Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Milton Friedman's Awesome Idea - Guaranteed Minimum Income

Milton Friedman famously said "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."  Of course I wouldn't go that far, but there's an element of truth to it.  We do sometimes see government programs initiated with a stated purpose subsequently perverted because the players involved have incentives that don't really align with the overall goal.  I'd point to the military as a perfect example.  The stated goal is to provide security.  But what they do more often than not actually increases the security threat.  The military establishment isn't incentivized to create a peaceful world.  If the world was safe they'd be out of a job.

We see some of that same dynamic in the implementation of welfare.  We have to have regulators making sure the recipients aren't on drugs, administering expensive drug screening.  Instead of cash we administer a food stamp program to make sure recipients don't buy the wrong things.  Our goal is to reduce poverty and suffering.  But for the administrators their incentive is to sustain a bureaucracy that keeps them employed.  What if the money spent on that bureaucracy was directly applied to people in poverty?  How much abuse would we really see if we simply trusted the people in poverty and offered direct cash transfers with no strings attached?

Milton Friedman long ago suggested a "negative income tax".  One of the reasons he loved it is there's no new bureaucracy required.  We already have the IRS.  Everybody has to file their taxes anyway.  And monitoring income/collecting revenue is one thing we already know the government does pretty well.  So it's pretty simple.  Suppose you set a threshold of $10K per person.  If you make less than $10K the government tops you off to where you reach $10K.  Cash.  Do what you want with it.  If you choose to spend it poorly, that's your choice and you are the one that deals with the consequences.

A lot of people hear that and they think it's pretty wild.  These people are just going to run out and get high or drunk, pop out babies to get a larger share of money, and in other ways abuse it.  That sounds kind of plausible.  But is it true?  What's being suggested here is you treat people like adults.  Trust them to know what is in their own best interest.  As Milton Friedman would recognize, people tend to understand what is in their own best interest and more readily spend money wisely than a government official that might choose on your behalf.  The official doesn't have to endure the consequences of a poor choice.  The person receiving the money does, so he'll think about how he spends money carefully.  Should we treat people like adults?

I learned recently that experiments have been tried.  Here's a test case in India. This is a little different from what Friedman is suggesting because in this case it's actually guaranteed money.  You can earn more if you like.  It doesn't top you up to a certain value.  But the results are informative.  It's for a poor village so the subsidy amounted to $3.65 per month for an adult.  Prior income transfer programs were conditional and this led to corruption and inefficiency.  It was estimated that of the total money set aside for conditional programs, only 27% reached the people in need after bureaucrats and corruption had eroded the money away.  Take a look at what happened with this unconditional program.  Women became empowered to express their opinions, knowing that starvation wasn't a threat.  Workers felt comfortable asking for more money, which employers ultimately granted.  People are going to school longer.  It was so successful the government is considering expanding it dramatically, and even neoliberals are happy about it because it allows the government to project a larger reduction in overall government expenditures.  Less social problems leads to further cost reductions in other spending domains.

Well, that's a poor country.  What about first world nations?  This article discusses two tests, one in Britain and the other that was attempted in the 70's in Canada.  Senator Hugh Segal discussed the Canadian experiment in more detail here.  A family of 5 was guaranteed a minimum income of $18K in a particular town in Manitoba, which happened to be a farming town.  $18K is in today's dollars.  The results were documented but the data stayed in boxes for decades.  The program was ended as different governments came about and different policies were pursued, but recently the data was exhumed and evaluated.  The results were spectacular.

All of the fears you see expressed by those that oppose government handouts did not materialize.  Overall working hours barely changed.  They did drop just slightly because some mothers did stay home with their children (which itself is a potential social benefit that will be realized years down the road), but overall not much change (maybe people generally prefer to make more than $18K/yr).  People stayed in school longer.  This was a farming community and poorer parents had a tendency to pull their kids out of school early for harvest, particularly if it was a tougher harvest with less favorable prices.  Parents left their kids in school longer knowing that if the harvest was bad they would be covered.  When the harvests ended up being OK anyway of course less subsidy was required.  Crime rates dropped, meaning in the long run you'd expect a reduced prison population, a reduced need for lawyers and judges to administer rulings.  Health care costs plummeted.  Possibly happier people that worry less are less prone to accidents?  People that can afford preventative treatment less frequently make use of expensive ER type services?  I'm not sure.

In any case you watch the talk above from Hugh Segal and you see these various benefits described.  In the end for a very small investment, in this case $17 million dollars, you achieve an enormous reduction in overall government expenditures.  No bureaucrats checking to make sure they aren't on drugs, no monitors, less police, less prisons, less judges, less lawyers, lower health care costs, and people that are much happier to boot.  Liberterians would like it because it offers more responsibility to the individual.  Liberals like it because it provides a sort of base line social safety net.

Now, if everybody would like it why hasn't it already happened?  Here's my speculation.  Consider the case of the Indian workers that extracted better conditions from an employer since they weren't desperate.  Consider the recent building collapse in Bangladesh.  If I know that tomorrow and the next day and for all days in the future I'll at least have food in my belly and a roof over my head, I'm not likely to listen to the boss when he demands I work in an unsafe building.  I'm also not going to work for him if he doesn't pay me half way decently.  If a Wal-Mart sweat shop can't find people willing to work for nothing in dangerous conditions, guess what they'll do?  They'll pay more and provide safe conditions.  Because the alternative is the work doesn't get done.  Remember, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, the ones that get the largest share of the money from the work done?  They don't do anything.  The just get the money.  So if people earning wages aren't willing to sew the underwear together then the underwear won't get made, and the Waltons won't get any money.  So they'll pay.  Even if that means less profits.  Less profits is better than no profits.

So there's your resistance to this kind of a program.  For a corporation it's kind of nice to have desperate people.  Desperate people will work for nothing in frightening conditions, and that's good for profits.

It's interesting to consider which of Milton Friedman's ideas has really been implemented over the years.  The ones that are profitable are the ones that have been amplified.  Privatization, which has been implemented throughout Latin America, Russia, and elsewhere has been a huge strain for normal people and a huge boon to the wealth of the already rich.  Friedman's ideas that benefit the poor just didn't get that kind of play.  In fact helping the poor as Friedman suggests is a bit of a threat to the short term profit interest of the wealthy.  That's why Heritage and AEI are not too interested in it, even though their mentor and the evidence show that it's a great idea that works.

73 comments:

HispanicPundit said...

That's why Heritage and AEI are not too interested in it, even though their mentor and the evidence show that it's a great idea that works.

Your conspiracy theory is full of holes. This is libertarian 101. Almost all free market libertarians I know - the very 'corporate cheerleaders you assume - support such a policy.

Even Charles Murray, from the much loved The American Enterprise Institute, wrote a book specifically defending this very idea (see here).

So while I can sit here and point you to example of example of the right wing capitalists supporting such an idea - the very corporate shills you claim them to be - I ask, where are those on the left doing so?

Jon said...

If you want to have a reasonable dialogue then I don't think you should falsely accuse me of advocating a conspiracy because I've told you many times why what I'm saying is not a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy to suggest wealthy people and corporations advocate in favor of their own wealth interest. I've said that many times and if you think that's not reasonable of me you should reply to what I've said, not repeat the charge of conspiracy over and over. If you are serious when you say you want to avoid seeing discussion deteriorate then I think that is what you should do.

The issue here is not that nobody from AEI has spoken in favor of it. The issue is emphasis. My statement is based on the fact that certain AEI preferred policies actually get implemented and others don't. If AEI emphasized this like they emphasized war, deregulated finance, global warming denial, I think we'd see things get done. There isn't the same kind of intensity behind their advocacy of this, even though their most important patriarch advocated it. Also the wealth interest isn't behind it. I think that's correlated.

But that's obviously very tangential to the point I'm going for here. What do you actually think about the policy? Do you support it?

And where's Chad? This is a big whipping boy for him. He's constantly saying that he wants very limited welfare expenditures, and those that are offered come with a heavy regulatory hand making sure they spend the money wisely, work to pay off what is offered, all that stuff. The evidence says that's the wrong approach. What do you think, Chad?

Chad said...

I was in remote part of Canada for a week fishing/hunting with customers - just got back in the States and back to technology.

My response is simple - we don't actually know that a different idea wouldn't work or that without such a transfer of wealth that the wealth would not have naturally been transferred via salaries. The rich/businesses fully understand this transfer process when evaluating salaries or doing hiring Jon - fully and they naturally adjust wages based on what is taken from them and their business. Meaning a workers salary - those in the sweet spot to get a big fat gov't check back - has already been adjusted in the market. What you think of as successful, I see as a simple market correction made by employers compensating for a gov't program.

In the mean time the top 2% are siting around literally laughing as gov't makes more and more rules, regs, taxes to try and take more and in the end they make it more difficult for new businesses to open to compete for market space thus the expansion of the wealth at the top continues.

Chad said...

The only accurate way to measure success is by having a different idea at the same time which can not be done here in the US for this topic.

For instance RTW states versus non RTW states - we have hard, factual data that proves RTW states are more business friendly and that workers earn more. We have tons of little petry dishes called States to see how different policies ideas actually work - those states under Democratic Control (for the most part) are steaming toward financial bankruptcy and ruin while a great majority of the Republican ran states are actually growing in one of the toughest business environments of all time.

Look at Michigan - what a quick turnaround there - a budget surplus in just a few years. Of course the Left will say that he took it out of the schools and teachers which is partly true, but he is actually setting Michigan on a good trajectory. Unemployement way down from when he started so now there are more tax payers to help boost revenues for schools through job creation and he knew that. I also read that overall tax revenue was up for the first time in a decade. Now Michigan is getting back to a position to fight states for new business.

Anyhow back to the point - to claim success without having anything to compare it against seems to be very short sighted in my opinion.



Lots of times you compare a countr

Jon said...

or that without such a transfer of wealth that the wealth would not have naturally been transferred via salaries.

Sure we do. We have done the experiments. Take the Canada case. Poverty was there and fairly high. They implemented this program and poverty disappeared. So salaries were not getting it done, but this transfer program did. We know the free market wasn't doing it, just as we know it's not doing it today in the US and all over the world. Severe poverty in the US is breaking records that go back 30 years.

There's plenty you can compare it to. Canada and India had some welfare programs already. So we're already comparing to what is presently in existence. This program is far superior.

BTW, it's off topic, but it is not clear that compensation is better in RTW states. I know you had some references in a prior thread, but there are many data points showing the opposite conclusion. Have you considered those? I'm not making a claim either way, but you have to look at the other side before drawing a conclusion and true to form you speak confidently when you have only considered one side. Here's an example of more data you should consider. EPI is a union supported think tank, but they have an excellent reputation that I'd stack up against Heritage or AEI and their tobacco is good for you reputation any day of the week.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf

Chad said...

I didn't question the results - I simply said that there is nothing to compare that too. There was no gov't program that incentivised hiring or increased employee earnings via some other tax break.

You inserted a gov't program that takes huge sums of money from from businesses, middle, upper middle and rich folks then to hand that out to people and your crowing/propping up the results like its a surprise?

To say it worked because there were less poor people in America, Canada and India is similar to saying that for every game that Justin Verlander pitches he only needs a single strike to get a batter out then to be shocked when his winning percentage and strike outs are up and his ERA is down.

An un-natural force is picking winners and losers - that is the point here. The crucial thinker needs to say - was their a better way that didn't involve such a heavy hand by gov't?

What your ignoring is the ripple effect - cost of goods UP to cover this, the amount borrowed from China flys way up, the debt continues to rise, earnings/salary continues to fall, but by golly it works Chad - see see see.

Chad said...

In regards to data - I have found that given either side enough time they can spin, wash, scrub data in so many ways that by then end it is slanted.

I simply work off common sense - where is unemployment lowest, where are people moving too and away from. Which States are running balanced budgets and which states are bankrupt. Where are the jobs moving to and away from.

Generally speaking when you look at it that way - (R) states are doing well and (D) states are in all kinds of trouble.

HispanicPundit said...

You cant pick my words for me Jon. I think much of what you write is conspiracy level. Reading your blog is like reading a blog that argues 9/11 was an inside job. You cant say I havent tried to convince you otherwise. I have. I've reached the point of seeing it as mostly a waste of time. Either because you are too biased, I am too biased, or we are both too biased (or cant communicate well, etc). Point being, I've went that route and found it fruitless.

But doesnt mean I still dont believe it. And if I believe it, I write it. You disagree fine, but I dont think its reasonable for you to dictate how I write it. You think the right wing are evil war mongers...you wont find me prohibiting you from using such words. Its your opinion. I disagree. Fine. No big deal. I dont think it prohibits reasonable dialogue at all. This is your view...in fact, I EXPECT you to have such a view.

With that said, you had a specific conspiracy theory in mind here. It wasn't merely "wealthy people and corporations advocate in favor of their own wealth interest". It was ALSO more specific. I quoted it directly. It was: "That's why Heritage and AEI are not too interested in it, even though their mentor and the evidence show that it's a great idea that works." It is specifically that point I was addressing.

I pointed out that the most famous member of AEI wrote a whole book on it. It caused a bunch of discussion when it came out. It's not like Murray has written hundreds of books, like say Thomas Sowell. The guy has only written a handful, around 5 or so.

Not only that, but Murray is THE expert on Welfare views from the right. The guy became famous because of his book, Losing Ground, which was largely about the American Welfare System.

(Of course, you know all of this...since you used to be a conservative. :-) )

This is huge man. Murray is a giant on the right. This would be like Chomsky writing 20% of his books on vouchers and me saying, 'wow, this is a great idea...but the left would never support this because they hate minorities'.

This is even bigger than that. Because not only is Murray a giant on his own grounds, but welfare is his specialty AND he is deeply affiliated with AEI and AEI is pretty big on the right (not to be exaggerated, but it has influence).

But even then, you failed to answer my question: where is such support on the left? Fine, maybe the right could have been LOUDER ...but atleast they screamed a bit. I dont hear a PEEP from the left on this. So who really is the disciple of those in power???

With regard to your question: YES, I wholeheartedly support this. As do most (all?) hardcore rightwing economists.

Jon said...

An un-natural force is picking winners and losers - that is the point here. The crucial thinker needs to say - was their a better way that didn't involve such a heavy hand by gov't?

In practical politics you don't abandon a better alternative simply because there are theoretical untested better options. We already have a welfare state, one you consider enormous. This is a cheaper welfare system that produces better outcomes. You're objecting to it because in theory there could be an EVEN BETTER alternative that we haven't tried, though you haven't proposed it.

The saying is, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is an awesome idea that we know works based on testing. We can also see that your demand for an expensive regulatory apparatus making sure all recipients are behaving properly costs more to implement than just handing people the money, and it does less good. Why support a more expensive, less effective system?

Regarding data, you do have people that spin both sides, but you do have to at least look at both sides. I think you can come to reasonable conclusions despite the fact that you have people on both sides. What you do is you completely ignore the evidence that is against you, and so naturally there's only one conclusion you will draw.

Jon said...

HP, if I call you a holocaust denier and you replied explaining to me what that phrase means and how it doesn't apply to you, would it make sense for me to respond with "you don't get to choose my words for me." This is a phrase that simply discredits. The same for "conspiracy." Even the point you quoted of me has nothing to do with a conspiracy. You simply are not using the word according to it's English definition, and you use it simply to discredit, like "holocaust denier" would discredit. So I guess I can't choose your words, but I can point out that you are abusing the language.

This is not about one of us being biased and the other not. You just aren't using words according to the English definition. No conversation is possible if you won't be honest in your use of words. This is the hallmark of a dishonest person.

Are you denying that I was a right winger? I don't know anything about Charles Murray. I bet Chad has never heard of Charles Murray. Is he not really a conservative? Many liberals have never heard of Chomsky. Are they not liberals? I'm in no way claiming that I had read as much as you on the conservative side, but I was a conservative. This creterion you have of if I haven't heard of a certain person or read a certain opinion implies I was never really a right winger disqualifies many conservatives as conservatives. It's not at all reasonable.

You say "Of course, you know all of this...since you used to be a conservative. :-)" sarcastically, meaning what? If you don't know of a book from Charles Murray you aren't or never were conservative? Seriously, is this your view? How many conservatives exist in the US? A few tens of thousands? Maybe you and I have a very different understanding of what it means to be a conservative. I said I was based on the opinions I held, not because I knew who the biggest name at AEI was.

As far as who on the left advocates this, I guess I didn't answer because I didn't see the question as relevant to the point, nor do I know. I'm sure some do, but I know as well as you do. You can Google as well as I can. I'm glad you support it.

Chad said...

JC,

That is not exactly correct - I lean toward ideas/opinions that line up with my way of thinking that is accurate, but I don't ignore other data. I simply believe that the data is so complex and has so many different levels of how it became data that it ends up being white noise. For instance - its like the WHO rating USA at 38. Its a freaking sham and laughable. We (Americans) live hard - we don't eat well, we drive fast cars, we don't excersice enough, we don't get enough check ups (preventitive) which greatly skews the data. Males in America do live 4 years fewer then so called top ranked countries, but that that has zero to do with the quality of health care in the US. The USA is easily and without question in the top 3 - if not the best in the world - in regards to actual health care. The rich are not - absolutely not - getting in their planes and traveling to France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra or Malta for their open heart surgery which by the way are the Top 5 in the fake WHO rating system.

Only 1 example of millions why stats/data should be reviewed, but never taken as absolute fact.

As I said previous - if at the same time as this massive distribution of wealth program was launched another program say a 'business incentive' program was launched then we would be able to judge. Instead of confiscating money from one group by force - they could have used their big brains to figure out a way to incentivise businesses to pay more to their employees.

If you give a business the choice of paying out X% of all earnings to employees and in return they receive a Y tax bracket versus allowing gov't to confiscate and hand out - I would bet 95% of businesses would comply.

Your right about one thing - the process of wealth distribution is a very easy program to manage that is for sure. It also didn't take much in regards to intelligence either. One staple of the Dem/Lib/Prog movement is finding the path of least resistence and promising a group of people something for free. It is exponentially more difficult to be a conservative because you have to work for it and actually put some thought into ideas knowing full well that some will be left behind.

All your proving here today is that the all power gov't can make any program work because they have the power to tax and confiscate.

Chad said...

Of course - that is until the earners have nothing left to give or the number of takers becomes larger than the makers.

Seems like we are getting closer to that tipping point as well.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/34693-welfare-state-explosion-food-stamps-skyrocket-disability-hits-all-time-high/

100 million people receiving gov't assistance is a joke. I wonder what percentage of the 100 million vote for Democrats at every turn?

Now those are some stats.

Jon said...

Well, it's a bit off topic, but let me briefly say that I've discussed the health rankings before, and indpendent studies converge on similar rankings. You're right about one thing, and I've said it all along. If you're rich the US system is great. But what these rankings do is they consider also the treatment of lower class members of society, as if they matter as well. Take a look at this story.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/20/5432780/la-poised-to-go-after-las-vegas.html

Las Vegas is bussing patients to California and dumping them off, as many as 1500 people over the last 5 years. One man, a paraplegic, was found still dressed in his hospital gown connector to a catheter bag dragging himself along a gutter. This kind of thing just doesn't happen in a top 3 country. Top 3 countries don't have thousands of people dying because they happen to be out of work or unable to work and so they get screwed. Again, I grant your point that for you and me it's great. We're employed, have enough money to cover whatever might come up. If you can look beyond yourself though and consider that others are not as fortunate as you maybe you can see that it's not so great for people that find themselves in different circumstances and this means that OVERALL a rank of 38 makes sense. Yeah, we're maybe top 3 if only the super rich matter, but for those that think others matter 38 is closer.

As far as your idea that if only we'd give the rich and corporations more tax breaks we'd see an even better outcome, this is really getting to the point in my mind of being a laughingstock. It's been so thorougly discredited at this point. Former Reagan and Bush Sr adviser Bruce Bartlett goes through the studies at the link below. As he says, it's hard to even find reputable conservative economists that think these tax cuts were a good thing.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/the-bush-tax-cut-failure/

Yeah, the food stamp rolls are swelling. It's even worse in Europe where they cut government expenditures in order to balance the budgets and the economies tanked. Austerity during an economic downturn is not a good idea as even HP will tell you.

Examinator said...

Jon,
What surprises me is that the those working for The uber capitalists don't seem to be able to join the dots.

Simple math should tell them that in a capitalist world Scarcity = greater demand = greater value.
There are fewer gifted or competent people than ordinary. Ergo fewer those with high competence than those with lower. 101 statistics confirms this.

Stats also prove that 50% of the people are Below average and 50% above. Common sense and deduction should reveal that any country needs more 'relatively' meaningful ordinary jobs for the 66% of people who for some reason or other are not suited or able to make it in the upper echelons of employment.
Ship those jobs overseas and you have a problem. Under employment or unemployment in the US both currently rank in 30% levels.

However, Consumerism MASS markets to survive. (do you see the flaw in consumerism). No work no consumerist mass market .
What Chad doesn't factor in is that some time in the future the US market for his product won't be enough to maintain their production in the US. They must be looking for export markets AND OR moving off shore.
The end result is that HIS job can be done by someone else cheaper.

With the majority of construction growth O/S (funded by all those billions of Asians from doing the shipped in jobs) it stands to reason that the market pressures and economies of scale manufacturing will move there.

America will become a marginal market much Like Australia. Market realities means that choice will disappear and you'll get what is economical to import and will be based on ever decreasing paredo effect.
( the creator of capitalist theory Smith warned of this) .
With all the unskilled and semi skilled manufacturing going o/s. What is left given the above set capacity/competence statistics i.e. 66%ers . The professions perhaps ? consider this ; When I was an exec in the Computer field my high level skills in IT (code cutting) were rare and help desks were local. Now one uni alone in India is turning out 15000 high level computer professionals Per Year and help desks are O/S. Any number of them could produce code cheaper than I. My dying advantage is they are not taught the old code languages and machine code. One is being replaced the other applies to a very specialised niche. This is one university . The simple math is with them on every profession. Chances of Chad's children being in the top 3% of any profession is statistically and genetically remote nor can he be comfortable they'll be able to take a career that isn't in Govt pay Public servant or in the Military Manufacturing Complex who depend on wars and conflict.

Examinator said...

Off topic but worth a read
" when is a hacking acceptable ?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terror-in-woolwich-mi5-tried-to-recruit-suspect-in-kenyan-jail-8633024.html

Examinator said...

Jon
I guess my point was that the question was wrong in that it is predicated on a series of false assumptions.
The very nature of capitalism must change i.e. the anti societal notions that obscene opulence of a few exceeds the NEEDS OF THE MANY or that MONEY IS THE ANSWER. Demonstrably it isn't!
It is way more fundamental than that.
Capitalists tell us that it is but if one does the math it can't be.

Frankly it is utter logical nonsense to assert that because someone TODAY who is rich is worthy or competent to have greater influence in the government than say someone who is competent. Wayne La stink ??! Koch Brothers, Jill Walton, the execs on Wall street, Exxon execs, our resident TEA bagger or me? The tea Baggers demonstrated endlessly their ignorance as to what is going on and why. And me I know enough not to want to get in there and cock it up (old archery term ... an error resulting in falling short of the target ) more.
While not the complete answer the Gross National Happiness is at least on the right track.

HispanicPundit said...

Are you denying that I was a right winger? I don't know anything about Charles Murray.

Remember what James White would write when confronted with yet another evangelical who converted to Catholicism? He would first ask how truly evangelical was the person. What books did they write? What school did they go to? In other words, what proof is there that said convert was truly knowledgeable about the evangelical side.

There is a big difference between a populist conservative and an educated one. Converting your average Cafeteria Catholic is not the same as converting a Catholic Apologist. Same with politics.

Sure, you voted Conservative and generally called yourself a Republican. But it doesnt mean your knowledge base was anything more than populist. And this is just one more example of that.

Examinator said...

HP
Absolutely fascinating, I'm intrigued. I'd be appreciate you expanding on the differences and implications between the 'types' of REPUBLICANS.

Where do you draw the lines?
What is the real difference between a "Faith" in God and a faith in a myopic focused fuzzy edged, untestable (scientifically) discipline 'economics'?

Keep in mind Like all good dog breeders "I've never found a dog(ma) that doesn't need restraint and or neutering at some stage to be acceptable in society". (in essence I'm saying arguing by comparisons between dogmas is gain say argument and WOT)

Jon said...

There is a big difference between a populist conservative and an educated one.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

I was what I was. I'm not ashamed of it and have never hidden it. My arguments certainly are not based on how many conservative books I had read years back, so I don't really see your point here. Not much I can do about not knowing Charles Murray. There's a lot I hadn't read, a lot you haven't read, a lot all of us don't know. You can keep pointing out the obvious, which adds nothing to the discussion, or you can talk about the ideas. Pointing out what everyone already knows and doesn't deny is kind of a waste of time in my view.

Paul said...

HP -

What it seems you are doing is applying the "No True Scottsmen" fallacy.

There is a big difference between a populist conservative and an educated one. Converting your average Cafeteria Catholic is not the same as converting a Catholic Apologist. Same with politics.

Yup the more one is brain washed into a specific dogma the less likely that they can break away from it. Yet evangelical (or Catholic) apologist is still wrong.

What kind of conservative would you say Chad is? I ask because I view you two as different shades/flavors of conservative but yet on multiple occassions you were (are?) perfectly happy having Chad carry the metaphorical torch for you.

HispanicPundit said...

Paul/Ex,

I classify conservatives into three groups, not all consistent with each other:

GroupA: the nationalist group. Think of the military personal. Pure nationalistic, the USA can do no harm crowd.

GroupB: The religious group. Evangelicals, bible thumpers. Pro-life Catholics. etc.

GroupC: The economic group. Think Milton Friedman, extreme capitalism group (no minimum wage, free trade etc).

And there are infights between these groups. Group A and some of Group B, for example, tend to strongly dislike immigration. Group C loves immigration. In fact, its mainly group C that you find arguing for complete OPEN borders.

Group A & B tends to be 'pro-war' (for lack of a better term), group C tends to be anti-war.

I can give you more examples. But this the basic breakdown.

Academically speaking though, there is only really Group C. Group A and Group B wont survive long if they have to have their views judged by a peer review platform. So really, all of Group A and Group B is what I refer to as populist.

By that I mean got their views primarily from tradition: where they grew up, how they were raised. No real deeper thought than thats what they were born/raised as, and thats what they view. With all the same inherent economic misunderstandings as lefties...only lucky enough to have their cultural political views shield them of some of the more egregious flaws.

Now there are populists in Group C, but there are also academics. Those who CAN hold their views among the peer review side. Think Milton Friedman, for example.

Personally, I stick with Group C. Jon seems to prefer Groups A &B, but I dont blame him. He was one of em.

But really, with time, I have learned two things from online discussions:

1. Its very very hard to change the mind of populists. Its their 'religion' and data doesnt matter.

2. Poplulists, long term, eventually end up following the true 'academics' in their group anyway. So the real battle is in Group C. The real time and effort, long term. It comes with the added fact that the discussions tend to be more sincere, you learn more, and in the end, its a better value of ones time.

Paul said...

HP -


Assuming you are still following this thread -


Going to be a bit pedantic here - for fun -

you wrote
There is a big difference between a populist conservative and an educated one. Converting your average Cafeteria Catholic is not the same as converting a Catholic Apologist. Same with politics.

then you wrote

But really, with time, I have learned two things from online discussions:

1. Its very very hard to change the mind of populists. Its their 'religion' and data doesnt matter.


These two statements sound contradictory to me. On the first you seem to imply that populists are like non-apologist and are thus are more malleable to altering their world view (e.g. Jon).

In the second it sounds like the opposite.

I think I actually understand what you are trying to say; however.

Anyone to a more genuine question.

Let me for sake of discussion conced the point you've tried to make that liberals have in large not endorsed, or perhaps are not outspoken in support of, minimal income.

But lets say that the brain centers of conservatism made a genuine and strong push to enact such policies.

In the current world - which party (as whole) do you think would be most amenable to support such a policy.

In simpler terms - say John Boehner and/or Eric Cantor tried to push such policy do you think it would be easier for them to find supporters in the Decocratic party or Republican party, or both equally, or some other combination?

Examinator said...

HP
Paul makes some incisive points in his comments about your response to both of us.
Your comments are as most Political discussions in America , base on a few populous presumptions;

that everyone is using your political definitions. The reality is they're not . In your case you haven't defined what a Republican is or what defines one.

I think if you look up the academically accepted definitions and criteria of Republican, Right wing, Conservative you'll find that the definitions is vastly different to what your answer seems to indicate. ….. specifically they don't include mutual exclusivity. Ergo one can be a Catholic et al and still (be) support Republican principals.

Also note in broad terms They all refer to broad principals, many of which are shared with other political ideologies,albeit not the same features across all ideologies. e.g. Capitalism, and social welfare in some form or other are both common to most.

In academically terms the definitions of these ideologies are fixed... whereas the functional emphasis of the GOP is more in step with 'cafeteria fads' or controlling forces *interests*. e.g The party of Lincoln and today are fundamentally different in more than just emphasis. I would put it to you that Lincoln's was nearer the real definition.

I would be uncomfortable defining the GOP as a capitalist party either. Particularly if one adds in the Libertarianism (yet another pseudo redefinition), like the Pauls.

You should note that the 'quasi religious' belief in the currently advocated extreme form of ECONOMICS by the GOP is a modern ' imposed extension' or redefinition ( perversion) of 'Republicanism' and the Republican Party (GOP) . The two AREN'T interchangeable any more than
USSR and
United Soviet Socialist Republic, accurately describe it's principals, its ideology or its purpose ! That's just “associative” (feel good marketing)MARKETING for the “cafeteria (majority) rump' .

Your comments seen to wander into Motivational issues (again less hard sciences).... psychology, genetics, epigenetics and conditioning none of which are in the definition of Political “Science” or Philosophy.

Cutting to the chase, your assertions are under thought through.
Your are asserted absolutist conclusions appear to be “faith based”, not that unlike Chad and Catholics etc you disdain.
They are clearly beyond the 'limited scope/parameters ' of academic-like political discussions

You are entitled to view the world from this 'metaphysical' perspective as is/ was Jon, but you tread on very thin ice logic with the seemingly absolutist assertions you did. They smack of a combination of defensiveness and over used GOP tactics of deliberately obfuscation of the differences between the GOP with Republicanism for the purposes of associated self righteousness justification. In the same way the GOP attempts to do the reverse by associating the Democrats with USSR style 'socialism'(sic).

HispanicPundit said...

Paul,

Regarding the seeming contradiction: the conversion is 'hard', but not impossible. But really, what I have seen historically is that the conversion is very rarely intellectual. Its mostly emotional. Think about the cafeteria Catholic who never really experienced his faith, let alone understood it at a deep intellectual level, who then attends a Pentecostal Church. Gets all into the emotional aspect, 'feels Jesus' and now he is an apologist for the evangelical side...preaching to Catholics.

In such a situation his knowledge base is roughly the same...and had you tried to convert him to Pentecostal by using LOGIC, it would have been a waste of BOTH your time and his. It was the emotional that drove him to it and its the emotional that keeps him there.

Same with politics. The populists are usually NEVER driven by logic. So trying to deal with them on that level is a HUGE waste of time...atleast that has been my experience.

Regarding your hypothetical: I think we'd get the status quo. Neither side would be for it.

Group A and some of group B would be against it for the same reason they are strong on drug tests for welfare recepients: they see the poor as primarily drug addicts, who are completely unlike themselves.

Group C would be LARGELY for it. I mean 90%+. But there are NOT that many of us. The only reservation group C would have is that they wouldn't fully trust the liberals to make the plan REPLACE the welfare state...as opposed to ADD TO the welfare state.

Liberals, would just not understand it. Were talking about the least economically knowledgeable group of voters here. It's very very difficult for them to think of life without government there to assist you.

Jon said...

HP, I was kind of hoping you'd answer Paul's question about Chad. Is Chad a conservative?

You're right in what you say about James White, in that when I told him I was a former evangelical he just wouldn't believe it. Nope. Couldn't be that an informed evangelical would walk away and be an atheist. To me that's kind of pathetic. I know why he says it. That's how people with religious commitments act. They just can't admit to themselves that a reasonable person would walk away.

Apparently you think his position is reasonable, and that's kind of interesting to me. I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but I'm starting to think your conservatism is just like his religious commitments. So like for me the failure of the Bush tax policies, success under Clinton, WMD failures, failures of deregulated finance, these were all big shocks to me. All the pundits I listened to I could quote their past statements, and they were all wrong. This was a huge deal, because I wasn't about to cling to conservatism as a matter of faith. If the evidence goes against it I leave. And so I did. But you didn't, and I've asked you what impact these failures have had on your former opinions and you tend not to answer. I struggle to understand how conservatives can look at WMD and look at what happened in 2008 and not learn something from it, change their views in important ways. But they don't. You haven't seemed to.

Like James White you seem quick to convince yourself that I was never conservative. I'm starting to wonder if the evidence truly doesn't matter to you. Like Christian apologetics your arguments are simply one big damage control operation, as the evidence piles up against you, as it does with the fundamentalists and their views on evolution. This makes sense of the fact that in light of WMD and in light of 2008, for you not much has changed. These things just didn't matter.

I was a conservative, even though I don't know all the important names from AEI. The fact that you conclude I wasn't based on this slender reed really does remind me of James White's reaction to me claiming to be a former believer. He had nothing to go on, but he knew I was never satisfactorily informed to honestly call myself an evangelical. It's obvious that he wants to believe that. It's obvious why he wants to believe that. It's also obvious why you want to believe that. This is your religion.

Examinator said...

HP.
I gather you don't want to discuss it issue in terms of the Intellectual and philosophical rationale. Chad sees that as BS but all ideology at some point is based on an intellectual and philosophic foundation. Without this there can be no intellectual starting point to which to build from. it's a bit like trying to read a topographical/satellite map to find out where you are without reference points. Without which opinions are only feel good conclusions.

While those feel good conclusions may have internal logic/consistency but without scientific proof on all or most of contributing factors you are still in the area of speculative reasoning.

As for your barb about 'liberal will never understand is frankly just fence building around your unsubstantiatable conclusion.
Of course I am deducing you are sticking to your false assumption that because I have some limited agreement with 'left' rationale I am a 'liberal' (sic) i.e. you are pigeon holing me without any real basis. Of course the 'liberals' here understand your argument I simply disagree with the reference points on which your argument is based.
Simply put while you may be versed on economics(a speculative version there of)you are in fact basing your discussion on the same anchor point ("faith"), as those others lessor republicans.
I repeat As an examinator I've never met a Dogma that doesn't need restraining and or neutering for it's best interests.
NB Agreeing with some 'left' views neither makes me a Liberal or anything else exclusively.... pigeon holing it the first resort of emotional denial of individuality, yours and others.

Paul said...

HP -

Liberals, would just not understand it. Were talking about the least economically knowledgeable group of voters here. It's very very difficult for them to think of life without government there to assist you.

Wowzers!!! Really?!?

You are eager to make distinction regarding conservatives and breaking them up into three sub-groups but then, so it seems, without hesitation generalize liberals as a whole as being the least economically knowledgeable. Furthermore that liberals can't think of life without government there to assist them? Do you actually believe this? As a self-identified liberal I don't presume to speak for all liberals but *I* view the government as a tool - a means to an end. If an alternative to the government presented itself that was more effective (vaguely defined for now) in accomplishing some desired goal I'd argue that many liberals would be perfectly happy w/ a non-governmental solution to said issue/problem/whatever.

Examinator said...

Jon,
Most common pundits tend to throw around terms as a means to limit complexity by pigeon holing someone.
Sadly the terms in context tend to lose any significant defining meaning.
Part of that over simplification process there is a tacit implication to use the terms in a mutually exclusive sense ...i.e. Chad isn't a real republican he's a evangelical conservative in truth and fact he can and does match a majority of all three ideologies.
What HP is trying to do is by asserting mutual exclusivity he simply seeking to make himself a *more* legitimate GOPer (Republican Partier) than you, Chad or the great unwashed (read less informed). In reality this implies that if a person is sufficiently informed they would naturally be intellectually a GOPer.
The only reason to change is emotional.
To me that is way way too simplistic.
Chad or you are far more than an arcane compliance to a singular grouping.
I'd ask HP to define where is the cut off points e.g. if a professor of Economics who votes GOP more of a legitimate GOPer? How about a poly math is he/she more again?
Legally if you are a member of the GOP and or a registered GOPer then you are in that context a GOPer.
Likewise his focusing on emotions is also way too simplistic. as I've said before emotions have many causes some beyond the control of the human being these include IQ, competence in reasoning, conditioning, genetic, epigenetic or any other as yet unknown hard wired cause.
Neither you or Chad lack IQ ergo it's something else.
If one looks at humans as a species one can prove that we all have instincts of which emotions are a manifestation however as I've pointed out before we don't always become emotional or in the same way to the same things i.e. Moriori and their viens to infanticide, some pre white rape wasn't a reason in and of it's self for PTSD or high emotion, shame, feeling dirty et al.
Clearly with all these variables how does he determine that emotions alone was the causal factor especially when far more appropriately trained experts can't be so absolute.
On the moral level if he believes himself a member of the greatly informed how does he justify the immorality of using people emotions rather than logic to gain political advantage... there is a word for that exploitation oddly enough it's anti democratic.
Because democracy is based on some form of moral equality.

HispanicPundit said...

Jon,

You missed my point completely. I never (meant to) argued that you weren't a conservative. Sure you were. I know this, I knew you then. I am arguing that you were not a knowledgeable conservative. Hence my cafeteria Catholic analogy. Yes, you were a "Catholic", just not a knowledgeable one.

If I had to categorize you back then, I would have said you were a knowledgeable evangelical (so in this sense, James White is wrong) first, and conservative in so much as it agreed with your core premise.

I base this view on evidence. Just look at this post. You admit to not even knowing who Charles Murray was. That's huge man. The guy is probably the top 3 famous living conservatives...by both sides.

Paul,

I am curious - did I really give the impression that I thought Jon wasn't a conservative AT ALL? Is my writing really that bad? Or is Jon reading me wrong? What was your impression here? I trust your judgement here - because I just cant communicate efficiently with Jon. So I'd appreciate the feedback.

Regarding Chad: No offense, but I rarely read your other commentators. I usually just focus on what you comment, what Paul comments and that's about it. From the limited reading that I have done, I would put Chad on the conservative side, yes. But I cant tell you where in the conservative camp he would fall.

HispanicPundit said...

Paul,

When discussing liberals, I was speaking in majorities. But there is an intellectual economic minority within the camp that would probably fully support the replacement of the welfare state with cash transfers.

However, I genuinely believe that most liberals have a set goal in mind when they think of the welfare state, and if cash transfers doesn't accomplish that goal, it irks them. It will make them instinctively against said cash transfers. Here is an example of two liberals discussing this very difference in goals. Extrapolated to liberals in general, I do think this would be a HUGE dividing point - many (most?) liberals really do want that government control.

Lastly, my statement that liberals are the least economically knowledgeable group is a factual one. Take this list of policy issues that has HIGH economic agreement. What side do you think would disagree more - the liberal or conservative?

Can you produce a list of widespread economic beliefs where liberals actually agree more than conservatives? Maybe. But you'd certainly have to cherry pick the questions.

Jon said...

HP, what are you implying with this comment:

(Of course, you know all of this...since you used to be a conservative. :-) )

I took it to be sarcasm, like I wasn't really a conservative because I didn't know of this person.

Anyway, I don't think this point you keep raising is important. Everyone has limits to their knowledge. My knowledge was well above that of most conservatives I knew. I read Sowell, Bjorn Lomborg, Horowitz, weekly columns at JWR, blogs like Instapundit and NRO both before and after The Corner existed. I argued my conservative viewpoints in forums. I subscribed to National Review and read it monthly. If you don't think that's good enough to count as knowledgeable, that's fine. What difference does it make?

But what I think is interesting is the question of why you feel the need to continuously raise this. I personally think it's for reasons similar to James White. It's important to you to have this belief. That's fine, you can believe it if you like, because it doesn't affect anything. It's not like my arguments today don't work if I've never heard of the so called biggest name at AEI. But it does seem to me that this is for some reason important to you, this idea that I was not knowledgeable. I think you should ask yourself why.

Paul said...

HP -

In one of your comments you wrote -

Not only that, but Murray is THE expert on Welfare views from the right. The guy became famous because of his book, Losing Ground, which was largely about the American Welfare System.

(Of course, you know all of this...since you used to be a conservative. :-) )


The last comment was no doubt tongue-in-cheek but even such comments have some element of genuine feeling behind it. In this case it is easy to think you were implying that "true" conservatives would know who Murray is.

You then wrote

Sure, you voted Conservative and generally called yourself a Republican. But it doesnt mean your knowledge base was anything more than populist. And this is just one more example of that.

So no - you were not claiming that Jon was not a conservative. Rather that he was a populist one. From the tone I read into your comments (which may not actually reflect your intent) possibly you find populists conservatives somewhat unworhty of the label.


When you write the following -

If I had to categorize you back then, I would have said you were a knowledgeable evangelical (so in this sense, James White is wrong) first, and conservative in so much as it agreed with your core premise.

I base this view on evidence. Just look at this post. You admit to not even knowing who Charles Murray was. That's huge man. The guy is probably the top 3 famous living conservatives...by both sides.


If I may kid a bit - you got this wrong. The top three people on the right are: Rush, Sean, and Glenn. All three are huge.

Anyway back on point - the latter half of that quote seems unfair to me. I am not doubting, as you claim, that Charles Murray is top 3 famous living conservatives. What I have issue with is the implication that to be a "knowledgeable" conservative one must be familiar with him.

If I took all people who self-identify as conservative and guessed from those how many know who Charles Murray is would I be underestimating that the percentage of those people I could count on one maybe two hands? Would you be prepared to label the remaining as not-knowledgable?

Paul said...



W/ regards to following -

However, I genuinely believe that most liberals have a set goal in mind when they think of the welfare state, and if cash transfers doesn't accomplish that goal, it irks them. It will make them instinctively against said cash transfers.

I am trying to neither be defensive or pedantic here.

First thing - not speaking for all liberals but I think what I am about to say applies to many (most?) of us. You keep writing, or at least I am reading what you write such, that for liberals a welfare state is the "ends". It is not. It is a "means".

Say there is goal a "X". Speaking from the liberal side - say that there are different meanS for accomplishing that goal. Actually for simplicity assume that there are two solutions that satisfy the desgired goal. A private solution and a public solution. All things being equal I contend that most liberals will choose the private solution. Do you disagree with this assertion?

Back back to the full quote - Would you mind rewording what you intended to say.

What I am reading you say within the quote provided above is - if liberals have a set goal and if cash transfers do not accomplish said goal that they are irked by it.

If a group of people have a goal and a particular means doesn't accomplish those goals shouldn't that group of people, if they have any intelligence whatsoever, be against those means and in favor of one they do think would accomplish the desired goals?

Maybe I am missing the obvious here but this seems rather tautological to me.


As to

Lastly, my statement that liberals are the least economically knowledgeable group is a factual one. Take this list of policy issues that has HIGH economic agreement. What side do you think would disagree more - the liberal or conservative?

Agreeing w/ the consensus does not make one knowledgeable. The populist consevative may agree w/ the consensus more so that the populist liberal. What you will need to show is that the populist conservative agrees because they are actually knowledgable about the issue rather than as a result of group think or because they have been told the answer w/o understanding the problem.

For example - take the following item from the list -
"A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers."

Intuitvely this makes sense. However, there has been some research that indicate otherwise (at least in certain circumstances). So in knowing about this research I might answer the question diffently the the consensus. Does that make me less knowledgeable when in fact my being outside of the consense may be due to having information (i.e. more knowledge) than them? Don't focus on the specific example I've chosen here but rather the larger point I am trying to make.


What I would accept is if you said something like on economic issues conservatives are (by happenstance IMO) more in agreement with economists.


btw - I hope you don't mind me quoting you in my response. It helps me provide the proper context.

One last thing - perhaps off topic - have you considered moving to Texas (I think you are in San Diego). For someone of your political persuasion Texas sounds like a metaphorical mecca.

Examinator said...

HP
Nice side stepping …. same old techniques different diversion.

Your original comments came across to me as though you were saying that Jon wasn't really a Republican. (aka conservative) (sic and sic).He was an uninformed one and was a conservative by circumstance rather than 'like you' one from a position of knowledge. Therefore his 'conversion ' to a 'liberal' (sic) both a consequence of his ignorance and simply the a natural settling with the other uneducated/ emotional (sic) . You seem to imply that if people were objective (non emotionally hampered) the facts of economics generally and specifically “economic rationalism”(ER) (Sic) would naturally be Republicans (GOP ers). Your apparent criteria for being a true GOPer is an expressed devotion to the indispensability of ER (sic) . This is assessed by ? ? your unsubstantiated assessment? Are you an active professor of economics who is involved in writing etc academic papers? Evidence would suggest not...I could be wrong. Do you have documented proof ?

I think you'll find that many more academic or research economists are far less dogmatic about ER in fact they tend to look to other theories i.e. Game theory et al.
In reality any pretence of a theory of everything ( aka an unarguable answer) must also fit with other more provable (predictable, testable and repeatable... PTR) sciences.
The strength and weakness of AGW is that it being consistent with the myriad of other related sciences and their PTR results).

I'll also suggest that your focus is = a more specific but in other ways Chad's bubble reasoning and its inevitable battle between extremes....binary logic. i.e. you're either totally committed to extreme opposites.


I'll grant you that my knowledge on the nitty gritties of ER are a little rusty since I studied it at University in the 80's (the height of 'Thatcherism, the Chicago class, and the less extreme 'Reaganism'). BTW the only difference between me being a qualified economist and what I did was the last two electives ….I had successfully completed 2years of economics and Accounting. I chose Marketing and psychology because I could see a bigger picture that the narrow options of economics or accounting.

(sic) = my deliberate inclusion of your errors in logic or fact

Jon said...

Intuitvely this makes sense. However, there has been some research that indicate otherwise (at least in certain circumstances). So in knowing about this research I might answer the question diffently the the consensus. Does that make me less knowledgeable when in fact my being outside of the consense may be due to having information (i.e. more knowledge) than them?

That's a really great point, Paul. There are plenty of people that disagree with these points from Mankiw. Take point 2, that tariffs and import quotas usually reduce economic welfare. Ha Joon Chang is professor of economics at Cambridge and he shows that just about every currently prosperous nation got there by imposing tariffs and import quotas. He runs through the list. Probably this is a guy more knowledgeable about these details, since this is his main area of expertise, than anyone. But for HP Chang is not knowledgeable.

It's similar in the foreign policy realm. The experts are people like Tom Friedman, George Will, Jeffrey Goldberg. They generally share the assumption that the US is a force for good and it's foreign policy is motivated by benign intent, like spreading democracy and helping the poor. So if you're Noam Chomsky, a man that could conceivably be the most well informed person on the planet on these issues, a guy who reads for 8 hours a day in more than one language, has a network of people that read other languages that send him the information so he knows about it, you aren't knowledgeable.

HP's error in my view is treating economists like scientists, as if questions about minimum wage were like questions about global warming or evolution. Also in dismissing the incentives economists are exposed to like it's some sort of conspiracy. If you saw the movie "Inside Job" you see how economists like Glenn Hubbard and others are compensated handsomely by the very companies that benefit from the conclusions he comes to. HP I believe honestly thinks these things don't play a significant role, as if this is like suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. I say it's not a conspiracy. A documentary that looks at the Koch's was recently killed by PBS. There's no conspiracy. In fact there's no reason to think the Koch's actually demanded that the documentary be pulled. It was pulled, because the money they inject into the system has effects. People internalize the need to meet the needs of the money that funds them. The same effect plays a role in economics departments.

HispanicPundit said...

Jon,

Please read Paul's deciphering of my comments. He was spot on! Specifically when he wrote:

So no - you were not claiming that Jon was not a conservative. Rather that he was a populist one. From the tone I read into your comments (which may not actually reflect your intent) possibly you find populists conservatives somewhat unworhty of the label.

In other words, I am arguing that you fit in GroupA and GroupB part of conservative. More importantly, NOT GroupC. I fancy myself in believing that I am part of groupC.


Yes, if you are a member of group A or group B, then Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are probably your tops. But if you are a member of GroupC, certainly Milton Friedman and Charles Murray rank among the highest.

This is why I say that you not knowing who Charles Murray is was very telling.

Why is this important? I've spelled it out before. You cant argue with populism. It's usually a waste of every ones time. Its a religious belief, essentially. I am basically trying to gauge whether it's still worth my time to engage.

What other proof do I have that you are essentially a populist:

1. Constantly misread me. Even in this case, Paul read me correctly. This is a subconscious defense mechanism.

2. Have a history of being deeply religious. I follow the Eric Hoffer philosophy: a deeply religious evangelical is cut from the same cloth as any strong ideologue. Your new ideology/religion is leftism.

3. Quickly discounts expert consensus when it inconveniences you.

4. Relies on sources that are primarily pre-biased to ones own views. Leftist youtube videos, journalists, etc

5. As this post shows, how even in the face of contrary evidence, interpretation STILL benefits his side. Its like the religious person that finds ALL evidence, facts, as proof that god exists.

All of these, I think we could agree, are attributes of a populist 'religious' view. Attached more to emotion and preferences than facts.

Look at this post: two of the giants of the right propose a view that is both pro-poor and logical. But in your view, you are both neither familiar with it, nor give the right credit. On the contrary, in your view this is even more proof that its the rich and powerful against the poor.

With that said, I still try to engage. As this post shows. So I am not trying to find excuses to not do so. I still do so, regardless, but I make special circumstances cuz I know him personally. And I do so sparingly, precisely for the reasons above.

HispanicPundit said...

Paul,

Were getting closer to understanding each other.

You write:

If a group of people have a goal and a particular means doesn't accomplish those goals shouldn't that group of people, if they have any intelligence whatsoever, be against those means and in favor of one they do think would accomplish the desired goals?

My point here is more a paternalistic one. The good, indeed, great thing about cash transfers is that it shows - clearly - the goals and desires of the poor. It will show, clearly, which poor person truly desires advancement (and will use said cash to move along that direction) vs which truly desires hedonism (drug addicts).

Liberals have a hard time accepting goals and desires that are at odds with their goals and desires - even from the people they are trying to help. Conservatives less so.

Take the example in the link provided. How do you prevent racial segregation without violating the desired will of the people? Its difficult. That is, without state power.

What would happen if you gave a bunch of poor people money and they STILL desired not to move into primarily white neighborhoods? But instead chose to STILL congregate among themselves - as every racial, ethnic, and cultural group tends to want to do. This would irk liberals to know end. They just KNOW diversity is good...and care alot less about what said poor people think. Its the liberal planners goals and desires that matter - be damned the wishes of the poor and the sheep when it contradicts.

THAT is what I think would irk MANY liberals about cash transfers.

You also write:

Agreeing w/ the consensus does not make one knowledgeable. The populist consevative may agree w/ the consensus more so that the populist liberal. What you will need to show is that the populist conservative agrees because they are actually knowledgable about the issue rather than as a result of group think or because they have been told the answer w/o understanding the problem.

Agree completely. GroupA and GroupB conservatives just happen to be lucky enough that their populists views are more aligned economically. I admitted as much in my previous comment, where I broke down conservative into groups. When I wrote:

By that I mean got their views primarily from tradition: where they grew up, how they were raised. No real deeper thought than thats what they were born/raised as, and thats what they view. With all the same inherent economic misunderstandings as lefties...only lucky enough to have their cultural political views shield them of some of the more egregious flaws.

With that said, I still think you can collectively say that conservatives are - by chance or by knowledge - more economically aligned than liberals.

Examinator said...

A mining engineer once told me the the secret to digging a hole "when you find your self up to your waist in dirty water...Stop digging!! climb out and reconsider".
The more you write on this the deeper you get into murky water.

Statements to Jon that he doesn't know who Murray is says a lot about him (Jon). Is at best a tawdry if well worn Capitalist tactic and do nothing for the author's credibility.

The implication is that he is or was ignorant (then as a conservative now a 'liberal') (sic and sic)
In truth such statements are factually untrue.
The best that could be said is that he is/was ignorant (unknowing) of A RIGHT WING ECONOMIST, Murray (period).

To be accurate the issues in this topic aren't SOLELY a matter of one version of a soft science discipline ...economics. Lets get real there are many contributing factors and economics , a somewhat questionable rear vision mirror(explaining after he event very very limited predictability) technique. Is one of he least important factors explaining the current state of US economy. And even less in providing answers to fix it. Much of the problem is the unpredictability of the human factor and the culture of myopic self interest.
It hasn't yet dawned on the conservative mind that any system that regards people as secondary to a system or inanimate creations is prone to make people suffer unnecessarily ...Keep in mind none of the big economic crashes were predicted by right wing economists and were created by capitalist greed and distorting the laws .

It appears that HP apparent philosophy is neither republican nor conservative per se but quasi religious faith in capitalism (gone feral or extreme ).
And like all faith issues it has little bearing on logic or facts.

Blanket/sweeping dismissal of and 'liberal's'(sic) intelligence/knowledge is clear evidence of “head in bucket reasoning (all the author can hear are their own distorted views.)”
In reality both Jon and Paul have shown a wide knowledge and understanding of the factors involved and are anything but ignorant.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you or has a wider perspective doesn't make then dumb or worthy of contempt.
Even the worlds most basic violin ( the Chinese Erhu) has two strings to make music.

Jon said...

When James White tells me I was never an evangelical (remember, this is the example you raised, not me) he's not saying I didn't generally believe a lot of the right things that ordinarily qualify someone as an evangelical. Sure, I believed in God and the Trinity, etc. But I wasn't sufficiently informed to REALLY call myself an evangelical. Isn't this what you mean when you imply I wasn't conservative?

The way you write I think it's fair to say in a sense that you think I was never conservative and it's also fair to say in a different sense I was. Kind of like a Catholic that has never heard of transubstantiation. In a sense they are Catholic, but in another sense they aren't (if you aren't informed well enough to know what transubstantiation is you can hardly call yourself Catholic). What you're now doing is exploiting the varied senses in which you are using the word and you're going to paint me as someone who can't understand what is being said, and this is my bias, my religiosity, etc. This fallacy is called equivocation. I think I'm getting what you're saying (unless the above is wrong). You're pretending I'm not by focusing on only one sense of your use of the word conservative, as if you didn't ALSO mean it the way I took it.

You are again talking about how I don't read respectable conservative sources even though you know I read David Friedman, watched 9 hours of Milton Friedman's FTC and took notes, quote from Thomas Sowell and AEI sources all the time. Again we see this need to believe something that isn't true. You say this all the time, I correct you all the time, you drop it for a while then bring it back. This is the way religion works as well.

And while I was deeply religious, I left religion. The implication of the religious commitment is that it's sustained despite the evidence based on faith, but I left because of the evidence (aren't you still religious)? I can go to post after post here where I've made mistakes and admitted to it. Obviously I'm reading my critics. That isn't what we normally think of when we say someone holds their belief like a religious commitment.

As I've discussed here you are the one comparing yourself to James White. You are the one that looks to me like you have a religious commitment for reasons I've explained.

That's why there are certain questions in this thread you don't address, like how the 2008 collapse affected your opinions, what the WMD failures mean to you. These are the kinds of things that affect people who care about evidence. If evidence doesn't matter, like your recent post that talked about empiricism in a negative way, then these things won't make a significant difference. That's the religious mindset, not my mindset. It's your mindset.

Paul said...

HP -

Keep in mind I am just ribbing you a bit -

My point here is more a paternalistic one

From wiki - the definition of paternalisam -

Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good.

I'll leave that as is :-)


W/ regards to following -

The good, indeed, great thing about cash transfers is that it shows - clearly - the goals and desires of the poor. It will show, clearly, which poor person truly desires advancement (and will use said cash to move along that direction) vs which truly desires hedonism (drug addicts).

Well I don't know how clearly cash transfers would show what you claim it would but you need not convince this liberal that guaranteed minimum income would be worth trying. If it works, as hoped, awesome. If not, then we can try some other option. Though I believe that in the modern political climate you are far more likely to get buy in for this type of system from the liberal side than you will from the conservative side.


Liberals have a hard time accepting goals and desires that are at odds with their goals and desires - even from the people they are trying to help. Conservatives less so.

I still don't think you are wording this right so I'll take a stab at understanding what you mean. I think you are saying that liberals have a goal of achieving X. People, in a generalized sense, have a goal of Y in mind. Consequently when Y happens instead of X, liberals are irked by it.

Uh, Ok!?! I don't see this irksome as more pronounce in liberals than for conservatives.

What would happen if you gave a bunch of poor people money and they STILL desired not to move into primarily white neighborhoods? But instead chose to STILL congregate among themselves - as every racial, ethnic, and cultural group tends to want to do.

Do liberals actually argue that the goal of giving poor people money is to have them move into white (?) neighborhoods? I figured that (one of) the primary purpose of giving them money is so that they have something to eat and to open up new doors (better education, etc). So while eventually the ones who have bettered themselves might move into more affluent neighborhoods that is not the goal. Not an expert in any stretch of the imagination but I think changes could take a generation.

Paul said...

-- continued --
had to split into multiple posts


This would irk liberals to know end. They just KNOW diversity is good...and care alot less about what said poor people think. Its the liberal planners goals and desires that matter - be damned the wishes of the poor and the sheep when it contradicts.

I don't know if it is that I am delusional and don't understand (generals sense) what the liberal mind set is (somewhat) like, or if you simply do not (cannot?) understand us. Yes i think diversity is good (do you not? can't tell). To suggest that diversity must come at the sacrifice of the poor seems weird to me. The two are not mutually exclusive (can be inclusive actually). I am not following your implications here.


Let me ask you a couple of things -

The first is a question I've already asked - but will reword and contextualize it a bit differently.

I take you to be of the group C concervative -as you say formt the knowledable camp. If I remember correctly you have a degree in electircal engineer (not sure about the electrical part, more sure about the engineering part). I believe you live in the San Diego area. So,.. have you considered moving to a state whose politics is more closely aligned with yours. If so which and why haven't you moved there. I am not going anywher with this I am just curious.

The other question is - on an economic term is there any evidence, emprical data, whatever, that could presented to you that might cause your world view to change? If so what might it be.


One last thing -
by happenstance came across the following article. I've nto read beyond the first page myself but felt you might find it interesting. It is on topic of minimum income.

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/loss-support-guaranteed-income-reflects-radical-shift-values

Examinator said...

Jon,Paul
I think we are all saying similar things and yes it's the language the way it's being used and in the case of the 'right' are redefinitioning words particularly those with political overtones.
As I've said before this is a uniquely American right tendency. If one is less imbued with Americanisms, like me it's easier to see the product of this process specifically how it Oversimplifies and directs the meanings by eliminating any nuance or real world complexity. i.e. that one can't be a multiplicity of doctrines ...because of an absolutist perspective.

It is more than possible that a person is a 'catholic' and not know the word “transubstantiation”. They may know it by the function definition or process. So calling them a non catholic is a bit 'elitist' and functionally false the purpose of which is to corral for product differentiation marketing. There in lies HP, Chad and the right generally.

To understand it better one needs to look no further than the capitalist spawned 'Mad Men' of American advertising ( masters of the hyperbolic extremes for emotional attention) . e.g. XX washing powder cleans “WHITER than white” (sic). Yet the same Corporation make a washing powder that gives a yellow tinted white for the Asian market. The difference he fluorescence in the mix. The point is either would clean.. but research shows anglo westerners have a preference for the 'brilliant' white ( blue fluorescence). ( residual racism?) .
So therefore one must fly the stars and stripes, assert all the convenient amendments in the constitution to be a 'true America” ( aka Republican party supporter)
HP has gone the extra step to assert that one must also be devoted to the less than consensus doctrines of Friedman. Coincidently their focus is on the maintenance of power/pre-eminence of Capitalists.

If one then questions or worse doesn't agree with either they are well you join the dots.

Let's be real there are many Democrats that are emotional rather than Academically indoctrinated to left wing concepts.
The overall point is that the GOP/ capitalist can't cope with a consumers who look at the political 'washing powder' and reason that 'clean' is the objective not the hype on irrelevancies like fragrances and fluorescence any 'fillers'. When all is said 86% of the brands are blended/marketed by two corporations. Note they use base manufacturers to supply the ingredients and often the functional product. One can buy the base powder minus the fragrances from these manufacturers and a fraction of he cost. Yes you use less and it does just as well ,no pretty boxes, bottles etc. PS many of the 'featuring' active ingredient Y are in all of them anyway. A bit like Social welfare is in Most political ideologies including real Capitalism.

In short Lever and Kitchen and the GOP work on a similar business models ( they are consolidators and marketeers) not the creators of republicanism , capitalism or it's hand maiden Friedman/Murray economics.
HP and Chad are in effect saying if you don't read believe the GOP's equivalence of “Lever and Kitchen's technical data” you aren't really “cleaning your clothes” or understanding the real truth (sic).

I'll say again The US armchair understanding of liberalism is nothing like “ liberal”. To start with Liberalism is a noun . Liberal as a noun is a subset of liberalism … (a half way house between conservative and rank left wing ideologies. Alternatively liberal is either and qualitative adjective or a verb in which case both needs another noun. i.e. it is possible to be a liberal republican see Lincoln.
I also clearly illustrated the issue in a response to Chad in the corporate tax topic. How I don't fit left wing ideologies and may squeeeze (sic) into the outer reaches conservatism (moral wise).

Examinator said...

Jon back to the head line Milton Friedman's Awesome idea is really a variation on a theme.
Look at 1911 Aust concepts of a living wage and social wage.
NB they were brought in because the circumstances that applied then i.e. the culture of 'fair go' and the isolation of the capitalist barons of the time. Massive economic depression of the 1890's and the Massive Labour strikes and the newly formed Australian Labor Party (spelling deliberate. Aust uses English spelling of the word. But the ALP adopted the US spelling for their name in solidarity of the US union struggles circa 1890's.
Because of it's importance at the time, the Aust labour movement's influence on the constitutional plebiscite 1897 ish, and the state by state ratifying public vote of it. Labour had an entrenched part in the constitution and the Australian psyche.
While over the years since 1901 the balance has osculated back and forth. However, left or right the social wage, living wage is as unmovable as the US 2nd amendment. Albeit with far less carnage.
In short the key element here is the different "culture". US is dominated, controlled by the capitalist elite and I can't really seeing them adopting a more Community based concept ordinary person (benefiting the majority). This is simply because it is fundamentally the antithesis of capitalism's benefit to the minority (capitalists). What the armchair Right winger doesn't appear to accept is that Capitalism's ultimate goal is Plutocracy and its ever increasing restriction of power/privilege to the lowest possible number (see the applicability of the laws of thermodynamics' logic.

Examinator said...

PS
Examinator's 3rd law of Power.
That which is gained by guile and control of the greatest force won't relinquish that power unless acted upon by a greater one. This is evidenced by US gunboat diplomacy in say Columbia banana wars et al

HispanicPundit said...

Jon,

Safe to say that we have trouble communicating. I dont respond to many of your questions because I have been down that road before - it leads to long worthless tangents. My strategy now - to save everyones time - is pick little points of interest...see what you have to say, and leave it at that.

Not trying to convince you one way or the other. Merely to use you as my leftist reference point. Is all. I've already given up on logically trying to arrive at mutually agreed conclusions with you. Just look at this post, where the issue you prefer just happens to be the same issue championed by the right - far more than the left. But still, looked at from your eyes, this just further confirms your priors. I mean thats deep bias. Few other issues will be as one sided.

Suffice it to say that I think you are now deeply biased and religious about these issues. The whole world probably confirms your priors. And since you primarily like to engage GroupA and GroupB type conservatives, this is a bubble you will remain in (reminds me of the 'the beauty of the earth confirms the existence of god, argument). I think its your personality. You think the opposite. Fine.

HispanicPundit said...

Paul,

The example of diversity was in reference to a link I gave in a previous comment, where two liberals were discussing primarily that: cash transfers vs set liberal goals.

My point in general though is that liberals really find the power of the state beneficial in enforcing their said goals. With a purely cash transfer system, they would lose this power. That would likely bug many...though not all.

You write: Well I don't know how clearly cash transfers would show what you claim it would but you need not convince this liberal that guaranteed minimum income would be worth trying.

Curious: what makes you a liberal vs a conservative? You sound more conservative than you say. Especially groupC.

Regarding SD. I live here for a variety of reasons:

1. The weather.
2. Closeness to family. I grew up in LA, which is an hour and half drive from here.

3. Company. I work at a great company. Hard to find in any other part of the state.

4. The city is overall conservative. Pretty much San Diego and Orange County are still conservative. Primarily because of the presence of military bases and the influx of Vietnamese, which tend to vote GOP.

5. Politics isn't the #1 issue.

...and yes, electrical engineering is my trade.

Regarding the article: remember, here we are discussing the issue as a replacement to welfare. If it supplements welfare, then even many groupC conservatives would oppose it.

Jon said...

it leads to long worthless tangents

Says the guy writing paragraph after paragraph about my mental states, whether I was this type of conservative or that type of conservative, whether I'm now too stubborn or not, etc, etc.

Just for the record, I'm not saying no conservative supports this nominally. I say it's not emphasized. It's not as you say "championed". AEI has a lot of influence, and if this was a big deal for them, like low tax rates for the rich and blunting any effective climate change legislation is a big deal for them, their emphasis would be different. I stand by what I said in this blog post. AEI and Heritage aren't too interested. They're interested in it like some of them will oppose banker bail outs. Sure, some will say they oppose, but not with too much emphasis because remember they're job at the end of the day is spinning on behalf of the rich. Their emphasis reflects that.

Jon said...

When I say they don't say it with too much emphasis I don't mean they won't use powerful rhetoric, but as an organization AEI just isn't emphasizing it. I think the proof of that is simply in the fact that there's not a lot of talk about this amongst policy makers (politicians) heavily influenced by AEI. AEI is a big deal. Presidential candidates for instance are listening to them. I think they sponsored one of the Presidential primary debates. If they pushed this we'd see more political reaction.

HispanicPundit said...

AEI and Heritage aren't too interested.

This, despite the fact that their most famous intellectual wrote a whole book on the subject? One book of only a few he has ever written. Despite the fact that his libertarianism 101...even Milton Friedman formulated it and is largely credited with the creation of the EITC...a smaller form of this.

Sigh. I give up.

Examinator said...

Jon,
HP is a product of his myopic self interest arm chair pundit thinking.
He wants an easy to digest answer. one that doesn't make him think too deeply in case doing so it may reveal an inconvenient truth one that may make him feel uncomfortable with the way he leads and views life.
Any marketing person/ sales person knows to be successful one never asks a question in the 'closing sale' that you don't already know the answer. So how do you do that? Simply by limiting the scope of the discussion. One way is to declare all other influencing factors as irrelevant or externalities... (aka controlling the topic) this is exactly what the right and some on the left do.

He doesn't want to address the, logic of the implications of what he says and covers this with "I've tried before and there's no point ... you're indoctrinated". That's code for either I can't control where this is going or I might lose (the point see first paragraph).
I say that way because I in specific try to raise the 'mitigating' factors or their externalities etc for further consideration.

I've never met a "Rightie" who is able or prepared to to consider factor of a deeper level. Think of the right's arguments like a the leaning tower of Pisa. It was built over a couple of centuries. . What they discovered was that the building was over time, beginning to lean so their reaction was to compensate. There were several upper story fixes.. by shorting walls on one side etc ( It's history is fascinating) rather than deal with the inappropriate to the soil foundations. Consequently the current fix is horrendously expensive and not certain to work. My point for both the second stage builders and the American political party aficionados is simply “a stitch in time ….” and now is that time. But the “righties” simplistically want to shorten the walls on one side . And refuse to look deeper than the current floor level.
Compare the depth of what they say with Chomsky's on just about any social or political point.
NB I don't agree with all of Chomsky's conclusions particularly about socialism however he has a point about anarchism (see the real meaning). I raise that because it includes libertarian concepts.
In reality the whole American re- definitioning is no more than simple no more than advanced marketing techniques.
the meta point I've long striving for is that left/right are artificial divisions.
They are simply marketing creations mechanisms in order to garner power over the majority.
Political parties are simply political consolidators. In order to get a majority they need to simplify human thoughts into clearly saleable simplified generalisations ergo polarise the thought process into left OR right.
(Marketing Differentiation) . Like all long term organisation the followers must sacrifice their individuality, identity to the good of the party.i.e. Woe betide the individual congress person who speaks out against party policy ( they are disloyal yarder yarder) regardless of their personal convictions ( peer pressure and fear are the motivators) .

At some stage the longevity of he party supersedes the rights of the individual.... i. e. the people serve the tool. This party/ corporate entity creates the means for the increasingly moral 'flexibilty' (read ambition) to use the structure for personal gain. See the Redford old movie “ the candidate” … he gained notoriety by being high moral but during the process of getting elected he had to compromise and obfuscate until at the end he's elected and asks his campaign manager two questions;
what is it that we stand for?
and what is it we do next?
The answer to the latter was published in the WP low people on totem pole newbies spend 4-6 hrs a day begging for money to fund re-election and donations for the party.

Examinator said...

Part 2
The similarity to service industries' sales people ( the real job of financial analyst's, brokers etc is clear.)
So who makes policy etc ? A minority of senior members and the organisational bureaucracy.

Consider the similarities of a political party to a business/ corporation. … They aren't part of the public service What is their product? Power and the actual members of Congress members are the sales staff .
Now think about the ratio of 'productive sales members' (read congress members) to party 'non productive' party staff wages etc? Keep in mind this doesn't include there is a bureaucratic army paid by the tax payer to help members do their job.
In effect political parties non elected policy makers. Ask your self have you got a better explanation why a party would stop any policy even ones they while in power supported answer they are following party directives.

Now let's look at the parties. In reality there are two sort of members those who do paid work for the parties and the ordinary members who have 2cents worth of nothing actual power so who are they selling/ providing power to? Do the math.

Frankly it's not rocket science , even with the most charitable view of party power who are the stake holders a small minority of those who vote republican … the GOP have been doing fast foot work to give the rank and file member the impression of giving them what they want. Take the last GOP candidate selection campaign it was a circus and it was patently obvious who was the anointed candidate from day 1 Romney. The campaign process was to sell him to the members. Ask yourself why they picked him ? Because he was the establishment’s choice . That's why the campaign is run like a no holds bared soap campaign or a rock concert promotion.
Competence is a low order factor it's the candidates saleability. Ask yourself what real power other than declaring war does POTUS have ? Look at Obama perhaps one of the most competent presidents for some time but every step he took he was blocked, filibustered … why some business would have lost power.
Do you really think Obama had free call of the shot with the banks that caused the GFC.? I know he didn't because the system is skewed to the minority.
BTW
The founding fathers had lengthy arguments about party government look it up for exactly the reasons I wrote here.
George Washington ( ex general) was opposed to the undue power of the military manufacturing Complex.
Look it up I didn't invent the stuff.
The civil war was more over profit than slavery... the south was agrarian based (landed gentry) the north were the industrialists and bankers … the people were proxy pawns ...guess who won? Guess who always wins?
Business doesn't like people having too much power because they might challenge their control.
GMI social security would loosen the busines' control over the poor they wouldn't be as motivated to work for shit money. Money they believe is theirs.

Jon said...

HP, I'm very glad you raised this book by Charles Murray because I don't think you could more perfectly illustrate how programs that harm the poor are emphasized and those that help, while nominally advocated, simply aren't emphasized.

Go to your own link at amazon and it says this book was published after his prior book "Losing Ground". That book advocated the elimination of welfare. That book was pushed hard. Go here and you'll learn about how the right wing think tank Murray was a part of at the time literally paid journalists to participate in seminars so that they could pretend the book was a big deal. They pushed hard and ultimately won. Clinton's Welfare Reform package, loathed by liberals, was the final achievement.

At your own amazon link it says that this new book arguing for a guaranteed minimum income was published in response to criticism that while Murray has long been pushing to eliminate welfare and has largely succeeded, he OFFERED NOTHING TO REPLACE IT. Imagine that. He pushed hard for one side of the coin. Stop this type of support for the poor. The flip side, replacing it with something that worked, hadn't really been considered. So then this book comes out. Where are the journalists paid to pretend Murray is a celebrity? Where is the lobbying? Where is the pushing of legislation, like we had as a result of "Losing Ground". This book about GMI is LITERALLY, not figuratively but literally, an afterthought.

Check the link I provide on some facts about this biggest name at AEI. A guy who burns a cross at the height of the civil rights movement. Promoting junk science and race baiting with the Bell Curve. You call him a liberterian and he participates in covert counterinsurgency, admits to laying the foundation for authoritarian regimes that came to power in Southeast Asia. Talks about mass surveillance and use of technologies to monitor US citizens glowingly. Yeah, I stand by what I said. The cutting of services to the poor was clearly emphasized and providing a GMI was not. That's pretty obvious. You won't be able to admit it because of your religion, but posting it here is maybe useful for others more open minded here.

HispanicPundit said...

Wow, what a surprise - the book FURTHER confirms your views of the right! Who would have guessed?


Anyway, I'm going to make this short, since I dont want to get dragged in:

Murray's first book is an argument that the welfare system HARMS the poor. Okay, you disagree. But if his premise is right - and he lays out the arguments in the book, with data etc - then his first book is ALSO pro-poor.

You would think that this would be enough: after all, he is arguing for something that ALREADY helps the poor. In his view, no welfare is better than welfare - for the poor.

His second book is more of an addendum. Trust me, it got publicity too. Less, yes, but mainly because its libertarianism 101. His argument is basically the same argument the very famous Milton Friedman has been arguing for generations before the publication of the book. But its still a view he holds and has done more to promulgate among the masses than anybody else - except the more famous right winger, Milton Friedman.

Examinator said...

HP and Jon,

No one seem to be understanding my point if they do they're ignoring it.
It is one thing for armchair pundits, either side, to stand on the 3rd level (See my leaning tower of Pisa analogy) and pontificate theoretical ideologically based solutions. HOWEVER it's another thing entirely, to fund, implement, maintenance or deal with the consequences.

Jon , the reality is that the idea is the equivalent to blankets on the deck chairs of the Titanic.
The Mastodon ( short sighted/ limited field of view, Hairy/ hoary obsolete Elephant) poo in the room is that with a SHRINKING pool of workers .Tax is near as damn it either optional, or tokenistic for those with the greatest capacity to pay. The middle class are being hollowed out and the rest, relative to the well off are static ( effectively losing) in the increasing “cost of living” ( sic.. in an already profligate life style that is ) who is going to pay for the idea? Hence HP and his ilk are bucking. .
Added to that there how are is it going to implement , administrate... a big bureaucracy something else the “righties” won't support on principal ( more mastodon poo) .

Mind you HP, Chad are true to their 'rightie mastodon/pachyderm myopic vision. They can't see the the changing environment/threats coming. Neither the biggest Bulls however they can smell it , their fear is palpable , as is their propensity to stampede endangering themselves further.

Look at their reactions to all issues … they either try to stomp over what sustains them …. the mass US consumer. If the bulk of US has limited money they have less money to spare to make mass production pay. The rich can afford the artist to painstakingly create artefacts of luxury but the money doesn't go very far (trickle down? Economic analysis ) .
The nonsense of the stock exchange read any book on market dealer/ investor behaviour. It is anything but rational or objective, research shows that it's more like a game of chasey or ring around Rosie . The origins of which are equally disturbing.

Then again the Asses of the DNC aren't any better they kick and are equally intransigent they bray and buck but neither the bemuse public or the mastodons understand they try to talk the language of fear too.

as the old maxim goes “ a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome …. one needs to look no further than the Great Depression (see Greece 25% unemployed) the rich were threatened to give up some of their disproportionate wealth in the New Deal it was a plan to save Capitalism.... since then they barons haven't learn squat and have connived/ schemed to gain all sacrifices and what have they got today? Nigh on similar circumstances not only in the US of A but on a world wide scale . I consider this not because I'm an alleged Liberal/ leftie (sic) but because the math doesn't lie and human nature is predictable . Add to the officially Unemployed those who are under employed the target of this program.... What it really needed is opportunities and for jobs for those who can or able to pick them up. The same goes for illegal migrants Odds on if they had something to stay for they would. It only arrogance that thinks that the USA to a Mexican is anything more than safety and 'opportunity'.
As for those who are left in the social security 'safety net ' 80% of them will those who can't take up the opportunity offered. The last 20% well most of them are the excluded already and either need specialised programs if we are going to avoid the dispossession, hopelessness, isolation, anger etc of the innocent mass murders.
None of this is because I'm a bleeding heart “liberal” et al BS pigeon hole over simplistic terms but because it's 101 Pragmatism prove me wrong.

Examinator said...

Bugger, damn I forgot the the site details to watch ... particularly the food, population stats to what is coming.
The hither to unknown "fire tornado" is frightening consider is this the sort of extreme weather event AGW could spawn. Goming to a wild state near you? Washington state etc.

Examinator said...

That's it I've lost the plot totally! And I haven't had a drink!(yet)
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/39540
Perhaps that's the problem ;-)

Jon said...

HP, it's great of you to take time out of your busy schedule to help explain things to me, but why do you always simply state the obvious, or things it's clear I already know. Murray thinks eliminating welfare helps the poor. Well yeah. That's obvious. The rich always offer policies that clearly help them, but they package them in a way that we're supposed to believe it helps the poor. The war will help the Iraqi's. Tax cuts grow the economy and help the poor. Eliminating minimum wage restrictions is for your own good. You constantly explain the obvious, then pretend that since you needed to explain such an obvious thing I'm ignorant.

Liberterianism 101? I'm not talking about libertarianism. I mentioned certain right wing think tanks that don't push this, and they are not libertarian. Murray may fancy himself a libertarian. A lot of war mongers do. A guy who thinks monitoring bracelets on citizens is a good idea. Massive surveillance. Maybe he needs a lesson in libertarianism 101. You don't constantly go to war to advance the interests of wealthy corporations.

Speaking of pointing out the obvious, it's seems, almost bizarrely, that you have missed the fact that I ALREADY KNOW Milton Friedman supported GMI. In your prior post you wrote:

even Milton Friedman formulated it and is largely credited with the creation of the EITC...a smaller form of this.

Sigh. I give up.


And now:

His argument is basically the same argument the very famous Milton Friedman has been arguing for generations before the publication of the book. But its still a view he holds and has done more to promulgate among the masses than anybody else - except the more famous right winger, Milton Friedman.

When you feel the need to explain things to me that it's so obvious I already know, and then get exasperated about how it's such a burden to explain such obvious things, I think that is kind of a good microcosm of this discussion. Even though the title of this thread credit's Friedman with the idea, even though I discuss how it's Friedman's idea extensively, you're just exhausted because again you have to explain the obvious to me. "Even Milton Friedman formulated this, Jon." Wow, thanks professor. You have serious reading comprehension problems. Fix those and you may find our discussions to be less frustrating.

Jon said...

HP, here's an earlier comment from you:

1-Constantly misread me. Even in this case, Paul read me correctly. This is a subconscious defense mechanism.

A subconscious defense mechanism. So when you feel the need to explain how MF supported this, despite the title of this thread, despite my extensive discussion of his support, what does your constant misreading suggest about you?

This is on the heels of you accusing me of having the religious mindset, clinging to beliefs on faith and ignoring evidence. I give example after example of me changing my opinions in the face of evidence and when I ask you to do the same you instead decide to pick and choose which questions you will answer based on supposedly what is more interesting. You won't answer questions about how the evidence changes you. For you it looks like it doesn't, for me it obviously does.

To me this looks like you are projecting. You fear that you are religious. Your commitment to conservatism you fear is a religious commitment. You've had too many big fights with family and friends in your minority and liberal community and you are too dug in to let the evidence change you now. But to help persuade yourself that it's untrue you project those qualities on me. Even though I'm the atheist. I'm the one that left religion leaving a trail of tears, hating every step, wanting to stay, but because for me evidence matters I couldn't. I personally don't think your efforts at projection are working well, but I'll admit my bias prefers that conclusion, so I could be wrong.

Ouwet said...

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/09/28/help_the_worlds_poor_hand_them_cash_100254.html

Jon,

This article was co-authored by Daniel M. Rothschild the Director of External Affairs at AEI. An excerpt

"The Mexican and Brazilian cash transfer gained popularity with citizens - and international donors - because they actually work. Dozens of studies, many using randomized control trials, show these program increase school enrollment and improve nutrition. In most cases, they started as small trial programs and, having proven successful, were rolled out nationwide."


I think HP was spot on in his analogy with the emotional convert. You have a neat narrative set up and are using the evident to fit the narrative.

When Charles Murray and the director of External Affairs of AEI are advocating this policy, I think arguing there is a big cover up of this idea by the right wing is a facetious claim.

Examinator said...

Ouwet,

Using this article to prove HP's case is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
You and HP are still starting from the third floor up reasoning on the leaning tower of Pisa "shorten the wall on one side"
The article is still based on the faux quasi religious belief that economics is a HARD SCIENCE...it's not. at best it's an indicative one (usually in hind sight).
In essence HP's argument boils down to My quasi religious belief in economics tops you 'left wing ' belief/ reasoning because you were Catholic/Christian. "Being conceived in a barn doesn't make one hay." it's a non seq argument.
I've pointed out many times that catholic, conservatism or left wing ism aren't exclusively mutual except in by comparing extremes. I've also pointed out political extremophiles are a minute proportion of the population (blinded by bias zealots). Jon certainly not one of them. HP meh?

As for the argument in the article it moves from an obvious statement but doesn't explain why it assumes that the US approach is correct why because it's (soft science) economics backed... that too is non sec.
if not false logic.

It goes on to then to quote a demonstrable furphey that transfer payments don't require a bureaucracy! When in truth it does ( all government activities do) and the NGO have them too. Oh yes they have to deal with donor country bureaucracies too. Which by the way requires USA federal government bureaucracies involvement. The statement is an accounting avoidance of reality by treating it as an externality. ( false logic) NGO's couldn't operate without Government bureaucracies (period).
As for transparent Meh another 'externality' Clearly the authors have never actually done any 'on the ground coal face' dealings.

And finally the article asserts that the method is popular... by numbers involved so is smoking... anybody want to argue that population wide that is a longterm benefit?

Examinator said...

FOLKS
It's one thing to have or express an opinion but it is rubbish to assert it's the absolute truth, particularly when it comes to 'soft topics' like ideology culture et al.
I often wonder, as I flip from one chat site to another, why so many people get on the Chat site yet don't want to chat (explore topics) or take examinations of their assertions as personal attacks.
Neither Jon ( a leftie lite ), Jonathan (a rightie) don't seem to take such examinations personally (I don't either and I'm neither).
Jon and I will actually engage with views we don't necessarily agree with. Jonathan while more discriminatory about his involvement doesn't seem to get lost in the difference between a person and what they believe/say . i.e. Subscribe to the notion that you're either an extreme ally or a sworn enemy.
Nor do I always agree with either of the afore mentioned J's .
As I've said before my mom is a fundie convert and we clearly don't ideologically agree but we can still discuss a contentious topic.

Prove me wrong is a benign center left (ish) site and apart from my contextual histories/tales It is certainly light on personal detail and avoids the extremes ( tub thumping). In that context I'm puzzled why the personalised attacks, least of all on Jon.
By comparison Look at 'No more nice guy' While Steve's clearly politically well informed and highly intelligent I don't always comment. Particularly when the posts are rhetorical or simply right bashing. I can't see he point. Much less so I take a personal affront at the ,IMO sometimes extreme /biased stances, which I may and do disagree with.

The reality is that once an argument is personalised, then it is no longer about the issue at hand. In this case 'Milton Freidman's awesome idea ' and it's many threads. At best it's an overly aggressive/desperate diversionary tactic at worst a unwarranted attempt at censorship. Simply put there is absolutely no good reason to go down that route here. I guess it all comes down to why one writes /comments at all to examine thoughts or seek confirmation .

Jon for what it's worth I'd close the topic off.

Jon said...

Big cover up? Where did I say such a thing. What I'm saying here is what I've said many times before. Conservatives often support the right policies. Often they are against corporate welfare, against some of the awful government waste. You find individuals that have good ideas about what welfare should be like. But their emphasis means that certain things they say they support don't get implemented whereas as other things do. Things that help their wealthy donors like preventing limits on greenhouse gas emissions or starting wars. I see this as another case. It's not an accident that Murray pushed through the cuts in handouts to the poor but never successfully implemented his preferred means of getting some support to them. That's speculative but it's my opinion. If you don't agree that's fine. I don't think this digression matters. HP prefers to talk about me personally rather than the ideas and that's why I'm the focus in the comments here. You think a guaranteed minimum income is something AEI emphasizes? Go ahead and believe it and HP can believe it to if he likes. It's really not the point of this blog post.

Chad said...

"As far as your idea that if only we'd give the rich and corporations more tax breaks we'd see an even better outcome, this is really getting to the point in my mind of being a laughingstock."

I forgot I was in this conversation. I know you have your stats from book knowledgable people that you believe in. Let me try and reason with you on a common sense level for one second.

If corporations paid say 10% in taxes instead of 29% average which you wrote - would the number of employees go up or down? Simple question of logic Jon - up or down Jon? Would average earnings within the company go up or down?

First Monday of every month the owner and I along with our financial advisor have a health of the company meeting - when I hear about the how regulations, taxes stolen by dollars/percentage both federal and state (Illinois) it almost makes a man ill. Thankfully and praise God we have enjoyed success through very hard work and a little luck, but at the same time it is a chilling reminder just how business unfriendly this country really is and why corporations take business to other countries/states. If our tax burden was lower we would immediately hire more people - we desperately need to at our growth curve yet we can't. So when you preach to me that corporate tax reductions don't work due to some study I frankly laugh back sir. We want to hire and we are not the minority - all of our Principals would like to hire as well.

Take the boot off the throat of private business - good results will come.

HispanicPundit said...

Jon,

My Milton Friedman response was not meant to imply that you had not known he is the father of direct income to the poor. That response, especially given the context, was to show that this issue (direct income to the poor) IS largely a right-wing championed issue. It is not 'tone downed' like you claim it is.

Either way, here we go wasting responses on misunderstandings. We've each just wasted valuable time and got nowhere. It's a pattern.

Examinator said...

Chad,
There in lies my criticisms of your logic. YOU are looking at your personal (your company/industry) and extrapolating across ALL, which is simply not sound. Look at all the labour intensive jobs going over seas look at Allen town.

Take for example BHP one of Australia's biggest home grown mining and steel making corporations. To continually make bigger profits it merged with Billiton (English) now they are one for the biggest steel corps in the world. Guess what happened next? Yup despite 'TAX' breaks and direct Cash inputs they closed down most of their steel smelting. Any guesses where it went ... 3rd world Brazil, etc. (yep one of those nasty communistic countries and now they focus on African/ PNG mining MORE profit.

Soon or later you technology, transportation to markets and wages will bite.

Unless you are suggesting that staff should work for 3rd world wages I really can't see that as anything but inevitable. As your market gets smaller it will become less competitive to the third world smelters ...bigger cheaper etc. Your company will have to merge, diversify or ? etc.

The only other options are import trade tariffs then you'll be facing WTO (America's 2nd favourite tool to beat up on the rest of the world) or subsidies (yup corporate welfare).
Steel manufacturing , manufacturing in general is a sunset industry in the west. (unbridled capitalism 101 as writ by Smith 200 odd years ago .. and proven correct).
The corollary of this is no jobs in USA ...no market pressure for expansion of labor intensive industries...Capital WILL GO where the demand for growth is and profit is the easiest.
As I keep saying the single greatest recurrent cost on a balance sheet is staff (wages safety et al)
Logic therefore dictates that 'Fox industries?' (I phone factory) they are moving from people wage obscene exploitation to robotics. Progressively eliminating human labor.
This is a common event . Detroit is a whisper of employment of what it was … Without workers to buy 401k etc who is going to get the benefit... answer an ever reducing minority of the population.
Chad disprove the logic of what I say.

Examinator said...

HP
Why don't you stop ducking and weaving and address the facts that CAPITALISM as it is today exists on exploitation ( i.e. NEEDS inequity).
And that Both Accounting and Economics treat the poor's up keep as externalities. And tries to spread the the cost to the others ( as opposed to user pays as implied in the opening sentence)
And that the argument Ouwet put ( essential the same as yours) is merely moving the accounting to other entities e.g. NGO's and obscure it in other govt bureaucracies and therefore ordinary tax payers.

Again your logic is based on an accounting / economics artefact (slight of hand ). At the end of the day the money must come from some where, it must be administered, accounted for and policed.
Consider the complaint by lots of aid NGO's in that US often ties it's foreign aid to US production which is paid for by the tax payer and involves a profit then needs transporting ( another profit) thus resulting in less e.g. grain etc. on the ground for the expenditure. ( well sort of the efficiency) not to mention that the grain could be bought cheaper and arguably better caloric quality from local sources . Let's not forget that local sought sources encourage local industries (the multiplier effect) “give a aid recipient a loaf of bread you feed him for a day but help him to create the food locally you feed him every day.”

While on a less dramatic scale the same principals apply on the domestic scale... the clear blind spot to people like you is that your preference is to support status quo ( existing perhaps not so efficient industries located not where the jobs are needed). The problem is the notion of the centralised business model.

A fact of life is that the bigger the business becomes the greater it's need to cover greater markets . And consequently the greater the need to reduce the human employee effect on the recurrent costs.

The real problem in my mind is that the righties focus on their personal situation and extrapolate e.g. Chad
Part of that extrapolating pushes their reasoning to the extremes i.e. a legalistic one size fits all and hence the lack of nuance, partisan approach.

Chad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chad said...

You disproved your own logic - why do I have too?

You think the closer of the mill was related to the reduction of taxes? - well your dumber than I thought then. You are pulling one unassociated event into another in hopes to make a point which you haven't done well. If the labor costs in Aussie make them uncompetitive in the world they will move - the reduction in taxes then was not enough and should have possibly been more. How about regulations - how bad are they - sound crippling from here. What about forced labor charges?

Pretty clear you've never owned or ran a business is all you clarified here.

My company mirrors millions of small companies in the USA - perfect model to listen too. Does it mean that tax breaks will automatically keep our company in business forever? No - just give us an opportunity to hire more people.

I suppose those robotic work cells were created by God - poof out of mid air? Did you realize that there is a company that built the robotic cell you hayseed? Company that has employees, engineers, laborists, sales guys, guys/gals that support the product now - my guess is a net positive in total jobs lost at the end company you referenced - still need to hire maintenance folks, someone to stand next to the machine, a tech to run it and folks with a brain to set it up.

You told me - good job.

Chad said...

There in lies my issue with your entire thinking - its a key hole view. Your personnel stories are valid - they represent the world, mine are limited even though I work with and talk with thousands of small companies yearly. Talk directly with owners, Presidents, VP's and decision makers - mainly the core of small business's in this country in several states - some big as well. Yeah my view is limited and yours is all enlightening - not.

You find a single company that 'supposedly' disproves a thought and ou ignore the hundreds maybe thousands of companies that would benefit.

Examinator said...

Chad
thanks for that
Out of no where pity you don't read wider. The cases I cited are in the media Aus media NOW. The government has confirmed it. Ford is stopping local manufacturing after 70 years. GM has also given notice that it's doing the same in 2016.
They have been massively subsidised but were only making the *once* popular Aussie models Commodore and Falcon. They're importing the smaller cars from Germany ( BTW their factories are highly automated with industrial robots not cells but on production lines.
BTW you need to research US govt funding of electricity generators and the grids...Profit guarantees etc.

What do you think happened in Allen town? What do you think is happening in Detroit?
Fox industries (china) got into bother over the number of staff suicides so they uped their game but also announced that they were building a robotic /automatic factory that would reduce the staff by 75%.
BHP is fact look it up.

Everyone thinks they pay too much tax ...and want someone else to pay more but not them. (HUMAN nature .
BTW. I have owned and run a small chain of Pet stores ( small business)
In previous posts you claim to be in a $600 million a year company that isn't a small business.
now you're saying it's a small business... which sounds more plausible.

And you're back to throwing abuse and vague assertions but no provable facts.
Everything I've said about corporations is EASILY PROVEN even on the unreliable wiki.

Paul said...

HP -

been out of town for a few days so am trying to catch up on this thread. Assuming you are still following it -

Curious: what makes you a liberal vs a conservative? You sound more conservative than you say. Especially groupC

For me the word conservative is tainted and I want no part of it. I have quite negative views on what what you've categorized as group A and B of conservative. From my perspective religous conservatism cannot go the way ofr the dodo bird quickly enough. Similarly with the jingoistic group B.

Sure there may be many things about group C that I agree with or am open too. But let me give you a general sense of where i stand on some issues and you tell me where you think I fit better.


I am strongly pro-choice
I am strongly in support of LBGT equality (same sex marraige, etc)
I do not support taking public money and giving vouchers to parents to pay for private schools.
I support univeral health care.
I am in strong support of a progressive tax system.
I do not view regulations are a priori bad. Often times find them not only reasonable but necessary.
I think human contribution to global warming is real and we, collectively, ought to be taking pro-active steps to address it.
I support immigration reform and dream act.
I support social security.
I think the drug war, at least how it has been "fought", is a waste of money. I favor legalization of marijuan for personal use and am in support of decriminalization of, generically speaking, illicit drugs.

I proudly pronounce myself of liberal but I may be a libertarianish liberal.

Paul said...

Also, and I've mentioned this before, I don't view the free-market/capitalism ideologically as a goal (the ends) but rather as means to an end. Should there be another system I felt/believed worked better that would be fine.

Paul said...

One more thing -

Unions - my view on unions are malleable (I hope). However, though there are things about the American flavor of them that I would like to see overhauled (fixed) I think in the scale of completely disapprove to completely approve - from the center point I am a bit on the approve side.