covers about two thirds of its expenses. If Social Security is preserved inviolate, it becomes a lot harder to find anywhere else to cut the budget and... fuck Grover Norquist with a pineapple.

Except no one bringing up Social Security ever points to its effect on the general budget, but instead always looks at its self-funding through the payroll tax - and screech about it being a huge problem because the current payroll tax will not be enough to fund it for all eternity.

You can't have your cake and eat it too: Either look at Social Security as having to be self-funding and separate from the general budget - in which case it isn't a problem at all. Or look at total government spending - which is a problem, but not because of Social Security. Hell, easy changes to the payroll tax would be a good way of raising revenue for the government.

[aerius]

The main reason Social Security is in danger is that while its expenses may only be about 5% of GDP, they're something like a quarter of the federal budget, at a time when the government's income only covers about two thirds of its expenses. If Social Security is preserved inviolate, it becomes a lot harder to find anywhere else to cut the budget and... fuck Grover Norquist with a pineapple.

Yup. The other part of the problem is that the government has never been able to extract more than 20% of GDP in tax revenues, even back in the 50's when the top tax bracket was 90%. The average going back to 1950 is about 17% (source). Bottom line is they'll have to figure out how they want to fund Social Security and all the other programs and what the priorities will be, and they'll have to have a serious discussion on it. So far no one has a serious plan to fix anything, they all just keep making promises that they can't keep to buy votes and stay in power.

[kc8tbe]

Yet another example is Obama's solution to energy. He gave a pittance of a few billion toward energy research and tens of billions more to loan guarantees (e.g. Solyndra), many to modalities (solar, wind) that his own energy secretary told him aren't really going to help the big picture. Obama's energy policy has done next to nothing to reduce energy prices, which are now predictably higher than when he took office. I'm frankly suprised the Republicans haven't had the balls to propose the sort of nuclear energy renaissance the Democrats should have gone with. (Although the envirotards probably were a factor in this.)

Nuclear power is debatable as to whether it's really cheaper than solar and wind in the long run- it relies on massive subsidies and some studies have concluded that these are solely what makes it viable. In addition, people are suspicious of an industry that has repeatedly lied to them- first about electricity too cheap to meter, then about the safety of nuclear power plants, then about whether disasters could ever happen again- solar and wind are simply the only way forward as things stand, since the root causes of rejection of nuclear power can't be fixed long-term in the current American system.

Nuclear does get considerable subsidies in the form of loan guarantees, although these probably would not be as necessary if the regulatory procedure for building and running plants were not so asinine. The study you cite considers waste management (which the nuclear industry current pays for), tax policies favorable to all mining (not just uranium), and the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation as "subsidies", but I do not agree with this assessment.

Meanwhile, other sources suggest that nuclear is the cheapest option next to carbon-intensive coal and natural gas. Despite some well-known disasters, nuclear still appears to have the lowest death rate per kWH of energy produced of all modalities, including wind and solar.

I'm not arguing against solar and wind, which are definitely useful modalities, nor am I claiming that the questions of nuclear waste and weapons proliferation are not serious ones. But with sufficient political will, these questions could be dealt with -- we could legalize reprocessing of waste, like France does now. We could invest modest resources in the thorium fuel cycle with potentially tremendous returns. We could provide foreign countries with the technology to build proliferation-resistant reactors instead of giving them an excuse to develop their own enrichment technology. But no, the Democrats throw some pocket change at wind and solar and voila! The energy crisis is solved

[SirNitram]

Actually...

Nit? Could you please explain in detail how the Bush stimulus package wasn't Keynesian? I'm not 100% confident I believe you myself. I don't think you've committed any FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY crap, but that doesn't mean you're right.

As Keynes put it, the solution to depressions is 'Inducement to invest', and his mechanisms were a combination of two forces: Reduction of interest rates(N/A in present situation, zero bound problem), and government investment in infrastructure. He also expanded knowledge of 'multiplier' spending(IE, how much effect a given use of government funds creates.), as well as 'Paradox Of Thrift', which is a current problem. If one could find data on the percentage of the tax rebates of Bush's stimulus and savings, this would be a reason it was less effective. However, tax rebates are not either of the mechanisms of Keynes' solution to depression/crashing aggregate demand.

I believe I rest my case quite sensibly. I hope I'm right, at least.

[Simon_Jester]

If tax rebates have a multiplier effect then they'd serve Keynes' purpose well enough, surely?

[Phantasee]

The main reason Social Security is in danger is that while its expenses may only be about 5% of GDP, they're something like a quarter of the federal budget, at a time when the government's income only covers about two thirds of its expenses. If Social Security is preserved inviolate, it becomes a lot harder to find anywhere else to cut the budget and... fuck Grover Norquist with a pineapple.

I don't quite understand your last sentence, although I'm sure it's very amusing.

[SirNitram]

If tax rebates have a multiplier effect then they'd serve Keynes' purpose well enough, surely?

The multiplier effect is an existing idea Keynes codified further. I don't think it would count, myself. But all things have multipliers effecting them; though some might have a multiplier of x1. I'm no where near good enough to run the equations for the tax rebates, and we still are left without an answer to the thrift paradox question.

[aerius]

If tax rebates have a multiplier effect then they'd serve Keynes' purpose well enough, surely?

If the multiplier is greater than 1. But according to the CBO's report on the stimulus package the multiplier effect of tax breaks and rebates was less than 1, so I think the answer is no.

[Simon_Jester]

The main reason Social Security is in danger is that while its expenses may only be about 5% of GDP, they're something like a quarter of the federal budget, at a time when the government's income only covers about two thirds of its expenses. If Social Security is preserved inviolate, it becomes a lot harder to find anywhere else to cut the budget and... fuck Grover Norquist with a pineapple.

I don't quite understand your last sentence, although I'm sure it's very amusing.

Well, if you can't cut the budget and you must close the deficit, you must increase taxes. What is the essential obstacle to increasing taxes in the US? What one individual has most permanently bound his name to creating that obstacle?

Oh, and aerius: 20% of US GDP is damn near three trillion dollars. Government revenue is running well below that. We'd still have a deficit if we were taking in 20% of GDP in taxes, but it'd be a damn sight smaller, and the debt would be a LOT smaller if we'd been doing it consistently.

There are also distributive arguments: how is the health of the overall economy affected by choosing which 20% of GDP we take, from who, and what do we do with it?